PDA

View Full Version : The Top 593 Players of 2012



wintermute
07-13-2011, 05:15 AM
... according to Basketball Reference blogger Neil Paine, who ranks every player who's played in the last 3 seasons, using a basket of stats, including PER, Win Shares, and 2 variants of plus/minus.

Usual caveats apply. Stats can be misleading, there's some arbitrariness going on in how stats are applied, etc. Could make for fun discussion though.

So, here's the list:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=9780

Here's how the Pacers are ranked:


Rank Player
35 Granger
80 Foster
92 McRoberts
96 Hibbert
138 Dunleavy
151 Hansbrough
225 Collison
275 George
392 Ford
437 Posey
441 D. Jones
472 Price
491 Stephenson
508 Rush
523 S. Jones


Not a very inspiring list. New acquisition George Hill is at 115.

In comparison, this what a few elite teams look like:

Dallas


Rank Player
6 Nowitzki
28 Chandler
68 Kidd
79 Terry
105 Marion


Miami


Rank Player
1 James
3 Wade
13 Bosh
177 Haslem
305 Ilgauskas


Chicago


Rank Player
17 Rose
31 Boozer
35 Noah
48 Deng
109 Korver


By this measure, we're a good long way from becoming an elite team.

I also thought it would be interesting to take a look at the ranks of potential free agent targets. Here are some of the guys we've talked about on the board:

FA targets


Rank Player
14 Nene
28 Chandler
40 West
77 Hayes
98 Landry
108 Humphries


By this measure, Nene, Chandler, and West would all be very solid additions to the team.

And lastly, here's a look at some potential trade targets that occasionally come up on the board.

Trade targets?


Rank Player
27 Josh Smith
37 Millsap
57 Varejao
67 Al Jefferson
74 Okafor
222 Speights
262 Thompson


Go ahead, take a look at the list, but remember that this is only one way of looking at the players. Different evaluation measures could rank them differently.

ilive4sports
07-13-2011, 06:51 AM
Rather interesting?

Foster is higher than Marion and just behind Jason Terry...

Shade
07-13-2011, 07:38 AM
How are Granger and Noah both #35?

ballism
07-13-2011, 07:50 AM
Ryan Anderson 45, Amir Johnson 48, Chris Andersen 53, Mouhamed Saer Sene 124.

On the other hand, Rudy Gay is no. 70, Eric Gordon 82, Jrew Holiday 114, Udonis Haslem 177, Grant Hill 219, Perkins 274.

Any stats based system is somewhat misleading, but this one looks terrible.



How are Granger and Noah both #35?

There are many shared spots, I assume identical formula results. 37, 48, 57, and so on.

graphic-er
07-13-2011, 08:52 AM
So basically you get a higher rating just because you are on a winning team...

granger33
07-13-2011, 08:56 AM
Solomon Jones is too high.

Trader Joe
07-13-2011, 09:03 AM
I don't know how much stock I place in these ratings, but pretty much anyway you slice it they're pretty damning for Rush.

tfarks
07-13-2011, 10:14 AM
Ryan Anderson 45, Amir Johnson 48, Chris Andersen 53, Mouhamed Saer Sene 124.

On the other hand, Rudy Gay is no. 70, Eric Gordon 82, Jrew Holiday 114, Udonis Haslem 177, Grant Hill 219, Perkins 274.

Any stats based system is somewhat misleading, but this one looks terrible.




There are many shared spots, I assume identical formula results. 37, 48, 57, and so on.

Cherry-picking is worthless. Everything has outliers. Obviously quantitative analysis has to go through refinements.

I like what this guy did here, good stuff.

Kegboy
07-13-2011, 10:22 AM
Nicely done.

Rush over 500, behind even Lance, is especially damning.

imawhat
07-13-2011, 10:56 AM
Any stat based system that has Sene in the top 21 percentile of the league is also using something other than stats.

It's an interesting list, nonetheless.

Troy Murphy's ranked one slot ahead of McRoberts.

Brad8888
07-13-2011, 11:09 AM
Shouldn't Lance be 34th, at least? Also, obviously Posey is a beast. And Foster's rating shows that his play was not irrelevant because it came in more winning efforts...

