Okay, NBA fans... let's chat...

[the_ouskull]

Who are YOUR first and second All-NBA teams, and why?

In another thread, I heard someone talking about Dwight Howard and whether or not he is currently a Top 10 player in the NBA, and I got to thinking about that. Is he Top 10? Is he for sure on the first or second team? If not, who?

And all of that thinking got me to typing, which brings us here now.

According to someone smarter than you, aside from myself, John Hollinger, the "top 10" this past season, according solely to his PER rating, explained here: http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240

...the Top 10 players in the NBA this past season were: LeBron, D-Wade, KD, Bosh, Tim Duncan, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Greg Oden, Dirk, and Pau Gasol. Now, remove Paul and Oden (injuries) and replace them with the next two... Amare, and Manu.

Those are debatable, to say the least... although not greatly. Most debates on the topic would be debates of passion, not logic and numbers. The only people that I really feel like might be Top 10 players that were left out of the PER ranks are Carmelo, Kobe, Nash, and Deron Williams. But, to add them, who to dump?

So, we're left with MY Top 10:

LeBron, D-Wade, KD, Bosh, Howard, Dirk, Pau, Kobe, Carmelo, Deron Williams. When Chris Paul is healthy, I'd ditch Carmelo or Bosh...

Please, discuss... Tell me why I am or am not a big dumbhead...

-----

BUT, PER isn't the only measure of a player's contribution to what Johnny Drama calls VICTORY!

EWA, or win score, is an estimate of how many wins having said player on your team will contribute...

Now we have some interesting sh*t sliding down the pipes...

LeBron, KD, D-Wade, Howard, David Lee, Dirk, Timmy, Bosh, Kobe, and Amare.

Wait, David Lee? Well, only three players in the league have a better true shooting percentage AND play more minutes per game than he does... (KD, LeBron, and Gerald Wallace) In addition, even though he's an undersized power forward, his defensive rebound rate is SICK. Like, Top 10 in the league sick, ahead of players like Noah, Duncan, and Bosh. For overall rebound rate, he's 20th in the league, at 17.9%, meaning that he rebounds almost 20% of the missed shots that occur while he's on the floor. He would rank 6th among power forwards, even though he's built like a small forward, but plays center. H*ll, he ranks 12th among centers.

So, sometimes, stats DO make a little sense. Do I think David Lee is a "Top 10 player" or something? No. Heck no. But, not everybody that is a good baller is flashy, or well-known either. If someone thinks Howard is better than Nash, let 'em. You're not right, and they're not wrong. But if you really need the argument settled, ask me, 'cause I'm always right. :D

the_ouskull

[the_ouskull]

And, for your edification, and 'cause I hate players like he, and Rasheed Wallace, and Vince Carter, et al.. with a primal passion usually reserved for cheating exes, here's a little ditty about Antonie Walker and his "contributions" to the game... it'll help explain the difference between PER and WS too... (and show you that stats don't point out everything unless you're using ALL available statistical measures...)


The story of Antoine Walker illustrates our point. According to the NBA Efficiency model, Walker was the 35th most productive player in the NBA in 2004–05. Given that more than 450 players played that season, if we believe the NBA model, Walker was ranked in the top 10% of all players. A key reason for Walker’s lofty ranking was his scoring totals. With an average of 19.1 points per game, he also ranked in the top 40 among scorers. Although Walker achieved a high scoring average, a bit of inspection reveals he was not a very efficient producer of points. In the 2004–05 campaign, 35 players took more than 300 shots from the three-point range. Walker took 341, and with a three-point field goal percentage of 32%, his accuracy from this distance among the 300 plus shooters ranked 34th, or second to last. His two-point field goal percentage was also relatively poor. Walker was one of twenty players who took at least 1,000 shots from two-point range. Given a shooting percentage of 45%, he ranked fifteenth—out of twenty—in accuracy among prolific shooters from two-point range. So Walker shot relatively poorly from both inside and outside the arc. Still, his percentages exceeded the thresholds imposed by the NBA model, and consequently Walker earned high marks in NBA Efficiency despite his inefficient scoring.



What happens when we view Walker through the lens of the productivity model we employ? The Win Score measure we propose imposes the cost of the shot attempt regardless of whether or not the shot is made. As a result, a player must connect on at least 50% of two-point shots and 33% of three pointers for the benefit of shooting to equal the cost. Walker failed to achieve these levels; consequently, his Win Score was below the average player at his position. Specifically, Walker posted a Win Score of 493.5 in 2004–05, while an average player at his position playing his minutes would have posted a Win Score of 635. So the NBA Efficiency model, which does not value shot attempts correctly, argues that Walker is an above average performer. When we take into account the cost of Walker’s many field goal attempts, we see that Walker is actually below average.

[ouleaf]

So, we're left with MY Top 10:

LeBron, D-Wade, KD, Bosh, Howard, Dirk, Pau, Kobe, Carmelo, Deron Williams. When Chris Paul is healthy, I'd ditch Carmelo or Bosh...


Can't really argue with that list. Definitely agree on Paul when healthy. If that is the case, then I would probably drop Bosh from the list.

[Eielson]

I'm not as big of an NBA fan as I used to be, but I guess I'll take a shot just for fun.

