Rosenbaum Player Ratings

Also apparently this guy never says this "interesting" list or theory could be wrong. He never even mentions the possibility.

Here is a quote:

On Michael Redd, one of my favorite sportswriters who saw an early draft of this piece said the following. ¡§Saying the Bucks don¡¦t play well with Michael Redd on the floor invalidates the whole thing, since in my mind Redd is the player who carried them this year.

Does he think his theory somehow had a little mistake with Redd ??? No. He doesn't, he then goes and "prove" Redd is the 71th contributor of the NBA.

Another quote:

My poor Bulls. Just this week Jerry Reinsdorf made a public commitment to Eddy Curry as one of the cornerstones of the Bulls¡¦ franchise ¡V the same Eddy Curry who was the 6th worst player in the NBA among those playing 2,000 or more minutes. Ouch!

So he think Eddie Curry is the 6th worst player in the NBA. (well players play more then 20000 minutes or whatever) So the list is about how good a player is AFTER ALL.

INTERESTING.

Thank you all for wasting my time and convince me to read all these garbage and discredit other posters.

 

OK, entering futility valley for a second:

I don't know why you even brought this up or mentioned that -- one of the indications that we can safely glean from the data sets that McGrady is among the most helpful players in the entire NBA.

What possible relevance does this have with Rosen's article? Let's see, they both deal with basketball -- other than that, nothing.

Wow, either you have very poor reading comprehension skills or engaged in some very selective editing.

Here is the entire quote:

Again, this is data analysis; this is independent from the data itself; a distinction that most seem to be missing here.

But anyway, considering that, do you honestly dispute that if you put Shaq or Kevin Garnett on the Magic, they would have a shot at winning 50 or so games like the Nets or Grizzlies? I don't think that is a ridiculous assumption -- reasonable minds can differ, but I think Shaq and Tmac or KG and Tmac or Duncan and Tmac, at the very least, have a shot at being pretty damned good playing in the Magic's division last year.

Wrong. Again, you make the mistake of misinterpreting the data set. In fact, you are looking at the wrong table altogether.

He made that conclusion from this table:

http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/wv2t5.txt

Please take note: Yao Ming is ranked 66 in this table
Please take note: Greg Ostertag is ranked 87 in this table

Rosenbaum, would, in fact, come to the opposite conclusion; replace Ming with Ostertag, and the Rockets would get worse using this table and Rosenbaum's numbers

Read on? Maybe you should go back and read the first part over again because it is obvious that you didn't understand it and misinterpreted the data.

Interesting....fan sees Yao ranked low and stops behaving rationally...interesting

 

Thanks for playing along Sam. there is another post above waiting for your replies.

So, I didn't quote who the five players are. So, the theory only works for top five ??? Obviously his "methodology" is if you can't dispute the top five I can make a list of 128 players. How scientific.

Actually, in the paragraph above, he talks about adjusted ratings, the FIRST sentence of the paragraph below he says "using THESE adjusted ratings" So I don't know, is the stuff in the middle adjusted or not ???

If by some miracle it's not, then thank you for pointing out my wrong dataset. The same data that ranks Sabonis at 12th and Brian Cardinal at 15th. I guess he's so correct now huh ?

It's obvious the guy is confused and doesn't know what he's talking about.

And thank you for some personal attacks about Yao and rationality and my comprehension skills bla bla. How surprising it's all coming from you.

 

You did use the wrong dataset. Sabonis, if you look at table 4, has a standard error number of 4.7 -- much higher than anybody elses in the top 20. It is not difficult to speculate that Sabonis' small sample size skews his ranking. (note: these rankings only measured the players for the time they were on (and necessarily off) the court -- I don't believe it accounts for injuries, games missed, etc)

It's no personal attack; it's a complicated bit of analysis that I don't fully understand myself and that I read several times before getting a decent grasp; but I think its rather shortsighted when rabid Yao fans make up factually deficient reasons to disregard it without doint the same.

exiting futility valley

 

I don't agree with tying minutes with the impact level a player has on a team. How much minutes are given depends on various factors, such as depth. Cato playing 7 more minutes will be playing the same amount of time as Yao does, but that doesn't mean Cato has the same impact as Yao does.

Rosenbaum also uses the team's performance with a player on or off the court as a gauge to estimate a player's impact, which is absolutely false IMO. Stoudamire and Zach Randolph's teams score more points with them on the bench than when they are on the court. Rosenbaum uses these stats to say that those two don't have impact as high as we think and therefore dropped Stoudamire to below 100 in the ratings. Rosenbaum has no shown enough basketball knowledge to know that these discrepancies are severely influenced by the relative strength of the BENCH versus the opposing teams, than it is with Stoudamire and Randolph themselves.