Below number 50 or so, it appears at times that the rankings may have had an additional component added to the analysis. After running the numbers through to start with, if those results didn't look quite right for certain players, it appears that those players were reassigned a final ranking based on the results of a random number generator. That explains both the ties and the inexplicable rankings of players at many levels of the list.

ballism
07-13-2011, 11:13 AM
Cherry-picking is worthless. Everything has outliers. Obviously quantitative analysis has to go through refinements.

I like what this guy did here, good stuff.

Sure it is. :rolleyes: Every statistical research needs a reality check afterwards. You are overthinking a couple of smart words and missing the point.

After seeing a ton of cherries, should I take it seriously when I see that Josh McBob should be a much better player than Taj Gibson next year?
Or that Taylor Griffin would be way more useful than Bargnani?
Or that we'd be better off with Travis Diener instead of Darren Collison?
Of course not. In that, this tool is a "for fun" exercise.

wintermute
07-13-2011, 01:42 PM
I think the results could be made less noisy with a simple "minutes played" filter. That should take care of guys like Sene, i.e. small sample size.

There are still plenty of debatable results though. So as I said originally, don't take it too seriously. For example, Nene at #14 seems too high for me.

adamscb
07-13-2011, 01:52 PM
in that case, we absolutely CANNOT let foster go to LA. he's a vital centerpiece to this team.

Day-V
07-13-2011, 03:15 PM
Solomon Jones is too high.

I lol'd.

ECKrueger
07-13-2011, 03:36 PM
Solomon Jones is too high.

I think Beasley is too high.

Kid Minneapolis
07-13-2011, 03:45 PM
Nene #14?? Really?

Manguera
07-13-2011, 04:09 PM
Lies>>Damn Lies>>Statistics

Rogco
07-13-2011, 04:15 PM
Sure it is. :rolleyes: Every statistical research needs a reality check afterwards. You are overthinking a couple of smart words and missing the point.

After seeing a ton of cherries, should I take it seriously when I see that Josh McBob should be a much better player than Taj Gibson next year?
Or that Taylor Griffin would be way more useful than Bargnani?
Or that we'd be better off with Travis Diener instead of Darren Collison?
Of course not. In that, this tool is a "for fun" exercise.

Actually, I see no reason why McBob couldn't be better than Taj. Taj really isn't all that great (I'd definitely take Hans over him). You remember what Taj did in the playoffs? No? Neither does anyone else.

OakMoses
07-13-2011, 04:18 PM
Most advanced stats love Nene because they place a premium on FG%. However, only one of the four stats used in this analysis does.

One thing I think is funny in the Nene discussion is that (and I'm not pointing fingers at any individuals here) the people who think that he's too highly regarded by advanced statistical measures often turn to traditional stats (ppg & rpg) to prove their case.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

ballism
07-13-2011, 05:17 PM
Actually, I see no reason why McBob couldn't be better than Taj. Taj really isn't all that great (I'd definitely take Hans over him). You remember what Taj did in the playoffs? No? Neither does anyone else.

The question is not what could happen, but what should happen. This is a prediction tool we are talking about. "No reason why not" is not a good enough answer.

And btw, I don't really agree with your view of Gibson. Gibson plays great D, takes the right shots, doesn't stink at anything and just plays overall solid basketball. He's way better than McRoberts ever was. Including playoffs. His D in Atlanta series was amazing. I don't understand the stuff about memorable playoff performances; are you comparing to Josh McBob's memorable playoff performance this year?...

mattie
07-13-2011, 05:28 PM
yeah, Taj is awesome, and should be starting over Boozer.

ballism
07-13-2011, 05:47 PM
He probably should if Boozer stays the mentally broken Boozer of the playoffs.
But I understand why Bulls are unwilling to do it. They need the good Boozer. If Boozer is merely a backup and there's no amnesty clause, Bulls are pretty screwed.
Rose, Deng and Korver aren't likely to ever give enough offense to beat the Heat.
Give Rose great wings like in Oklahoma, then you can go with two super defenders in the post.

mattie
07-13-2011, 05:50 PM
He probably should if Boozer stays the mentally broken Boozer of the playoffs.
But I understand why Bulls are unwilling to do it. They need the good Boozer. If Boozer is merely a backup and there's no amnesty clause, Bulls are pretty screwed.
Rose, Deng and Korver aren't likely to ever give enough offense to contend.
Give Rose great wings like in Oklahoma, then you can go with two super defenders in the post.

