The Lakers have just been run out of the gym in Oklahoma exactly as we feared. The Nuggets have been predictably badly beaten in the playoffs by the Utah Jazz and their gold standard Coach: Jerry Sloan. And now Quest for the Ring is going to tell you about the latest scandal involving a star basketball player's girl friend.
Well, no, the last one isn't true, thank God. But nor do we have time at the moment to advise Phil Jackson on what to do to make sure the Lakers don't get embarrassed by the upstart Thunder (hint: not much other than getting pissed at a bunch of players which he already has done.) As for the Nuggets, hell will freeze over before they ever do anything we recommend. They absent-mindedly and merrily do whatever captures their fancy from year to year and blame the referees and lady luck when they get bounced in the playoffs.
So how we are spending precious time at the moment? Why, on one of the most important posts ever: the first ever basketball standards grid. Specifically, we are making the Real Player Rating system and Team Grids more valuable by publishing a combination of the two: "Real Player Rating Standards by Position for NBA Teams". By using the charts, you can see how good the average player is given many different combinations of circumstances.
Take a look at the grids (which like everything else will be tweaked in the future in our never ending Quest for perfection). Then read on below for an introduction on how to use this powerful tool. Listen up Minnesota and New Jersey especially! You and all the other rebuilding teams need this more than most, unless you want to be rebuilding indefinitely.
Note: if you can not see a chart (spreadsheet) just below here, copy and paste the web address that you do see into your browser address bar in order to view it.
INTRODUCTION TO HOW TO USE REAL PLAYER RATING STANDARDS BY POSITION
Suppose you are an NBA manager looking around for a new point guard. You have only so much money to spend and there are only a few point guards available and you know exactly how good they are because you put faith in the Real Player Rating system and you simply get the ratings off the Quest for the Ring site. (You found the site despite Google not showing it much in search results and you bookmarked it, because you are one smart and smooth operator, laugh out loud.)
Up until now at Quest, you could see who the better point guards were in recent years. But did you know how good a starting point guard you need if you want to, say, reach the final four of the NBA? Or at least the final eight (all teams that win in round one)? No, you didn't know that, until now.
You are looking for a starting point guard so you need to use the middle chart (Average for Starters). The first row is for point guards. Looking at the column headers, you look for and find "Final 8 teams" and right next to that, "Final 4 Teams". Now read where the row and column meet and you can find out:
--The average point guard on a team that is among the final eight teams has a Real Player Rating of .893.
--The average point guard on a team that is among the final four teams has a Real Player Rating of .951.
If winning one or more playoff series is out of reach right now and if you don't have a lot of money and if you just want to make the playoffs and make sure you don't join the Minnesota Timberwolves at the bottom, and you want to work toward winning playoff series down the road, you could be satisfied with a point guard with a rating of .868, because that is the average rating for starting point guards whose teams make the playoffs.
Actually, if push comes to shove, you might settle for a point guard with a rating as low as .827, because that is the overall average starting point guard rating for the NBA as a whole. Since about half of the teams make the playoffs, the overall NBA average for each position is about the same as the dividing line between point guards who on average make the playoffs and those who don't.
But you also need a quality back-up point guard, so how can you use this powerful information to gauge what you need for that? Well, once again you have to know what your realistic objective is and then you want to use the third chart, "Average for Players who Play at Least 300 Minutes but do not Start". If you have your sites on being one of the final four teams, you can see from that chart that the average non-starting (backup) point guard for a final four team has a real player rating of about .789. The average rating for a backup point guard for a final eight team is about .741.
And you do the same for every other position and for every other combination of objectives. Obviously, you can also use this to determine whether the players you currently have are really good enough or not for what your overall objective is for the next few years. Then you will know who you should most want to keep on your team and who you most want to trick the Minnesota Timberwolves or the Memphis Grizzlies into taking (laugh out loud). Seriously, Minnesota made the playoffs for many years in a row not so many years ago, so you probably won't be able to trick them unless you get lucky. Try tricking Philadelphia though, seriously.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
Now fans and writers such as yours truly can at a glance see whether players have what it takes to be in the final eight, the final four, or the final two teams or not. You or I might want to know in advance which players are most likely going to shine and which ones are most likely going to lose out in a playoff series. We want to know what to look for when we watch a playoff game instead of just being at the mercy of sometimes mindless announcers. If you are a coach you want to know who you might want to have your players double and trap as much as they can.
Once you know three things: Real Player Rating, position, and whether the player plays more minutes at the position than anyone else on the team or not, you can use the appropriate chart and see how this player stacks up to the League averages for various teams, all the way from the worst two teams in the League to the best two teams (the ones who play in the Championship).
For example, let’s consider Chauncey Billups, the starting point guard for the Denver Nuggets, who almost everyone in Denver thinks of as one of the very best point guards in the NBA this year and last. But is he and was he really? Quest for the Ring has for two straight years reported out a Chauncey Billups rating a little lower than needed for being one of the very best point guards. Specifically, Billups' 2008-09 rating was .870 and his 2009-10 rating is .889. Using the starter chart, here is how it reads for point guards:
--The average point guard among all NBA teams has a Real Player Rating (RPR) of about .827.
--The average point guard among all NBA playoff teams has a RPR of .868.
--The average point guard among teams that lose in the first round is .852.
--The average point guard among the final eight NBA (playoff) teams has a RPR of .893.
--The average point guard among the final four NBA (playoff) teams has a RPR of .951.
--The average point guard among the final two NBA (Championship) teams has a RPR of 1.025.
Now you see where Chauncey Billups falls in the big scheme of things: he's almost exactly the average among point guards of teams that are among the final eight. So on average the probability that a point guard as good as Chauncey Billups will reach the final four is about 50%. The bottom line is that although Chauncey Billups might or might not be good enough to get a team a win in round two of the playoffs (good enough to reach the final four) if he doesn't get out of the first round (to the final eight) the problem is probably more with other players, since Billups is definitely good enough to get a team out of the first round.
One of those other players dragging Billups and the Nuggets down in the 2010 playoffs is starting shooting guard Arron Afflalo, whose rating sunk pretty badly after the all star break and was .556 as of the end of March. But due to coaching error, Afflalo plays for more minutes at shooting guard than does J.R. Smith, RPR .722, who was clearly a better player than Afflalo even when Afflalo was much better earlier in the season. Yet due to coaching error Smith played 2,076 minutes and Afflalo played 2,230 minutes.
You have to consider the player who actually does play more minutes to be the starter, not the player who should be playing more minutes. So if as during the regular season Afflalo plays more than J.R. Smith, he is the starter regardless of what any depth chart might say. And in fact most and probably all of the published depth charts show Afflalo as the starter and Smith as the backup, because the published depth charts defer to the coaches of the teams in control of those teams and not to which player is really better or to what other coaches would do.
So let's see what we have for starting 2-guards so we can see where Arron Afflalo comes in.
--The average shooting guard among all NBA teams has a Real Player Rating (RPR) of about .636.
--The average shooting guard among all NBA playoff teams has a RPR of .668.
--The average shooting guard among teams that lose in the first round is .655.
--The average shooting guard among the final eight NBA (playoff) teams has a RPR of .687.
--The average shooting guard among the final four NBA (playoff) teams has a RPR of .731.
--The average shooting guard among the final two NBA (Championship) teams has a RPR of .789.
So Arron Afflalo is a below average starting shooting guard. If you look over to the right, you can see some averages for losing teams:
The average shooting guard among non-playoff teams has a RPR of .604.
The average shooting guard playing for one of the worst two teams in the League has a RPR of about .579.
Arron Afflalo was much better before the all star break than after it. He had a RPR of .633 as of February 4, which made him an average starting 2-guard. But then he went downhill from there and ended up with a season RPR lower than what you on average find on non-playoff teams.
In fact, almost all of the Nuggets went downhill after the all star break due to defensive problems that were never recognized or solved on the one hand and the lack of enough organization and flow on offense on the other hand.
VARIATIONS
Remember, all of the numbers in the charts are AVERAGES. Actual teams can win the Quest for the Ring with or without players at all five positions with ratings close to the averages for the best two teams. Most if not all teams will depart from the mold: they will have some players who are above and some who are below the averages shown, sometimes way above and way below. Offsets happen all the time. For example, an historical superstar center who is the best center in the League can offset a 2-guard who is merely at the overall NBA average for that position.
FILL IN THE BLANK: CARMELO ANTHONY WILL NEVER WIN A RING UNLESS...
How do you finish that sentence? Do you finish it, as George Karl might, “unless he becomes more well rounded and plays better defensively”? Although everyone is happy he is playing better defensively than a few years ago, there is a much better answer...
Carmelo Anthony will never win a ring unless he plays with a very highly rated (at least .950) point guard. This is true because Carmelo Anthony is one of the very most talented scorers in the League whether or not he plays with such a point guard. If he does not play with a great point guard (and as we have already seen Chauncey Billups is a very good but not a great point guard) he gets the scoring coming to him more from isolation plays and less from a great flowing offense and passing game sponsored by the ace point guard. In this scenario Anthony is one of the top five scorers in the League year after year but there is a ceiling on both his scoring and even more so on the scoring of the rest of the team due to the absence of the true high quality point guard maximizing scoring opportunities for Melo and the other players.
What if Carmelo Anthony was playing for the Suns with Steve Nash as the point guard? What if Carmelo Anthony was playing for the Hornets with Chris Paul as the point guard? What if Carmelo Anthony was playing for the Jazz with Deron Williams as the point guard? In any combo like those, both Melo and the team involved would have a real shot at a Championship, whereas the Nuggets could probably not win a Championship with their current roster even if they were not shooting themselves in the foot by not repeating what they did last year defensively and by not running a little more organized offense than the almost completely disorganized one they do run..
Chauncey Billups is not among the greatest point guards precisely because, unlike Nash, Paul, and Williams, he doesn’t have the ability and/or the desire to maximize the passing game and assisting on his team. But he has been a great match for the Nuggets as coached by George Karl because he and they don’t believe in what you might call the “power point guard” concept. Under George Karl, the Nuggets believe that every player on the court has about equal responsibility for maintaining the passing game, which unfortunately all too often results in no one maintaining the passing game when the going gets tough in the trenches in the playoffs.
So is there a team out there with a truly outstanding and truly great point guard (regardless of age, there is no age discrimination here) who really and truly wants to win the Quest for the Ring? If you have that point guard and you want that Ring, Carmelo Anthony and no one else is who you want at the small forward position. As far as winning the Quest is concerned, Melo is just wasting his time in Denver.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
2010 Round One Series: Oklahoma Thunder vs Los Angeles Lakers: How the Thunder are Challenging the Lakers
Note: if you can not see a chart (spreadsheet) just below here, copy and paste the web address that you do see into your browser address bar in order to view it.
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
The User Guide for Team Grids is here.
THE LAKERS-THUNDER SERIES
One interesting thing about this series, which is at the moment two games to one in favor of the Lakers, with all games having been won by the home team so far, is that the Lakers' players other than the starters and the best non-starter are not as good as those for Oklahoma. Not counting historical superstar Lamar Odom, the Lakers' non-starters are practically scrubs compared with the Oklahoma non-starters.
In terms of actual number of players, due to injuries and due to having too many disappointing players, the Lakers don't have as many playoff quality players (those whose ratings are greater than .600) as do the Thunder! But Phil Jackson likes to have a nine or even a ten player rotation in the playoffs because he knows those extra "wild card" players are sometimes secret (and sometimes not so secret) keys to tough wins in the playoffs. Alas, Phil is not a happy camper this year because there is no way in hell he can run a nine or ten man rotation.
Shannon Brown and Jordan Farmer are decent but definitely not outstanding guards. The injured 2-guard Sasha Vujacic was just a role player this year, but every one of the mighty Lakers who play in the playoffs are supposed to be better than mere role players, Derek Fisher included.
Coach Scott Brooks (who is the NBA official Coach of the Year) is, chances are by accident, conducting an unusual experiment where the non-starters are about as good as the starters (in fact, they are even better in this case).
Incidentally, Quest for the Ring does not have a "Coach of the Year," but we do annually give Real Ratings for coaches that are based on the coaches' entire NBA coaching careers. See here for the 2009 Report.
"Coach of the Year" is not a very meaningful thing because coaching is complicated and subject to a lot of luck (for example, do you have good players or not?). The only truly meaningful way to rate coaches is over their entire careers. But of course, coaches who have been coaching for less than about five years don't have enough performance data to have a Rating that is high quality statistically, but we have a few tricks we use to improve the quality of their ratings so that we can include those newer coaches in the annual Coach Rating Report.
All of that said, it sure would appear that Scott Brooks is a fine new coach; he certainly seems to be one of the more intelligent coaches, which by itself is an important factor. If you don't have a smart coach you can generally forget about winning the Quest for the Ring. Brooks was a point guard for ten seasons in the NBA and point guards are supposed to be smarter than the average player.
THE MUCH IMPROVED THUNDER
Firstly, note that another interesting thing about this series is that the Oklahoma non-starters are better than the Oklahoma starters!
Secondly, check out last years' Thunder Ratings:
Kevin Durant OKC 0.876
Thabo Sefolosha OKC 0.820
Joe Smith OKC 0.780
Russell Westbrook OKC 0.753
Chris Wilcox OKC 0.731
Nick Collison OKC 0.716
Nenad Krstic OKC 0.716
Malik Rose OKC 0.697
Johan Petro OKC 0.662
Jeff Green OKC 0.661
Robert Swift OKC 0.596
Earl Watson OKC 0.590
Kyle Weaver OKC 0.578
Damien Wilkins OKC 0.491
Desmond Mason OKC 0.482
First notice that last year's Thunder had too many players for there to be much of any chemistry to develop.
