APBRmetrics

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:32 pm**

mark kieffer wrote:I don't get how Rondo or Westbrook or D-Will could even be considered as an alltime great at this point. Definitely on the path, but too early in their career to tell.

Rondo's been in 4 allstar games. Same number as Cheeks, Penny, King, Chambers, Haywood, Price. Just 9 of these 50 have been in more.

But what I like about him is his playoff performance. Through age 25, only Kobe and Parker have had more playoff minutes. Only LeBron, Magic, and Kobe had more Win Shares.
Playoff PER is 18.5 (vs 17.2 RS). PO WS/48 is .131 (.135 RS)
In my own PO/RS ratio, his 1.09 is behind only Baron, Bernard, and Penny, among these 50.

Westbrook is simply a superstar, one of the top 5 players in the league, I believe. He, too, has been better in playoffs, among the top 10% in PO/RS

Deron Williams is now 8 years in. His first 8 year WS similars are: Sharman, Gus, TBug, Wanzer, Iverson, Clark, Ginobili, Terry, Eddie Jones, Hornacek.
In career WS by season, he resembles also Price, David Thompson, James Silas, Westphal.
He's also above avg in po/rs.

I rather enjoy the recognition of all-time greats while they're playing. Of course, some would say a player who isn't in the top 100 is not all that great; but they're at least semi-great.

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:40 pm**

Here's the best way I know of to rank a career: compare it to others.
In equivalent productions, playoffs just added to regular seasons, DWill resembles these:

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.   ePts    eReb   eAst    PF     Stl    TO    Blk
.00   Deron Williams  12,606   2352   5302   1727    692   2038   179

.33   Louie Dampier   13,306   2175   4883   2067   1073   2014   410
.34   Sleepy Floyd    11,805   2599   5074   2050   1191   2389   210
.35   Nick Van Exel   13,360   2842   6268   1571    800   2000   101
.36   Mark Price      12,442   2080   5158   1043    931   1952    81
.37  Damon Stoudamire 12,026   3332   5647   1755    955   2077    90

.43   Terrell Brandon 11,227   2544   4896   1398   1187   1496   236
.45   Kenny Anderson  10,971   2811   5514   2057   1313   1848   114
.46   Norm Nixon      11,751   2173   6203   2191   1280   2521    80
.49   David Wesley    13,172   2694   4559   2494   1354   1928   168
.54   Chris Paul      12,824   2951   5489   1508   1449   1502    52

Chris Paul has done slightly more, in fewer minutes (same 8 yrs), and most people accept that he's an all-time great. Most of these others took longer to get here.

Code: Select all

diff   career per36     Sco   Reb   Ast    PF   Stl   TO   Blk
.00   Deron Williams   19.7   3.7   8.3   2.7   1.1   3.2   .3

.07   Stephon Marbury  19.6   3.1   7.7   2.4   1.2   3.0   .1
.09   Kevin Johnson    19.0   3.6   9.0   2.3   1.5   3.3   .3
.11   Sam Cassell      19.5   4.0   7.1   3.3   1.2   2.9   .2
.13   Tim Hardaway     18.3   3.6   8.3   2.4   1.7   3.0   .2
.18   Steve Nash       18.5   3.5   9.2   1.9    .8   3.3   .1

.20   Isiah Thomas     18.4   3.7   8.8   3.1   2.0   3.8   .3
.23   Chauncey Billups 20.2   3.6   6.3   2.3   1.1   2.3   .2
.24   Mark Price       19.0   3.2   7.9   1.6   1.4   3.0   .1
.24   Tony Parker      21.6   3.6   6.8   2.0   1.1   2.8   .1
.26   Nate Archibald   18.3   2.3   7.3   2.4   1.2   3.2   .1

None of these guys are better at everything, or perhaps at most things. He's right up there with some great players.
http://bkref.com/tiny/pSxZs

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:22 pm**

The thing to be careful about: what point guards are doing in the league is quite different than they used to. Are we going to call Rondo, Westbrook, Parker, Paul, and D-Will, all time greats, then we are talking about 16% of the starting point guards in the league being all time greats. Then if you look at Rose and Irving as being on that track, then we are talking about nearly 1/4 of the starting point guards in the league being all time greats.....