I think they are failing miserably at shooting guard, if start Taj, and then search for that number two scorer at 2guard they'd be good. I guess I'm suggesting Boozer is a lost cause. I don't think he'll ever be a solid enough scorer for them.

I never really thought he was that good of a scorer, he's just had the benefit of playing with a great passer in Deron Williams. I think Deron made him look a lot better than he was. He was never the guy you could just dump it into the post and wait for him to go to work.

mattie
07-13-2011, 05:53 PM
I wish the Pacers could get Taj.

Lance George
07-13-2011, 07:07 PM
He's way better than McRoberts ever was.

McRoberts is younger, bigger, more athletic and the superior overall producer.

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/2862/unledgu.gif

Note McBob's absolutely enormous advantage in offensive efficiency (TS%: McBob .608, Taj .502 :-o) and passing ability.

Taj could end up being better than McBob (and vice versa), time will tell, but the assertion that he's way better is beyond silly and has absolutely zero supporting evidence.

ballism
07-13-2011, 07:26 PM
Heh. That's probably the fifth time today you criticize a great defensive player by posting general boxscore stats. It's getting funny. :)
Those stats are easy to find you know, posting them don't add much insight to discussion. ;)

xBulletproof
07-13-2011, 07:30 PM
McRoberts is younger, bigger, more athletic and the superior overall producer.

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/2862/unledgu.gif

Note McBob's absolutely enormous advantage in offensive efficiency (TS%: McBob .608, Taj .502 :-o) and passing ability.

Taj could end up being better than McBob (and vice versa), time will tell, but the assertion that he's way better is beyond silly and has absolutely zero supporting evidence.

:laugh: - I'm just going to pull a page out of p4e's book here.

:bs:

Lance George
07-13-2011, 07:45 PM
Heh. That's probably the fifth time today you criticize a great defensive player by posting general boxscore stats. It's getting funny. :)
Those stats are easy to find you know, posting them don't add much insight to discussion. ;)

It exposed your statement for the silliness that it was.

neosmndrew
07-13-2011, 07:50 PM
Really, no one has pointed out that ROSE is 17?!!?! I guess he IS as overrated as I thought [/sarcasm]! If this is PER based, then its bull. Nene is good but not better then Rose. It would seem that it takes FG% too much into account, because IIRC Rose's was pretty average

A.B.Hollywood
07-13-2011, 07:54 PM
You remember what Taj did in the playoffs? No? Neither does anyone else.

What? I thought this was tongue in cheek at first. ANYONE who watched the playoffs remembers Taj. He was their savior in sooo many games when Boozer got in foul trouble. Dude is one of the best defenders in all of the NBA. No hyperbole there either. He's THAT good.

Oh and you want to know someone else that remembers Taj in the playoffs? Dwayne Wade.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ekg_vx0hmvk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

xBulletproof
07-13-2011, 08:00 PM
It exposed your statement for the silliness that it was.

I'm quickly learning to ignore your observations. Quit watching stats. Watch games. It's fun, I promise.

Taj Gibson has the opportunity to be a game changer on the defensive end which won't show up in your stats ..... but scratch that, he already is a game changer. He's the type of player a lot of people keep hoping we will end up getting at PF, actually.

Shade
07-13-2011, 08:38 PM
I would take Taj over McBob 101 times out 100. Without hesitation.

pacer4ever
07-13-2011, 11:02 PM
It exposed your statement for the silliness that it was.

Jmac is a poor defensive player who can block shots


Taj is a good to great defensive player who can block shots


I mean he did play the majority of the minutes over Boozer he plays his role very role.

pacer4ever
07-13-2011, 11:03 PM
I'm quickly learning to ignore your observations. Quit watching stats. Watch games. It's fun, I promise.

Taj Gibson has the opportunity to be a game changer on the defensive end which won't show up in your stats ..... but scratch that, he already is a game changer. He's the type of player a lot of people keep hoping we will end up getting at PF, actually.

some Chicago fans want him as the starter and boozer as the backup moving forward.

