Mason Plumlee

[Kevin Hollis]

I think Mason has been putting up solid numbers this year for some time now. Nothing big here, but I think he should be above a 71. I am going to go with a 74 for right now just because this is his first season of getting decent minutes.

[Walt Frazier]

Agreed, definitely more talented than a 71.

I'll go 75

Looked at him more, going to go 77

[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]

75 ^^

[Deleted]

Yep, he has been improving, he's the best asset the Nets have right now.

74

[Brian Scalabrine]

76 really like his game

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

I am impress with his PER 36
16.5 pts 10.7 rebs 1.2 sts. 1.5 blks

His Per is at 20.1 too

As a starting C, he is putting up 14.6 pts 8.0 rebs 1.3 blks and 66.7% FG

78:)

[Andrei Kirilenko]

Threads like these reaffirm to me that 90% of you are just pulling ratings out your ass

[Andrei Kirilenko]

Someone please put these 5 players in order of highest rated to lowest rated, then I'll tell you who they all are, and you can all go look at how you rated them.

[Deleted]

are they all the same position?

[Andrei Kirilenko]

Yes, all bigs

[Brian Scalabrine]

Nice you didn't list advanced stats

[Alex English]

I say 78-79.

Also I kind of agree with Barber, not sure why you guys are going so low here. How does Dieng deserve a 78-79 while Mason Plumlee only deserves a 75? Also Marreese Speights has the best stats of that group by a mile and nobody even wanted to raise him from a 74.

[Deleted]

Its about minutes. there are LOTS of players, especially bigs, that do well in limited minutes 17-25 that cant start. plumlee and speights havent shown the ability to play full games for long enough to be rated as high as dieng. so dieng is a 78 and they are 74. makes sense to me.

[Deleted]

76

[Alex English]

Jan 24, 2015 19:09:35 GMT @riogho said:

Its about minutes. there are LOTS of players, especially bigs, that do well in limited minutes 17-25 that cant start. plumlee and speights havent shown the ability to play full games for long enough to be rated as high as dieng. so dieng is a 78 and they are 74. makes sense to me.

Sorry man, but what you are saying doesn't really make sense when you actually look at the situations of these players.

Speights plays for the best team in the NBA and has Andrew Bogut, David Lee, Festus Ezeli to compete with for playing time. Plumlee plays on a team with Brook Lopez, Kevin Garnett and is still a young player in his second year. Every minute of playing time those two get is very much earned.

Now look at Dieng, the Timberwolves are absolutely awful and there isn't any competition for playing time since Pekovic has been injured most of the year. All of his minutes are his by default.

12.6 ppg and 5.1 rpg in 18 minutes per game can't possibly be worth just an 74. He's easily a top 3 candidate for 6th Man of the Year. If he put up those exact same stats in 35 minutes I bet some people would consider giving him an 80+ rating.

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2015 19:41:44 GMT Alex English said:

Jan 24, 2015 19:09:35 GMT @riogho said:

Its about minutes. there are LOTS of players, especially bigs, that do well in limited minutes 17-25 that cant start. plumlee and speights havent shown the ability to play full games for long enough to be rated as high as dieng. so dieng is a 78 and they are 74. makes sense to me.

Sorry man, but what you are saying doesn't really make sense when you actually look at the situations of these players.

Speights plays for the best team in the NBA and has Andrew Bogut, David Lee, Festus Ezeli to compete with for playing time. Plumlee plays on a team with Brook Lopez, Kevin Garnett and is still a young player in his second year. Every minute of playing time those two get is very much earned.

Now look at Dieng, the Timberwolves are absolutely awful and there isn't any competition for playing time since Pekovic has been injured most of the year. All of his minutes are his by default.

12.6 ppg and 5.1 rpg in 18 minutes per game can't possibly be worth just an 74. He's easily a top 3 candidate for 6th Man of the Year. If he put up those exact same stats in 35 minutes I bet some people would consider giving him an 80+ rating.

100% agree with this. I think Plumlee will get his chance. Sometimes your better than starters and its just a matter of the coach and who he thinks will help win. Sometimes last names do matter. I think Plumlee Will end up a great nba player and a starter. Love his aggressiveness and skill..

[Deleted]

And yes i know hes talking about Speights...just speakinh my mind..

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2015 19:41:44 GMT Alex English said:

Jan 24, 2015 19:09:35 GMT @riogho said:

Its about minutes. there are LOTS of players, especially bigs, that do well in limited minutes 17-25 that cant start. plumlee and speights havent shown the ability to play full games for long enough to be rated as high as dieng. so dieng is a 78 and they are 74. makes sense to me.

