Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

  1. #1

    Default ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/rankings

    some points of discussion: JO ranked as the 28th best player in the league

    Jax as the 26th best SG in the league
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  2. #2
    Member Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brownsburg
    Posts
    8,621

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by pacertom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/rankings

    some points of discussion: JO ranked as the 28th best player in the league

    Jax as the 26th best SG in the league

    I just saw this, is this a fantasy ranking, there is some Houston guy, I swear I've never heard of ranked way ahead of Al. I swear I thought I followed the NBA close until now.

    Chuck Hayes = 11
    Al = 28

    AT POWER FORWARD, Wow!

  3. #3
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,988

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Those don't appear to be fantasy ratings per se, but I don't believe in judging a player bassed on a series of stats and efficiency numbers


    I had never heard of Chuck Hayes either, I guess he's an undrafted free agent the Rockets picked up last season

  4. #4
    Member Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brownsburg
    Posts
    8,621

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Those don't appear to be fantasy ratings per se, but I don't believe in judging a player passed on a series of stats and efficiency numbers
    Agreed, remember World (Lloyd) B Free, he'd probably project good on a stats ranking. Man I'm getting old.

  5. #5
    Banned Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,408

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Appearantly Granger is already better than Tayshaun as well as half the starting SF in the NBA.

  6. #6
    Member PacerFan31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    27
    Posts
    684

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by Fool View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Appearantly Granger is already better than Tayshaun as well as half the starting SF in the NBA.
    They also have Danny rated higher than Artest.

  7. #7
    Member tinsley#11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    B-town
    Age
    29
    Posts
    462

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Chuck Hayes was an average player who played at University of Kentucky, nothing special. Al is def. better than him.
    I was ready for Josh Smith to go to Indiana, but he went to the NBA. I am ready for him to come to Indiana once again.

  8. #8
    Member denyfizle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nap Town
    Posts
    1,409
    Mood

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    I would've read this article more except that I saw Steve Nash ranked #19. Are you kidding me???? Without him there is no Phoenix Suns. Top 10 would be fine but almost missing the TOP 20??? Gimme a break.

  9. #9
    One man show ajbry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Age
    26
    Posts
    4,696

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    I never take anything Hollinger does seriously, and this is certainly no exception. His precious statistically-based analysis is way off, as usual.

  10. #10
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    This is all based on algorithms and statistical number crunching...Take it for what it's worth
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  11. #11

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    You guys.

    The PER is a pretty good summary statistic. Like any statistic, it precisely measures something, but not everything. There is no perfect statistic, and in this case the author makes no claim that the PER ranking is tantamount to a listing of NBA players in order from best to worst. Rather, it is a summary value that gets at a lot of what makes a player good. This one emphasizes output/time. Here's what goes into the Player Efficiency Rating

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollinger
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Two important things to remember about PER is that it's per-minute and pace-adjusted. It's a per-minute measure because that allows us to compare, say, Drew Gooden to Donyell Marshall, even though there is a wide disparity in the minutes they played. I also adjust each player's rating for his team's pace, so that players on a slow-paced team like Indiana aren't penalized just because their team's games have fewer possessions than those of a fast-paced team such as Phoenix.

    The way to use statistics is not to glance at them and then say, "This does not conform to my presuppositions, therefore it is wrong." Or...

    Quote Originally Posted by ajbry
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I never take anything Hollinger does seriously, and this is certainly no exception. His precious statistically-based analysis is way off, as usual.
    The analysis is not "way off" at all. The PER measures what it claims to measure. Unless you can show that Hollinger made a math error in the calculations, you need to accept the results. Or ignore them if you'd rather. But don't say they are "way off" when in fact it is an accurate measure of what it claims to measure.

    This way of quantifying performance favors players who account for a big share of their team's totals. That is why Kobe is way up there but Steve Nash isn't. Kobe hogs the ball, and the PER rewards that. But Kobe actually scored at a high clip, unlike another shooting guard who also hogged the ball but only had a FG% of .41.

    This is an output/time rating. In that limited sence, it is a pretty good measure. It doesn't measure intangibles, or luck, or a player's importance to the team, or the success of the team, or whether a particular fan has a mancruch on a player.




