POST GAME - PHX SUNS - HOME

I accidentally left off Nicolas Batum from my list when typing it, even though I had already figured out his rating. He comes in at #7 (no surprise to me) so everyone below him gets dropped down one notch.

Terrific player. In the absence of LaMarcus Aldridge for a couple of games recently he grabbed 18 and 14 rebounds to pick up the slack. I like his overall game a lot.

Steve,

Steve, I respect your credentials tremendously. I have no doubt that Ramsay said it was the best he'd seen at that time, and I have no doubt that it was indeed the best that anyone had put together at that time, but if I remember correctly, you did that back in the 80's (with Magic Johnson as your first overall ratings champ). It may have been the best thing anyone put together at that time, but these results tell me that it's not perfect and it could use refinement.

Your system obviously does a good job of identifying who are the most productive players overall, the top end. But any system that values Giannis Antetokounmpo the same as Jeff Green has a problem. Vince Carter and Tyreke Evans just aren't that good. It still makes no sense to me that Hayward is valued that much more over Green, especially considering that Green plays 34.4 minutes per game and Hayward plays 36.1 minutes per game, which would push the numbers even more into Green's favor. They're just not that different.

Using a per-36-minutes comparison has value, but I don't think it's the be-all, end-all for comparing the productivity of players.

Outside wrote:Steve,

Steve, I respect your credentials tremendously. I have no doubt that Ramsay said it was the best he'd seen at that time, and I have no doubt that it was indeed the best that anyone had put together at that time, but if I remember correctly, you did that back in the 80's (with Magic Johnson as your first overall ratings champ). It may have been the best thing anyone put together at that time, but these results tell me that it's not perfect and it could use refinement.

Your system obviously does a good job of identifying who are the most productive players overall, the top end. But any system that values Giannis Antetokounmpo the same as Jeff Green has a problem. Vince Carter and Tyreke Evans just aren't that good. It still makes no sense to me that Hayward is valued that much more over Green, especially considering that Green plays 34.4 minutes per game and Hayward plays 36.1 minutes per game, which would push the numbers even more into Green's favor. They're just not that different.

Using a per-36-minutes comparison has value, but I don't think it's the be-all, end-all for comparing the productivity of players.

The big difference between Hayward and Green is assists - Hayward is 5.2 per game and Green is 1.6. And assists is one of the most important categories (THE most important one other than actually hitting the shot). Hence, his higher rating. Their other numbers are fairly similar.

By the way, I have now updated my list to include Batum who I forgot to enter.

So Hayward's edge in one category -- assists -- means that he rates 53% higher on your scale?

You better add James Johnson of Memphis to your list, because when you look at his per-36 minutes stats, he has 14.8 points, 6.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, and 2.3 blocks, which I'm sure vaults him into your top 10 and shows that he's a far better player than Jeff Green. Ainge should get on the phone with Memphis right now. And have you seen Kelly Olynyk's per-36 minute stats? The guy is an all-star.

Steve, the system has weaknesses. Just looking at the list of players you rank higher than Green, and how much higher they are on your scale, makes that obvious.

Outside wrote:So Hayward's edge in one category -- assists -- means that he rates 53% higher on your scale?

You better add James Johnson of Memphis to your list, because when you look at his per-36 minutes stats, he has 14.8 points, 6.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, and 2.3 blocks, which I'm sure vaults him into your top 10 and shows that he's a far better player than Jeff Green. Ainge should get on the phone with Memphis right now. And have you seen Kelly Olynyk's per-36 minute stats? The guy is an all-star.

Steve, the system has weaknesses. Just looking at the list of players you rank higher than Green, and how much higher they are on your scale, makes that obvious.