Sorry man, but what you are saying doesn't really make sense when you actually look at the situations of these players.

Speights plays for the best team in the NBA and has Andrew Bogut, David Lee, Festus Ezeli to compete with for playing time. Plumlee plays on a team with Brook Lopez, Kevin Garnett and is still a young player in his second year. Every minute of playing time those two get is very much earned.

Now look at Dieng, the Timberwolves are absolutely awful and there isn't any competition for playing time since Pekovic has been injured most of the year. All of his minutes are his by default.

12.6 ppg and 5.1 rpg in 18 minutes per game can't possibly be worth just an 74. He's easily a top 3 candidate for 6th Man of the Year. If he put up those exact same stats in 35 minutes I bet some people would consider giving him an 80+ rating.

Man, if garbage stats were worth the same as starter minutes, then MCW wouldn't be rated just a 78... 

When Bogut & Lee was out, Speights still didn't play heavy minutes. If a team has a Jimmy Butler, they play him. Theres a reason they aren't getting more minutes.

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2015 20:12:01 GMT @riogho said:

Jan 24, 2015 19:41:44 GMT Alex English said:

Sorry man, but what you are saying doesn't really make sense when you actually look at the situations of these players.

Speights plays for the best team in the NBA and has Andrew Bogut, David Lee, Festus Ezeli to compete with for playing time. Plumlee plays on a team with Brook Lopez, Kevin Garnett and is still a young player in his second year. Every minute of playing time those two get is very much earned.

Now look at Dieng, the Timberwolves are absolutely awful and there isn't any competition for playing time since Pekovic has been injured most of the year. All of his minutes are his by default.

12.6 ppg and 5.1 rpg in 18 minutes per game can't possibly be worth just an 74. He's easily a top 3 candidate for 6th Man of the Year. If he put up those exact same stats in 35 minutes I bet some people would consider giving him an 80+ rating.

Man, if garbage stats were worth the same as starter minutes, then MCW wouldn't be rated just a 78... 

When Bogut & Lee was out, Speights still didn't play heavy minutes. If a team has a Jimmy Butler, they play him. Theres a reason they aren't getting more minutes.

Speights stats are not garbage for one. He gets them during the game. And Plumlee will come into his own.. When you gave lopez and Garnett and a team tgat thinks they can contend, names like Plumlee dont get mins. Sometimes it takes years.

[Deleted]

I DO get what you're saying, Alex. And I agree, mostly. It's just... I see ratings only going up slightly for other players who have proven themselves over the course of an entire season, and no way should someone who plays well for 22 minutes a game be almost an 80. I agree, he may have the skills, and could be an 80 if he was stuck out there for 30 minutes, but until I see it, it seems its best to err on the side of caution.

What would you rate Hassan Whiteside? Because he's doing better than both of them, and in more minutes!

How long does someone have to perform at a level to be rated what their stats are? For Anthony Davis, half a season wasn't enough. So... a month or so of Speights performing well with sligthly more minutes (He's never played in the 30's btw), and the same with Plumlee, just isn't enough to jump them from like a 70 to a 78. 74 for now, and if they look the same with heavier minutes, or for the entire season, then you're looking at a 78-79.

[Deleted]

Like, an 80 rated player would be a quality starting center in the sim, very very good, in fact. But neither has proven to be able to do it, AT ALL. I don't see just giving guys who look good in limited minutes a huge boost, until they keep it up for longer.

Do we change Alexis Ajinca's rating to an 80? He's the most efficient scorer on the pelicans. Is he better than Tyreke Evans or Omer Asik... no. It's because he plays limited minutes, and coming in fresh is a BIG part of that. ESPECIALLY for big men, they get winded much quicker. Speights and Plumlee could very well look shitty if they played starter minutes, and until they show that they don't, lets not assume they are quality starters.

[Alex English]

Jan 24, 2015 20:20:19 GMT @riogho said:

I DO get what you're saying, Alex. And I agree, mostly. It's just... I see ratings only going up slightly for other players who have proven themselves over the course of an entire season, and no way should someone who plays well for 22 minutes a game be almost an 80. I agree, he may have the skills, and could be an 80 if he was stuck out there for 30 minutes, but until I see it, it seems its best to err on the side of caution.

What would you rate Hassan Whiteside? Because he's doing better than both of them, and in more minutes!