    In other words,

    Quote Originally Posted by JayRedd
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is all based on algorithms and statistical number crunching...Take it for what it's worth
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  12. #12
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Yeah...what Putnam said.

    Not even Hollinger would suggest that Tim Duncan is the 6th Best PF in the League. That's just what it happens to say when he puts his little numbers into the formula from last year, and how the projected stats calculate for the upcoming season.

    All numbers have there limitations, but they also can shed light on certain things if you look at them properly.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  13. #13
    Banned Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,408

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The PER is a pretty good summary statistic. Like any statistic, it precisely measures something, but not everything. There is no perfect statistic, and in this case the author makes no claim that the PER ranking is tantamount to a listing of NBA players in order from best to worst. Rather, it is a summary value that gets at a lot of what makes a player good. This one emphasizes output/time. Here's what goes into the Player Efficiency Rating
    This is not the first time Hollinger's PER has been presented as a topic. I think many of us already know its simply Hollinger's love fest with himself (though, I'm willing to admit that most would probably not label it exactly that way). While Hollinger might not openly claim his list to be the end-all be-all of rankings, his continued use of it to evaluate every player comparison he considers, along with the way he allows ESPN to present his "articles" is tantamount to doing so (that last clause is a stipulation I'm including only to be generous to Mr. Hollinger, but I don't believe its actually necessary). He's out to do one thing, promote his stat creation in the hopes it becomes the NBA version of Sabermetrics (that's flagrant opinion on my part but not ignorantly so). As such, addressing his ranking as though its offering more than the modest "here's one thing to look at as well" is not irrational IMO.

    Regardless, I think most of the replies in this thread are treating the list correctly, as a very limited tool that is generally "way off" in its guidence for most useful things.

  14. #14

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by Fool View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Appearantly Granger is already better than Tayshaun as well as half the starting SF in the NBA.
    Quote Originally Posted by PacerFan31 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They also have Danny rated higher than Artest.
    Quote Originally Posted by denyfizle View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I would've read this article more except that I saw Steve Nash ranked #19. Are you kidding me???? Without him there is no Phoenix Suns. Top 10 would be fine but almost missing the TOP 20??? Gimme a break.
    After reviewing Mr. Hollinger's player efficiency rankings and reading some comments such as the ones above, I can understand why some view the rankings as BS and share the same sentiments as the poster below...
    Quote Originally Posted by ajbry View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I never take anything Hollinger does seriously, and this is certainly no exception. His precious statistically-based analysis is way off, as usual.
    But, you have to try to understand how Hollinger came to his PER (Player Efficiency Rating) in the first place. There's a link on the first page at the top right above the PERs, "What is a PER?". If you click on that link, it will provide a brief on how Holliger came up with his figures. I think once people take the time to review how Holliger came up w/his ranking system most would agree the majority of the players are ranked quite fairly.

  15. #15
    You Did It Joseph!!!! AesopRockOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    honolulu
    Age
    26
    Posts
    7,977
    Mood

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Pau and Amare are way too high; even for projections, you should take number of games played into consideration. Lol at Chuck Hayes.
    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

  16. #16
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,220

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed, remember World (Lloyd) B Free, he'd probably project good on a stats ranking. Man I'm getting old.
    Anybody know where I could get a highlight reel of World B. Free, or at least a tape of a game he played in?

    I've got a friend I nicknamed "World Free" but he doesn't know what I'm talking about. I'd like to enlighten him
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  17. #17

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Hayes had some pretty impressive numbers all things considering.

    40 G | 13.4 MPG | 3.7 PTS | 4.5 REB | .562 FG %

    Just makes the Rockets look even dumber for trading Rudy Gay for Shane freakin Battier (the "WTF are you kidding me" moment of the draft).

  18. #18
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,862

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Artest as the #20 SF? Goodbye, credibility!

  19. #19
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by Shade View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Artest as the #20 SF? Goodbye, credibility!
    Again...this is based on numbers.