Lance George
07-13-2011, 11:24 PM
It should be noted that Gibson's minutes dropped in the playoffs, down to less than 18 per-game. Apparently, Chicago wasn't as enthralled with his "game changing" ability as certain people here seem to be. Maybe they didn't "wach da gamez, itz phun!1!" :laugh:

Does anyone here deny that McBob is the far more gifted offensive player, but scoring-wise and in terms of passing and ball-handling? That discrepancy in TS% was shocking.

imawhat
07-13-2011, 11:29 PM
Gibson is officially the most overrated player on pd.

pacer4ever
07-13-2011, 11:29 PM
It should be noted that Gibson's minutes dropped in the playoffs, down to less than 18 per-game. Apparently, Chicago wasn't as enthralled with his "game changing" ability as certain people here seem to be. Maybe they didn't "wach da gamez, itz phun!1!" :laugh:

Does anyone here deny that McBob is the far more gifted offensive player, but scoring-wise and in terms of passing and ball-handling? That discrepancy in TS% was shocking.

well he only shoots dunks and wide open jumpers it should be higher

tikitomoka
07-13-2011, 11:34 PM
Actually, I see no reason why McBob couldn't be better than Taj. Taj really isn't all that great (I'd definitely take Hans over him). You remember what Taj did in the playoffs? No? Neither does anyone else.

'member what Josh did in the playoffs? What about Hansbrough? Oh, right, nothing. Gibson had a VERY solid playoffs and was better than boozer throughout them.

vnzla81
07-13-2011, 11:39 PM
Gibson is officially the most overrated player on pd.

I guess you haven't hear about OJ Mayo or Magnum Rolle then.

xBulletproof
07-13-2011, 11:47 PM
It should be noted that Gibson's minutes dropped in the playoffs, down to less than 18 per-game. Apparently, Chicago wasn't as enthralled with his "game changing" ability as certain people here seem to be. Maybe they didn't "wach da gamez, itz phun!1!" :laugh:

Holy **** are you serious? Who acts this childish while completely ignoring circumstances involved? At least have an bit if a clue of what you're talking about. There you go again just spouting numbers without any context.

In the regular season Boozer missed half the season. Joakim Noah missed half. That opened a lot of minutes up for most of the year. In the playoffs both were healthy and Taj played 3 minutes less per game. You don't say? Thanks Mr Obvious. Or Oblivious.

granger33
07-13-2011, 11:48 PM
I guess you haven't hear about OJ Mayo or Magnum Rolle then.

Or Eric gordon

Kid Minneapolis
07-14-2011, 01:11 AM
What? I thought this was tongue in cheek at first. ANYONE who watched the playoffs remembers Taj. He was their savior in sooo many games when Boozer got in foul trouble. Dude is one of the best defenders in all of the NBA. No hyperbole there either. He's THAT good.

Oh and you want to know someone else that remembers Taj in the playoffs? Dwayne Wade.

<IFRAME height=349 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ekg_vx0hmvk" frameBorder=0 width=425 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

I see your Gibson fetish and raise you a Hansbrough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9uT9J2xPNU&feature=player_embedded

Eleazar
07-14-2011, 01:51 AM
'member what Josh did in the playoffs? What about Hansbrough? Oh, right, nothing. Gibson had a VERY solid playoffs and was better than boozer throughout them.

It wasn't saying a lot to outplay Boozer. I really didn't think Gibson stuck out anymore than Josh or Tyler, especially considering Tyler's first game.

ballism
07-14-2011, 05:48 AM
I see your Gibson fetish and raise you a Hansbrough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9uT9J2xPNU&feature=player_embedded

And right after that, Chicago starts coming back like they weren't serious the whole time.
This play always make me almost as sad as impressed.

Rogco
07-14-2011, 08:52 AM
Wow, I didn't realize there was such Taj love on here. I've never really thought that highly of him. Decent defensive player. Has Rose dishing to him and still can't score, mediocre rebounder.

I don't watch a ton of Bulls games, so this isn't based on watching 80 games a year or anything, but considering the quality of Rose at PG and Deng playing defense, Taj has been decidedly mediocre (at best) in the games I've seen.

ballism
07-14-2011, 09:50 AM
Wow, I didn't realize there was such Taj love on here. I've never really thought that highly of him. Decent defensive player. Has Rose dishing to him and still can't score, mediocre rebounder.

I don't watch a ton of Bulls games, so this isn't based on watching 80 games a year or anything, but considering the quality of Rose at PG and Deng playing defense, Taj has been decidedly mediocre (at best) in the games I've seen.

Yeah, that's the issue. Judge the games by what you see, not by pre-perceived quality of Rose and Deng.
People tend to see a famous name at point guard... and assume that everyone around him has his stats doubled.
Notice how no Bull other than Rose had a breakout year offensively? Rose is amazing, but ppl tend to get carried away. It was a brilliant defensive team, with Taj Gibson as a key defender.

ballism
07-14-2011, 10:02 AM
Gibson is officially the most overrated player on pd.

This is off topic, but I'm intrigued.
Why, did someone say he's the next Kevin Garnett here?
Or is just talking about a player overrating him?
Sometimes I feel some posters freak out just by seeing a name of player a certain amount of times and feel the need to post "overrated".

You wrote Nene's name a lot? Overrated. Does not matter what you said.
15 threads mostly trashing D-West's knees? He's so darn overrated.
You mentioned Taj Gibson too many times? Ohh man, he's so overrated. Even if all you said is he's a very good starting quality defender who's a great fit on the team.

It feels like some posters develop an alergy or something. But they still feel obliged to post and read. :)

Lance George
07-14-2011, 10:32 AM
A single viewing of this thread is all the evidence one needs of Taj Gibson's overrating.

We have a career 8 & 6 guy with almost zero offensive ability (terribly inefficient scorer) being treated as if he's a perennial All-Star all because of some fabled defense, which, curiously, no one can give any irrefutable examples of and Chicago didn't seem to value too much in the playoffs given his whopping 17.8 minutes-per-game.

Of course, this is nothing new. We saw the same thing with Jason Maxiell a few years back. According to some, Maxiell was a stronger, more athletic Barkley who should be working on his 4th or 5th MVP award by now.

Since86
07-14-2011, 10:34 AM
No, but he's clearly shown that McBob is better than Taj offensively, and Taj didn't even make an all-defensive team.

Is Taj a better defender? Most certainly, but let's not act like he's some great defender that is doing something extraordinary.

I remember McRoberts playing some pretty good defense along the way as well. Might not be as consistant, but he's no slouch.

Taj is going to be a career backup 4. Any nothing more. Let's not act like he's some All-Star waiting to break out.

ECKrueger
07-14-2011, 10:38 AM
Why does every thread dissolve into some stupid pointless argument over something trivial?

I blame the lockout.

Since86
07-14-2011, 10:40 AM
Why does every thread dissolve into some stupid pointless argument over something trivial?

I blame the lockout.

There used to be 15 pages discussing what a "real fan" was. Not to sound like a dick, but you either gotta get used to it, ignore it, or find something else to occupy your time because this is how it's been, and this is how it will continue to be.

EDIT: And no, I didn't participate much in those. The dude's name is actually banned, or atleast it was. Let's see, Sassan.

ballism
07-14-2011, 10:41 AM
McBob is better than Taj offensively, and Taj didn't even make an all-defensive team.

<...>

Let's not act like he's some All-Star waiting to break out.

Taj > McBob. Making it really simple, anything longer tends to be misread as "All Star" by some guys. :)
Or did you mean only All Stars and all-defensive team members are better than McBob?

PS: indeed, this got boring. I think I'm about done with "Bogut has always been a role player" and "Gibson scores 8 point OMG" threads. For now.

Since86
07-14-2011, 10:43 AM
Funny how you skipped posting the part where I said that Taj was clearly better.....

Gamble1
07-14-2011, 10:48 AM
Go ahead, take a look at the list, but remember that this is only one way of looking at the players. Different evaluation measures could rank them differently.
Well if you had equation that factored in a coaches affect on a player for the last 3 years then I would give this list a lot more consideration.

Something like Vogel = 5 more spots on the players ranking

and JOB drops a players ranking by 15. :)

Lance George
07-14-2011, 10:52 AM
I don't think either Taj or McBob is demonstrably better than the other right now. Some things are decisively in favor of Josh (offense, passing, ball handling, size, youth, intelligence, hopscotch skills, handsomeness, facial hair, etc.), others favor Taj (shot blocking, defense [allegedly]). It's far too early to tell who will have the better career. They both very well could remain career backups. All I know is this attitude that Taj Gibson is light years ahead of McBob is irrational.

ballism
07-14-2011, 10:55 AM
Funny how you skipped posting the part where I said that Taj was clearly better.....

Yes, because I wanted to quote the silly All Star stuff. If you stopped at "Taj is better defensively", I wouldn't quote you at all.