Second, compare last year to this year. For the following, the first rating is last year and the second rating is this year.
Kevin Durant: .876 to 1.050
Russell Westbrook: .753 to .919
Thabo Sefolosha: .820 to .596
Jeff Green: .661 to .675
Nenad Krstic: .716 to .644
Nick Collison .716 to .806
Durant at small forward and Westbrook at point are up huge from last year to this year and have become an historical superstar and a superstar, respectively. Collison is up big and is a solid starter (who doesn't start because Jeff Green is starting at power forward). Collison should be starting and if he did start the Thunder would pose a slightly greater threat to the Lakers than they already do.
Or if not Collison than Serge Ibaka should start at center over Nenad Krstic. Due to chemistry and due to the inherent risks of playing rookies in the playoffs, I wouldn't go so far as to say that both Collison and Ibaka should start over Green and Krstic respectively, but at least one of those switches would have to be made if the Thunder really wanted to defeat the Lakers in this series.
But Brooks is doing the next best thing to starting Ibaka or Collison; he is making sure they get playing time equal to or greater than the starters. For example, in the game three win over the Lakers, Ibaka played 27 minutes and Krstic just 16. At the four, both Collison and Green played 28 minutes a piece. So there is some nice work by the Coach of the Year, for you.
The Thunder did have one big disappointment this year, Thabo Sefolosha at 2-guard, but that position is where relatively low ratings are often a fact of life that you can offset to a good extent. If you were to judge just from this year, the rookie James Harden should be starting over Thebo Sefolosha in this series. Rookies at the 2 spot in the playoffs are relatively common and a relatively low risk thing.
But Scott Brooks is apparently following the "Reverse 2-Guard" strategy whereby the inferior 2-guard starts but plays fewer minutes than the best 2-guard on the team who checks into the game sometime in the 1st quarter and ends up playing more minutes than the starter. In last nights' 101-96 win over the Lakers, Harden played 32 minutes and Sefolosha just 19. Quest does not recommend this strategy (despite the fact that Greg Popovich, the second best Coach in the League swears by it). But we are not ready quite yet to completely condemn this strategy for all eternity. We are going to continue to recommend against this but to technically have the jury out on this for awhile longer.
Eric Maynor, .829 this year, James Harden, .788 this year, and Serge Ibaka, .843 this year, are all NBA rookies. I would bet good money that this is by far the best group of three rookies on one team in the League this year. To have three rookies playing that well is nothing short of amazing, and also nothing short of an actual threat to the Lakers winning this series, especially considering the Lakers play relatively poor non-starters versus these three, non-starting rookies.
Phil Jackson really has his work cut out for himself this time. If Jackson can not staunch the bleeding caused by his sorry ass scrubs in his non-starting squad (excepting Lamar Odom, of course) the Thunder might conceivably humiliate the ten-time winner of the Quest for the Ring. Oh well, its high time he earned his ridiculously high pay, laugh out loud.
SCOTT BROOKS COULD HAVE BEEN AND PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN COACH OF THE NUGGETS
Interestingly, Brooks used to be an assistant coach for the Denver Nuggets for whom coaching seems to be one of the big franchise shortcomings. I don't know about you, but quite frankly it seems to me that the Denver Nuggets are never in my lifetime going to be coached by one of the best coaches in the NBA.
Denver seems to be motivated in other directions than high quality coaching. It appears that Denver thinks that coaches are more important from a player management perspective than they are from a winning playoff games perspective. In other words, the number one duty of the Nuggets coach is to manage players (to "keep them in line" and so forth). Both at the high money end in trades and at the low money end on pickups of players other teams are staying clear of, Denver likes to grab players with personalities which are more volatile and/or more immature than average. I sometimes call the Nuggets a hyena type organization: they look for players who have been cast out of most other teams and can often be obtained cheaply (but not always, for example, Kenyon Martin). All teams do this once in a while but Denver in recent years has been going out of their way to do this kind of thing.
Having a team loaded with personalities less mature and more volatile than average is dangerous, so realizing that, Denver has apparently elected to offset that with a coach who will crack the whip (with benchings for example) if necessary to make sure those players with their somewhat wild and/or somewhat immature personalities don't go completely off the reservation and cause the team to lose cohesiveness and morale. This is my main theory for why George Karl, who has very seldom had any success coaching in the playoffs, has been doggedly supported by the ownership and management of the Nuggets. It is in fact true that Karl is one of the better coaches you could have if your primary objective is to make sure that an unusually large number of players who might fly off the reservation don't do so. But unfortunately for Denver, Karl follows inconsistent and often inferior strategies and tactics for winning in the playoffs.
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
The User Guide for Team Grids is here.
THE LAKERS-THUNDER SERIES
One interesting thing about this series, which is at the moment two games to one in favor of the Lakers, with all games having been won by the home team so far, is that the Lakers' players other than the starters and the best non-starter are not as good as those for Oklahoma. Not counting historical superstar Lamar Odom, the Lakers' non-starters are practically scrubs compared with the Oklahoma non-starters.
In terms of actual number of players, due to injuries and due to having too many disappointing players, the Lakers don't have as many playoff quality players (those whose ratings are greater than .600) as do the Thunder! But Phil Jackson likes to have a nine or even a ten player rotation in the playoffs because he knows those extra "wild card" players are sometimes secret (and sometimes not so secret) keys to tough wins in the playoffs. Alas, Phil is not a happy camper this year because there is no way in hell he can run a nine or ten man rotation.
Shannon Brown and Jordan Farmer are decent but definitely not outstanding guards. The injured 2-guard Sasha Vujacic was just a role player this year, but every one of the mighty Lakers who play in the playoffs are supposed to be better than mere role players, Derek Fisher included.
Coach Scott Brooks (who is the NBA official Coach of the Year) is, chances are by accident, conducting an unusual experiment where the non-starters are about as good as the starters (in fact, they are even better in this case).
Incidentally, Quest for the Ring does not have a "Coach of the Year," but we do annually give Real Ratings for coaches that are based on the coaches' entire NBA coaching careers. See here for the 2009 Report.
"Coach of the Year" is not a very meaningful thing because coaching is complicated and subject to a lot of luck (for example, do you have good players or not?). The only truly meaningful way to rate coaches is over their entire careers. But of course, coaches who have been coaching for less than about five years don't have enough performance data to have a Rating that is high quality statistically, but we have a few tricks we use to improve the quality of their ratings so that we can include those newer coaches in the annual Coach Rating Report.
All of that said, it sure would appear that Scott Brooks is a fine new coach; he certainly seems to be one of the more intelligent coaches, which by itself is an important factor. If you don't have a smart coach you can generally forget about winning the Quest for the Ring. Brooks was a point guard for ten seasons in the NBA and point guards are supposed to be smarter than the average player.
THE MUCH IMPROVED THUNDER
Firstly, note that another interesting thing about this series is that the Oklahoma non-starters are better than the Oklahoma starters!
Secondly, check out last years' Thunder Ratings:
Kevin Durant OKC 0.876
Thabo Sefolosha OKC 0.820
Joe Smith OKC 0.780
Russell Westbrook OKC 0.753
Chris Wilcox OKC 0.731
Nick Collison OKC 0.716
Nenad Krstic OKC 0.716
Malik Rose OKC 0.697
Johan Petro OKC 0.662
Jeff Green OKC 0.661
Robert Swift OKC 0.596
Earl Watson OKC 0.590
Kyle Weaver OKC 0.578
Damien Wilkins OKC 0.491
Desmond Mason OKC 0.482
First notice that last year's Thunder had too many players for there to be much of any chemistry to develop.
Second, compare last year to this year. For the following, the first rating is last year and the second rating is this year.
Kevin Durant: .876 to 1.050
Russell Westbrook: .753 to .919
Thabo Sefolosha: .820 to .596
Jeff Green: .661 to .675
Nenad Krstic: .716 to .644
Nick Collison .716 to .806
Durant at small forward and Westbrook at point are up huge from last year to this year and have become an historical superstar and a superstar, respectively. Collison is up big and is a solid starter (who doesn't start because Jeff Green is starting at power forward). Collison should be starting and if he did start the Thunder would pose a slightly greater threat to the Lakers than they already do.
Or if not Collison than Serge Ibaka should start at center over Nenad Krstic. Due to chemistry and due to the inherent risks of playing rookies in the playoffs, I wouldn't go so far as to say that both Collison and Ibaka should start over Green and Krstic respectively, but at least one of those switches would have to be made if the Thunder really wanted to defeat the Lakers in this series.
But Brooks is doing the next best thing to starting Ibaka or Collison; he is making sure they get playing time equal to or greater than the starters. For example, in the game three win over the Lakers, Ibaka played 27 minutes and Krstic just 16. At the four, both Collison and Green played 28 minutes a piece. So there is some nice work by the Coach of the Year, for you.
The Thunder did have one big disappointment this year, Thabo Sefolosha at 2-guard, but that position is where relatively low ratings are often a fact of life that you can offset to a good extent. If you were to judge just from this year, the rookie James Harden should be starting over Thebo Sefolosha in this series. Rookies at the 2 spot in the playoffs are relatively common and a relatively low risk thing.
But Scott Brooks is apparently following the "Reverse 2-Guard" strategy whereby the inferior 2-guard starts but plays fewer minutes than the best 2-guard on the team who checks into the game sometime in the 1st quarter and ends up playing more minutes than the starter. In last nights' 101-96 win over the Lakers, Harden played 32 minutes and Sefolosha just 19. Quest does not recommend this strategy (despite the fact that Greg Popovich, the second best Coach in the League swears by it). But we are not ready quite yet to completely condemn this strategy for all eternity. We are going to continue to recommend against this but to technically have the jury out on this for awhile longer.
Eric Maynor, .829 this year, James Harden, .788 this year, and Serge Ibaka, .843 this year, are all NBA rookies. I would bet good money that this is by far the best group of three rookies on one team in the League this year. To have three rookies playing that well is nothing short of amazing, and also nothing short of an actual threat to the Lakers winning this series, especially considering the Lakers play relatively poor non-starters versus these three, non-starting rookies.
Phil Jackson really has his work cut out for himself this time. If Jackson can not staunch the bleeding caused by his sorry ass scrubs in his non-starting squad (excepting Lamar Odom, of course) the Thunder might conceivably humiliate the ten-time winner of the Quest for the Ring. Oh well, its high time he earned his ridiculously high pay, laugh out loud.
SCOTT BROOKS COULD HAVE BEEN AND PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN COACH OF THE NUGGETS
Interestingly, Brooks used to be an assistant coach for the Denver Nuggets for whom coaching seems to be one of the big franchise shortcomings. I don't know about you, but quite frankly it seems to me that the Denver Nuggets are never in my lifetime going to be coached by one of the best coaches in the NBA.
Denver seems to be motivated in other directions than high quality coaching. It appears that Denver thinks that coaches are more important from a player management perspective than they are from a winning playoff games perspective. In other words, the number one duty of the Nuggets coach is to manage players (to "keep them in line" and so forth). Both at the high money end in trades and at the low money end on pickups of players other teams are staying clear of, Denver likes to grab players with personalities which are more volatile and/or more immature than average. I sometimes call the Nuggets a hyena type organization: they look for players who have been cast out of most other teams and can often be obtained cheaply (but not always, for example, Kenyon Martin). All teams do this once in a while but Denver in recent years has been going out of their way to do this kind of thing.
Having a team loaded with personalities less mature and more volatile than average is dangerous, so realizing that, Denver has apparently elected to offset that with a coach who will crack the whip (with benchings for example) if necessary to make sure those players with their somewhat wild and/or somewhat immature personalities don't go completely off the reservation and cause the team to lose cohesiveness and morale. This is my main theory for why George Karl, who has very seldom had any success coaching in the playoffs, has been doggedly supported by the ownership and management of the Nuggets. It is in fact true that Karl is one of the better coaches you could have if your primary objective is to make sure that an unusually large number of players who might fly off the reservation don't do so. But unfortunately for Denver, Karl follows inconsistent and often inferior strategies and tactics for winning in the playoffs.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Introducing Team and Playoff Preview Grids: The Denver Nuggets vs The Utah Jazz, Round One, 2010 Playoffs
The Quest for the Ring presents the first ever published Team Grids as a preview of and guide for the competitive 2010 first round series between the Utah Jazz and the Denver Nuggets.
The other three first round series in the West are most likely already decided. A relatively brief (for us, laugh out loud) look at them:
LOS ANGELES LAKERS OVER THE OKLAHOMA THUNDER
Even with no Andrew Bynum the Lakers are most likely too chock loaded for the Thunder to beat them. But the Lakers’ 2010 secret weakness is out: their bench is a combination of banged up players and players who are just not getting it done.
In the front court there is a huge drop-off from the Gasol-Odom-Bynum “Great Wall of Los Angeles”. If Bynum is out with an injury as he is threatening to be, the Lakers are in trouble unless Ron Artest can magically and instantly become more power forward minded. Josh Powell can successfully fill in for next to no one let alone for Gasol, Odom, or Bynum. Either all three of them play injury free, or the Lakers suddenly transform their guard crew behind Kobe Bryant to better than average, or it seems that the Lakers are doomed to lose to either the Orlando Magic or to the Cleveland Cavaliers in the 2010 Championship. Assuming they even get there: without Bynum the Lakers can relatively easily lose to the Dallas Mavericks in the West Final, who are injury free.