How long does someone have to perform at a level to be rated what their stats are? For Anthony Davis, half a season wasn't enough. So... a month or so of Speights performing well with sligthly more minutes (He's never played in the 30's btw), and the same with Plumlee, just isn't enough to jump them from like a 70 to a 78. 74 for now, and if they look the same with heavier minutes, or for the entire season, then you're looking at a 78-79.

How do you figure Hassan Whiteside is playing better than Speights and Plumlee? He had one big game against the Clippers, and a couple others that were alright. It hasn't been a month or so of Speights playing well, it's been this whole season so far of 40 games.

Also comparing a boost from the low to mid 70s and a boost from 92 is pretty ridiculous.

I also think we have a difference of opinion over what an 80 rating means. I think an 80 means being a low end starter in the league. High 70s means a good bench player, about 75 is your average role player and low 70s are for end of the bench guys. Anything under 70 means the player is completely useless.

On the other end, I think a mid 80s player is when we start talking about "very very good" players that are borderline all-stars.

[Deleted]

I like your rating system. Do you really think Speights and Plumlee are better than good rotational players at this point in their careers? 

Maybe they are. But they haven't proven it yet. And until they do, it seems silly to give them ratings that would lead to them having larger roles in this sim  league than they have ever had in real life.

[Kevin Hollis]

I base all my ratings on how I feel to be honest. I am more on the conservative side of things as rating change implementation is a slow process. Because of this, I am more willing to give a higher rating with someone who has done it longer. Plumlee has been great this season, no doubts about it. However, as mentioned, I think on terms of conservatism. I could rate Plumlee an 80-81, but to me, he doesn't have the sample size to make me feel justified that I made the right decision if his stats were to fall off after.

[Deleted]

OKC stated my argument much more eloquently. And its why Dieng is a point or two higher... weve just seen more.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Jan 24, 2015 17:04:21 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

Someone please put these 5 players in order of highest rated to lowest rated, then I'll tell you who they all are, and you can all go look at how you rated them.

quite funny that you made this comment but you actually did not suggest a rating for Mason. hehe

I up my vote above..

Its getting clear to me that he has it. 

[Walt Frazier]

Jan 24, 2015 17:04:21 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

Someone please put these 5 players in order of highest rated to lowest rated, then I'll tell you who they all are, and you can all go look at how you rated them.

OK first of all, everyone is hesitant with young players.  I think if you threw Tyson Chandler in this group and looked at the ratings he got elsewhere, a couple of these guys might need to get boosts. 

For example, I know Player 1 is Dieng.  Here's him vs. Tyson Chandler

29:50 mpg / 49.7 FG% (7.2 FGA) / 80.0 FT% / 9.8 pts / 8.6 reb / 2.3 ast / 1.0 stl / 1.8 blk 
31:04 mpg / 66.9 FG% (5.9 FGA) / 74.3 FT% / 10.5 pts / 12.0 reb / 1.3 ast / 0.5 stl / 1.4 blk


I've got Tyson at an 84 I believe and I just upped Dieng to an 81.  I was on the edge of an 80 or 81, 81 may be too quick, but I don't believe it is too high.  With Dieng's advantages in passing, doubled up in steals, and a half a block more in a little less time per game, plus a FT% advantage, and the points are basically equal factoring minutes...I dunno.  Tyson has a Rebound advantage clearly, and a FG% advantage, but Dieng takes a couple more shots per game and is not bad there.  Tyson is a pick and roll machine and a putback dunk guy supreme.  He's better than Dieng.  But I think my 81 is pretty good considering Dieng is younger and less proven.  On stats alone (which is all you are trying to use in your chart obviously), Dieng's ratings maybe should be even closer to Tyson's overall.  That Rebound & Dunk/Inside advantage for Tyson is about all he has.  Dieng's Steal/Block/Pass/FT will eat up that advantage pretty quickly.

Anyway, on your chart, taken out of context...I would go something like this:

#1
#5
#2
#6
#3
#4

I don't care if I haven't rated them that way b/c we all use more than JUST stats.

[Charles Barkley]

Don't believe I've gave my rating in here. I think Plumlee is a 74. Five points less than Dieng. 11 and 6 with not even a block a game just doesn't raise my shorts.

[Sam Bowie]

77. Time to give Plumlee a new rating.

[James Kay]

What the fuck are you guys even thinking… we cannot give ratings off extrapolated per36 stats. Right now plumlee is averaging less than 10 points and 6.6 boards. If he got more minutes, maybe he’d prove being deserving of a 78 rating. But right now he can’t stay on the court even on a terrible Brooklyn team. He is a horrendous FT shooter and has a hard time avoiding fouls. Seriously… I don’t know what you guys are thinking. My vote is 73.