I didn't consider Johnson because he doesn't play 20 minutes a game (though he's just under that at 19.5) but if I did he would have a very good rating of 27.63.  To show you why Green rates so low, let's look at the per 36 minute comparison between Jeff and three of the guys you've brought up and look where he is versus Gordon Hayward, Tyreke Evans and Johnson:

FG%:   1 - .459 Johnson        2 - .419 Evans       3 - .412 Green      4 - .411 Hayward
3FG%:   1 - .347 Green       2 - .312 Hayward       3 - .260 Johnson       4 - .213  Evans
FT%:   1 - .851 Johnson      2 - .814 Hayward      3 - .788 Green      4 - .788 Evans
ORB:   1 - 2.31 Johnson      2 - 1.26 Evans      3 - .89 Hayward      4 - .75 Green
TRB:   1 - 6.51 Johnson      2 - 6.28 Evans      3 - 5.43 Hayward      4 - 5.05 Green
Asst:   1 - 6.30 Evans      2 - 5.23 Hayward      3 - 4.15 Johnson      4 - 1.69 Green
TO:   1 - 2.08 Green      2 - 2.54 Johnson      3 - 2.80 Hayward      4 - 2.91 Evans
ST:   1 - 1.85 Johnson      2 - 1.49 Evans      3 - 1.46 Hayward      4 - 0.68 Green
BL:   1 - 2.31 Johnson      2 - .570 Hayward      3 - .569 Green      4 - .40 Evans
PF:   1 - 2.03 Hayward      2 - 2.20 Green      3 - 2.98 Evans      4 - 3.87 Johnson

For turnovers and fouls I ranked them best to worst to keep with the 1-4 rankings of each category.

Green came in either last or next to last in seven out of ten categories and way below the others in assists. Johnson more than doubled him, Hayward more than tripled him and Evans almost quadrupled him. Offensive rebounds, another very important category (in my system the third most important category after scoring and assists), Green also came in last compared to those three you brought up.

That's why he is behind them, significantly.

Outside wrote:So Hayward's edge in one category -- assists -- means that he rates 53% higher on your scale?

You better add James Johnson of Memphis to your list, because when you look at his per-36 minutes stats, he has 14.8 points, 6.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, and 2.3 blocks, which I'm sure vaults him into your top 10 and shows that he's a far better player than Jeff Green. Ainge should get on the phone with Memphis right now. And have you seen Kelly Olynyk's per-36 minute stats? The guy is an all-star.

Steve, the system has weaknesses. Just looking at the list of players you rank higher than Green, and how much higher they are on your scale, makes that obvious.

You mentioned Kelly Olynyk so I decided to do his rating and it is 22.00 - slightly below average but higher than Green.  He plays 19 minutes a game and gets the same amount of assists (1.6) that Green gets in 34.4 minutes.  And his better rating shows how important rebounding is (9.4 per 36 minutes for Olynyk, 5.05 for Green).  Plus Olynyk shoots a higher percentage than Green on both field goals and free throws, thereby the higher rating than Jeff.  But at 22.00 still not real good.  Olynyk needs more minutes to get a better reading on his rating.  This is just his first year.  He'll get 'em.

Steve,

No one said Green was "the 4th best SF in the NBA." As I said to Cow, I only named a few players that were significantly better than he is.

In either case, Green is not the problem with the Celtics and I can't believe anyone is even suggesting that to be the case. The problem is a lack of a center and low bench scoring.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:Steve,

No one said Green was "the 4th best SF in the NBA." As I said to Cow, I only named a few players that were significantly better than he is.

In either case, Green is not the problem with the Celtics and I can't believe anyone is even suggesting that to be the case. The problem is a lack of a center and low bench scoring.



KJ

We all know the Celtics biggest need is a frontline help and a better bench, plus we are tied for the third worst shooting percentage in the NBA. But Green is a sub par small forward.

steve3344 wrote:

We all know the Celtics biggest need is a frontline help and a better bench, plus we are tied for the third worst shooting percentage in the NBA.  But Green is a sub par small forward.

Sub par? That's quite a stretch.

Sure, scoring in the upper teens and having the ability to go for 30 or 40 any given night is sub par. Keep telling yourself that.

Just because he is not LeBron or Durant does not mean he's sub par.