    Ron's numbers last year were not good

    40.6% shooting on 15.5 attempts/game
    30.8% 3pt shooting on 4.5 attempts/game
    67.5% free-throw shooting on 5.4 attempts/game
    only 3.8 apg and 5.1 rpg in 39.4 mpg
    plus add in 2.3 TOs/game

    Say what you want about statistics being nonsense or how his formula is way off, but Hollinger's numbers attempt to come up with a "Player Efficiency Rating" not a "How Good Are You Quotient".

    And any way you look at those numbers, they certainly are not efficient.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  20. #20
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,638

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by JayRedd View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is all based on algorithms and statistical number crunching...Take it for what it's worth
    Of course all algorithms and number crunchings are based on a person's OPINION of how those numbers should interact and be computated. Then the CPU just repeats the process quickly for many people.


    Putnum is right to point out the methodology, but that doesn't make the stat a good stat outright. If results make any statician do a double-take (say Hayes better than Harrington) the next step is to review the method and perhaps refine it.

    With the PER I think it's wrong to simply extend the per48/MIN in a linear fashion. Some sense of diminishing returns should be considered but at this point has not been. Similarly possessions per game determine a pace scalar that adjusts numbers, but this assumes that a player at a slow pace could perform just as well at a higher tempo game, and ignores the fact that perhaps the tempo is lower specifically because of a player's game, such as a spot up shooter who can only catch and shoot when open and is unable to effectively work as a main ball-handler for 30 mpg.

    Certainly I wouldn't deny that more minutes and/or more possessions technically mean more chances for numbers, just that a linear increase is very possibly incorrect.


    If you want a quality effort to do statistical analysis your one-stop shopping should be 82games.com, not Hollinger.

  21. #21

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you want a quality effort to do statistical analysis your one-stop shopping should be 82games.com, not Hollinger.

    Agreed.

    82games is very good. Many of their analyses are flawed, same as the PER, but they are very innovative.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  22. #22
    Banned Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,408

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by NuffSaid View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    After reviewing Mr. Hollinger's player efficiency rankings and reading some comments such as the ones above, I can understand why some view the rankings as BS and share the same sentiments as the poster below...

    But, you have to try to understand how Hollinger came to his PER (Player Efficiency Rating) in the first place. There's a link on the first page at the top right above the PERs, "What is a PER?". If you click on that link, it will provide a brief on how Holliger came up with his figures. I think once people take the time to review how Holliger came up w/his ranking system most would agree the majority of the players are ranked quite fairly.
    I've posted on the message board he frequents. Going deeper doesn't make his PER better. And please, stop saying "he's not trying to say who's better". The guy LIVES by his PER creation. Its pretty much the only thing he considers WHENEVER he talks publically about players' worth.

  23. #23
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Unfortunately, and I think this is something that we are all savvy enough to understand, the actual value and sheer number of statistics in basketball in incredibly limited compared to both the MLB and NFL.

    Things like OBP, SLG%, OPS, SB%, ERA and WHIP can often give you a very clear picture of how a player actually performed. I'd say the NFL is more limited in these of "quantifying" individuals, but rushing YPG, YPC, RAC, yards per reception, and QB completion % can give you a very good idea of how teams performed and some good insight into how well individual players did as well.

    In the NBA, things like PPG, RPG, APG, SPG and BPG tell you things, but the player's role on his team, number of minutes player, number of shots taken, and the overall speed of the game have such a dramatic impact that compared Steve Nash to Sam Cassell with numbers becomes a pointless exercise with these traditional numbers.

    Hollinger's equation tries to do that by minimizing all these outside factors. Does it succeed? Not exactly. But I wouldn't say that PER is an altogether failure. Surely, lots of things aren't accounted for such as actual defense, overall court awareness, situational play and countless other things that define a good basketball player.

    But if you look at the PER ratings historically, the players who have the elite players who have the best seasons are usually over 25, the really good players are between 20 and 25, the quality starters are between 17-20, the rotation guys are between 13-17, and anyone below 13 is probably someone that the average sports fan has never even heard of (roughly).

    So it does "work" in that sense and rarely will you see someone that's "way way off." Of course Chuck Hayes as the 11th best PF in the league is ridiculous, especially when Al is at 28. But last year's numbers came out at 18.07 and 16.08. Not a huge difference there. And when you consider that the #13 - #25 projected PFs are all between 16.00 and 19.00, I think even Hollinger himself would tell you that there is not a lot of diffence in overall talent in that 12 player group.