In the back court, Kobe Bryant can make up for only so much lame and uninspired play. Just how bad is the Lakers’ back court this year? It’s so bad that 2-guard Vujacic being out with an injury is most likely a good thing, since he was the biggest disappointment of all for the Lakers in the backcourt this year. Instead of getting better as the Lakers thought he would, Vujacic got worse from last year.
Ironically, considering the relatively sorry state of the Lakers’ reserves, the Thunder have one of the very best benches in pro basketball while Kevin Durant holds down the fort among the mediocre at best other Thunder starters. The Thunder non-starting crew has been nothing short of a miracle this year.
But if Bynum starts or if Lamar Odom starts in place of Bynum for the Lakers, Los Angeles has the best starting five in the West, which if they work their tails off will be enough to prevent the upstart Thunder from taking the series to six or seven games.
For Oklahoma, since backup center Serge Idaka is actually better than the starter Nenad Kristic, Thunder fans should probably hope that he gets more minutes due to a Kristic bruised right knee.
The Thunder can and will run the Lakers right out of the gym in a game whenever the Lakers think that talent alone will give them the game and the series, because the Thunder are younger and can run faster, because the Thunder and not the Lakers are more talented outside of the starting five, and because the Thunder and not the Lakers have the 2009-10 regular season top scorer (Kevin Durant). So unlike last year when the Lakers took forever until they closed out Houston and took their time to close out Denver, they had better close out Oklahoma early rather than late if they know what is good for them.
Last year I think everyone knew that Houston was eventually definitely going to be defeated by LA even if it took all seven games to do it. The Lakers taking until the cows came home to beat the Rockets was as if the cat was toying with the half dead mouse before it kills the mouse once and for all. A warning to the Lakers: the Thunder are NOT mice you can play with before you kill them.
But we have to say the Lakers win this series in God only knows how many games (I’ll guess five or six).
DALLAS MAVERICKS OVER THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS
Marc Cuban spent too much money, Marc Cuban obtained too many of the right players, Marc Cuban cares too much about winning the Quest, and Jason Kidd is just too good this year for San Antonio to be able to pull this out even though, for the record, Greg Popovich is the second best coach in the NBA and is a substantially better coach than Rick Carlisle. But Dallas wins this in five or six games for and due to Cuban and in celebration of a Jason Kidd return to superstar status.
PHOENIX SUNS OVER THE PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
The Pacific Northwest basketball monster known as the Trailblazers lost superstar center (if he ever gets to play) Greg Oden for the season. But the monster came back to terrorize the West without Oden. Then they lost established star at the center position Joel Przybilla for the season. But again the monster defied know it alls including Quest for the Ring and came back for more wins and for a playoff berth. But now that monster has lost two guard superstar Brandon Roy for the playoffs.
True, they did scramble to get Marcus Camby to partially make up for the loss of Oden and Przybilla. But the loss of superstar 2-guard Brandon Roy just before the playoffs began would have to be the last nail in the coffin for Portland. You can lose only so many of your best players before its over no matter what you do. So this series will be one of those first round injury washouts: Phoenix in four or five games.
DENVER NUGGETS VERSUS THE UTAH JAZZ
We now have Team Grids that show you the matchups at a glance. The first one ever published, which is for the Denver-Utah series, follows:
Note: if you can not see a chart (spreadsheet) just below here, copy and paste the web address that you do see into your browser address bar in order to view it.
PLAYOFF SERIES GUIDE / TEAM GRIDS USER GUIDE
In general the playoff series guide / team grid system allows for quick and easy comparisons between teams. It also allows managers, coaches, or anyone else to consider changes in playing times that would improve the chances of winning the playoff series. At the same time, and just as importantly, it allows for quick flagging of coaching errors, some of which can be big enough to cost a team a playoff series.
A depth chart shows you team policy regarding who starts and who are the backups and in what order for the five positions. The grid is based on the depth chart style. However, players (other than players acquired during the season; see below) are placed into first squad, second squad, and third squad according to minutes played, not according to the latest ESPN or any other estimation of what the team policy is. Whoever has played the most minutes at a position is shown in the “1st Squad” whether or not that player starts at the position.
There is a notable exception to the rule for who goes in which squad. If a player has been acquired during the season and he is listed as the starter on the ESPN depth chart, he will be shown as first squad. Similarly, if a player acquired during the season is shown as the first backup to the starter in the depth chart he will be shown as second squad regardless of minutes. In other words, the depth chart prevails over minutes in the case of players acquired by trade during the season.
Just to the right of the “3rd Squad" you see two grey areas. From left to right the first one is for players who are probably or definitely out for much or for all of the series for some reason, usually due to injury.
The second grey shaded area is for players who could play but almost certainly will not play because they played fewer than 300 minutes during the regular season. The 300 minutes threshold is the minimum needed for a hidden defending adjustment and therefore is the minimum needed for a player to get a Real Player Rating. It also is being used here as the threshold for determining whether a player was essentially benched for the season. 300 minutes is less than four minutes a game, which is a very good dividing line for saying whether a player was benched for the season or not. You can get close to 300 minutes with just garbage time, so if you don't play at least 300 minutes, you are basically benched.
PLAYERS ACQUIRED BY TRADE
Players acquired by trade during the season who have played at least 300 minutes for their new team at the time when ratings for that team are done are treated on the grid as if they were on the team the entire season. The rating you see for them is for their new, current team minutes. The previous team rating is considered to be irrelevant for the grid.
Players acquired by trade during the season who have NOT played at least 300 minutes for their new team are either:
--Completely ignored and not shown on the grid if they did not play at least 300 minutes for the team they played for earlier in the season (regardless of whether they ever played at least 300 minutes in any year).
--They are shown as "more or less benched" if they did play at least 300 minutes for the previous team this season but not at least 300 minutes for the new, current team. The rating you see for them in the "more or less benched" column would have to be and is their rating on their previous team this season.
PLAYERS WHO HAVE NEVER PLAYED AT LEAST 300 MINUTES IN ANY SEASON
These players will not be listed even in the "benched for the season" column since no rating can be computed for them for any year and since, quite frankly, they are completely irrelevant for the playoff series at hand.
So players who are listed in the “more or less benched for the season” column are players who played at least 300 minutes during at least one NBA season. The Real Player Rating is shown for those players for the most recent year they played at least 300 minutes. What year that was is shown right next to their rating.
TEAM COMPARISONS USING THE GRID
First, you can compare specific players for any position. For example, you can see that Deron Williams was a substantially better point guard than Chauncey Billups was this year.
COMPARING TEAMS BY POSITION
By looking at the “Position Averages” column you can compare the two teams position by position. For each position, only the ratings of the 1st squad and of the 2nd squad player are considered for the position average. In other words, for each position the position average is the average rating of the two players who played that position for the most minutes. If there is only one player who played 300 minutes or more at a position, that player’s rating is the position average.
Real Player Ratings vary by position because ultimately some positions are on average more important for winning the Quest than others. We don’t have exact numbers yet but here is a rough estimate of how League average ratings will vary by position:
Point Guard .825
Center .775
Power Forward .725
Small Forward .600
Shooting Guard .575
We don't have a hard number yet, but we already know that, approximately, playoff team ratings, at least for the teams that win the first round, which would be eight teams, average out to .800. The very best teams will have ratings averaging even higher than that. So ideally, and once again with the reminder that teams can and will vary radically from the position pattern, here is a prototypical, "average" round 2 level NBA playoff team by position and by RPR:
Point Guard .925
Center .875
Power Forward .825
Small Forward .700
Shooting Guard .675
Again for emphasis: in reality many playoff teams will have at least one position where the average RPR of the two players who play it the most is greater than .925. And many will have at least one position where the average of the top two players at the position is substantially less than .675.
But Championship teams will seldom have any position where the best two players average below .675 and they sometimes will feature two positions where the average of the top two players is greater than .900.
THE SUPERSTAR COMBO GUARD STRATEGY
Sometimes the shooting guard is so good that he is effectively also the point guard to some extent and he has a much higher rating than other shooting guards and perhaps a higher rating than other point guards. Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers are a very good example. The overall 2-guard League average Real Player Rating is about .575 in the regular and .675 for the final eight teams. Kobe Bryant, of course, is well over 1.000.
One reason why having a superstar 2-guard who can take responsibility for keeping the ball moving and for being a playmaker is a very good strategy for winning the Quest is that you eliminate the common problem of leaving the 2-guard position as a weak spot in your overall lineup. In other words it is a very good way of optimizing your overall lineup, provided that the "real" point guard understands and can work with the strategy correctly.
If the "real" point guard does not understand the strategy and / or he disagrees with it, the drawback will be that to the extent you play that real point guard at the same time as your combo guard at the shooting guard position, you may have a player even less useful than a straight up mediocre 2-guard, in which case the strategy has backfired. There are several wrong ways and only a very few right ways to deploy the superstar combo guard strategy. There have been and will in the future be more Quest Reports on this very important subject.
By looking at the squad averages row you can see what the average rating of the players in that squad is for each team. By comparing the first squad with the second squad, you can see how much of a drop off there is between them. Since most of the players in the first squad are starters, this is approximately equivalent to comparing the starters and the bench. The bigger the drop off, the more minutes the starters should be playing.
SQUAD AND TEAM AVERAGES
You can also of course compare the squad averages of the two teams. If you do, you will be essentially comparing the starters as a whole and the non-starters as a whole of the two teams, although keep in mind a team may have graduated one or two second squad players to starter for the playoffs.
Finally, notice that there is a “Team Average” at the lower left for each team. This is two times the first squad average plus the second squad average divided by three. In other words, this is a weighted average of the top two squads, with the first squad counted twice and the second squad counted once, which roughly corresponds to typical playing time patterns. Players in the third squad, the injured players, and the benched players are not counted in the team average.
You can put substantial stock but not a very large amount of stock in the team average number because there are still often going to be in the second squad a player with a very low rating from time to time. How much such players play in the playoffs is dependent on how strapped the team is at the position and on how dumb the coaching is.
Often, especially on the best coached teams and on the primary contenders, a second squad player with a relatively low rating will be strategically benched during the playoffs. In general, players with ratings below .600 should play sparingly in the playoffs or not at all. Players with ratings below .500 should generally not play in the playoffs at all for any reason.
So there is a fairly large statistical error going on with the overall team average. But if you see that there is a big difference of about ..050 or more in the team averages, that would tell you that the higher team is clearly more talented than the lower.
Coming next we’ll use the Utah-Denver grid to begin to Report on this series.
The other three first round series in the West are most likely already decided. A relatively brief (for us, laugh out loud) look at them:
LOS ANGELES LAKERS OVER THE OKLAHOMA THUNDER
Even with no Andrew Bynum the Lakers are most likely too chock loaded for the Thunder to beat them. But the Lakers’ 2010 secret weakness is out: their bench is a combination of banged up players and players who are just not getting it done.
In the front court there is a huge drop-off from the Gasol-Odom-Bynum “Great Wall of Los Angeles”. If Bynum is out with an injury as he is threatening to be, the Lakers are in trouble unless Ron Artest can magically and instantly become more power forward minded. Josh Powell can successfully fill in for next to no one let alone for Gasol, Odom, or Bynum. Either all three of them play injury free, or the Lakers suddenly transform their guard crew behind Kobe Bryant to better than average, or it seems that the Lakers are doomed to lose to either the Orlando Magic or to the Cleveland Cavaliers in the 2010 Championship. Assuming they even get there: without Bynum the Lakers can relatively easily lose to the Dallas Mavericks in the West Final, who are injury free.
In the back court, Kobe Bryant can make up for only so much lame and uninspired play. Just how bad is the Lakers’ back court this year? It’s so bad that 2-guard Vujacic being out with an injury is most likely a good thing, since he was the biggest disappointment of all for the Lakers in the backcourt this year. Instead of getting better as the Lakers thought he would, Vujacic got worse from last year.
Ironically, considering the relatively sorry state of the Lakers’ reserves, the Thunder have one of the very best benches in pro basketball while Kevin Durant holds down the fort among the mediocre at best other Thunder starters. The Thunder non-starting crew has been nothing short of a miracle this year.
But if Bynum starts or if Lamar Odom starts in place of Bynum for the Lakers, Los Angeles has the best starting five in the West, which if they work their tails off will be enough to prevent the upstart Thunder from taking the series to six or seven games.
For Oklahoma, since backup center Serge Idaka is actually better than the starter Nenad Kristic, Thunder fans should probably hope that he gets more minutes due to a Kristic bruised right knee.
The Thunder can and will run the Lakers right out of the gym in a game whenever the Lakers think that talent alone will give them the game and the series, because the Thunder are younger and can run faster, because the Thunder and not the Lakers are more talented outside of the starting five, and because the Thunder and not the Lakers have the 2009-10 regular season top scorer (Kevin Durant). So unlike last year when the Lakers took forever until they closed out Houston and took their time to close out Denver, they had better close out Oklahoma early rather than late if they know what is good for them.
Last year I think everyone knew that Houston was eventually definitely going to be defeated by LA even if it took all seven games to do it. The Lakers taking until the cows came home to beat the Rockets was as if the cat was toying with the half dead mouse before it kills the mouse once and for all. A warning to the Lakers: the Thunder are NOT mice you can play with before you kill them.
But we have to say the Lakers win this series in God only knows how many games (I’ll guess five or six).
