But you don't even know what the results mean. But if you have contrary statistical evidence that indicates that it is mathematically impossible, as in your father son example, for Yao to have a worse "ADJUSTED PLUS/MINUS RATING" than Ostertag, please present it. I don't think you do; you can differ with his methodology; but you haven't bothered to read or look at it; so your criticism seem to be based in rampant Pro-Yao-ism rather than anything else.
Damn, some of you guys are sensitive. These ranking simply state what they state, nothing more. I don't think anyone would argue that Yao should rank higher than 50 compared to all other players, but that isn't what this is analyzing. Instead of rolling your eyes whenever you think something is stupid because it seemingly disses a player you like, try evaluating how it fits into all the other areas involved in the skill level of a player. Try LEARNING something for once. You cannot simply dismiss something because you don't like it.
My criticism is based on common sense. Sometimes it's better than so called "methodology" becasue nobody can prove the methodology is based on the right assumption. Can you? Why would Utah let Ostertag go for free if he's a top 50 player? Why would TMac want to play with Yao so badly if Yao is ranked that low? Common sense and what I see from the court tells me Yao is a much better player. But this system says otherwise. I firmly believe Yao is the 2nd or 3rd best center in NBA. But if some system says Camby is better or Miller is better, I'd still be cool with it because I know they are close. But Ostertag? LOL Give me a break. You need methodology? There are links in this thread showing different methodology and they seem have different results. Can you prove the others are worse than this? You can't either. So I chose not to believe this one base on common sense.
I skimmed the methology and have a basic understanding of how he's doing this. But I'm not sure how much use is there in the results(at least the current version). Because it's certainly not a good representation of player value. There are so many factors that the list didn't take into account. I'm not saying the methadology is bad. Just that it's "incomplete". So any ranking based on it doesn't really mean much.
I don't care how scentific he sounds and how rational his system apears, basketball is run by humans and judged by humans, based on the results of their performance, or at least our perception of their performance, not by computers based on stats. If Oysterfat is indeed more valuable than Yao, then everyone in the world is dumber than his system, which I highly doubt. If Alston is really more valuable than LeBron James, then the judgement of every soul in the universe would be inferior to his system, which I don't think so.
I don't dismiss it because I don't lik it. I dismiss it because the result sounds way too ridiculous. And what does it do me any good to learn something like that? Well, maybe I'm getting too serious, I'll stop here.
You just don't get it; several posts in and you still have no clue what these statistics that you are decrying energetically represent. Read any of my other posts to see why you're wrong, or read Jeff's posts; otherwise you're just rehashing the same, shortsighted arguments that have previously been addressed. Toodle-loo!
Simple logic tells us that this system is specific to a certain set of vairables, nothing more. It is like looking at how much money you spent on one specific area of your life last year and try to set your entire budget from that alone. If you do, you'll be WAY off. BUT, if you IGNORE this entire portion of your budget, you'll be off as well. The same exact thing is true. Just because this set of variables combines has Yao ranked 50th in the league doesn't mean his OVERALL value is 50th in the league and no one is stupid enough to think this one indicator means that including the guy who developed it. This is just ONE WAY to evaluate talent - not the only way, just ONE way. It has value because it gives us a look into a specific area of the game. It doesn't mean it is the be-all-end-all of how players should be graded. It is just one variable among dozens of variables and when you overreact either because you think it proves Yao sucks or because you think it proves the system is flawed, you are missing the whole point.
I think you guys would go into a panic attack if Yao sneezed on camera. It's SARS!!! It's SARS!!! (is it lupus?)
Looking at the guys who rank high on this list, it doesn't take a genius to understand where he is coming from. Players who shoot well, score well, dish a few assists, don't make a lot of turnovers, and collect a few other stats rank high. The only guy high on his list I would question is Baron Davis. Admiting that I really don't understand his formula, I will say that one flaw in his system I think is it penalizing players who play a lot of minutes.
All that work, for nothing.... Just because this guy is Book smart, doesnt mean he is Basketball SMART!!! What a waste of my time reading all his crap...does he give refunds??
The model this guy uses is similar to the methods implemented by the two guys working for Cuban. The model worked beautifully in evaluating many players, but completely off for others.
This is from another NBA fans forum. People voted for the top fifteen players. started with #1, get a winner, #2, get awinner, etc. all the way to #15. #1: Kevin Garnett #2: Shaquille O'Neal #3: Tim Duncan #4: Kobe Bryant #5: Tracy McGrady #6: Jason Kidd #7: Jermaine O'Neal #8: Dirk Nowitzki #9: Ben Wallace #10: Paul Pierce #11: Vince Carter #12: Allen Iverson #13: Yao Ming #14: Stephon Marbury #15: Predrag Stojakovic
You know, I saw people giving this thread one star, presumably because they had the kneejerk reaction of seeing Yao ranked low, and then, like most of the people who commented on this thread -- didn't bother to read or understand what they were looking at and drew a conclusion. So I initially gave it five stars in order to balance it out -- but then I decided that that would be just as wrong. There's nothing five starrish about this thread, it's mostly just a bunch of snap responses seen through Yao-colored glasses -- coupled with a few desperate (and in my case, frustrated) pleas for rationality. Disgusting -- that's a one star thread -- very unfun. It's too bad, there's a lot of material to discuss here that is of a lot of interest as a basketball fan and not just a rockets fan, or a fan of certain players; I think it sucks that people don't seem to want to do that. Now, somebody just quote me and put up a picture of a crying baby -- that should salvage things... EDIT: It's too bad nobody posted this during Barrymania -- he comes out looking good. I guess since he's off the market...
I remember when Tom Landry pioneer the use of computer to prepare for football games, people said the exact same thing you are saying. Now, I don't think any pro football team doesn't rely on computer analysis to some extent. I think it's wise to understand something before you criticize it with "common sense" or "human whatever."
If you read my ealier post that quoted one of his paragraphs, you'd know that he actually observed that players play a lot of minutes usually rank high.