    So, sure, I see why this number is dumb to a lot of people. I really don't think it's amazingly useful myself either. But it does provide a single number to give an overall comparison that can help broadly categorize show who is the elite of elite, who is an all star, who is really good, who is a quality starter, who is a bench guy and who you probably don't want on the court.

    Think of this as QB Rating: An ultimately useless tool to discern the number 5 QB in the league from the number 8 guy, but something that, over time, generally gives a broad picture of who is great, who is good, who is average, etc.

    Is Damon Huard really a better QB than Tom Brady? Of course not. And the fact that he is "rated" worse than Huard this year is obviously a traveshamockery. But that's what the numbers say. But like PER, the number's only tell some of the picture.

    Take em for what they're worth. Which, I'd say is something, but not much as far as exact rankings.

    Or better yet, like Naptown Seth says, check out Roland's work on 82games.com.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  24. #24
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,638

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed.

    82games is very good. Many of their analyses are flawed, same as the PER, but they are very innovative.
    And it's obvious that their overriding goal is to perfect statistical analysis, so they are always open about the flaw, even pro-active about finding those flaws, and make an effort to cross-reference other indexes and analyze the "accuracy/meaning" of their own final results.

    Hollinger isn't trying to trick us, but at the same time he's a lot more comfortable parading out the results as if they have a major meaning.


    Jay - I agree that the NBA is a poor "stat" sport, which is specifically why I never play roto-basketball despite playing tons of roto-MLB/NFL. I also think this is why the push toward PLUS-MINUS systems has been so strong. No coincidence that the +/- comes out of another very poor "stat" sport, hockey.

    I'd really like to see some of the stats that Rick's staff came up with to make the case for Ron as DPOY.

    I've toyed with trying to do a subjective "grading" of a game, giving players -1, 0, +1 (or similar) per possession based on doing what I thought was expected (just setting a screen, making an expected jumper, getting an unchallenged rebound) vs screwing up the play (not just a bad pass, but also a player messing up where he goes creating a missed pass, blowing a layup after a good assist to him, etc) vs making an above expected play (great assist even if the other player blows the shot, difficult play-saving FG after play breaks down, etc).

    The problem is that this is highly subjective and frankly impossible to do real-time. If the Pacers hired me to break down tape, that would be different.

    But at least such a system would allow for a (-1) if you got beat off the dribble, even if your man then missed the shot when the PF challenged it, etc.


    Back to 82games.com. Be careful if you go over there, especially if you are a stat geek. Appointments will be missed and lunches skipped as you browse some of the info they gather.

  25. #25

    Default Re: ESPN player efficiency ratings, projections for '06-'07

    Naptown_Seth and JayRedd make great comments about how and why basketball is poor in data. Any game that is played rapidly with few stops and interruptions is bound to leave some important facets of the game out of the box score. One of the things 82games does, I think, is to rely on spotters who report extra details to them.

    My question is this: What are the non-counted contributions that you would want to quantify if it were possible?

    setting picks
    boxing out
    defensive stops (other than steals and blocks)
    defensive coverage that prevents your man from a touch
    defensive coverage that prevents a pass
    joining on a double-team defensive effort
    pressure that delays an inbounds pass in the halfcourt
    spreading the floor
    making a good pass before an assist
    encouraging team mates
    reading the floor and being in the right place
    calling out information to team mates
    being able to come in already warmed up
    ability to score/perform in pressure situation (clutchness)

    (what am I missing?)



    With sincere respect to PD members who've played and coached and watched more games than I have, I think there is a tendency to overvalue the esoteric contributions. Boxing out is a skill that contributes, but it doesn't deserve to be rated as great a contribution as scoring or rebounding.

    The first thing from the above list that I wish were better quantified would be passes that lead to a score. I'd give everybody an assist who handled the ball in a possession that resulted in a field goal. Second, missed field goals need to count against the player as well as makes count for him, through someting like a points-per-attempt index.
    Third, I'd find some way to make points, rebounds and passes count more in a team victory than in a loss.

    What do others think?
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •