|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Jun 7, 2015 17:00:29 GMT
Current rating: 82
Not sure what rating to propose at this point but I feel like we should discuss his rating.
Right now, Ezeli is ahead of him in Warriors rotation...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 20:49:14 GMT
76
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jun 8, 2015 0:43:43 GMT
Hmm. 76 lower all his defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jun 8, 2015 11:16:28 GMT
77
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jun 8, 2015 11:41:14 GMT
A lot of you are very conservative in increasing players yet it seems some forget about conservatism when decreasing players. Quite ironic
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 11:47:45 GMT
A lot of you are very conservative in increasing players yet it seems some forget about conservatism when decreasing players. Quite ironic When a player is old it's easier to write them off |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jun 8, 2015 13:14:43 GMT
A lot of you are very conservative in increasing players yet it seems some forget about conservatism when decreasing players. Quite ironic When a player is old it's easier to write them off A 32 years old is not that old.  |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jun 8, 2015 16:27:23 GMT
A lot of you are very conservative in increasing players yet it seems some forget about conservatism when decreasing players. Quite ironic Not necessarily directed at you Pinoy, but: DO NOT BASE YOUR VOTES OFF OF PLAYOFF PERFORMANCES!!!! These are matchups, some players have better matchups, just how it is. I am not saying that we don't need to lower David Lee, because we do, but just in general, don't base rating's off of the playoff performances. Try to use the regular season as much as you can. Something to keep in mind, when we lower guys who have been in the league a while, we are less conservative because we know them. And we will also bring them back up just as quickly. The problem is, with the big men, there is no real consistency in the ratings. I made a whole thread about it and went on a crusade. Anyways, David Lee has fallen off. 77 in my book. Sucked in the regular season, doesn't play in the playoffs. Does fit into Kerr's plans. |
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Jun 8, 2015 16:29:03 GMT
A lot of you are very conservative in increasing players yet it seems some forget about conservatism when decreasing players. Quite ironic Agreed. I will give David Lee a 79. In 2013-14, he he had very good numbers and I feel like he will be traded in the off-season and be good somewhere else (just not 82 good). |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jun 9, 2015 0:56:23 GMT
79 feels good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Colangelo on Jun 9, 2015 0:57:09 GMT
78
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 1:31:02 GMT
A lot of you are very conservative in increasing players yet it seems some forget about conservatism when decreasing players. Quite ironic Not necessarily directed at you Pinoy, but: DO NOT BASE YOUR VOTES OFF OF PLAYOFF PERFORMANCES!!!! These are matchups, some players have better matchups, just how it is. I am not saying that we don't need to lower David Lee, because we do, but just in general, don't base rating's off of the playoff performances. Try to use the regular season as much as you can. Something to keep in mind, when we lower guys who have been in the league a while, we are less conservative because we know them. And we will also bring them back up just as quickly. The problem is, with the big men, there is no real consistency in the ratings. I made a whole thread about it and went on a crusade. Anyways, David Lee has fallen off. 77 in my book. Sucked in the regular season, doesn't play in the playoffs. Does fit into Kerr's plans. I vehemently disagree with using the regular season over the playoffs because the players actually play HARD in the latter. Therefore, I will disregard your statement and I encourage others to do the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jun 9, 2015 1:35:34 GMT
Not necessarily directed at you Pinoy, but: DO NOT BASE YOUR VOTES OFF OF PLAYOFF PERFORMANCES!!!! These are matchups, some players have better matchups, just how it is. I am not saying that we don't need to lower David Lee, because we do, but just in general, don't base rating's off of the playoff performances. Try to use the regular season as much as you can. Something to keep in mind, when we lower guys who have been in the league a while, we are less conservative because we know them. And we will also bring them back up just as quickly. The problem is, with the big men, there is no real consistency in the ratings. I made a whole thread about it and went on a crusade. Anyways, David Lee has fallen off. 77 in my book. Sucked in the regular season, doesn't play in the playoffs. Does fit into Kerr's plans. I vehemently disagree with using the regular season over the playoffs because the players actually play HARD in the latter. Therefore, I will disregard your statement and I encourage others to do the same. I mean, judge on 82 games or on as few as 4? The best players maybe coast a bit in the Regular Season, but for the most part everyone is doing their best every night out. I think you're exaggerating and possibly even making it up, for most players, how little effort they might put in during the regular season. They might play hardER in the playoffs, but I'd say that's pretty minimal compared to the difference between a full regular season vs. a playoff series or two. |
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jun 9, 2015 1:45:48 GMT
78
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 1:51:59 GMT
Not necessarily directed at you Pinoy, but: DO NOT BASE YOUR VOTES OFF OF PLAYOFF PERFORMANCES!!!! These are matchups, some players have better matchups, just how it is. I am not saying that we don't need to lower David Lee, because we do, but just in general, don't base rating's off of the playoff performances. Try to use the regular season as much as you can. Something to keep in mind, when we lower guys who have been in the league a while, we are less conservative because we know them. And we will also bring them back up just as quickly. The problem is, with the big men, there is no real consistency in the ratings. I made a whole thread about it and went on a crusade. Anyways, David Lee has fallen off. 77 in my book. Sucked in the regular season, doesn't play in the playoffs. Does fit into Kerr's plans. I vehemently disagree with using the regular season over the playoffs because the players actually play HARD in the latter. Therefore, I will disregard your statement and I encourage others to do the same. because teams and players care more about winning in the playoffs than anything else. so matchups, pace, style, gameplan will be different from how it is 95% of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jun 9, 2015 1:55:57 GMT
I vehemently disagree with using the regular season over the playoffs because the players actually play HARD in the latter. Therefore, I will disregard your statement and I encourage others to do the same. because teams and players care more about winning in the playoffs than anything else. so matchups, pace, style, gameplan will be different from how it is 95% of the year. One could make an argument that, for rating's sake only, you almost SHOULD ignore the playoffs. I agree with this. Plus, factoring in the playoffs too much automatically eliminates 14 teams worth of players from getting equal treatment, and then another 8 teams are only going to have 4-7 games of the playoffs, all against the same opponent, in a matchup-based game plan that, as you said, isn't even normal basketball for these teams possibly. It's not fair to a lot of players to focus on the playoffs (half don't get to play in them and half of the other half that do only get a couple games) and it's different from "normal" basketball, so focus on the regular season folks. It just makes the most sense. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 2:01:03 GMT
because teams and players care more about winning in the playoffs than anything else. so matchups, pace, style, gameplan will be different from how it is 95% of the year. One could make an argument that, for rating's sake only, you almost SHOULD ignore the playoffs. I agree with this. Plus, factoring in the playoffs too much automatically eliminates 14 teams worth of players from getting equal treatment, and then another 8 teams are only going to have 4-7 games of the playoffs, all against the same opponent, in a matchup-based game plan that, as you said, isn't even normal basketball for these teams possibly. It's not fair to a lot of players to focus on the playoffs (half don't get to play in them and half of the other half that do only get a couple games) and it's different from "normal" basketball, so focus on the regular season folks. It just makes the most sense. I don't think any rational person would agree with your argument. The playoffs separate the men from the boys and to not recognize that fact would be reckless on our part. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jun 9, 2015 2:28:56 GMT
For me, for players who reached Conference Finals and Finals, 80% regular/20% Playoffs.