DALLAS MAVERICKS OVER THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS
Marc Cuban spent too much money, Marc Cuban obtained too many of the right players, Marc Cuban cares too much about winning the Quest, and Jason Kidd is just too good this year for San Antonio to be able to pull this out even though, for the record, Greg Popovich is the second best coach in the NBA and is a substantially better coach than Rick Carlisle. But Dallas wins this in five or six games for and due to Cuban and in celebration of a Jason Kidd return to superstar status.
PHOENIX SUNS OVER THE PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
The Pacific Northwest basketball monster known as the Trailblazers lost superstar center (if he ever gets to play) Greg Oden for the season. But the monster came back to terrorize the West without Oden. Then they lost established star at the center position Joel Przybilla for the season. But again the monster defied know it alls including Quest for the Ring and came back for more wins and for a playoff berth. But now that monster has lost two guard superstar Brandon Roy for the playoffs.
True, they did scramble to get Marcus Camby to partially make up for the loss of Oden and Przybilla. But the loss of superstar 2-guard Brandon Roy just before the playoffs began would have to be the last nail in the coffin for Portland. You can lose only so many of your best players before its over no matter what you do. So this series will be one of those first round injury washouts: Phoenix in four or five games.
DENVER NUGGETS VERSUS THE UTAH JAZZ
We now have Team Grids that show you the matchups at a glance. The first one ever published, which is for the Denver-Utah series, follows:
Note: if you can not see a chart (spreadsheet) just below here, copy and paste the web address that you do see into your browser address bar in order to view it.
PLAYOFF SERIES GUIDE / TEAM GRIDS USER GUIDE
In general the playoff series guide / team grid system allows for quick and easy comparisons between teams. It also allows managers, coaches, or anyone else to consider changes in playing times that would improve the chances of winning the playoff series. At the same time, and just as importantly, it allows for quick flagging of coaching errors, some of which can be big enough to cost a team a playoff series.
A depth chart shows you team policy regarding who starts and who are the backups and in what order for the five positions. The grid is based on the depth chart style. However, players (other than players acquired during the season; see below) are placed into first squad, second squad, and third squad according to minutes played, not according to the latest ESPN or any other estimation of what the team policy is. Whoever has played the most minutes at a position is shown in the “1st Squad” whether or not that player starts at the position.
There is a notable exception to the rule for who goes in which squad. If a player has been acquired during the season and he is listed as the starter on the ESPN depth chart, he will be shown as first squad. Similarly, if a player acquired during the season is shown as the first backup to the starter in the depth chart he will be shown as second squad regardless of minutes. In other words, the depth chart prevails over minutes in the case of players acquired by trade during the season.
Just to the right of the “3rd Squad" you see two grey areas. From left to right the first one is for players who are probably or definitely out for much or for all of the series for some reason, usually due to injury.
The second grey shaded area is for players who could play but almost certainly will not play because they played fewer than 300 minutes during the regular season. The 300 minutes threshold is the minimum needed for a hidden defending adjustment and therefore is the minimum needed for a player to get a Real Player Rating. It also is being used here as the threshold for determining whether a player was essentially benched for the season. 300 minutes is less than four minutes a game, which is a very good dividing line for saying whether a player was benched for the season or not. You can get close to 300 minutes with just garbage time, so if you don't play at least 300 minutes, you are basically benched.
PLAYERS ACQUIRED BY TRADE
Players acquired by trade during the season who have played at least 300 minutes for their new team at the time when ratings for that team are done are treated on the grid as if they were on the team the entire season. The rating you see for them is for their new, current team minutes. The previous team rating is considered to be irrelevant for the grid.
Players acquired by trade during the season who have NOT played at least 300 minutes for their new team are either:
--Completely ignored and not shown on the grid if they did not play at least 300 minutes for the team they played for earlier in the season (regardless of whether they ever played at least 300 minutes in any year).
--They are shown as "more or less benched" if they did play at least 300 minutes for the previous team this season but not at least 300 minutes for the new, current team. The rating you see for them in the "more or less benched" column would have to be and is their rating on their previous team this season.
PLAYERS WHO HAVE NEVER PLAYED AT LEAST 300 MINUTES IN ANY SEASON
These players will not be listed even in the "benched for the season" column since no rating can be computed for them for any year and since, quite frankly, they are completely irrelevant for the playoff series at hand.
So players who are listed in the “more or less benched for the season” column are players who played at least 300 minutes during at least one NBA season. The Real Player Rating is shown for those players for the most recent year they played at least 300 minutes. What year that was is shown right next to their rating.
TEAM COMPARISONS USING THE GRID
First, you can compare specific players for any position. For example, you can see that Deron Williams was a substantially better point guard than Chauncey Billups was this year.
COMPARING TEAMS BY POSITION
By looking at the “Position Averages” column you can compare the two teams position by position. For each position, only the ratings of the 1st squad and of the 2nd squad player are considered for the position average. In other words, for each position the position average is the average rating of the two players who played that position for the most minutes. If there is only one player who played 300 minutes or more at a position, that player’s rating is the position average.
Real Player Ratings vary by position because ultimately some positions are on average more important for winning the Quest than others. We don’t have exact numbers yet but here is a rough estimate of how League average ratings will vary by position:
Point Guard .825
Center .775
Power Forward .725
Small Forward .600
Shooting Guard .575
We don't have a hard number yet, but we already know that, approximately, playoff team ratings, at least for the teams that win the first round, which would be eight teams, average out to .800. The very best teams will have ratings averaging even higher than that. So ideally, and once again with the reminder that teams can and will vary radically from the position pattern, here is a prototypical, "average" round 2 level NBA playoff team by position and by RPR:
Point Guard .925
Center .875
Power Forward .825
Small Forward .700
Shooting Guard .675
Again for emphasis: in reality many playoff teams will have at least one position where the average RPR of the two players who play it the most is greater than .925. And many will have at least one position where the average of the top two players at the position is substantially less than .675.
But Championship teams will seldom have any position where the best two players average below .675 and they sometimes will feature two positions where the average of the top two players is greater than .900.
THE SUPERSTAR COMBO GUARD STRATEGY
Sometimes the shooting guard is so good that he is effectively also the point guard to some extent and he has a much higher rating than other shooting guards and perhaps a higher rating than other point guards. Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers are a very good example. The overall 2-guard League average Real Player Rating is about .575 in the regular and .675 for the final eight teams. Kobe Bryant, of course, is well over 1.000.
One reason why having a superstar 2-guard who can take responsibility for keeping the ball moving and for being a playmaker is a very good strategy for winning the Quest is that you eliminate the common problem of leaving the 2-guard position as a weak spot in your overall lineup. In other words it is a very good way of optimizing your overall lineup, provided that the "real" point guard understands and can work with the strategy correctly.
If the "real" point guard does not understand the strategy and / or he disagrees with it, the drawback will be that to the extent you play that real point guard at the same time as your combo guard at the shooting guard position, you may have a player even less useful than a straight up mediocre 2-guard, in which case the strategy has backfired. There are several wrong ways and only a very few right ways to deploy the superstar combo guard strategy. There have been and will in the future be more Quest Reports on this very important subject.
By looking at the squad averages row you can see what the average rating of the players in that squad is for each team. By comparing the first squad with the second squad, you can see how much of a drop off there is between them. Since most of the players in the first squad are starters, this is approximately equivalent to comparing the starters and the bench. The bigger the drop off, the more minutes the starters should be playing.
SQUAD AND TEAM AVERAGES
You can also of course compare the squad averages of the two teams. If you do, you will be essentially comparing the starters as a whole and the non-starters as a whole of the two teams, although keep in mind a team may have graduated one or two second squad players to starter for the playoffs.
Finally, notice that there is a “Team Average” at the lower left for each team. This is two times the first squad average plus the second squad average divided by three. In other words, this is a weighted average of the top two squads, with the first squad counted twice and the second squad counted once, which roughly corresponds to typical playing time patterns. Players in the third squad, the injured players, and the benched players are not counted in the team average.
You can put substantial stock but not a very large amount of stock in the team average number because there are still often going to be in the second squad a player with a very low rating from time to time. How much such players play in the playoffs is dependent on how strapped the team is at the position and on how dumb the coaching is.
Often, especially on the best coached teams and on the primary contenders, a second squad player with a relatively low rating will be strategically benched during the playoffs. In general, players with ratings below .600 should play sparingly in the playoffs or not at all. Players with ratings below .500 should generally not play in the playoffs at all for any reason.
So there is a fairly large statistical error going on with the overall team average. But if you see that there is a big difference of about ..050 or more in the team averages, that would tell you that the higher team is clearly more talented than the lower.
Coming next we’ll use the Utah-Denver grid to begin to Report on this series.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Real Team Ratings: Final Ratings for 2009-10
REAL TEAM RATINGS
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
1 Orlando Magic 64.99
2 Cleveland Cavaliers 64.64
3 Los Angeles Lakers 43.40
4 Dallas Mavericks 40.73
5 Utah Jazz 39.60
6 San Antonio Spurs 36.35
7 Denver Nuggets 35.88
8 Atlanta Hawks 35.49
9 Portland Trail Blazers 34.58
10 Phoenix Suns 33.64
11 Oklahoma City Thunder 29.74
12 Boston Celtics 27.35
13 Charlotte Bobcats 25.60
14 Miami Heat 23.85
15 Milwaukee Bucks 23.14
16 Houston Rockets -2.28
17 Chicago Bulls -6.27
18 Memphis Grizzlies -9.10
19 New Orleans Hornets -21.78
20 Indiana Pacers -26.95
21 Toronto Raptors -28.46
22 New York Knicks -36.08
23 Philadelphia 76ers -41.57
24 Washington Wizards -43.41
25 Detroit Pistons -45.43
26 Golden State Warriors -45.67
27 Sacramento Kings -47.38
28 Los Angeles Clippers -49.70
29 New Jersey Nets -68.78
30 Minnesota Timberwolves -80.45
========== REAL TEAM SUB RATINGS ==========
The following are the five sub ratings comprising Real Team Ratings (RTR) in order of importance. The sum of any team's five sub ratings equals that team's RTR.
EFFICIENCY SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
Orlando Magic 24.60
Cleveland Cavaliers 21.30
Utah Jazz 17.10
San Antonio Spurs 16.50
Los Angeles Lakers 15.30
Atlanta Hawks 15.30
Phoenix Suns 15.30
Denver Nuggets 13.80
Boston Celtics 11.70
Portland Trail Blazers 11.10
Oklahoma City Thunder 11.10
Dallas Mavericks 9.00
Miami Heat 7.50
Milwaukee Bucks 5.40
Charlotte Bobcats 4.80
Houston Rockets -1.20
Memphis Grizzlies -4.80
Chicago Bulls -5.40
Toronto Raptors -5.70
New Orleans Hornets -7.80
Indiana Pacers -9.30
Golden State Warriors -10.50
New York Knicks -12.00
Philadelphia 76ers -12.60
Sacramento Kings -13.50
Washington Wizards -15.60
Detroit Pistons -17.40
Los Angeles Clippers -20.40
New Jersey Nets -30.00
Minnesota Timberwolves -30.00
PERFORMANCE VERSUS THE GOOD AND VERSUS THE BEST TEAMS SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
Cleveland Cavaliers 24.74
Orlando Magic 21.89
Denver Nuggets 19.38
Dallas Mavericks 19.03
Los Angeles Lakers 16.80
Utah Jazz 12.60
Atlanta Hawks 11.89
Portland Trail Blazers 11.38
Phoenix Suns 10.64
Charlotte Bobcats 7.90
Oklahoma City Thunder 7.74
Boston Celtics 7.15
San Antonio Spurs 7.05
Houston Rockets 2.22
Chicago Bulls 1.03
Miami Heat -0.55
Milwaukee Bucks -1.46
Memphis Grizzlies -2.40
New Orleans Hornets -2.78
Toronto Raptors -9.26
New York Knicks -10.58
Detroit Pistons -11.53
Indiana Pacers -12.55
Washington Wizards -13.11
Los Angeles Clippers -13.70
Philadelphia 76ers -13.87
Sacramento Kings -17.78
Golden State Warriors -19.87
Minnesota Timberwolves -22.15
New Jersey Nets -25.78
MOST RECENT GAMES SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
--Over weights the most recent performance, from the most recent 25 games.
--Reflects momentum, playoff motivation, and morale.
--Substantially but indirectly and inexactly reflects the current injury situations.
--Partially, indirectly, and inexactly reflects the likelihood that coaching strategies and tactics will work or not in the playoffs.
--The last five games of the Regular Season are ignored due to playoff coaches resting key players and due to other distortions.
1 Orlando Magic 13
2 Cleveland Cavaliers 13
3 Phoenix Suns 13
4 Milwaukee Bucks 13
5 Dallas Mavericks 11
6 Miami Heat 11
7 Utah Jazz 9
8 San Antonio Spurs 9
9 Portland Trail Blazers 9
10 Oklahoma City Thunder 9
11 Los Angeles Lakers 7
12 Denver Nuggets 5
13 Atlanta Hawks 5
14 Charlotte Bobcats 5
15 Boston Celtics 3
16 Memphis Grizzlies 1
17 Houston Rockets -1
18 Chicago Bulls -3
19 Indiana Pacers -3
20 Toronto Raptors -7
21 New York Knicks -7
22 Golden State Warriors -7
23 New Orleans Hornets -9
24 New Jersey Nets -11
25 Philadelphia 76ers -13
26 Sacramento Kings -13
27 Los Angeles Clippers -13
28 Washington Wizards -15
29 Detroit Pistons -15
30 Minnesota Timberwolves -21
DEFENSIVE ADJUSTMENT SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
-The defensive overweight adjustment is a small but valid adjustment that slightly modifies the ratings of teams according to where they rank defensively (the better the defense, the better for the playoffs).