Since86
07-14-2011, 10:59 AM
So you're just saying Taj is better, not way better? "Way" is the sticking point.

EDIT: Maybe it's the language barrier, IDK, but when you say something is "way better" you're saying they're not even in the same league.

McRoberts is a backup 4, and a starting 4 on a bad team. In order to be "way better" you'd need to be at a different level. A very good starting 4 or something even beyond that.

Taj is a career backup 4. He plays above average defense, but is severly offensively limited.

He's not "way better" than Josh. But yes, he's better.

ECKrueger
07-14-2011, 11:04 AM
There used to be 15 pages discussing what a "real fan" was. Not to sound like a dick, but you either gotta get used to it, ignore it, or find something else to occupy your time because this is how it's been, and this is how it will continue to be.

EDIT: And no, I didn't participate much in those. The dude's name is actually banned, or atleast it was. Let's see, Sassan.

I'm not trying to be one either, I'm not complaing, just asking. Just because this is the way it is does not mean we have to continue to ***** over minor details. That's all I'm sayin'.

Also I was not just targeting you, you just replied.

imawhat
07-14-2011, 11:06 AM
I think Taj's defense is overrated. I think he's a better offensive player than defense.

ballism
07-14-2011, 11:14 AM
So you're just saying Taj is better, not way better? "Way" is the sticking point.

Lol. Define "way" then. 10%? 100%? 10 times?
I think "way" does not make a person All Star, that's for sure.
Man, that's semantics. Semantics is the sticking point?

I won't trade Gibson for McBob if I'm the Bulls. And I'm trading McBob for Gibson every single time if I'm the Pacers. I don't think that McBob would be the 92nd best player in the league next year while Gibson 124th. Unlike the list projects (and that's how Gibson came up in the first place).

That was the point, and I think it's easy to understand.

I don't care about semantics. I'm not English, or American. I'm not interested in purity of English language. I think that humans are genuinely intelligent beings and can understand what is said regardless of semantics, if they care enough. And when they don't care, semantics won't help.

Since86
07-14-2011, 11:21 AM
Way means very, by far, etc. It's not semantics, is going by the words that you chose to use, and applying the definition to them.

Is Taj very much better? No. He's simply better. Is he by far better? No, he's simply better.

They are both career back up 4s, so they're in the same tier of player. In order to be way better, you need to be in another tier. What's a tier above backup/fringe starter?

I mean I'm agreeing with you that Taj is better. So now we're stuck arguing the difference between simply better and way better.

I wouldn't trade Taj for McBob either.

mildlysane
07-14-2011, 12:18 PM
Meh....they both kinda suck. I guess they are equally as "good" as each other.

daschysta
07-14-2011, 12:43 PM
Lol. Define "way" then. 10%? 100%? 10 times?
I think "way" does not make a person All Star, that's for sure.
Man, that's semantics. Semantics is the sticking point?

I won't trade Gibson for McBob if I'm the Bulls. And I'm trading McBob for Gibson every single time if I'm the Pacers. I don't think that McBob would be the 92nd best player in the league next year while Gibson 124th. Unlike the list projects (and that's how Gibson came up in the first place).

That was the point, and I think it's easy to understand.

I don't care about semantics. I'm not English, or American. I'm not interested in purity of English language. I think that humans are genuinely intelligent beings and can understand what is said regardless of semantics, if they care enough. And when they don't care, semantics won't help.

Semantics matter a ton when communicating solely through text. As for the debate Gibson is better and more valuable than McBob now. His skills are simply more valuable in a big than josh's are. McBob is almost a novelty player in the sense that he can do things almost no other bigs can do, but most people don't care for their bigs to do. Gibsons superior positional defense and consistant jumpshot trump josh's ball handling abilities and passing skills. It doesn't make Gibson more talented, persay, but it does make him a more valuable player.

People are overrating him alot though when they start implying that the pacers would be set at power forward if only they had a player like Taj Gibson, he's a solid backup, perhaps a very good backup, but he isn't starting material, and Boozer being complete crap in the playoffs doesn't change that. Also it's funny that someone posted a dunk as a reason anyone should think he's better than McBob, because McBob is well, kinda effing awesome at dunking himself, and overall is probably a better athlete than Gibson.

vnzla81
07-14-2011, 12:47 PM
Danny at 35 is about right.

daschysta
07-14-2011, 12:49 PM
Danny at 35 is about right.