KJ

steve3344 wrote:I didn't consider Johnson because he doesn't play 20 minutes a game (though he's just under that at 19.5) but if I did he would have a very good rating of 27.63.  To show you why Green rates so low, let's look at the per 36 minute comparison between Jeff and three of the guys you've brought up and look where he is versus Gordon Hayward, Tyreke Evans and Johnson:

FG%:   1 - .459 Johnson        2 - .419 Evans       3 - .412 Green      4 - .411 Hayward
3FG%:   1 - .347 Green       2 - .312 Hayward       3 - .260 Johnson       4 - .213  Evans
FT%:   1 - .851 Johnson      2 - .814 Hayward      3 - .788 Green      4 - .788 Evans
ORB:   1 - 2.31 Johnson      2 - 1.26 Evans      3 - .89 Hayward      4 - .75 Green
TRB:   1 - 6.51 Johnson      2 - 6.28 Evans      3 - 5.43 Hayward      4 - 5.05 Green
Asst:   1 - 6.30 Evans      2 - 5.23 Hayward      3 - 4.15 Johnson      4 - 1.69 Green
TO:   1 - 2.08 Green      2 - 2.54 Johnson      3 - 2.80 Hayward      4 - 2.91 Evans
ST:   1 - 1.85 Johnson      2 - 1.49 Evans      3 - 1.46 Hayward      4 - 0.68 Green
BL:   1 - 2.31 Johnson      2 - .570 Hayward      3 - .569 Green      4 - .40 Evans
PF:   1 - 2.03 Hayward      2 - 2.20 Green      3 - 2.98 Evans      4 - 3.87 Johnson

For turnovers and fouls I ranked them best to worst to keep with the 1-4 rankings of each category.

Green came in either last or next to last in seven out of ten categories and way below the others in assists. Johnson more than doubled him, Hayward more than tripled him and Evans almost quadrupled him. Offensive rebounds, another very important category (in my system the third most important category after scoring and assists), Green also came in last compared to those three you brought up.

That's why he is behind them, significantly.

Points don't count? Adjusted FG percentage doesn't count? Yet personal fouls do?

Again, a system is flawed if:

• Gordon Hayward ranks 53% higher than Jeff Green because Hayward has more assists. I don't have a problem with Hayward having a higher rating because of assists, but 53% higher makes no sense.

• A guy who plays 19.5 minutes per game, James Johnson of Memphis, can rate highly by inflating his numbers up to per-36-minute levels, even though he hasn't played 36 minutes in any game this year, played 15 minutes in garbage time in a blowout win over the 76ers in their last game, and was a DNP-CD the game before that.

• Giannis Antetokounmpo, a player who averages 6.9 points, 41.2 FG percentage, 45.9 adjusted FG percentage, and 69.5 FT percentage, rates the same as Jeff Green.

All this also ignores a major point I brought up previously, which is productivity compared to salary, which makes Green a very good value.

Outside,

Its clear that unless Jeff Green resembles the greatest SFs of this generation that he is essentially not worth anything. At least, that's what some here seem to imply.



KJ

Outside wrote:

steve3344 wrote:I didn't consider Johnson because he doesn't play 20 minutes a game (though he's just under that at 19.5) but if I did he would have a very good rating of 27.63.  To show you why Green rates so low, let's look at the per 36 minute comparison between Jeff and three of the guys you've brought up and look where he is versus Gordon Hayward, Tyreke Evans and Johnson:

FG%:   1 - .459 Johnson        2 - .419 Evans       3 - .412 Green      4 - .411 Hayward
3FG%:   1 - .347 Green       2 - .312 Hayward       3 - .260 Johnson       4 - .213  Evans
FT%:   1 - .851 Johnson      2 - .814 Hayward      3 - .788 Green      4 - .788 Evans
ORB:   1 - 2.31 Johnson      2 - 1.26 Evans      3 - .89 Hayward      4 - .75 Green
TRB:   1 - 6.51 Johnson      2 - 6.28 Evans      3 - 5.43 Hayward      4 - 5.05 Green
Asst:   1 - 6.30 Evans      2 - 5.23 Hayward      3 - 4.15 Johnson      4 - 1.69 Green
TO:   1 - 2.08 Green      2 - 2.54 Johnson      3 - 2.80 Hayward      4 - 2.91 Evans
ST:   1 - 1.85 Johnson      2 - 1.49 Evans      3 - 1.46 Hayward      4 - 0.68 Green
BL:   1 - 2.31 Johnson      2 - .570 Hayward      3 - .569 Green      4 - .40 Evans
PF:   1 - 2.03 Hayward      2 - 2.20 Green      3 - 2.98 Evans      4 - 3.87 Johnson

For turnovers and fouls I ranked them best to worst to keep with the 1-4 rankings of each category.