-Aside from being a sub rating, this shows you how the NBA teams ranked defensively this year.
1 Charlotte Bobcats 5.80
2 Milwaukee Bucks 5.40
3 Orlando Magic 5.00
4 Los Angeles Lakers 4.60
5 Boston Celtics 4.20
6 Cleveland Cavaliers 3.80
7 Miami Heat 3.40
8 San Antonio Spurs 3.00
9 Oklahoma City Thunder 2.60
10 Utah Jazz 2.20
11 Chicago Bulls 1.80
12 Dallas Mavericks 1.40
13 Atlanta Hawks 1.00
14 Indiana Pacers 0.60
15 Portland Trail Blazers 0.20
16 Denver Nuggets -0.20
17 Houston Rockets -0.60
18 Washington Wizards -1.00
19 Sacramento Kings -1.40
20 Memphis Grizzlies -1.80
21 New Orleans Hornets -2.20
22 Los Angeles Clippers -2.60
23 Phoenix Suns -3.00
24 Philadelphia 76ers -3.40
25 New Jersey Nets -3.80
26 Detroit Pistons -4.20
27 New York Knicks -4.80
28 Minnesota Timberwolves -4.80
29 Golden State Warriors -5.40
30 Toronto Raptors -5.80
PACE ADJUSTMENT SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
-The pace adjustment is a very small but valid adjustment that very slightly modifies the ratings of teams according to pace (the slower the pace, the better for the playoffs).
1 Portland Trail Blazers 2.90
2 Detroit Pistons 2.70
3 Miami Heat 2.50
4 Atlanta Hawks 2.30
5 Charlotte Bobcats 2.10
6 Cleveland Cavaliers 1.80
7 New Jersey Nets 1.80
8 Boston Celtics 1.30
9 Philadelphia 76ers 1.30
10 Washington Wizards 1.30
11 San Antonio Spurs 0.80
12 Milwaukee Bucks 0.80
13 Orlando Magic 0.50
14 Dallas Mavericks 0.30
15 New Orleans Hornets 0.00
16 Los Angeles Clippers 0.00
17 Los Angeles Lakers -0.30
18 Oklahoma City Thunder -0.70
19 Chicago Bulls -0.70
20 Toronto Raptors -0.70
21 Memphis Grizzlies -1.10
22 Utah Jazz -1.30
23 Houston Rockets -1.70
24 New York Knicks -1.70
25 Sacramento Kings -1.70
26 Denver Nuggets -2.10
27 Phoenix Suns -2.30
28 Minnesota Timberwolves -2.50
29 Indiana Pacers -2.70
30 Golden State Warriors -2.90
========== USER GUIDE ==========
Below are some key excerpts from the full User Guide. But see this User Guide article for full details about the revamped Real Team Ratings system.
USER GUIDE EXCERPTS
The Real Team Ratings system was substantially improved in April 2010 effective with this Report. The biggest change and improvement is a new factor that reflects recent performance (in about the last two months). This gets at several previously ignored items that will determine who will win and lose in playoffs, including:
-Momentum and morale
-Coaching strategies and tactics that have finally produced good (or bad) results
-New players acquired for the stretch run on the regular season and for the playoffs.
-Injuries that have occurred within the last couple of months or so and that may be carrying over into the playoffs.
See the User Guide for full details about the new Real Team Ratings system. The Guide will be extensively revised in the very near future. After it is revised, a link to it will be installed right here.
INTERPRETING RTR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEAMS / PREDICTING PLAYOFF SERIES
NOTES
(1) This is an excerpt from the User Guide for Real Team Ratings, which is being revised, as explained above.
(2) Injury adjustments for injuries occurring within the last month or so can not be and are not completely accounted for. For larger differences between teams (greater than 25-30 RTR points) the higher rated team would generally have to have injury problems in order to lose. The probabilities mentioned below reflect the injury wild card factor about as much as they do all other uncertain factors combined.
(3) For playoff series predicting, add six points to the rating of the team that has home court advantage.
QUICK PLAYOFF SERIES PREDICTION SCALE
After you have added six points to the RTR of the team with home court advantage, calculate the difference between the two RTRs. Then find the range in which that difference is below and then you can see the probability that the series will be won by the higher team.
0 to 5.9 Complete toss-up: flip a coin
6 to 11.9 Roughly 60% chance the higher team will win
12 to 17.9 Roughly 70% chance the higher team will win
18 to 23.9 Roughly 80% chance the higher team will win
24 to 29.9 Roughly 89% chance the higher team will win
30 to 35.9 Roughly 95% chance the higher team will win
36 to 41.9 Roughly 98% chance the higher team will win
42 to 47.9 Roughly 99% chance the higher team will win
48 or more Roughly 100% chance the higher team will win
DETAILED GUIDE TO INTERPRETATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IN REAL TEAM RATINGS
NOTES
(1) This is an excerpt from the User Guide for Real Team Ratings, which is being revised, as explained above.
(2) In the detailed interpretaton guide that follows, the word "roughly" is repeatedly used in front of the probability numbers, as a reminder about the small amount of unavoidable statistical error, and to emphasize that unknown factors, especially injuries, will in some cases result in substantially different actual probabilities.
(3) For playoff series predicting, add six points to the rating of the team that has home court advantage.
The probability percentages are based on the historical results in the NBA.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 0 AND 5.9
The series is a complete toss-up, when statistical error is considered. There is a strong possibility of a 7 game series. The higher team has a 50% to 55% chance of winning, depending on what exactly the difference is. These probabilities are too low for anyone to have any confidence in using RTR to say who will win. All series of this type are decided quite simply by who plays better, by who coaches better, or both.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 6.0 AND 11.9
The series can easily go either way, although the higher team has a small edge, and has between a 55% to 65% chance of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. There is a very substantial chance of a 7-game series. If the lower team wins, it is a small upset. Either slight differences in the quality of coaching, certain players playing a little better or a little worse than they did in the regular season, or both, could be responsible for an upset at this level.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 12.0 AND 17.9
The series can go either way, and this type of difference gives a significant chance for a 7-game series. But the higher team has a clear edge. The higher team has between a 65% and a 75% probability of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. If the lower team wins, it is a moderate upset. Either slight differences in the quality of coaching, certain players playing a little better or a little worse than they did in the regular season, or both, could be responsible for an upset at this level.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 18.0 AND 23.9
The higher team has roughly between a 75% to 85% probability of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. There is a chance, but only a small one, for a 7-game series. If the lower team wins, it is a fairly big upset. Either coaches, certain players, or both could be responsible for an upset at this level.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 24.0 AND 29.9
The higher team has roughly between an 85% to a 93% probability of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. In this kind of series, often the only way the lower team can win the series is by extending the series out to 7 games and then somehow winning the 7th game, thus taking the series 4 games to 3. However, it is not uncommon, assuming there is an upset in this type of series, for the lower team to so severly disrupt the favored team that the lower team upsets the higher, favored team 4 games to 2. Whichever way it does it, if the lower team does win coming in down by this amount, it should be considered a major upset. In many such cases, the coaching would have to be very wrong and/or negligent.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 30.0 AND 35.9
The higher team has roughly between a 93% and a 97% probability of winning. depending on where in the range the difference is. In this kind of series, often the only way the lower team can win the series is by taking the series 7 games and winning the 7th game, thus taking the series 4 games to 3. However, there have been a tiny number of series where a team with this amount of a RTR deficit has won the series by so severly disrupting the favored team that it is able to win the series 4 games to 2. In the vast majority of such cases, the coaching for the higher team was severely wrong and/or negligent. Whether accomplished in 6 games or 7, the lower team winning despite being this far behind in RTR is extremely rare, and would be considered a very major and very surprising upset.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 36.0 AND 41.9
The higher team has roughly between a 97% and a 99% probability of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. Obviously, an upset would be extremely rare, shocking, and historical. It would in most cases be caused substantially by incompetent and/or severely negligent coaching or by one or more major injuries. With this amount of difference, any upset would almost certainly have to be with the series going all seven games.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS 42.0 AND 47.9
The higher team has a roughly 99% probability of winning the series. Obviously, an upset would be extremely rare, shocking, and historical. It would in most cases be caused substantially by incompetent and/or severely negligent coaching or by one or more major injuries. With this amount of difference, any upset would almost certainly have to be with the series going all seven games.
DEFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS 48.0 OR MORE
It is close to a 100% certainty that the higher team will win the series. Obviously, an upset would be extremely rare, shocking, and historical. It would in the vast majority of cases be caused substantially by incompetent and/or severely negligent coaching. With this amount of difference, any upset would almost certainly have to be with the series going all seven games.
COMPLETE USER GUIDE
Above are only excerpts from the full User Guide. See this User Guide article for full details about the revamped Real Team Ratings system.
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
1 Orlando Magic 64.99
2 Cleveland Cavaliers 64.64
3 Los Angeles Lakers 43.40
4 Dallas Mavericks 40.73
5 Utah Jazz 39.60
6 San Antonio Spurs 36.35
7 Denver Nuggets 35.88
8 Atlanta Hawks 35.49
9 Portland Trail Blazers 34.58
10 Phoenix Suns 33.64
11 Oklahoma City Thunder 29.74
12 Boston Celtics 27.35
13 Charlotte Bobcats 25.60
14 Miami Heat 23.85
15 Milwaukee Bucks 23.14
16 Houston Rockets -2.28
17 Chicago Bulls -6.27
18 Memphis Grizzlies -9.10
19 New Orleans Hornets -21.78
20 Indiana Pacers -26.95
21 Toronto Raptors -28.46
22 New York Knicks -36.08
23 Philadelphia 76ers -41.57
24 Washington Wizards -43.41
25 Detroit Pistons -45.43
26 Golden State Warriors -45.67
27 Sacramento Kings -47.38
28 Los Angeles Clippers -49.70
29 New Jersey Nets -68.78
30 Minnesota Timberwolves -80.45
========== REAL TEAM SUB RATINGS ==========
The following are the five sub ratings comprising Real Team Ratings (RTR) in order of importance. The sum of any team's five sub ratings equals that team's RTR.
EFFICIENCY SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
Orlando Magic 24.60
Cleveland Cavaliers 21.30
Utah Jazz 17.10
San Antonio Spurs 16.50
Los Angeles Lakers 15.30
Atlanta Hawks 15.30
Phoenix Suns 15.30
Denver Nuggets 13.80
Boston Celtics 11.70
Portland Trail Blazers 11.10
Oklahoma City Thunder 11.10
Dallas Mavericks 9.00
Miami Heat 7.50
Milwaukee Bucks 5.40
Charlotte Bobcats 4.80
Houston Rockets -1.20
Memphis Grizzlies -4.80
Chicago Bulls -5.40
Toronto Raptors -5.70
New Orleans Hornets -7.80
Indiana Pacers -9.30
Golden State Warriors -10.50
New York Knicks -12.00
Philadelphia 76ers -12.60
Sacramento Kings -13.50
Washington Wizards -15.60
Detroit Pistons -17.40
Los Angeles Clippers -20.40
New Jersey Nets -30.00
Minnesota Timberwolves -30.00
PERFORMANCE VERSUS THE GOOD AND VERSUS THE BEST TEAMS SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
Cleveland Cavaliers 24.74
Orlando Magic 21.89
Denver Nuggets 19.38
Dallas Mavericks 19.03
Los Angeles Lakers 16.80
Utah Jazz 12.60
Atlanta Hawks 11.89
Portland Trail Blazers 11.38
Phoenix Suns 10.64
Charlotte Bobcats 7.90
Oklahoma City Thunder 7.74
Boston Celtics 7.15
San Antonio Spurs 7.05
Houston Rockets 2.22
Chicago Bulls 1.03
Miami Heat -0.55
Milwaukee Bucks -1.46
Memphis Grizzlies -2.40
New Orleans Hornets -2.78
Toronto Raptors -9.26
New York Knicks -10.58
Detroit Pistons -11.53
Indiana Pacers -12.55
Washington Wizards -13.11
Los Angeles Clippers -13.70
Philadelphia 76ers -13.87
Sacramento Kings -17.78
Golden State Warriors -19.87
Minnesota Timberwolves -22.15
New Jersey Nets -25.78
MOST RECENT GAMES SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
--Over weights the most recent performance, from the most recent 25 games.
--Reflects momentum, playoff motivation, and morale.
--Substantially but indirectly and inexactly reflects the current injury situations.
--Partially, indirectly, and inexactly reflects the likelihood that coaching strategies and tactics will work or not in the playoffs.
--The last five games of the Regular Season are ignored due to playoff coaches resting key players and due to other distortions.
1 Orlando Magic 13
2 Cleveland Cavaliers 13
3 Phoenix Suns 13
4 Milwaukee Bucks 13
5 Dallas Mavericks 11
6 Miami Heat 11
7 Utah Jazz 9
8 San Antonio Spurs 9
9 Portland Trail Blazers 9
10 Oklahoma City Thunder 9
11 Los Angeles Lakers 7
12 Denver Nuggets 5
13 Atlanta Hawks 5
14 Charlotte Bobcats 5
15 Boston Celtics 3
16 Memphis Grizzlies 1
17 Houston Rockets -1
18 Chicago Bulls -3
19 Indiana Pacers -3
20 Toronto Raptors -7
21 New York Knicks -7
22 Golden State Warriors -7
23 New Orleans Hornets -9
24 New Jersey Nets -11
25 Philadelphia 76ers -13
26 Sacramento Kings -13
27 Los Angeles Clippers -13
28 Washington Wizards -15
29 Detroit Pistons -15
30 Minnesota Timberwolves -21
DEFENSIVE ADJUSTMENT SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
-The defensive overweight adjustment is a small but valid adjustment that slightly modifies the ratings of teams according to where they rank defensively (the better the defense, the better for the playoffs).