Last year Danny, yeah 35 is about right. MIP Danny was pretty clearly top 20 though, and the year before i'd say top 25.

I hope he has a bounceback year, he should thrive if he learns to pick his spots from long and continues to get to the line at a high rate. Plus we saw flashes of dannies good defense when Roy was an acceptable 1A option for the first part of the season.

wintermute
07-14-2011, 01:32 PM
I won't trade Gibson for McBob if I'm the Bulls. And I'm trading McBob for Gibson every single time if I'm the Pacers. I don't think that McBob would be the 92nd best player in the league next year while Gibson 124th. Unlike the list projects (and that's how Gibson came up in the first place).


I also think Taj is better than McBob and wouldn't mind him on the Pacers, but on the whole I think they are similar level talents. Essentially you're arguing over which turd is shinier. Ok, neither are turds, I would in fact describe both as solid rotation guys, but hopefully you get my meaning.

I'm not particularly bothered that McBob is ranked #92 while Gibson is #124. I don't agree with it but on the other hand I don't think it's massively off. Actually I think of the list more in terms of expanding tiers - there's a big difference between being a top 10 guy and a top 30 guy for example. But down in the 92-124 range? Probably not such a big deal.

ballism
07-14-2011, 01:33 PM
Semantics matter a ton when communicating solely through text.

Most of these issues can be easily avoided. Just pick the meaning that makes sense. Assume the other poster has some brains... unless proven otherwise.
In this case, whenever you go from 'way better' to 'rising All Star', you must be skipping a ton of more sensible interpretations. You are assuming the other poster is clueless. It's easier to say 'lmao that was dumb' than it is to build a strong argument.
Which people can do for all I care, but I'd rather get past it and waste time for a bit deeper, stronger discussion.

BillS
07-14-2011, 02:16 PM
Most of these issues can be easily avoided. Just pick the meaning that makes sense. Assume the other poster has some brains... unless proven otherwise.

What is this, Humpty Dumpty saying "when I use a word it means what I choose it to mean"?

There are some semantics that have shades of meaning, but assuming someone means what you think makes sense is the fastest way to miscommunication. Far better to use phrases in the sense they are generally accepted to have.

"Way better" DOES mean "extremely better", not just better. "Better" means just better.

In this case, I would point out that "rising All Star" (which means "on the path to being an all star", not "is already an all-star") is a valid interpretation of "way better than Josh McRoberts" - or, the other possible meaning, is that McRoberts is a scrub.

Peck
07-14-2011, 02:29 PM
Basketball was much more fun to talk about prior to Mathematicians & statisticians being elevated to some form of God like status because they can add.

I'll say what I've always said, stats are fine & usefull but under no circumstance should they ever be used solely to verify basketball players for skill or worth.

pacer4ever
07-14-2011, 02:32 PM
Basketball was much more fun to talk about prior to Mathematicians & statisticians being elevated to some form of God like status because they can add.

I'll say what I've always said, stats are fine & usefull but under no circumstance should they ever be used solely to verify basketball players for skill or worth.

Only sport advance stats really help IMO is baseball

Since86
07-14-2011, 02:44 PM
Only sport advance stats really help IMO is baseball

Golf. You don't need "advanced" stats though. Number of strokes, number of putts, greens in regulations, fairways in regulation. Know all of those and I can tell you how good a golfer is, and who's better than who. Or be pretty damn close.

pacer4ever
07-14-2011, 02:56 PM
Golf. You don't need "advanced" stats though. Number of strokes, number of putts, greens in regulations, fairways in regulation. Know all of those and I can tell you how good a golfer is, and who's better than who. Or be pretty damn close.
I agree

I shot 81 while hitting 17 greens a few weeks ago. Whats that tell you? lol



I love golf but hate the game of golf also you can stripe the ball and still not score frustrating game. I always say if I had a short game and putting I would of been able to play college golf but w/e I just didn't have it. Honestly the only difference from most good amateurs and pga pros is the pros are insane from 100 yards and in.