Green came in either last or next to last in seven out of ten categories and way below the others in assists. Johnson more than doubled him, Hayward more than tripled him and Evans almost quadrupled him. Offensive rebounds, another very important category (in my system the third most important category after scoring and assists), Green also came in last compared to those three you brought up.

That's why he is behind them, significantly.

Points don't count? Adjusted FG percentage doesn't count? Yet personal fouls do?

Again, a system is flawed if:

• Gordon Hayward ranks 53% higher than Jeff Green because Hayward has more assists. I don't have a problem with Hayward having a higher rating because of assists, but 53% higher makes no sense.

• A guy who plays 19.5 minutes per game, James Johnson of Memphis, can rate highly by inflating his numbers up to per-36-minute levels, even though he hasn't played 36 minutes in any game this year, played 15 minutes in garbage time in a blowout win over the 76ers in their last game, and was a DNP-CD the game before that.

• Giannis Antetokounmpo, a player who averages 6.9 points, 41.2 FG percentage, 45.9 adjusted FG percentage, and 69.5 FT percentage, rates the same as Jeff Green.

All this also ignores a major point I brought up previously, which is productivity compared to salary, which makes Green a very good value.

I said I DIDN'T rate James Johnson because he only plays 19.5 minutes a game. Outside brought him up, not me.

Steve, I understand that you didn't include James Johnson in your list, but your criteria was 20 minutes or more per game, and if he had averaged 30 seconds more per game, he'd be eligible for your list.

The point was to show the flaw in comparing players solely on per-36-minute stats. Comparing them that way has value, but it exchanges one set of issues for another. All you've noted is the good side of that equation; you haven't acknowledged the bad side. Throw out the Johnson comparison if you like, but the same issue applies to guys like Giannis, who can in no way actually match his per-36-minute stats if he played 36 minutes (or they'd be playing him 36 minutes), or old guys like Ginobli and Vince Carter, who can't play anywhere near those kind of minutes anymore.

I can't honestly believe you'd rather have Giannis, Ginobli, or Carter rather than Green, let alone that they are that much "better" than Green as indicated by your rating scores.

Then there's the issue of Hayward being so much higher than Green. As I said in a post early in this thread, Green lags in steals and assists, but Green is better than Hayward in some categories, so they should be relatively close on the rating scale. The fact that they're not leads me to believe that the stats in your system aren't weighted or assessed properly. Also, the system apparently doesn't compensate for guys like Evans, Iguodala, and Paul George who play a lot at the guard spot or are "point forwards" who have a different role on their teams than Green does on his.

Outside wrote:Steve, I understand that you didn't include James Johnson in your list, but your criteria was 20 minutes or more per game, and if he had averaged 30 seconds more per game, he'd be eligible for your list.

The point was to show the flaw in comparing players solely on per-36-minute stats. Comparing them that way has value, but it exchanges one set of issues for another. All you've noted is the good side of that equation; you haven't acknowledged the bad side. Throw out the Johnson comparison if you like, but the same issue applies to guys like Giannis, who can in no way actually match his per-36-minute stats if he played 36 minutes (or they'd be playing him 36 minutes), or old guys like Ginobli and Vince Carter, who can't play anywhere near those kind of minutes anymore.

I can't honestly believe you'd rather have Giannis, Ginobli, or Carter rather than Green, let alone that they are that much "better" than Green as indicated by your rating scores.

Then there's the issue of Hayward being so much higher than Green. As I said in a post early in this thread, Green lags in steals and assists, but Green is better than Hayward in some categories, so they should be relatively close on the rating scale. The fact that they're not leads me to believe that the stats in your system aren't weighted or assessed properly. Also, the system apparently doesn't compensate for guys like Evans, Iguodala, and Paul George who play a lot at the guard spot or are "point forwards" who have a different role on their teams than Green does on his.

Show me any category Green is better than Hayward that would make any more than a very minor difference in their ratings. There is none. They're not close because Hayward gets more than twice as many steals as Green and more than three times the assists Green does. More rebounds too. But the assists are the big one. And that's why the difference is significant. What's Green better at than Hayward? Green shoots threes a little better, Hayward shoots free throws a little better. That's a wash. There's nothing Green does better that makes a difference.