-Aside from being a sub rating, this shows you how the NBA teams ranked defensively this year.
1 Charlotte Bobcats 5.80
2 Milwaukee Bucks 5.40
3 Orlando Magic 5.00
4 Los Angeles Lakers 4.60
5 Boston Celtics 4.20
6 Cleveland Cavaliers 3.80
7 Miami Heat 3.40
8 San Antonio Spurs 3.00
9 Oklahoma City Thunder 2.60
10 Utah Jazz 2.20
11 Chicago Bulls 1.80
12 Dallas Mavericks 1.40
13 Atlanta Hawks 1.00
14 Indiana Pacers 0.60
15 Portland Trail Blazers 0.20
16 Denver Nuggets -0.20
17 Houston Rockets -0.60
18 Washington Wizards -1.00
19 Sacramento Kings -1.40
20 Memphis Grizzlies -1.80
21 New Orleans Hornets -2.20
22 Los Angeles Clippers -2.60
23 Phoenix Suns -3.00
24 Philadelphia 76ers -3.40
25 New Jersey Nets -3.80
26 Detroit Pistons -4.20
27 New York Knicks -4.80
28 Minnesota Timberwolves -4.80
29 Golden State Warriors -5.40
30 Toronto Raptors -5.80
PACE ADJUSTMENT SUB RATING
2009-10 Season
Final End of Season Ratings
-The pace adjustment is a very small but valid adjustment that very slightly modifies the ratings of teams according to pace (the slower the pace, the better for the playoffs).
1 Portland Trail Blazers 2.90
2 Detroit Pistons 2.70
3 Miami Heat 2.50
4 Atlanta Hawks 2.30
5 Charlotte Bobcats 2.10
6 Cleveland Cavaliers 1.80
7 New Jersey Nets 1.80
8 Boston Celtics 1.30
9 Philadelphia 76ers 1.30
10 Washington Wizards 1.30
11 San Antonio Spurs 0.80
12 Milwaukee Bucks 0.80
13 Orlando Magic 0.50
14 Dallas Mavericks 0.30
15 New Orleans Hornets 0.00
16 Los Angeles Clippers 0.00
17 Los Angeles Lakers -0.30
18 Oklahoma City Thunder -0.70
19 Chicago Bulls -0.70
20 Toronto Raptors -0.70
21 Memphis Grizzlies -1.10
22 Utah Jazz -1.30
23 Houston Rockets -1.70
24 New York Knicks -1.70
25 Sacramento Kings -1.70
26 Denver Nuggets -2.10
27 Phoenix Suns -2.30
28 Minnesota Timberwolves -2.50
29 Indiana Pacers -2.70
30 Golden State Warriors -2.90
========== USER GUIDE ==========
Below are some key excerpts from the full User Guide. But see this User Guide article for full details about the revamped Real Team Ratings system.
USER GUIDE EXCERPTS
The Real Team Ratings system was substantially improved in April 2010 effective with this Report. The biggest change and improvement is a new factor that reflects recent performance (in about the last two months). This gets at several previously ignored items that will determine who will win and lose in playoffs, including:
-Momentum and morale
-Coaching strategies and tactics that have finally produced good (or bad) results
-New players acquired for the stretch run on the regular season and for the playoffs.
-Injuries that have occurred within the last couple of months or so and that may be carrying over into the playoffs.
See the User Guide for full details about the new Real Team Ratings system. The Guide will be extensively revised in the very near future. After it is revised, a link to it will be installed right here.
INTERPRETING RTR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEAMS / PREDICTING PLAYOFF SERIES
NOTES
(1) This is an excerpt from the User Guide for Real Team Ratings, which is being revised, as explained above.
(2) Injury adjustments for injuries occurring within the last month or so can not be and are not completely accounted for. For larger differences between teams (greater than 25-30 RTR points) the higher rated team would generally have to have injury problems in order to lose. The probabilities mentioned below reflect the injury wild card factor about as much as they do all other uncertain factors combined.
(3) For playoff series predicting, add six points to the rating of the team that has home court advantage.
QUICK PLAYOFF SERIES PREDICTION SCALE
After you have added six points to the RTR of the team with home court advantage, calculate the difference between the two RTRs. Then find the range in which that difference is below and then you can see the probability that the series will be won by the higher team.
0 to 5.9 Complete toss-up: flip a coin
6 to 11.9 Roughly 60% chance the higher team will win
12 to 17.9 Roughly 70% chance the higher team will win
18 to 23.9 Roughly 80% chance the higher team will win
24 to 29.9 Roughly 89% chance the higher team will win
30 to 35.9 Roughly 95% chance the higher team will win
36 to 41.9 Roughly 98% chance the higher team will win
42 to 47.9 Roughly 99% chance the higher team will win
48 or more Roughly 100% chance the higher team will win
DETAILED GUIDE TO INTERPRETATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IN REAL TEAM RATINGS
NOTES
(1) This is an excerpt from the User Guide for Real Team Ratings, which is being revised, as explained above.
(2) In the detailed interpretaton guide that follows, the word "roughly" is repeatedly used in front of the probability numbers, as a reminder about the small amount of unavoidable statistical error, and to emphasize that unknown factors, especially injuries, will in some cases result in substantially different actual probabilities.
(3) For playoff series predicting, add six points to the rating of the team that has home court advantage.
The probability percentages are based on the historical results in the NBA.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 0 AND 5.9
The series is a complete toss-up, when statistical error is considered. There is a strong possibility of a 7 game series. The higher team has a 50% to 55% chance of winning, depending on what exactly the difference is. These probabilities are too low for anyone to have any confidence in using RTR to say who will win. All series of this type are decided quite simply by who plays better, by who coaches better, or both.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 6.0 AND 11.9
The series can easily go either way, although the higher team has a small edge, and has between a 55% to 65% chance of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. There is a very substantial chance of a 7-game series. If the lower team wins, it is a small upset. Either slight differences in the quality of coaching, certain players playing a little better or a little worse than they did in the regular season, or both, could be responsible for an upset at this level.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 12.0 AND 17.9
The series can go either way, and this type of difference gives a significant chance for a 7-game series. But the higher team has a clear edge. The higher team has between a 65% and a 75% probability of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. If the lower team wins, it is a moderate upset. Either slight differences in the quality of coaching, certain players playing a little better or a little worse than they did in the regular season, or both, could be responsible for an upset at this level.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 18.0 AND 23.9
The higher team has roughly between a 75% to 85% probability of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. There is a chance, but only a small one, for a 7-game series. If the lower team wins, it is a fairly big upset. Either coaches, certain players, or both could be responsible for an upset at this level.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 24.0 AND 29.9
The higher team has roughly between an 85% to a 93% probability of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. In this kind of series, often the only way the lower team can win the series is by extending the series out to 7 games and then somehow winning the 7th game, thus taking the series 4 games to 3. However, it is not uncommon, assuming there is an upset in this type of series, for the lower team to so severly disrupt the favored team that the lower team upsets the higher, favored team 4 games to 2. Whichever way it does it, if the lower team does win coming in down by this amount, it should be considered a major upset. In many such cases, the coaching would have to be very wrong and/or negligent.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 30.0 AND 35.9
The higher team has roughly between a 93% and a 97% probability of winning. depending on where in the range the difference is. In this kind of series, often the only way the lower team can win the series is by taking the series 7 games and winning the 7th game, thus taking the series 4 games to 3. However, there have been a tiny number of series where a team with this amount of a RTR deficit has won the series by so severly disrupting the favored team that it is able to win the series 4 games to 2. In the vast majority of such cases, the coaching for the higher team was severely wrong and/or negligent. Whether accomplished in 6 games or 7, the lower team winning despite being this far behind in RTR is extremely rare, and would be considered a very major and very surprising upset.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS BETWEEN 36.0 AND 41.9
The higher team has roughly between a 97% and a 99% probability of winning, depending on where in the range the difference is. Obviously, an upset would be extremely rare, shocking, and historical. It would in most cases be caused substantially by incompetent and/or severely negligent coaching or by one or more major injuries. With this amount of difference, any upset would almost certainly have to be with the series going all seven games.
DIFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS 42.0 AND 47.9
The higher team has a roughly 99% probability of winning the series. Obviously, an upset would be extremely rare, shocking, and historical. It would in most cases be caused substantially by incompetent and/or severely negligent coaching or by one or more major injuries. With this amount of difference, any upset would almost certainly have to be with the series going all seven games.
DEFFERENCE IN RATINGS IS 48.0 OR MORE
It is close to a 100% certainty that the higher team will win the series. Obviously, an upset would be extremely rare, shocking, and historical. It would in the vast majority of cases be caused substantially by incompetent and/or severely negligent coaching. With this amount of difference, any upset would almost certainly have to be with the series going all seven games.
COMPLETE USER GUIDE
Above are only excerpts from the full User Guide. See this User Guide article for full details about the revamped Real Team Ratings system.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Toronto Raptors Real Player Ratings as of April 10, 2010
TORONTO RAPTORS
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 10
Congratulations and respect are due to CHRIS BOSH, who is leading the Raptors in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to CHRIS BOSH, who has contributed more than any other player to the Raptors so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
SUPER STARS
CHRIS BOSH
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
None
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
Amir Johnson
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
None
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Jose Calderon
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Amir Johnson
TORONTO RAPTORS
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Chris Bosh 0.978
Jose Calderon 0.800
Amir Johnson 0.783
Jarrett Jack 0.697
Rasho Nesterovic 0.649
Hedo Turkoglu 0.631
Marco Belinelli 0.597
Andrea Bargnani 0.582
Sonny Weems 0.534
Antoine Wright 0.457
DeMar DeRozan 0.409
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
TORONTO RAPTORS
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Chris Bosh 2471.35
Andrea Bargnani 1564.85
Jarrett Jack 1511.47
Jose Calderon 1398.53
Hedo Turkoglu 1387.58
Amir Johnson 1060.76
Sonny Weems 670.72
DeMar DeRozan 649.00
Antoine Wright 636.61
Marco Belinelli 632.15
Rasho Nesterovic 261.04
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
TORONTO RAPTORS
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Jose Calderon 0.675
Chris Bosh 0.598
Jarrett Jack 0.577
Rasho Nesterovic 0.478
Hedo Turkoglu 0.440
Amir Johnson 0.385
Andrea Bargnani 0.379
Sonny Weems 0.368
Marco Belinelli 0.365
DeMar DeRozan 0.314
Antoine Wright 0.256
TORONTO RAPTORS
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Amir Johnson 0.399
Chris Bosh 0.381
Marco Belinelli 0.232
Andrea Bargnani 0.204
Antoine Wright 0.202
Hedo Turkoglu 0.190
Rasho Nesterovic 0.171
Sonny Weems 0.165
Jose Calderon 0.125
Jarrett Jack 0.120
DeMar DeRozan 0.095
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
USER GUIDE EXCERPT: SHOULD PLAYERS WITH LOW RATINGS BE PLAYING IN THE PLAYOFFS?
On a Championship team, many players rated below about .590 are usually a drag on that teams' Championship run. However, such players sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be and often are overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. We see that players below about .590 are often getting too much playing time in playoff games. As a rough estimate, half of all players rated between .480 and .589 should not be playing at all in the playoffs for any of the major contenders (the best three teams) or even for the wild card contenders (the 4th, 5th, and 6th best teams).
The advice regarding players rated even lower is simple and clear. Players rated below .480 should not be playing at all in the playoffs (except in garbage time) for teams that are serious about winning the Quest for the Ring.
THE COMPLETE USER GUIDE TO REAL PLAYER RATINGS
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 10
Congratulations and respect are due to CHRIS BOSH, who is leading the Raptors in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to CHRIS BOSH, who has contributed more than any other player to the Raptors so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
SUPER STARS
CHRIS BOSH
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
None
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
Amir Johnson
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
None
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Jose Calderon
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Amir Johnson
TORONTO RAPTORS
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Chris Bosh 0.978
Jose Calderon 0.800
Amir Johnson 0.783
Jarrett Jack 0.697
Rasho Nesterovic 0.649
Hedo Turkoglu 0.631
Marco Belinelli 0.597
Andrea Bargnani 0.582
Sonny Weems 0.534
Antoine Wright 0.457
DeMar DeRozan 0.409
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
TORONTO RAPTORS
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Chris Bosh 2471.35
Andrea Bargnani 1564.85
Jarrett Jack 1511.47
Jose Calderon 1398.53
Hedo Turkoglu 1387.58
Amir Johnson 1060.76
Sonny Weems 670.72
DeMar DeRozan 649.00
Antoine Wright 636.61
Marco Belinelli 632.15
Rasho Nesterovic 261.04
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
TORONTO RAPTORS
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Jose Calderon 0.675
Chris Bosh 0.598
Jarrett Jack 0.577
Rasho Nesterovic 0.478
Hedo Turkoglu 0.440
Amir Johnson 0.385
Andrea Bargnani 0.379
Sonny Weems 0.368
Marco Belinelli 0.365
DeMar DeRozan 0.314
Antoine Wright 0.256
TORONTO RAPTORS
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Amir Johnson 0.399
Chris Bosh 0.381
Marco Belinelli 0.232
Andrea Bargnani 0.204
Antoine Wright 0.202
Hedo Turkoglu 0.190
Rasho Nesterovic 0.171
Sonny Weems 0.165
Jose Calderon 0.125
Jarrett Jack 0.120
DeMar DeRozan 0.095
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
USER GUIDE EXCERPT: SHOULD PLAYERS WITH LOW RATINGS BE PLAYING IN THE PLAYOFFS?