Therefore his method is flawed. Furthermore, even if his method is perfect it has little use since a player impact on a team is severely influenced by his teammates, his coach and the system, that is, the current structure of a team. Francis having less an impact in the last year than in the previous years is an example. It has no use on determining which player we should get or replace since one piece less or more renders the basis of such evalution useless. If I'm understanding your point correctly, then this complex method is only useful for the MVP award, which is not saying much IMO.

 

LOL. It doesn't matter. You were quoting that list, now there's something wrong with that list, why quote it then ??? In any case is that the list he was talking about ??? Why draw conclusions with an inmature list anyway ??? What about all the other vague and confused and false statements he made ???

It's just common sense seeing a list with Yao behind Tag in a "Measuring How NBA Players Help Their Teams Win" list and Amare and Randolf 100+ and say it's trash. Just the same as people claim T-Mac won't help Rockets.

Weren't you enraged when there was a list by a real guy putting Iran Newbie or someone ahead of Francis ??? Actually Francis didn't make that list of guards. Confucius sayz, don't do things you don't want people do to you.

 

Edit: should read a real old guy.

The time when you and DavidS had that argument.

 

I knew that a pointless insult like this was coming at some point after your arguments unraveled -- I don't understand why Yao fans are still so obsessed with Francis.

But to answer your question: No, two reasons:

1. I understand what the list says and doesn't say and interpet the information with the proper context.

2. Francis doesn't play for the Rockets anymore, while I think its amusing when people try to rewrite history about him, I really don't care all that much as a Rockets fan where he falls in these rankings.

Finally, on Brian Cardinal: His numbers are legit; as Rosenbaum notes, he has been one of the most spectacularly efficient players in basketball over the last few seasons (using non-weighted, official stats). Jerry West apparently agreed.

(interesting to note that Jerry West also agreed w/regard to his former no. 1 draft pick Drew Gooden -- Jerry was singing his praises when he drafted him -- then dropped him like a bad habit. A year later, look at where Gooden ends up...spare parts to acquire Tony Battie!_

 

It wasn't an insult. It was an attempt for you to understand and have peace.

First, Rosenbaum didn't use the Cardinal list to draw conclusions.

Second, Jerry West would love to have the player ranked 50th and 100th + a million times more than Brian Cardinal.

 

Impact evaluation systems like this is just too narrowly scoped to refelct the whole picture beside reasons mentioned above, since no stats tell how many double teams a player draws, how many shots he intimidates, how many charges he takes etc.., there is many intangibles and tangibles that are legit impacts being ignored in these type of stats churning role-player-orgasm machines.

 

1. He did attempt to explain Brian Cardinal's high ranking thusly:

"Brian Cardinal is probably the only true outlier, but over the past two seasons he has been remarkably efficient with the highest offensive efficiency (tied with Peja Stojakovic) among the top 20 players"
http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/winval2.htm

2. The 50th and 100th players were Donyell Marshall and Antoine Walker.

I don't think either of those guys would be a good fit for the Grizzlies -- if its a question of obtaining him at the MLE or either of those two, I'd take Cardinal 10 times out of 10

 

Why are ya still wasting time?

 

Yeah well done Sam, pulling a theo Ratlif trick.

Why are you here man. catch you later.

 

My fault, I clicked table 3 and not table 4.

So 50 and 100 are Theo Ratliff and David Robinson then -- you're saying Jerry West would rather have one of those two than Brain Cardinal?

Again, I seriously doubt that, given that Robinson is retired and Ratliff makes 11 million per year to give you 7 points and 7 rebounds a game and would be buried behind Swift, Gasol, and Wright in Memphis' rotation.

Of course West actually DID sign Cardinal, rather than put together a package to take Ratliff's bloated contract off Portland's hands, so I don't know why we'r arguing about that.

 

I propose someone hell-bent on proving or disproving the utility of this to add up Overall Rating of all the players on teams and see if they come out resembling either the regular season standings or the playoff results.

 

sam you just can't fully exit futile valley can you? Im glad you're keeping up the good fight though.

 

There's no fight or futile valley, just graceful retreat after throwing around some Rosenbaum flawed facts and pretend it is the truth.

 

its amazing how some around here think they have the monopoly on the truth.



give it up Sam....no matter how well you try to explain it...self-proclaimed stats gurus like Panda, snowmnt and max will never see how narrowminded they are being..

besides, if you keep replying to this thread...it will stay on the hot topics list...which doesnt look good for the board.

 

Praise the LORD!!!


Goooo rockets!