And I don't see any reason Giannis wouldn't maintain the same rating if he played another 8-10 minutes. Is he going to get tired? I don't think so. He's learning and learning fast. Ginobili and Carter had higher ratings in past years because they fill up the stat sheet, unlike Green. Carter is a likely Hall of Famer who is still decently productive, but not great anymore as evidenced by his fairly weak rating of 23.52, but still all-around more productive than Green this year. And if you ask me would I rather have Carter or Ginobili or Green? Only because of his age would I take Green. But in the minutes they've played, Carter and Ginobili have contributed more this year. And Ginobili more than Carter.

steve,

The only real weakness to Green's game is his ball-handling ability. He can't really run the point forward scheme to its best and so the system is not predicated on Jeff having the ball most of the time. Jeff can shoot and he's very dangerous in transition. He may not get a bunch of steals but he is a pretty good defender, able to give guys like LeBron some trouble. That doesn't show up in the stat sheet.

Anyway, I'd much rather see how green plays once Stevens can coach a team that isn't severely lacking any major pieces. This team fights night in, and night out, and narrowly loses games to playoff-bound teams. Jeff is more of a plus than a detriment to this team and I don't really think anyone here can prove otherwise.

And seriously? Taking Ginobili, a guy basically near the end of his career over Green? That doesn't make any sense.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:steve,

The only real weakness to Green's game is his ball-handling ability. He can't really run the point forward scheme to its best and so the system is not predicated on Jeff having the ball most of the time. Jeff can shoot and he's very dangerous in transition. He may not get a bunch of steals but he is a pretty good defender, able to give guys like LeBron some trouble. That doesn't show up in the stat sheet.

Anyway, I'd much rather see how green plays once Stevens can coach a team that isn't severely lacking any major pieces. This team fights night in, and night out, and narrowly loses games to playoff-bound teams. Jeff is more of a plus than a detriment to this team and I don't really think anyone here can prove otherwise.

And seriously? Taking Ginobili, a guy basically near the end of his career over Green? That doesn't make any sense.



KJ

I never said I'd take Ginobili going forward over Green because of the obvious age difference, but if I was a playoff team this year and the choice was for this year only? I'd take Ginobili, because he helps you more.
Extremely heady player, and once the playoffs start and there are no back to backs and the games are crucial, you will see his minutes increase. As well they should.

steve3344 wrote:Show me any category Green is better than Hayward that would make any more than a very minor difference in their ratings.  There is none.  They're not close because Hayward gets more than twice as many steals as Green and more than three times the assists Green does.  More rebounds too.  But the assists are the big one.  And that's why the difference is significant.  What's Green better at than Hayward?  Green shoots threes a little better, Hayward shoots free throws a little better.  That's a wash.  There's nothing Green does better that makes a difference.

Stats where Green has an advantage over Hayward, based on per-36-minute stats:

Points - Green 17.8, Hayward 15.7
Adjusted FG -- Green 46.9, Hayward 45.4
3-pointers made -- Green 1.7, Hayward 1.1
3-point FG% -- Green 34.7, Hayward 31.2
Turnovers -- Green 2.1, Hayward 2.8
Games missed -- Green 0, Hayward 5

Stats where they are basically the same:

FG% -- Green 41.2, Hayward 41.1
Offensive rebounds -- Green 0.8, Hayward 0.9
Defensive rebounds -- Green 4.3, Hayward 4.5
Blocks -- both are 0.6
Fouls -- Green 2.2, Hayward 2.0

Stats where Hayward has the advantage:

FT% -- Hayward 81.4, Green 78.8
Total rebounds -- Hayward 5.4, Green 5.0
Assists -- Hayward 5.2, Green 1.7
Steals -- Hayward 1.5, Green 0.7

So all the categories where Green does better than Hayward "don't matter," while assists is apparently the most important stat on the planet. You have not once said that you factor points into your ratings or acknowledged that Green is better shooter and scorer, yet you include personal fouls as if that really measures performance. As far as steals go, you can say that Hayward gets double what Green does, which makes Hayward sound great, or you can say he gets 0.8 more steals per game, which doesn't sound quite as impressive.

