http://basketballvalue.com/topplayers.php?year=2008-2009&mode=summary&sortnumber=21&sortorder=DESC If you all click the column under NET OVERALL RATING, our Shane is above people named Dwight Howard, Michael Redd, Vince Carter, to just name a few. I know Shane is not the most flashiest player, but he sure is effective in the team game. That's what JVG and Morey saw in this guy. Please note, I don't see Rudy Gay anywhere on this list. By the way, even though most of you feel that Yao is average or even below average defender. His defensive presence is almost as valuable as his offense. I love numbers because it takes out a lot of "noise" that we see from ESPN and highlight reels.
I really don't understand how somehow can argue these types of numbers. It's like arguing that 1+1=3. That's why people feel that the SATs are racially bias other than the MATH section.
Battier is ahead of Danny Granger too! Maybe we can show this to Indiana and we can get him straight up.
Yi is actually a postive presence for nj. He is a 4 that can hit the three at a high rate which means he can pull a shot blocker away from the lane which frees up their penetrators(harris, carter). Having a long 7 footer on defence can't be bad either. Nice try though. Also, I would just like to mention that +/- numbers don't always tell the whole truth. I love Yao but his def. rating is overrated because of who his backup is. Soon as Yao goes out, a 6'8 forward comes in at C which allows the other team to attack the basket. So if you put in Mutumbo for Yao, Yao's defence rating would probably go down by a lot.
Yet where ever Yi goes fans want him to get traded asap. The guy plays horrible defense, has no post game, and just relies on outside shooting. Sounds a lot like Wang ZhiZhi to me.
So far this season Battier looks like a changed player. In the last game he was ineffective on both ends of the court.
How this stat is useless? Duncan, Parker, Manu are not on it. Kobe and Gasol are not on it Deron williams, Boozer, Okur....not on it Dirk, Josh Howard not on it..
Very good point and probably also why Ben Wallace is rated so high too despite having dropped off so much.
But you can say that about everyone. Case in point, Dwight Howard's backup is Battie. His defense is even worse. So does that mean, even though Howard is not high on the list anyways, is truly OVERRATED on the defensive end? There's a reason why some players are bench players and others are starters.
Morey haters detected. But anyways this set of stat is not that relevant. First of all the 2 years moving window implies Battier's latest performance is averaged out. The +/- stat is heavily influenced by subs. You can look at it and say Battier is a net positive for this team when he is on court. You can't really use this to compare players on different team cause the subs would then be different. Rons playing in an inefficient way also 'helped' the +/- stat for Battier.
The +/- system is suppose to show the effect of that particular players on HIS own team. How does one know if PLAYER A makes his teammates better and quantify it? That's what it does. As far as stats, of course it's dependent on what team a player plays on. Just think, if the Rox had a better point guard, a more cohesive unit, 2004 version of McGrady, etc. everyone's stats would be that much better. I can envision Yao averaging in the high 20's in points if he had Chris Paul as his PG, but that's not the reality. So no, stats are not the BE ALL or END ALL of discussions, but it's a reference that can be taken without any prejudices.
well it's pretty easy to argue when the only 2 spurs on that list are bonner and hill. also odom is the only laker there.
if I'm playing against the lakers, I'd much rather see kobe on the floor than lamar odom. these stats tell me so, so it must be true.
So we agreed then? Just to be sure, let me reiterate. For this particular set of stat you cited, statement like "our Shane is above people named Dwight Howard ..." is meaningless. Moreover, if you could, you should limit the time span to just this year only. Nevertheless, stat is good. I deal with stat all day, everyday. Just don't misinterpret it
I like adjusted +/-. You can't be dogmatic about drawing conclusions from it, but it reflects things about players that often go unnoticed with more conventional stats that are nevertheless appreciated by coaches and teammates. Shane Battier is the perfect example. Imagine, you have a technique that doesn't rely on box score stats or how stylish a player is on the court, or how big his name is. It looks just at the bottom line -- how much better does his team play with him on the court, adjusting for teammates and opposition also on the floor. It's something coaches usually pay a lot of attention to, but fans overlook. And look at the results: Top 5: LeBron James, Andre Iguodala, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Kevin Garnett. To me, that's pretty interesting. 4 of those 5 are undisputed superstars. Again, the technique is blind to box score stats, dunking, name recognition, etc., but it was still able to pick these players out. So I wouldn't say it's worthless. If I see a player who I wouldn't generally think of as a great player based on his conventional stats that has a very high rating, and the error is kind of low, then I'll pay special attention to him. Does he communicate on the floor? Is he active as a team defender, or does he sometimes look lost? What do his coaches say about him? Is he considered an intelligent player -- someone who goes unnoticed but does a lot of the "little things"? Is it perhaps possible that a box score and ESPN highlight reel doesn't tell us everything we need to know about a player? I think maybe so. Edit: I just realized the OP was talking about "net overall rating". That's a basic On/Off rating, like they have on 82games.com. The adjusted +/- is more interesting, to me. Here is the list for the Rockets: http://basketballvalue.com/teamplay...summary&sortnumber=90&sortorder=DESC&team=HOU Top adjusted +/- right now are Battier, Yao, Wafer (high error), Artest, McGrady, Barry, and Scola. Leaving aside order, that looks about right to me. Worst three are Alston, Brooks, and Head. It's hard for me to really argue with that.