Since86
07-14-2011, 03:18 PM
I used to hang out with some of the golfers at BSU. (Actually going to one of their weddings next weekend) Anyways, we went for a little outing with 8 of us. Split into two teams of 4 and played best ball. (not scramble, but best score wins the hole) Unfortunately, I didn't have the groom on my team. At the turn he was -6 by himself. One of his old teammates was the golf pro, so he started talking a little smack about breaking the course record. This guy also holds the BSU invitational record at Del. CC. He ended up the round at -7, but had a few bogeys in there with it, and was two shots off breaking the record, I think.... Come to find out it was the first time he had golfed that year, and we were well into summer months. The guys playing with him said anything within 15ft he was putting in.

He doesn't carry any woods, and hits a 1 iron off the tee.

The golf owner/pro at the course I usually play holds the record at that course, -11 for a 59.

Scratch golfers are good. Pros are unbelieveable.

pacer4ever
07-14-2011, 03:26 PM
I used to hang out with some of the golfers at BSU. (Actually going to one of their weddings next weekend) Anyways, we went for a little outing with 8 of us. Split into two teams of 4 and played best ball. (not scramble, but best score wins the hole) Unfortunately, I didn't have the groom on my team. At the turn he was -6 by himself. One of his old teammates was the golf pro, so he started talking a little smack about breaking the course record. This guy also holds the BSU invitational record at Del. CC. He ended up the round at -7, but had a few bogeys in there with it, and was two shots off breaking the record, I think.... Come to find out it was the first time he had golfed that year, and we were well into summer months. The guys playing with him said anything within 15ft he was putting in.

He doesn't carry any woods, and hits a 1 iron off the tee.

The golf owner/pro at the course I usually play holds the record at that course, -11 for a 59.

Scratch golfers are good. Pros are unbelieveable.
Best guy I ever played with his Patrick Rodgers he is going to Stanford next year. Kid is crazy good. I mean he didn't miss a shot all day but wasnt making his putts like normal. Fairway then green and normally a birdie. He shot 67 that day i played with him at Hickory Stick. The next week at state i believe he shot 64. Just not fair lol. Most of my HS teammates were close to scratch and went to like Uindy or Marion and all of them it it a mile. I hit about 260-270 they all it it 290-340

ballism
07-14-2011, 04:36 PM
In this case, I would point out that "rising All Star" (which means "on the path to being an all star", not "is already an all-star") is a valid interpretation of "way better than Josh McRoberts" - or, the other possible meaning, is that McRoberts is a scrub.

Or that "extremely", "way", "much" are all contextual words? That NBA is a little more diverse than All Stars, future All Stars, scrubs and everyone else?

For example. Is Manu at his best a much better player than John Starks? To me, he is much better despite the fact they are both All stars and 6th men of the year. I'll say that I'd never trade a Manu for a Starks, probably even two Starks. Just as I wouldn't trade Gibson for two McBobs if I'm the Bulls.
And as long as you and me agree on what's the actual difference between these players... I couldn't care less if you call that difference "huge", "extreme" or not.
I'm not here to find out what's your biased perception of "extreme".
And I'm not here to tell you about my biased perception of "extreme".
I'm here to discuss a sport, not English.

Since86
07-14-2011, 04:40 PM
Josh McRoberts and Taj Gibson are both career back up 4s, and fringe starters on a bad team.

Unless you want to try and tell us that Gibson is better than that, or McRoberts is worse, then you're arguing a lost cause. They play the exact same role, just have different strengths and weaknesses.

ballism
07-14-2011, 05:26 PM
I'd start Gibson over McBob. Thus, they are not in the same category. Categories are biased. If you don't think categories are biased, then yes, the discussion is a lost cause... :p
There are at least 10 teams where I'd start Gibson. I won't bother going team by team, but for example I'd start him in every team in our division except Bulls (since they really need Boozer's offense as presently constructed). I can't say the same for McBob.
Notice, I didn't say "Future All Star" or "All Star" anywhere - amazing.
Also, notice how Gibson has not been a career backup so far in his young career, nor has his teams been bad, nor has he stunk when he started.

Anyway, if you still don't agree or don't like the wording (whichever it is, I'm confused now), I think I'll learn live with it, eventually. I'm honestly bored of this right now. :)

Rogco
07-15-2011, 09:43 AM
I wish I could know what other front offices thought of both players.

I think Taj is marginally better now, but McBob is the much more intriguing prospect due his unique abilities, aka facilitating an offense, passing, longer shot range, and potential for growth both on offense and defensively. Also, McBob is bigger, very athletic, two years younger and in terms of minutes played has played about 1 season less than Taj (1,500 minutes).