Even though the offensive and defensive rebounding components are basically even, I gave Hayward the edge in total rebounds because the slight edge in both components gives Hayward a 0.4 total rebound edge. It's not a huge difference.

I also included games missed as a factor because durability matters, and any objective rating system should reward players who play every game. Yet another reason why a guy like Ginobli (11 games missed, only 23.0 minutes in the games he did play) should take a hit in the ratings. It's great that you have faith in Ginobli for the playoffs, but when he's only played 1,265 minutes this year compared to 2,340 for Jeff Green, that matters.

By the way, these are Ginobli's stats for last year's playoffs (actual stats, not per-36-minute stats). He played only 3.7 minutes per game more than he plays now, and he wasn't very good.

26.7 minutes
11.5 points
39.9 FG percentage
30.2 3-point FG percentage
47.4 adjusted FG percentage (he gets a boost here because 96 of 193 shots he took were threes)
73.8 FT percentage
3.7 rebounds
5.0 assists
1.1 steals
0.3 blocks
2.6 turnovers

For Green vs. Hayward, like you said, all the factors except assists are a wash, which leaves assists as the factor that gives Hayward a 53% higher rating. Doesn't make sense.

Outside wrote:

steve3344 wrote:Show me any category Green is better than Hayward that would make any more than a very minor difference in their ratings.  There is none.  They're not close because Hayward gets more than twice as many steals as Green and more than three times the assists Green does.  More rebounds too.  But the assists are the big one.  And that's why the difference is significant.  What's Green better at than Hayward?  Green shoots threes a little better, Hayward shoots free throws a little better.  That's a wash.  There's nothing Green does better that makes a difference.

Stats where Green has an advantage over Hayward, based on per-36-minute stats:

Points - Green 17.8, Hayward 15.7
Adjusted FG -- Green 46.9, Hayward 45.4
3-pointers made -- Green 1.7, Hayward 1.1
3-point FG% -- Green 34.7, Hayward 31.2
Turnovers -- Green 2.1, Hayward 2.8
Games missed -- Green 0, Hayward 5

Stats where they are basically the same:

FG% -- Green 41.2, Hayward 41.1
Offensive rebounds -- Green 0.8, Hayward 0.9
Defensive rebounds -- Green 4.3, Hayward 4.5
Blocks -- both are 0.6
Fouls -- Green 2.2, Hayward 2.0

Stats where Hayward has the advantage:

FT% -- Hayward 81.4, Green 78.8
Total rebounds -- Hayward 5.4, Green 5.0
Assists -- Hayward 5.2, Green 1.7
Steals -- Hayward 1.5, Green 0.7

So all the categories where Green does better than Hayward "don't matter," while assists is apparently the most important stat on the planet. You have not once said that you factor points into your ratings or acknowledged that Green is better shooter and scorer, yet you include personal fouls as if that really measures performance. As far as steals go, you can say that Hayward gets double what Green does, which makes Hayward sound great, or you can say he gets 0.8 more steals per game, which doesn't sound quite as impressive.

Even though the offensive and defensive rebounding components are basically even, I gave Hayward the edge in total rebounds because the slight edge in both components gives Hayward a 0.4 total rebound edge. It's not a huge difference.

I also included games missed as a factor because durability matters, and any objective rating system should reward players who play every game. Yet another reason why a guy like Ginobli (11 games missed, only 23.0 minutes in the games he did play) should take a hit in the ratings. It's great that you have faith in Ginobli for the playoffs, but when he's only played 1,265 minutes this year compared to 2,340 for Jeff Green, that matters.

By the way, these are Ginobli's stats for last year's playoffs (actual stats, not per-36-minute stats). He played only 3.7 minutes per game more than he plays now, and he wasn't very good.

26.7 minutes
11.5 points
39.9 FG percentage
30.2 3-point FG percentage
47.4 adjusted FG percentage (he gets a boost here because 96 of 193 shots he took were threes)
73.8 FT percentage
3.7 rebounds
5.0 assists
1.1 steals
0.3 blocks
2.6 turnovers

For Green vs. Hayward, like you said, all the factors except assists are a wash, which leaves assists as the factor that gives Hayward a 53% higher rating. Doesn't make sense.

