|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 9, 2014 0:41:21 GMT
Current Rating: 82
Suggested Rating: 78
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 9, 2014 2:37:32 GMT
77
|
|
|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 9, 2014 2:48:00 GMT
76
|
|
|
|
Post by Clyde Drexler on Dec 9, 2014 13:59:50 GMT
79
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 10, 2014 2:41:50 GMT
78
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 10, 2014 4:23:35 GMT
79
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 1, 2015 10:14:25 GMT
80
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 8:58:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 16:15:32 GMT
80
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 2, 2015 1:39:28 GMT
This is his per 36 the past 2 seasons. TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS 10.6 2.0 0.9 0.4 2.6 3.6 17.5 13-14 10.2 1.9 0.7 0.2 1.7 4.0 18.4 14-15 his per 36 in d5 last season 12.8 pts 9.7 rebs 3.3 asts 58% FG Another thing that is worth noting is that his FG% has increase from 46% to 52%. With those numbers, I will go with 82 still  |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 2, 2015 2:21:15 GMT
Pinoy, do remember that we are not always just comparing this season to last season. Some (many...most) players have not really been touched on ratings for years. Boozer actually has, but he may deserve a decrease based on just his actual #'s this year, not his #'s this year compared to last year.
You're entitled to your opinion, just mainly want to make sure you know that most players were not changed last year. So we are not just comparing to last year.
Another reason it is good (for everyone, not just you Pinoy), to have their own sort of criteria to judge players.
For Example
13p, 7r, 1.4a, 0.1b, 0.5s, 1.2TO 52.3% FG & 59.2% FT in 26mpg
vs
9p, 8r, 2.1a, 1.6b, 1.1s, 1.4TO 49.7% FG & 78.4% FT in 28mpg
I would think all told, Player 1's severely terrible FT shooting, less rebounds, less assists, half the steals, and non-existent blocks are not offset by his advantage in points and FG%.
That just doesn't look like an 82 to me.
Yet, you think Player 2 is only a 77. Explain how there is a 5 point rating difference between those stats? If anything, 100%, I would rather have the 2nd player. He actually helps on Defense, he can actually knock down his FT, better passer, better rebounder...I dunno.
These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. How is Player 1 5 points better than Player 2? It seriously does not add up.
Player 1 PER is 17.58
Player 2 PER is 18.06
5 point advantage to Player 1? Really?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 2, 2015 3:20:35 GMT
Pinoy, do remember that we are not always just comparing this season to last season. Some (many...most) players have not really been touched on ratings for years. Boozer actually has, but he may deserve a decrease based on just his actual #'s this year, not his #'s this year compared to last year. You're entitled to your opinion, just mainly want to make sure you know that most players were not changed last year. So we are not just comparing to last year. Another reason it is good (for everyone, not just you Pinoy), to have their own sort of criteria to judge players. For Example 13p, 7r, 1.4a, 0.1b, 0.5s, 1.2TO 52.3% FG & 59.2% FT in 26mpg vs 9p, 8r, 2.1a, 1.6b, 1.1s, 1.4TO 49.7% FG & 78.4% FT in 28mpg I would think all told, Player 1's severely terrible FT shooting, less rebounds, less assists, half the steals, and non-existent blocks are not offset by his advantage in points and FG%. That just doesn't look like an 82 to me. Yet, you think Player 2 is only a 77. Explain how there is a 5 point rating difference between those stats? If anything, 100%, I would rather have the 2nd player. He actually helps on Defense, he can actually knock down his FT, better passer, better rebounder...I dunno. These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. How is Player 1 5 points better than Player 2? It seriously does not add up. Player 1 PER is 17.58 Player 2 PER is 18.06 5 point advantage to Player 1? Really? here is my interpretation with those numbers. he is 82 last season and yet he produce less in D5 than IRL so why decrease him? He is playing in a weaker team right now and yet his FG% increases. About Dieng, its more about seeing more from him right now. We can still increase him in the offseason if he keep it up |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 2, 2015 3:35:53 GMT
I guess I'm more of a number purist. I'm only looking at Real Life (a D5 rule, practically), and in real life, give me Dieng over Boozer. I think the ratings in D5 should reflect player values IRL.
Here you are again using D5 stats to back up an argument. I wish we could get you to understand that those D5 numbers are irrelevant. Truly, they are.
Our goal is to assign rating #'s to players that accurately represent their values IRL. I can't wrap my mind around "Player 1" being 5 points better than "Player 2". I can't imagine "Player 1" is at all better/more valuable right now, tbh, but 5 points seems like horrible value assessment to me. I just want to understand your method for assessing these players. Right now you are basing way too much on D5 numbers. You need to analyze their real life #'s and put a Rating to those #'s. That's the goal of the Stock Watch. You're missing the point man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghazny Dimalen on Jan 2, 2015 6:53:43 GMT
77
Boozer are not the same boozer in his prime.
Amnysted by bulls is one reason for decresing his ratings..
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 2, 2015 14:41:09 GMT
I guess I'm more of a number purist. I'm only looking at Real Life (a D5 rule, practically), and in real life, give me Dieng over Boozer. I think the ratings in D5 should reflect player values IRL. Here you are again using D5 stats to back up an argument. I wish we could get you to understand that those D5 numbers are irrelevant. Truly, they are. Our goal is to assign rating #'s to players that accurately represent their values IRL. I can't wrap my mind around "Player 1" being 5 points better than "Player 2". I can't imagine "Player 1" is at all better/more valuable right now, tbh, but 5 points seems like horrible value assessment to me. I just want to understand your method for assessing these players. Right now you are basing way too much on D5 numbers. You need to analyze their real life #'s and put a Rating to those #'s. That's the goal of the Stock Watch. You're missing the point man. for me it is relevant. We are trying to simulate RL performances and you say d5 numbers is irrelevant? I just dont get it man. Please apply your last paragraph to the rookie ratings then |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 2, 2015 16:49:21 GMT
We base ratings on real life performance. Period. The end.
Rookies only had college performance and potential to base their ratings off of, so that is what we based off of. Quite simple.
Real life performance is how we get our ratings.
You are, quite simply, doing it wrong.
|
|
Brooklyn Nets
New Orleans Pelicans
Minnesota Timberwolves
Cleveland Cavaliers