On a Championship team, many players rated below about .590 are usually a drag on that teams' Championship run. However, such players sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be and often are overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. We see that players below about .590 are often getting too much playing time in playoff games. As a rough estimate, half of all players rated between .480 and .589 should not be playing at all in the playoffs for any of the major contenders (the best three teams) or even for the wild card contenders (the 4th, 5th, and 6th best teams).
The advice regarding players rated even lower is simple and clear. Players rated below .480 should not be playing at all in the playoffs (except in garbage time) for teams that are serious about winning the Quest for the Ring.
THE COMPLETE USER GUIDE TO REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Portland Trailblazers Real Player Ratings as of April 10, 2010
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 10
Congratulations and respect are due to GREG ODEN, who is leading the Trailblazers in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to LAMARCUS ALDRIDGE, who has contributed more than any other player to the Trailblazers so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
GREG ODEN
SUPER STARS
MARCUS CAMBY
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
Andre Miller
Brandon Roy
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
LaMarcus Aldridge
Joel Przybilla
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
Nicolas Batum
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Brandon Roy
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Marcus Camby
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Greg Oden 1.057
Marcus Camby 0.926
Andre Miller 0.874
Brandon Roy 0.841
LaMarcus Aldridge 0.810
Joel Przybilla 0.778
Nicolas Batum 0.701
Rudy Fernandez 0.680
Martell Webster 0.589
Jerryd Bayless 0.557
Dante Cunningham 0.553
Juwan Howard 0.521
Jeff Pendergraph 0.379
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
LaMarcus Aldridge 2305.00
Andre Miller 2121.51
Brandon Roy 2024.03
Martell Webster 1131.40
Rudy Fernandez 911.71
Juwan Howard 823.73
Jerryd Bayless 691.76
Marcus Camby 597.50
Nicolas Batum 576.44
Greg Oden 530.54
Joel Przybilla 530.00
Dante Cunningham 372.11
Jeff Pendergraph 142.56
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Brandon Roy 0.606
Andre Miller 0.574
Greg Oden 0.487
Jerryd Bayless 0.462
Nicolas Batum 0.461
LaMarcus Aldridge 0.455
Rudy Fernandez 0.352
Dante Cunningham 0.321
Martell Webster 0.292
Marcus Camby 0.284
Juwan Howard 0.283
Jeff Pendergraph 0.224
Joel Przybilla 0.175
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Marcus Camby 0.643
Joel Przybilla 0.603
Greg Oden 0.570
LaMarcus Aldridge 0.355
Rudy Fernandez 0.329
Andre Miller 0.301
Martell Webster 0.297
Nicolas Batum 0.240
Juwan Howard 0.238
Brandon Roy 0.235
Dante Cunningham 0.232
Jeff Pendergraph 0.156
Jerryd Bayless 0.095
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
USER GUIDE EXCERPT: SHOULD PLAYERS WITH LOW RATINGS BE PLAYING IN THE PLAYOFFS?
On a Championship team, many players rated below about .590 are usually a drag on that teams' Championship run. However, such players sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be and often are overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. We see that players below about .590 are often getting too much playing time in playoff games. As a rough estimate, half of all players rated between .480 and .589 should not be playing at all in the playoffs for any of the major contenders (the best three teams) or even for the wild card contenders (the 4th, 5th, and 6th best teams).
The advice regarding players rated even lower is simple and clear. Players rated below .480 should not be playing at all in the playoffs (except in garbage time) for teams that are serious about winning the Quest for the Ring.
THE COMPLETE USER GUIDE TO REAL PLAYER RATINGS
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 10
Congratulations and respect are due to GREG ODEN, who is leading the Trailblazers in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to LAMARCUS ALDRIDGE, who has contributed more than any other player to the Trailblazers so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
GREG ODEN
SUPER STARS
MARCUS CAMBY
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
Andre Miller
Brandon Roy
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
LaMarcus Aldridge
Joel Przybilla
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
Nicolas Batum
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Brandon Roy
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Marcus Camby
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Greg Oden 1.057
Marcus Camby 0.926
Andre Miller 0.874
Brandon Roy 0.841
LaMarcus Aldridge 0.810
Joel Przybilla 0.778
Nicolas Batum 0.701
Rudy Fernandez 0.680
Martell Webster 0.589
Jerryd Bayless 0.557
Dante Cunningham 0.553
Juwan Howard 0.521
Jeff Pendergraph 0.379
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
LaMarcus Aldridge 2305.00
Andre Miller 2121.51
Brandon Roy 2024.03
Martell Webster 1131.40
Rudy Fernandez 911.71
Juwan Howard 823.73
Jerryd Bayless 691.76
Marcus Camby 597.50
Nicolas Batum 576.44
Greg Oden 530.54
Joel Przybilla 530.00
Dante Cunningham 372.11
Jeff Pendergraph 142.56
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Brandon Roy 0.606
Andre Miller 0.574
Greg Oden 0.487
Jerryd Bayless 0.462
Nicolas Batum 0.461
LaMarcus Aldridge 0.455
Rudy Fernandez 0.352
Dante Cunningham 0.321
Martell Webster 0.292
Marcus Camby 0.284
Juwan Howard 0.283
Jeff Pendergraph 0.224
Joel Przybilla 0.175
PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Marcus Camby 0.643
Joel Przybilla 0.603
Greg Oden 0.570
LaMarcus Aldridge 0.355
Rudy Fernandez 0.329
Andre Miller 0.301
Martell Webster 0.297
Nicolas Batum 0.240
Juwan Howard 0.238
Brandon Roy 0.235
Dante Cunningham 0.232
Jeff Pendergraph 0.156
Jerryd Bayless 0.095
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
USER GUIDE EXCERPT: SHOULD PLAYERS WITH LOW RATINGS BE PLAYING IN THE PLAYOFFS?
On a Championship team, many players rated below about .590 are usually a drag on that teams' Championship run. However, such players sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be and often are overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. We see that players below about .590 are often getting too much playing time in playoff games. As a rough estimate, half of all players rated between .480 and .589 should not be playing at all in the playoffs for any of the major contenders (the best three teams) or even for the wild card contenders (the 4th, 5th, and 6th best teams).
The advice regarding players rated even lower is simple and clear. Players rated below .480 should not be playing at all in the playoffs (except in garbage time) for teams that are serious about winning the Quest for the Ring.
THE COMPLETE USER GUIDE TO REAL PLAYER RATINGS
San Antonio Spurs Real Player Ratings as of April 10, 2010
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 10
Congratulations and respect are due to TIM DUNCAN, who is leading the Spurs in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to TIM DUNCAN, who has contributed more than any other player to the Spurs so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
TIM DUNCAN
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
MANU GINOBILI
SUPER STARS
None
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
Antonio McDyess
Tony Parker
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
Matt Bonner
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
DeJuan Blair
Richard Jefferson
George Hill
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Manu Ginobili
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Tim Duncan
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Tim Duncan 1.246
Manu Ginobili 1.027
Antonio McDyess 0.833
Tony Parker 0.830
Matt Bonner 0.783
DeJuan Blair 0.759
Richard Jefferson 0.717
George Hill 0.711
Roger Mason 0.620
Keith Bogans 0.462
Malik Hairston 0.405
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Tim Duncan 3014.39
Manu Ginobili 2185.86
Richard Jefferson 1773.82
George Hill 1603.14
Tony Parker 1391.91
Antonio McDyess 1331.71
DeJuan Blair 1086.93
Roger Mason 897.15
Matt Bonner 876.62
Keith Bogans 699.37
Malik Hairston 122.22
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Manu Ginobili 0.695
Tim Duncan 0.617
Tony Parker 0.568
George Hill 0.453
Matt Bonner 0.433
DeJuan Blair 0.416
Richard Jefferson 0.345
Roger Mason 0.338
Antonio McDyess 0.318
Malik Hairston 0.272
Keith Bogans 0.229
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Tim Duncan 0.629
Antonio McDyess 0.515
Richard Jefferson 0.371
Matt Bonner 0.350
DeJuan Blair 0.343
Manu Ginobili 0.332
Roger Mason 0.281
Tony Parker 0.262
George Hill 0.258
Keith Bogans 0.233
Malik Hairston 0.132
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
USER GUIDE EXCERPT: SHOULD PLAYERS WITH LOW RATINGS BE PLAYING IN THE PLAYOFFS?
On a Championship team, many players rated below about .590 are usually a drag on that teams' Championship run. However, such players sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be and often are overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. We see that players below about .590 are often getting too much playing time in playoff games. As a rough estimate, half of all players rated between .480 and .589 should not be playing at all in the playoffs for any of the major contenders (the best three teams) or even for the wild card contenders (the 4th, 5th, and 6th best teams).
The advice regarding players rated even lower is simple and clear. Players rated below .480 should not be playing at all in the playoffs (except in garbage time) for teams that are serious about winning the Quest for the Ring.
THE COMPLETE USER GUIDE TO REAL PLAYER RATINGS
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 10
Congratulations and respect are due to TIM DUNCAN, who is leading the Spurs in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to TIM DUNCAN, who has contributed more than any other player to the Spurs so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
TIM DUNCAN
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
MANU GINOBILI
SUPER STARS
None
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
Antonio McDyess
Tony Parker
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
Matt Bonner
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
DeJuan Blair
Richard Jefferson
George Hill
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Manu Ginobili
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Tim Duncan
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Tim Duncan 1.246
Manu Ginobili 1.027
Antonio McDyess 0.833
Tony Parker 0.830
Matt Bonner 0.783
DeJuan Blair 0.759
Richard Jefferson 0.717
George Hill 0.711
Roger Mason 0.620
Keith Bogans 0.462
Malik Hairston 0.405
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Tim Duncan 3014.39
Manu Ginobili 2185.86
Richard Jefferson 1773.82
George Hill 1603.14
Tony Parker 1391.91
Antonio McDyess 1331.71
DeJuan Blair 1086.93
Roger Mason 897.15
Matt Bonner 876.62
Keith Bogans 699.37
Malik Hairston 122.22
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Manu Ginobili 0.695
Tim Duncan 0.617
Tony Parker 0.568
George Hill 0.453
Matt Bonner 0.433
DeJuan Blair 0.416
Richard Jefferson 0.345
Roger Mason 0.338
Antonio McDyess 0.318
Malik Hairston 0.272
Keith Bogans 0.229
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 10, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Tim Duncan 0.629
Antonio McDyess 0.515
Richard Jefferson 0.371
Matt Bonner 0.350
DeJuan Blair 0.343
Manu Ginobili 0.332
Roger Mason 0.281
Tony Parker 0.262
George Hill 0.258
Keith Bogans 0.233
Malik Hairston 0.132
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
USER GUIDE EXCERPT: SHOULD PLAYERS WITH LOW RATINGS BE PLAYING IN THE PLAYOFFS?
On a Championship team, many players rated below about .590 are usually a drag on that teams' Championship run. However, such players sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be and often are overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. We see that players below about .590 are often getting too much playing time in playoff games. As a rough estimate, half of all players rated between .480 and .589 should not be playing at all in the playoffs for any of the major contenders (the best three teams) or even for the wild card contenders (the 4th, 5th, and 6th best teams).
The advice regarding players rated even lower is simple and clear. Players rated below .480 should not be playing at all in the playoffs (except in garbage time) for teams that are serious about winning the Quest for the Ring.
THE COMPLETE USER GUIDE TO REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Phoenix Suns Real Player Ratings as of April 9, 2010
PHOENIX SUNS
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 9
Congratulations and respect are due to STEVE NASH, who is leading the Suns in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to STEVE NASH, who has contributed more than any other player to the Suns so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
STEVE NASH
SUPER STARS
None
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
None
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
Amare Stoudemire
Goran Dragic
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
Channing Frye
Jason Richardson
Louis Amundson
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Steve Nash
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Louis Amundson
PHOENIX SUNS
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 9, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Steve Nash 1.097
Amare Stoudemire 0.815
Goran Dragic 0.778
Channing Frye 0.728
Jason Richardson 0.721
Louis Amundson 0.710
Robin Lopez 0.690
Grant Hill 0.670
Jared Dudley 0.668
Leandro Barbosa 0.609
Earl Clark 0.443
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
NOTES REGARDING LOW REGULAR SEASON RATINGS
Players rated below about .550 sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. If so, players below about .550 are probably getting much too much playing time. See the User Guide (link at the bottom) for much more.