Maybe there is a bigger story here?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:17 am**

Again, I don't know if players in the 115-165 range are necessarily alltime greats. Suppose the young guys and the older ones all wind up in the top 100, though.

There may be 1/5 of each position in the top 100. Elite point guards tend to be better than elite shooting guards, so there may be more PG than SG. Still, there are more C and F, so lets suppose 20 of the top 100 are PG.

There were really only a handful of great PG's before Magic -- Cousy, Oscar, West -- Wilkens is mentioned as one of the best of his era, but he doesn't seem outstanding by the numbers. Archibald's dominance didn't last long.

So it may be that 16-17 of 20 "top 100 level" PG have come along since 1980, and they've been here since at least 2008 or so to be mentioned -- something under 30 years.

A great or semi-great career is going to be at least 10 years, closer to 15. So at any given time in that 30 year interval, you might have 6 or 8 of those 16-17 in any given year. They really only got thick in the late '80s, and such things often come in waves.

In my top 175, I've got 58 guards. That's just 33%.
Of these 58, 32 have Ast/36 rates above 6.0 -- West just misses the cut, and Frazier just makes it.
Here they are chronologically:

Code: Select all

.years                   rank     years                   rank
52  63   Bob Cousy        35     90  03   Tim Hardaway     101
61  74   Oscar Robertson  22     90  02   Mookie Blaylock  131
61  75   Lenny Wilkens   130     91  07   Gary Payton       44
68  79   Walt Frazier     51     92  02   Terrell Brandon  168
71  84   Nate Archibald  239     94  08   Sam Cassell       90
76  87   Gus Williams     93     95  13   Jason Kidd        28
79  93   Maurice Cheeks  121     97  09   Stephon Marbury  169
80  96   Magic Johnson     9     97  13   Steve Nash        58
82  94   Isiah Thomas     39     98  13   Chauncey Billups  57
83  94   Lafayette Lever 160     00  12   Baron Davis       88
85  03   John Stockton    25     00  13   Andre Miller     127
86  02   Terry Porter    104     02  13   Tony Parker       59
87  98   Mark Price      174     06  13   Chris Paul        62
88  00   Kevin Johnson    76     06  13   Deron Williams   140
89  04   Mark Jackson     96     07  13   Rajon Rondo      116
89  05   Rod Strickland  110     09  13  Russell Westbrook 125

By my numbers, 3/4 of the best PG have entered the league since 1982, and half since 1990.
The median year of entry for all players in the top 175 is 1983. PG is a very multi-skilled position, and these guys have multiple skills.

EDIT: Archibald slipped in there by being in our voting list, due to write-ins.
Also, in 1994, there were 13 of these guys in the league. That's in a league of 27 teams.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:30 am**

Mike G wrote:
There were really only a handful of great PG's before Magic -- Cousy, Oscar, West -- Wilkens is mentioned as one of the best of his era, but he doesn't seem outstanding by the numbers. Archibald's dominance didn't last long.
.

Wilkens is in the hall of fame as a player, went to 9 all star games, 12th all time on the assists list, 66th in career points, 79th all time in win shares... How does any of that not seem like a Top 100 guy?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:36 am**

With Archibald: 6 all star games, all nba 3 times 1st team, 3 times 2nd team, 20th all time in assists, he led the league in scoring AND assists in a single season (and did this in an era of big men doing most of the scoring)... Seems pretty good to me.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:38 am**

As was just discussed, there weren't a lot of great players at his position in his era. Thus default allstar games -- and still zero all-NBA's.
Wilkens had a pretty nondescript playoff career: .399 FG shooting, both his PER and his WS/48 are below avg, etc. He put up his best numbers for non-contending teams.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:55 am**

so instead of judging him on the 1000+ regular season games he played, you are going to evaluate him based on his 64 playoff games?

With PER, there are so many flaws. It's a metric that values points and rebounds the most.... : 1) steals weren't recorded until Wilkens last 2 seasons, 2) Assists aren't as valued in PER, 3) It punishes non-volume scorers (Wilkens took about 13 shots/game)

Dude is a Top 100 guy plain and simple. One of the best free throw shooters, assist people, and in the Top 100 in Win Shares.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:13 am**

Actually, I was just adding information that seems important. No all-NBA mentions in an era thin on great guards, and no great playoff runs. The latter affects my rankings, while the awards (lack of) just corroborates.

PER is useful for at least one thing: A given player's PER can be seen to rise or fall from season to season, or from season to postseason. Whatever it says about the player, his production has risen or fallen.

The rosy view of Wilkens is that he was a great supporting player for good teams earlier in his career. Later, with expansion teams, he could be a leading scorer as well as assist man. He just wasn't good enough to get those teams into the playoffs.

You might also consider that the greatest seasons by Lenny Wilkens (and Frazier, and Archibald, Monroe, West to an extent) were the years of the great expansion in NBA/ABA. They played against a lot of opponents who would not have been in the league a few years earlier or later.

If Wilkens belongs in the top 100, do all these players belong? If not, why not?

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.   ePts    eReb   eAst    PF     Stl    TO    Blk
.00   Lenny Wilkens   16,763   4365   7294   3583   2387   2814   428

.40   Derek Harper    16,811   3218   6933   3001   2113   2516   314
.43   Dennis Johnson  17,416   5032   6076   3660   1746   3066   788
.46   Terry Porter    17,688   4380   7427   2467   1747   2941   194
.49   Andre Miller    17,185   5096   8159   2832   1543   3100   219
.58   Jeff Hornacek   18,437   4382   5555   2754   1713   2203   253

.60   Sam Cassell     18,442   3796   6723   3143   1177   2730   183
.60   Maurice Cheeks  13,875   3594   7794   2583   2613   2604   343
.63   Rod Strickland  14,803   4470   8491   2195   1688   3021   229
.65   Walt Frazier    17,677   4907   5569   2465   1752   2301   162
.67   Bob Cousy       19,846   4682   8844   2889   2217   2818   382

Several of these are in, and the rest are up for vote. What makes some of them better than others? Why is Frazier considered better than Harper or Porter or Andre? Because of playoff heroics, perhaps.

Wilkens played quite a lot of minutes to get those (equivalent) totals. Per36 minutes and per 100 pts and 44 reb per game, his total rates are like these:

Code: Select all

diff   career per36      Sco   Reb   Ast    PF   Stl   TO   Blk
.00   Lenny Wilkens     15.7   4.0   6.6   3.2   2.2   2.6   .4

.10   Baron Davis       17.6   4.3   7.3   3.0   2.0   2.9   .5
.14   Glenn Rivers      13.4   4.0   6.9   3.9   2.3   2.4   .5
.14   Richie Guerin     17.3   4.1   5.3   3.7   1.9   2.5   .4
.14   Gary Payton       17.5   4.4   7.0   2.6   1.9   2.4   .2
.15   Kenny Anderson    14.5   3.7   7.3   2.7   1.7   2.4   .2

.16   Lucius Allen      15.7   3.4   5.3   3.1   1.8   3.3   .4
.16   Darrell Armstrong 14.2   4.1   6.1   2.4   2.0   2.7   .2
.17   Sleepy Floyd      14.9   3.3   6.4   2.6   1.5   3.0   .3
.19   Devin Harris      17.6   3.3   5.8   3.2   1.5   2.8   .3
.19   Mike Conley       14.7   3.5   5.9   2.3   1.7   2.3   .2

Baron Davis wasn't as durable (he's done, isn't he?), but he packed more punch on offense, and especially in playoffs.
Rivers was even less of a scorer, otherwise about the same. Both made good coaches.
Conley has also taken a few years to become an NBA scorer.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:39 pm**

Harper: No (Top 140 yes)
Johnson: No (Top 140 yes)
Porter: Yes
Miller: Yes
Hornacek: Yes
Cassell: No (Top 120 yes)
Cheeks: Yes
Strickland: No (Top 120 yes)
Frazier: Yes
Cousy: Yes

Also how are you getting steals and turnovers for Wilkens? Turnovers weren't tracked until 1977-1978 and Steals weren't tracked until 1973-74, during Wilkens 2nd to last year playing.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:24 pm**

I make up the steals, blocks, and turnovers when they are unknown, just so that players can be compared across eras. They're kinda-sorta averages based on other stat rates; and they're kinda supposed to not add or subtract anything from an average 15-6-3 guy's total contribution. That is, for the 15-6-3 guy, his Stl and Blk are negated by his TO.

A player who mostly just scores will tend to have TO > (Stl+Blk), and a player with low scoring will tend the opposite.
It seems Wilkens' steals are 2nd only to Cheeks (in the above eTotals table), who at one time was the all-time (known) steals leader.

I'm kind of surprised you like Porter, Andre, and Hornacek so much more than DJ. It's actually DJ who opened my eyes to the limitations of stats -- even good stats like TS%. He hit "big shots" -- bailout buzzer beaters, and such.

This does ultimately make its way into the statistics: He got into lots of playoff games (by helping to win earlier playoff games) and got more than his share of rings. I count these things as if they matter.

Suppose a typical player gets about 7% of his minutes and totals in playoffs. Should that count as 7% of his career worth? It's subjective, and opinions vary widely. Some say (or suggest) that playoffs are the only thing that matters -- regular seasons just thin the field for the real deal.

I think playoff minutes should be weighted more than regular seasons. Without pbp, they're a pretty good proxy for 'clutch minutes'. You never want to get behind in a playoff game, whether it's 2nd quarter of game 1, or 4th Q of game 7. Of course, whatever wins the series gets you into more games.

Besides RS vs PO, we have differences regarding 'peak vs longevity'. Longevity is of course only valuable if it's productive; so we may rephrase this as 'peak rates vs career totals'.
I like 'em both, and like to give the edge to the player who does the same in less time (thus at a higher rate). So I take the square root of a player's career equivalent totals; multiply that by his per36 rate. Then do the same for his playoff minutes and totals.

These 2 subtotals, without units, are then simply added together. Players have a 'RS career' and a 'PO career'.

Suppose 10% of your minutes were in playoffs, and there is also a 9:1 ratio in your totals.
By taking the square root of this ratio, RS:PO = 3. For players with fewer playoff minutes, the difference is even more profound. A 100:1 ratio becomes 10:1 -- so even with 1000 RS games, if you get into just 10 PO games, you are judged by that performance, to the tune of some 10% of your career evaluation.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:31 pm**

mark kieffer wrote:so instead of judging him on the 1000+ regular season games he played, you are going to evaluate him based on his 64 playoff games?

Sorry, I kind of missed an opportunity for a fuller explanation. He's judged on all his games, and I happen to think playoff games are more significant.

Since my rankings are all produced by a spreadsheet, I can tinker with the "what ifs" of various numbers and get a "what if" ranking.
Wilkens got .059 of his career minutes in playoffs. Average for all players is around .070, and for top 100 guys it's about .110
His po/rs ratio was .933, just about average for all players. Among 'our' top 100, it's .970

If we substitute .110 and .970 for his actual percentages, his ranking improves. I have him ranked #130, and with those numbers I'd rank him #91.
He had a top-100 RS career, but not a top-100 postseason career.

If you're a Win Shares fan, you'll find that his 4.3 playoff WS ranks #236 -- a couple of spots below Charlie Ward. That's without ABA.
My spreadsheet is not so harsh; including ABA, his playoff sub-career ranks #188.
With no extra weight on playoffs -- just combining all his 1141 games, same with everyone else -- I'd have him at #104

As luck would have it, Wilkens got all of his playoff action in the first half of his career, with a pretty-good Hawks team. But his best years, statistically, were with the expansion Sonics and Cavs, where he saw no postseasons.

He got not quite half his career points, and just 42% of career assists, with the Hawks.
Playing for expansion teams, in an expansion era, is a double-edged sword. You get the minutes and the big numbers, but little/no playoffs. Every career is basically unique, with plenty of luck and 'what if' hypotheticals.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:18 pm**

One of the many great things about basketball-reference.com is that you can search for player seasons, and limit them to current players, allstars, Hall-of-Famers, etc.

Here's a count of the # of top-100 WS in a season by non-current non-HOF players:
7 - Shaq '94-05
5 - Moncrief '82-86
4 - Kevin Johnson '89-97,
3 - Arenas '05-07, Beaty '68-72(A), Marques Johnson '79-81, Anthony Mason '96-01, Cedric Maxwell '79-81,

2 - Archie Clark '71-72, Daugherty '92-93, Foust '55-56, Francis '01/03, Groza '50-51, Tim Hardaway '97-98, Grant Hill '96-97, Iverson '01/08, Larry Jones '68-69(A), Kemp '94/96, McGinnis '73/75(A), Terry Porter '90-91, Paul Silas '72-73,

1 - Kenny Anderson '97, Barros '95, Brent Barry '02, Blaylock '97, Bob Boozer '69, Brandon '97, Cassell '04, Chambers '90, Dischinger '64, Feerick '47, Horace Grant '92, Penny Hardaway '96, Hersey Hawkins '97, Haywood '70(A), Hornacek '92, Hudson '70, Bobby Jones '77, Jimmy Jones '69(A), Kidd '03, Laettner '97, Marbury '05, Yao '04, Mourning '00, Mutombo '97, Nance '92, Price '89, Riordan '73, Roy '09, Sadowski '47, Schrempf '95, Sears '59, Sikma '82, James Silas '76(A), Stojakovic '04, Tart '70(A), Tomjanovich '74, Vandeweghe '83, Ben Wallace '02, Rasheed Wallace '01, Webber '01, Buck Williams '83, Gus Williams '80, Willie Wise '72(A)

http://bkref.com/tiny/XI5vP
These should add up to 100. These are the number of seasons with 10.8 to 18.6 (Shaq, Feerick) Win Shares -- by players not in the HOF and not currently in the league.
The (A) indicates ABA WS. Take these with a grain of salt, a larger chunk when closer to 1968.
Zelmo Beaty's 3 appearances include 1 in the NBA.

I'm rather surprised to see Mase in here 3 times. And Cedric Maxwell never made an all-star team (but he was a Finals mvp).

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:43 pm**

For a sense of closure, there are also 119 player-seasons among active players (includes TMac ?) with at least 10.8 Win Shares:

11- Duncan '98-10, Nowitzki '01-11
9 - LeBron '05-13,
8 - Kobe '01-13, Garnett '00-08
5 - Billups '04-08, Marion '01-07, Paul '08-13, Pierce '02-11, Wade '06-11
4 - Durant '10-13, Dwight Howard '08-11, McGrady '01-05, Nash '03-07,
3 - Brand '02-07, Pau Gasol '06-11, Amare '05/08
2 - Ray Allen '01/09, Carter '00-01, Ginobili '05/08, Richard Jefferson '04/06, Deron Williams '08/13
1 - Steph Curry '13, Deng '07, Marc Gasol '13, Harden '13, Horford '10, Kirilenko '04, Love '11, Rose '11, Gerald Wallace '10, Westbrook '13, Aldridge '11

http://bkref.com/tiny/6YdBO

Posted: **Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:51 pm**

With the week more than half gone, we have had 2 people submit a total of 43 votes.
If no more votes are received, I'd be inclined to advance just the 8 players who have received 2 votes: Cassell, Cheeks, Cummings, Andre Miller, Oakley, Schrempf, Amar'e, and Strickland.

They'd be replaced by 8 others: Lever, Wilkes, Gallatin, Sprewell, Willis, Paultz, Mullin, Goodrich.
Either that, or operations will suspend until further interest is raised.

It's looking as if almost nobody is interested in debating players past the top 100 or so. That's understandable; but it also seems as though we're still looking at players who have been pretty darn good. The middling players are more fun to discuss in some ways. A few Hall of Famers in the 8 names above.

It doesn't matter what are the reasons you have come by your votes. A vote is a vote. The purpose of this exercise isn't to "prove" one player over other players, through stats or otherwise. By participating, you get to explain your thought process and see the workings of others'.

APBRmetrics

Vote players into our alltime top 160, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 140, etc.