Points are the MAIN PART of my rating system.  You get 1 point for a made free throw, 2 for a made field goal, 3 for a made three-pointer, minus one for any missed field goal and minus 1/2 for a missed free throw.  Each category has a value, plus or minus whether it is a good stat or a bad stat.  Defensive rebounds are +1, offensive rebounds are + 1.5, assists +1.75, turnovers - 1, steals +1, blocks +1, fouls -1.  EVERYTHING they were keeping stats on in 1982 was factored in INCLUDING POINTS, obviously.  Geez.  

Why would any rating system ignore points?  I talked about that in my initial post about it and said I totaled up EVERYTHING.  I have not once said that I factor in points? Of course I did. Here is the quote:

"I developed the first statistical rating system for the NBA that combined all the categories they kept stats on and gave players a one number rating after totaling up everything, giving each category a specific rating both positive and negative, multiplying by how many times the player did that particular thing, divided it up by minutes played and multipliying it by 48."

Steve,

The reason why I'm confused about points is the post where you compared Green, Hayward, Evans, and Johnson listed 10 stats, none of which was points, yet you included personal fouls. Since you didn't include points in that comparison and haven't acknowledged Green's edge over Hayward in that category, it appeared you weren't including it. That plus the fact that you said, "There's nothing Green does better that makes a difference" when he scores 2.1 points per game more.

Again, I have no problem with Hayward getting a better rating than Green due to assists, just with Hayward scoring so much higher -- 28.37 vs. 18.47 -- when the only appreciable difference is assists.

I've made my points about your rating system and how I think Green isn't ranked fairly, and I'll leave it at that. I already feel bad enough about this whole deal because your whole history as a reporter and photographer is legendary, you met so many greats of the sports world during that time, and as Red and Dr. Jack said, your rating system was far better than the crude, simplistic stat evaluations used up until that time. You bring a breadth of knowledge and experience to the board that I can't begin to touch, and while I stick by what I believe regarding your system and Jeff Green, I want to drop the whole thing because it makes me seem like I don't appreciate you, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's just a shame that we feel so differently about Jeff Green.

Outside wrote:Steve,

The reason why I'm confused about points is the post where you compared Green, Hayward, Evans, and Johnson listed 10 stats, none of which was points, yet you included personal fouls. Since you didn't include points in that comparison and haven't acknowledged Green's edge over Hayward in that category, it appeared you weren't including it. That plus the fact that you said, "There's nothing Green does better that makes a difference" when he scores 2.1 points per game more.

Again, I have no problem with Hayward getting a better rating than Green due to assists, just with Hayward scoring so much higher -- 28.37 vs. 18.47 -- when the only appreciable difference is assists.

I've made my points about your rating system and how I think Green isn't ranked fairly, and I'll leave it at that. I already feel bad enough about this whole deal because your whole history as a reporter and photographer is legendary, you met so many greats of the sports world during that time, and as Red and Dr. Jack said, your rating system was far better than the crude, simplistic stat evaluations used up until that time. You bring a breadth of knowledge and experience to the board that I can't begin to touch, and while I stick by what I believe regarding your system and Jeff Green, I want to drop the whole thing because it makes me seem like I don't appreciate you, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's just a shame that we feel so differently about Jeff Green.

This might make you feel a little better.  I just went back and re-checked Hayward and his rating is actually 26.21, not 28.37.  My calculator must've betrayed me when adding things up for him.  Still higher than Green but not by as much as before.  I went back to earlier on this thread and readjusted the list and that would place Hayward 10th, not 8th.  I thought he looked a little too high but decided to check it for sure just now. I thought I did everyone twice and made sure it came out the same each time but, I either made the same mistake twice on Hayward or didn't do him twice.  His advantage over Green comes, as I said, from having three times the assists per 36 minutes and twice the steals with everything else being very similar.  And assists are the second most important stat on my list.  If Pat Riley had had his way in influencing me when I interviewed him, telling me that an assist should be EQUAL to a basket, Hayward would've been even higher. But Red Auerbach (and you have a copy of that interview) said NO WAY was an assist just as important as the basket.  So I made it higher than Red would have liked but less than what Pat Riley would've liked.  After assists, in my opinion, the next most important stat is offensive rebounding, retaining possession of the ball for your team near the hoop.  And both are less important than points, since, as Red said on that tape, "The object is to put the ball in the hole."