For players who reach playoffs but did not reach Conference Finals and beyond, 95% regular, 5% Playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jun 9, 2015 3:10:16 GMT
One could make an argument that, for rating's sake only, you almost SHOULD ignore the playoffs. I agree with this. Plus, factoring in the playoffs too much automatically eliminates 14 teams worth of players from getting equal treatment, and then another 8 teams are only going to have 4-7 games of the playoffs, all against the same opponent, in a matchup-based game plan that, as you said, isn't even normal basketball for these teams possibly. It's not fair to a lot of players to focus on the playoffs (half don't get to play in them and half of the other half that do only get a couple games) and it's different from "normal" basketball, so focus on the regular season folks. It just makes the most sense. I don't think any rational person would agree with your argument. The playoffs separate the men from the boys and to not recognize that fact would be reckless on our part. Vlade, you know I love you brother but the fact that YOU are the one saying I'm not rational is a bit funny. The Chris Bosh scale, among many other instances, show you're not always the most rational person in this league (at least the person you portray in this league most of the time). Case in point for my argument are guys like Jerome James. Dude sucked in the NBA regular season for pretty much his entire career. He got one favorable matchup in a playoff series and got a huge contract b/c he legit looked good *in the playoffs.* It's not always a very good portrayal of a player's actual talent and playing style. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jun 9, 2015 5:48:50 GMT
One could make an argument that, for rating's sake only, you almost SHOULD ignore the playoffs. I agree with this. Plus, factoring in the playoffs too much automatically eliminates 14 teams worth of players from getting equal treatment, and then another 8 teams are only going to have 4-7 games of the playoffs, all against the same opponent, in a matchup-based game plan that, as you said, isn't even normal basketball for these teams possibly. It's not fair to a lot of players to focus on the playoffs (half don't get to play in them and half of the other half that do only get a couple games) and it's different from "normal" basketball, so focus on the regular season folks. It just makes the most sense. I don't think any rational person would agree with your argument. The playoffs separate the men from the boys and to not recognize that fact would be reckless on our part. Vlade, can you please do something for me. Imagine you are in a room full of 1,000 people. Everyone in the room is asked to take the number 100 and divide it by two, and keep dividing by two, until you feel that you have reached the average number the rest of the room will have. So, you keep dividing 100 by two, and two, etc until you feel like the number you have is the average, or closest to the average, of the other 999 peoples numbers. The other 999 people in the room are doing the same thing as well. Please tell me your number. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 10:15:24 GMT
One could make an argument that, for rating's sake only, you almost SHOULD ignore the playoffs. I agree with this. Plus, factoring in the playoffs too much automatically eliminates 14 teams worth of players from getting equal treatment, and then another 8 teams are only going to have 4-7 games of the playoffs, all against the same opponent, in a matchup-based game plan that, as you said, isn't even normal basketball for these teams possibly. It's not fair to a lot of players to focus on the playoffs (half don't get to play in them and half of the other half that do only get a couple games) and it's different from "normal" basketball, so focus on the regular season folks. It just makes the most sense. I don't think any rational person would agree with your argument. The playoffs separate the men from the boys and to not recognize that fact would be reckless on our part. CJ MCCOLLUM = 99 |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 13:25:33 GMT
I don't think any rational person would agree with your argument. The playoffs separate the men from the boys and to not recognize that fact would be reckless on our part. Vlade, you know I love you brother but the fact that YOU are the one saying I'm not rational is a bit funny. The Chris Bosh scale, among many other instances, show you're not always the most rational person in this league (at least the person you portray in this league most of the time). Case in point for my argument are guys like Jerome James. Dude sucked in the NBA regular season for pretty much his entire career. He got one favorable matchup in a playoff series and got a huge contract b/c he legit looked good *in the playoffs.* It's not always a very good portrayal of a player's actual talent and playing style.  you as well. The Chris Bosh scale illuminated absurdity in the way we rate(d) players and I think most people respect me for saying it because it turned out to be more correct than incorrect. In fact, a notable enemy of the Chris Bosh scale, James Kay, openly said favorable about it. This fact illustrates that most GMs understand that I used hyperbole to make a point; which I feel like influenced Barber's "voice of reason" persona. While I know you hate the "voice of reason" as much if not more than the Chris Bosh scale, you cannot deny its effectiveness. Judging players off of the playoffs will work 99.9% of the time if that's the best example you can come up with. Furthermore, just to be clear for the less rational people, I am not saying we totally disregard the regular season. Rather, I am saying we take the playoffs into account as one of many factors when deterring a player's rating. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jun 9, 2015 19:17:37 GMT