PHOENIX SUNS
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 9, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Steve Nash 2781.69
Amare Stoudemire 2195.40
Jason Richardson 1708.69
Grant Hill 1558.87
Channing Frye 1520.84
Jared Dudley 1272.24
Goran Dragic 1066.76
Louis Amundson 778.79
Robin Lopez 680.46
Leandro Barbosa 437.46
Earl Clark 160.86
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
PHOENIX SUNS
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 9, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Steve Nash 0.931
Goran Dragic 0.532
Amare Stoudemire 0.524
Jason Richardson 0.473
Leandro Barbosa 0.450
Channing Frye 0.417
Robin Lopez 0.415
Jared Dudley 0.401
Grant Hill 0.393
Louis Amundson 0.309
Earl Clark 0.197
PHOENIX SUNS
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 9, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Louis Amundson 0.401
Channing Frye 0.311
Amare Stoudemire 0.291
Grant Hill 0.277
Robin Lopez 0.275
Jared Dudley 0.267
Jason Richardson 0.248
Earl Clark 0.247
Goran Dragic 0.246
Steve Nash 0.166
Leandro Barbosa 0.159
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 9
Congratulations and respect are due to STEVE NASH, who is leading the Suns in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to STEVE NASH, who has contributed more than any other player to the Suns so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
STEVE NASH
SUPER STARS
None
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
None
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
Amare Stoudemire
Goran Dragic
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
Channing Frye
Jason Richardson
Louis Amundson
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Steve Nash
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Louis Amundson
PHOENIX SUNS
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 9, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Steve Nash 1.097
Amare Stoudemire 0.815
Goran Dragic 0.778
Channing Frye 0.728
Jason Richardson 0.721
Louis Amundson 0.710
Robin Lopez 0.690
Grant Hill 0.670
Jared Dudley 0.668
Leandro Barbosa 0.609
Earl Clark 0.443
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
NOTES REGARDING LOW REGULAR SEASON RATINGS
Players rated below about .550 sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. If so, players below about .550 are probably getting much too much playing time. See the User Guide (link at the bottom) for much more.
PHOENIX SUNS
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 9, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Steve Nash 2781.69
Amare Stoudemire 2195.40
Jason Richardson 1708.69
Grant Hill 1558.87
Channing Frye 1520.84
Jared Dudley 1272.24
Goran Dragic 1066.76
Louis Amundson 778.79
Robin Lopez 680.46
Leandro Barbosa 437.46
Earl Clark 160.86
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
PHOENIX SUNS
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 9, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Steve Nash 0.931
Goran Dragic 0.532
Amare Stoudemire 0.524
Jason Richardson 0.473
Leandro Barbosa 0.450
Channing Frye 0.417
Robin Lopez 0.415
Jared Dudley 0.401
Grant Hill 0.393
Louis Amundson 0.309
Earl Clark 0.197
PHOENIX SUNS
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 9, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Louis Amundson 0.401
Channing Frye 0.311
Amare Stoudemire 0.291
Grant Hill 0.277
Robin Lopez 0.275
Jared Dudley 0.267
Jason Richardson 0.248
Earl Clark 0.247
Goran Dragic 0.246
Steve Nash 0.166
Leandro Barbosa 0.159
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Oklahoma Thunder Real Player Ratings as of April 8, 2010
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 8
Congratulations and respect are due to KEVIN DURANT, who is leading the Thunder in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to KEVIN DURANT, who has contributed more than any other player to the Thunder so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
KEVIN DURANT
SUPER STARS
RUSSELL WESTBROOK
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
Serge Ibaka
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
Eric Maynor
Nick Collison
James Harden
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
None
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Russell Westbrook
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Serge Ibaka
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 8, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Kevin Durant 1.050
Russell Westbrook 0.919
Serge Ibaka 0.843
Eric Maynor 0.829
Nick Collison 0.806
James Harden 0.788
Jeff Green 0.675
Nenad Krstic 0.644
Thabo Sefolosha 0.596
Etan Thomas 0.554
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
NOTES REGARDING LOW REGULAR SEASON RATINGS
Players rated below about .550 sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. If so, players below about .550 are probably getting much too much playing time. See the User Guide (link at the bottom) for much more.
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 8, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Kevin Durant 3237.55
Russell Westbrook 2459.59
Jeff Green 1952.05
Thabo Sefolosha 1317.96
James Harden 1294.59
Nick Collison 1198.13
Nenad Krstic 1121.05
Serge Ibaka 1023.91
Eric Maynor 683.80
Etan Thomas 167.93
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 8, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Russell Westbrook 0.650
Kevin Durant 0.598
Eric Maynor 0.466
James Harden 0.374
Nenad Krstic 0.353
Jeff Green 0.337
Nick Collison 0.332
Serge Ibaka 0.302
Thabo Sefolosha 0.232
Etan Thomas 0.097
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 8, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Serge Ibaka 0.541
Nick Collison 0.473
Etan Thomas 0.458
Kevin Durant 0.452
James Harden 0.414
Thabo Sefolosha 0.363
Eric Maynor 0.363
Jeff Green 0.338
Nenad Krstic 0.290
Russell Westbrook 0.269
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS
2009-10 season through April 8
Congratulations and respect are due to KEVIN DURANT, who is leading the Thunder in quality basketball so far this season.
Congratulations and respect are due to KEVIN DURANT, who has contributed more than any other player to the Thunder so far this season.
KEY PLAYERS
MAJOR HISTORIC SUPER STARS
None
HISTORIC SUPER STARS
KEVIN DURANT
SUPER STARS
RUSSELL WESTBROOK
STARS--WELL ABOVE NORMAL STARTERS
Serge Ibaka
VERY GOOD PLAYERS--SOLID STARTERS
Eric Maynor
Nick Collison
James Harden
MAJOR ROLE PLAYERS--GOOD ENOUGH TO START
None
BEST BY SIDE OF COURT
BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Russell Westbrook
BEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER
Serge Ibaka
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
REAL PLAYER RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 8, 2010
Quality of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Kevin Durant 1.050
Russell Westbrook 0.919
Serge Ibaka 0.843
Eric Maynor 0.829
Nick Collison 0.806
James Harden 0.788
Jeff Green 0.675
Nenad Krstic 0.644
Thabo Sefolosha 0.596
Etan Thomas 0.554
SCALE FOR REGULAR SEASON REAL PLAYER RATINGS
Perfect for all Practical Purposes / Major Historic Super Star 1.100 and more
Historic Super Star 1.000 1.099
Super Star 0.910 0.999
A Star Player / A Well Above Normal Starter 0.830 0.909
Very Good Player / A Solid Starter 0.760 0.829
Major Role Player / Good Enough to Start 0.700 0.759
Good Role Player / Often a Good 6th Man 0.650 0.699
Satisfactory Role Player 0.590 0.649
Marginal Role Player 0.530 0.589
Poor Player 0.470 0.529
Very Poor Player 0.400 0.469
Extremely Poor Player and less 0.399
NOTES REGARDING LOW REGULAR SEASON RATINGS
Players rated below about .550 sometimes get playing time based largely on factors outside of RPR, but valued by coaches and other players, such as:
--Great energy, effort, and hustle
--Toughness, such as diving after loose balls and taking charges
--Leadership and/or knowledge, especially in the case of veterans
--Perceived potential for future improvement in terms of real basketball production, especially in the case of young players
But keep in mind also that the value of these qualities may be overestimated, particularly with respect to playoff games. If so, players below about .550 are probably getting much too much playing time. See the User Guide (link at the bottom) for much more.
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 8, 2010
Quantity of players: includes all tracked actions and hidden defending
All players who have played at least 300 minutes included
Kevin Durant 3237.55
Russell Westbrook 2459.59
Jeff Green 1952.05
Thabo Sefolosha 1317.96
James Harden 1294.59
Nick Collison 1198.13
Nenad Krstic 1121.05
Serge Ibaka 1023.91
Eric Maynor 683.80
Etan Thomas 167.93
========== OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS ==================================
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
OFFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 8, 2010
Offensive Quality: Includes all non-trivial offensive actions
Russell Westbrook 0.650
Kevin Durant 0.598
Eric Maynor 0.466
James Harden 0.374
Nenad Krstic 0.353
Jeff Green 0.337
Nick Collison 0.332
Serge Ibaka 0.302
Thabo Sefolosha 0.232
Etan Thomas 0.097
OKLAHOMA THUNDER
DEFENSIVE SUB RATINGS
2009-10 Regular Season
As of April 8, 2010
Defending Quality: Includes both tracked and hidden defending
Serge Ibaka 0.541
Nick Collison 0.473
Etan Thomas 0.458
Kevin Durant 0.452
James Harden 0.414
Thabo Sefolosha 0.363
Eric Maynor 0.363
Jeff Green 0.338
Nenad Krstic 0.290
Russell Westbrook 0.269
The breakdown between hidden and unhidden defending is available on request.
THE ALL IMPORTANT, AWARD WINNING REAL PLAYER RATINGS USER GUIDE
For complete details regarding how the Real Player Ratings are designed, how and why they work, and how exactly you can use them, see the User Guide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Post your response to anything on Quest HERE
GIVE US THE JUICE TO PRODUCE REPORTS MORE QUICKLY
Although there is a guaranteed minimum rate of Report production regardless of traffic, IT IS IN YOUR POWER to help double or triple the number of and frequency of Reports. Simply take two or three minutes as often as you can to recommend Quest and post links to Quest on your favorite sports and other sites. The resulting automatic increase of traffic will in turn increase the resources that go in to producing Quest, which in turn speeds up reporting. If you want, e-mail how you helped (include the url of where you posted a link to Quest) and we will throw some Internet love back to where you tell us on the Internet. Thank you.
Here are some quick links that you can use to find a place where you might post a link to Quest and/or to Quest content.
HOLD MOUSE HERE TO EXPAND THIS MENU OF PLACES ON WHICH YOU CAN POST A LINK TO QUEST:
BASKETBALL SITES THAT ARE OPEN FOR CONTENT FROM ANYONE
Note: Beware of "layered" sites. None of the following are layered sites, which are sites that allow contributions from the public only in hard to find, low traffic areas, while the main areas are off limits for public input and are only for a chosen few. All of the following have at least some notable traffic, and all of them allow relatively equal and open participation. The order is from most recommended to least recommended, based on about half a dozen factors.
Bleacher Report Open Posting Site
Inside Hoops NBA Forum
Real GM NBA and Team Forums
Pro Sports Daily NBA Forum
Basketball Forum NBA Forum
Sporting News NBA Forum
Hoops Hype NBA Forum
Armchair GM Open Posting Site
SportsTwo NBA Forum
NBA Dimensions NBA Forum
OTR Basketball Forums NBA Forum
NBA Boards NBA Forum
NBA Wire NBA Forum
KFFL NBA Forum
Note: there are other forums, but they are all very low traffic and activity compared to the ones above.
MESSAGE BOARDS AT HUGE COROPORATIONS
The Fox NBA board is very low traffic, and the MSNBC NBA board doesn't exist anymore. The CBS Sports NBA Message Board is a layered site; you can NOT post topics nor expect to be considered seriously there until you have spent a few years posting there. We do not recommend CBS Sports. So the only real, fully open NBA forum hosted by a big corporation is the ESPN message board. Be forewarned though that the ESPN board is dominated by very young fans who make very short comments. On the other hand, it is a high traffic site, so we won't stop you from posting a Quest link at ESPN if you want to.
ESPN NBA Message Board
GIVE US THE JUICE TO PRODUCE REPORTS MORE QUICKLY
Although there is a guaranteed minimum rate of Report production regardless of traffic, IT IS IN YOUR POWER to help double or triple the number of and frequency of Reports. Simply take two or three minutes as often as you can to recommend Quest and post links to Quest on your favorite sports and other sites. The resulting automatic increase of traffic will in turn increase the resources that go in to producing Quest, which in turn speeds up reporting. If you want, e-mail how you helped (include the url of where you posted a link to Quest) and we will throw some Internet love back to where you tell us on the Internet. Thank you.
Here are some quick links that you can use to find a place where you might post a link to Quest and/or to Quest content.
HOLD MOUSE HERE TO EXPAND THIS MENU OF PLACES ON WHICH YOU CAN POST A LINK TO QUEST:
BASKETBALL SITES THAT ARE OPEN FOR CONTENT FROM ANYONE
Note: Beware of "layered" sites. None of the following are layered sites, which are sites that allow contributions from the public only in hard to find, low traffic areas, while the main areas are off limits for public input and are only for a chosen few. All of the following have at least some notable traffic, and all of them allow relatively equal and open participation. The order is from most recommended to least recommended, based on about half a dozen factors.
Bleacher Report Open Posting Site
Inside Hoops NBA Forum
Real GM NBA and Team Forums
Pro Sports Daily NBA Forum
Basketball Forum NBA Forum
Sporting News NBA Forum
Hoops Hype NBA Forum
Armchair GM Open Posting Site
SportsTwo NBA Forum
NBA Dimensions NBA Forum
OTR Basketball Forums NBA Forum
NBA Boards NBA Forum
NBA Wire NBA Forum
KFFL NBA Forum
Note: there are other forums, but they are all very low traffic and activity compared to the ones above.
MESSAGE BOARDS AT HUGE COROPORATIONS
The Fox NBA board is very low traffic, and the MSNBC NBA board doesn't exist anymore. The CBS Sports NBA Message Board is a layered site; you can NOT post topics nor expect to be considered seriously there until you have spent a few years posting there. We do not recommend CBS Sports. So the only real, fully open NBA forum hosted by a big corporation is the ESPN message board. Be forewarned though that the ESPN board is dominated by very young fans who make very short comments. On the other hand, it is a high traffic site, so we won't stop you from posting a Quest link at ESPN if you want to.
ESPN NBA Message Board
SEARCH THE QUEST FOR THE RING--THE EQUIVALENT OF MORE THAN 13 BOOKS ABOUT BASKETBALL
Custom Search
SEARCH THE 13 BOOKS / 1.3 MILLION WORDSCHAUNCEY BILLUPS JUNE 2004