This has been an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of rating individual players according to available statistics.  Steve deserves the acclaim he received for being one of the first people (if not THE first) to incorporate the "per minute" factor that essentially exposed frailties of the previously popular "per game" measure by creating a more level playing field in comparing the productivity of different players.

That kind of forward thinking took advantage of the proliferation of new statistical measures to create a more comprehensive rating system than had previously been in vogue.  It's no wonder that Dr. Jack Ramsey said, "For a system based purely on stats yours is the best one I've ever seen."

It could be argued that Steve's system remains the best player evaluation system based purely on stats because he incorporated straightforward statistics that didn't go overboard in creating sexy statistical smoke screens that try to make silk purses out of sows' ears.

I refer to measures such as PER and offensive/defensive stats when a player is on the floor compared with when he is off the floor, all of which I consider flawed because (1) they're overbalanced in favor of offensive performance (e.g., PER) or (2) they're presented as individual stats when they're based on data that were accumulated by five-man player combinations (e.g., on-court versus off-court figures).

However, the fact of the matter is that any attempts to evaluate individual players based on aggregated statistical measures are, at best, approximations that, at some point, must be put to the test of subjectivity and an assessment of inherent flaws.  One inherent flaw is lack of a truly objective and unbiased measure of defensive prowess that is not muddied by confusing individual endeavors with group accomplishments. 

Another inherent flaw is the fact that an evaluation of a player's performance should take into account the player's success in filling his unique role on his unique team.  If a given forward on a Bill Russell team scored 22 points per 36 minutes but collected only 4 rebounds per 36 minutes, he may have been extremely valuable because his team needed scoring far more than it needed rebounding from him.  The role of a player on another team may have have involved very different demands.  Rating all players by assigning the same weight of importance to each statistical factor for each player may be overly simplistic.

As I read over the debate on this thread about how to evaluate players, I am increasingly convinced that no existing statistical system is flawless in terms of attaching overall value to a given player.  Focusing on assists here or rebounds there in the discussion just scratches the surface.  I've always felt that rankings of the overall value of individual players based solely on any existing statistical system were (and are) approximations at best.  And they always will be until they incorporate valid defensive measures, a justifiable weighting protocol, and a host of subjective considerations.

That doesn't mean statistics can't be helpful in examining a player's credentials, but they're far from conclusive.  In some cases, they may be useful on the basis of the best thing we have; but that still doesn't make them infallible.  They're probably more consistently useful in evaluating components of a player's game (e.g., playmaking ability), but they're still inadequate.

So, for whatever it's worth, as a lifelong professional statistician and basketball aficionado (some might say "analyst"), it's my opinion that genuine statistical trailblazers such as Steve should be congratulated for their earnest efforts; the perpetrators of statistical chicanery such as Hollinger (in my opinion) should be regarded with a challenging degree of caution; and the kinds of statistics that are most appropriately employed in any given situation are those that best pass the tests of appropriateness, context, completeness and logic.

Sam

Sam,

The one thing that all five coaches I interviewed felt was the most important thing (obviously except for scoring the actual basket) - and Pat Riley was the first one who brought it up - is the ability to deny your man the ball. Which no one had a clue how to keep track of back when I was starting to do this system. Maybe they do now.

If you don't have the ball you can't score. Simple. So make sure your man never gets it. Easier said than done, but easier for some than others.

Steve,

It would be interesting if there were a stat on denying the ball to your man.  With the number of things they're now recording, it must be virtually impossible to keep all the stats instantly.  Video is likely the statistical hope of the present and the future.

Sam

Holy mackeral.  What a bunch of night owls on this thread, myself included.

Sam

Vince Carter and Manu Ginobili have made multiple all star teams and Ginobili has been a main cog on championship teams, there really is no comparison to the tweener Jeff Green. As a 6'9" SF he should win his rebounding match up consistently, unfortunately consistency is not his game. If he went from average games to great, that would be one thing, but he constantly goes from avg to putrid to avg to great. Too many 2-15 games for me. He has flashed all star ability no question, but he'll never get there.