Vlade, you know I love you brother but the fact that YOU are the one saying I'm not rational is a bit funny. The Chris Bosh scale, among many other instances, show you're not always the most rational person in this league (at least the person you portray in this league most of the time). Case in point for my argument are guys like Jerome James. Dude sucked in the NBA regular season for pretty much his entire career. He got one favorable matchup in a playoff series and got a huge contract b/c he legit looked good *in the playoffs.* It's not always a very good portrayal of a player's actual talent and playing style. you as well. The Chris Bosh scale illuminated absurdity in the way we rate(d) players and I think most people respect me for saying it because it turned out to be more correct than incorrect. In fact, a notable enemy of the Chris Bosh scale, James Kay, openly said favorable about it. This fact illustrates that most GMs understand that I used hyperbole to make a point; which I feel like influenced Barber's "voice of reason" persona. While I know you hate the "voice of reason" as much if not more than the Chris Bosh scale, you cannot deny its effectiveness. Judging players off of the playoffs will work 99.9% of the time if that's the best example you can come up with. Furthermore, just to be clear for the less rational people, I am not saying we totally disregard the regular season. Rather, I am saying we take the playoffs into account as one of many factors when deterring a player's rating. Well I have said the same and would never disagree with your last sentence. I think there are some people who just factor playoffs at about 90% and regular season 10%. Or they sound like it, sometimes. That's a big problem IMO. |
|
|
|
David Lee
Jun 9, 2015 23:15:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Jun 9, 2015 23:15:59 GMT
I don't think any rational person would agree with your argument. The playoffs separate the men from the boys and to not recognize that fact would be reckless on our part. Vlade, can you please do something for me. Imagine you are in a room full of 1,000 people. Everyone in the room is asked to take the number 100 and divide it by two, and keep dividing by two, until you feel that you have reached the average number the rest of the room will have. So, you keep dividing 100 by two, and two, etc until you feel like the number you have is the average, or closest to the average, of the other 999 peoples numbers. The other 999 people in the room are doing the same thing as well. Please tell me your number. I haven't googled this or anything so I might look like an idiot, but I'm gonna guess 25. The answer is most certainly either 25 or 50. You obviously run into the problem that people are gonna keep halving their answers to get the supposed average of everyone else. I doubt few people go past 12.5 though. The only real question is how many people choose 50 and how many choose 12.5. Either way, I think the answer probably revolves somewhere around 25. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 23:20:41 GMT
you as well. The Chris Bosh scale illuminated absurdity in the way we rate(d) players and I think most people respect me for saying it because it turned out to be more correct than incorrect. In fact, a notable enemy of the Chris Bosh scale, James Kay, openly said favorable about it. This fact illustrates that most GMs understand that I used hyperbole to make a point; which I feel like influenced Barber's "voice of reason" persona. While I know you hate the "voice of reason" as much if not more than the Chris Bosh scale, you cannot deny its effectiveness. Judging players off of the playoffs will work 99.9% of the time if that's the best example you can come up with. Furthermore, just to be clear for the less rational people, I am not saying we totally disregard the regular season. Rather, I am saying we take the playoffs into account as one of many factors when deterring a player's rating. Well I have said the same and would never disagree with your last sentence. I think there are some people who just factor playoffs at about 90% and regular season 10%. Or they sound like it, sometimes. That's a big problem IMO. I don't think someone who never plays should be rated an 80 after a stellar playoff performance, but a 75 might be appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jun 9, 2015 23:31:03 GMT
Well I have said the same and would never disagree with your last sentence. I think there are some people who just factor playoffs at about 90% and regular season 10%. Or they sound like it, sometimes. That's a big problem IMO. I don't think someone who never plays should be rated an 80 after a stellar playoff performance, but a 75 might be appropriate. I'm not even talking about David Lee here (I get this is in his thread but I'm just talking generally). Just talking about the general concept here of overvaluing Playoff Performance at the expense of the value of the regular season, in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jun 9, 2015 23:34:30 GMT
Vlade, can you please do something for me. Imagine you are in a room full of 1,000 people. Everyone in the room is asked to take the number 100 and divide it by two, and keep dividing by two, until you feel that you have reached the average number the rest of the room will have. So, you keep dividing 100 by two, and two, etc until you feel like the number you have is the average, or closest to the average, of the other 999 peoples numbers. The other 999 people in the room are doing the same thing as well. Please tell me your number. I haven't googled this or anything so I might look like an idiot, but I'm gonna guess 25. The answer is most certainly either 25 or 50. You obviously run into the problem that people are gonna keep halving their answers to get the supposed average of everyone else. I doubt few people go past 12.5 though. The only real question is how many people choose 50 and how many choose 12.5. Either way, I think the answer probably revolves somewhere around 25. I don't know if I've completely explained the experiment right, but we did it in a math intensive finance class about investing, and in a class of 30, I think our average was around 12. But that isn't necessarily the idea of it. The idea of the experiment, and I believe (I say believe because I am taking it on good faith that my professor didn't lie to us and give us copies of a fake story) the Wall Street Journal did this experiment with their readers, and a completely rational person would guess that the average should be 0. Because people should rationally keep dividing and dividing, and one rational person would understand this and guess 0, thus all people, if rational, should guess 0. The experiment showed about the same results that you guessed Josh, somewhere between 6-25, because their sample size was a lot larger, the average wasn't completely at 25, nor did people go all the way down to 6.25. So, what the experiment showed, or what my professor told us the experiment showed is that no one is completely rational, as logically, you should guess 0, as you should assume everyone should divide down and divide down. And moreover, that a whole population of investment readers are not rational. Which is a theory investors use to account for the short term trends of a market place; that the investors aren't all rational causing stock points, or commodities to fluctuate in the short term without much reason. In the movie Limitless with Bradley Cooper, where he takes that mind opening drug, DeNiro asks him how he is making all this money, and Cooper basically says that he stopped trying to understand why the market moved as it did, only that it would move and fluctuate inconsistently when no news is out, and that he based his calls off of these short term movements. For the record, no one in my class guessed 0. Because we all sat there doing the math and dividing down and down, without realizing that everyone should be dividing down and down, and understanding that the closest number should be 0. And instead of understanding that, we just kept dividing, when we should have looked at the idea being asked and simply guessed 0. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:42:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 2:06:45 GMT
I don't think someone who never plays should be rated an 80 after a stellar playoff performance, but a 75 might be appropriate. I'm not even talking about David Lee here (I get this is in his thread but I'm just talking generally). Just talking about the general concept here of overvaluing Playoff Performance at the expense of the value of the regular season, in general. Ditto, but Lee remains a tough case. He came in at the end of the 2nd quarter of Game 3 of the Finals and played solid...I think he's around an 80 if he gets the minutes. Unfortunately, he finds it hard to earn minutes in Golden State. |
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Jun 10, 2015 2:30:54 GMT
If you asked people 3 years ago many would have said David Lee would be better than Pau Gasol at this point.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jun 10, 2015 2:32:14 GMT
82 for me.
|
|
New Orleans Pelicans
Cleveland Cavaliers
Minnesota Timberwolves
Toronto Raptors
you as well. The Chris Bosh scale illuminated absurdity in the way we rate(d) players and I think most people respect me for saying it because it turned out to be more correct than incorrect. In fact, a notable enemy of the Chris Bosh scale, James Kay, openly said favorable about it. This fact illustrates that most GMs understand that I used hyperbole to make a point; which I feel like influenced Barber's "voice of reason" persona. While I know you hate the "voice of reason" as much if not more than the Chris Bosh scale, you cannot deny its effectiveness. 
Brooklyn Nets