C: Dwight Howard
PF: Pau Gasol
SF: Lebron James
SG: Kobe Bryant
PG: Chris Paul

I picked these guys because they are all great on both sides of the court. The exceptions would be Pau and Howard. Howard isn't great on offense, but he isn't a liability, and when I think of a dominating center, I think defense and rebounding. Howard is the best at those two, so I picked him. Pau isn't a great defender, but he isn't a liability. He can score, he's a great passer, and he's unselfish so he makes the list (he was the last one, though). He's also a Laker.

Wade didn't make my list, but he's close enough that he deserved mentioning. The big deciding factor was that I tried to imagine this as a team. Lebron and Wade have the same weakness: mid-range game, so I went with Kobe.

Oh, and what is your take on Howard vs. Nash?

[the_ouskull]

I think Howard is a better ball handler and Nash is a better rebounder and shot blocker. What do you mean, "What is my take," exactly? If you take each of them off of their respective teams, who is hurt the worst? Phoenix, no question. If you put one guy on the other guy's team, who would help the most? Nash, no question. (And, before you say Howard would be awesome on Phoenix, part of their high s-n-r offense is reliant on the person setting the screen being able to step out for the jumper. If Howard did this, even the retirees in Phoenix would stand up and scream "Nooooooo.") So now he's SOLELY a defensive player? Well, there goes the floor spacing that their offense relies on, too. And, is Howard capable of boxing out as well, or blocking shots as well (ie - staying out of foul trouble coming over from the weakside) from within a zone.

A zone that, admittedly, Phoenix has to play because of Nash's inability to keep everybody in the west except Derek Fisher, who I am surprised you didn't name in Chris Paul's place, in front of him.

I'd say that Nash is only over-rated to people who still think that it is 5 years ago. He's freakin' 36, 37, and still the best pure shooter in the league. Also, for as much crap as he catches for his defense, as recently as a couple of years ago, he led the league in offensive fouls drawn.

Also, let's not forget Nash's two MVP awards. Yes, like it or not, they ARE valid.

According to:

- PER: Howard - 24.07 (6th), Nash - 21.67 (16th)
- EWA: Howard - 19.1 (4th), Nash - 14.1 (14th)

Their positions cancel each other out in most other statistics, but there's one notable stand-out. Howard's TS% is .630. Nash's is .615. Howard is a center with a very, very limited offensive game and most of his shots are dunks. Nash is a point guard.

Yes, Nash is THAT good a shooter, even at age 50.

If I were starting a team, I'd take Howard 'cause he's a LOT younger. I would also bring in Denzel Washington to be his motivational speaker. I would give Denzel a bottle of whiskey and a picture of Dwight Howard not signing something for Denzel's kids. Or Samuel L. Jackson. ("We have to to get all of these motherf*cking shots, out of the motherf*cking paint!")

the_ouskull

[Eielson]

I think Howard is a better ball handler and Nash is a better rebounder and shot blocker. What do you mean, "What is my take," exactly? If you take each of them off of their respective teams, who is hurt the worst? Phoenix, no question. If you put one guy on the other guy's team, who would help the most? Nash, no question. (And, before you say Howard would be awesome on Phoenix, part of their high s-n-r offense is reliant on the person setting the screen being able to step out for the jumper. If Howard did this, even the retirees in Phoenix would stand up and scream "Nooooooo.") So now he's SOLELY a defensive player? Well, there goes the floor spacing that their offense relies on, too. And, is Howard capable of boxing out as well, or blocking shots as well (ie - staying out of foul trouble coming over from the weakside) from within a zone.

I was thinking more along the lines of a normal situation. It wasn't so much a trade situations discussion.


A zone that, admittedly, Phoenix has to play because of Nash's inability to keep everybody in the west except Derek Fisher, who I am surprised you didn't name in Chris Paul's place, in front of him.

I thought about it.


I'd say that Nash is only over-rated to people who still think that it is 5 years ago. He's freakin' 36, 37, and still the best pure shooter in the league. Also, for as much crap as he catches for his defense, as recently as a couple of years ago, he led the league in offensive fouls drawn.

If people think he's the best point guard or that he is a top 5 player in the NBA, it doesn't matter what age he is. Yeah, it's impressive what he is doing at that age, but people aren't saying that he's the best point guard for his age. They're saying he's the best point guard.

[Scott D]

Marc is more talented than Pau...there, I said it.

[the_ouskull]

Marc is more talented than Pau...there, I said it.

You gotta be f*ckin' kidding me, right?

According to PER, they're both Top 35 guys with Pau being ranked 10th overall and Marc 33rd. According to EWA, Pau is worth three more games per season than Marc is, at 13.7 and 10.7, respectively.

The difference in their minutes per game is almost negligible, so I'm going to discount it. Now, purely from a basic statistical standpoint:

18.3, 13.3, 1.7
14.6, 9.6, 1.6

Those are their points, rebounds, and blocks per game. Pau's are on the top. Pau is also a better career free throw shooter, Marc is a slightly better shooter, percentage-wise, and .555 to .521 for their careers. Pau has been the better passer, averaging more than an assist per game higher than his brother. He's also averaged slightly more turnovers per game, at 2.4 to Marc's 2.0.

So, the regular statistical categories in which Marc is better, he's barely better, and in the main ones for their positions, Pau is better by a pretty large margin.

What about advanced stats:

Well, in addition to pulling in more boards per game, Pau also has a better rebound rate, 17.1 to 15.1. And, while Pau may turn the ball over slightly more, he actually has a lower turnover rate, meaning that his possessions run more smoothly than Marc's do. 10.5 to 12.1.

Also, if you back them up a bit, Pau's first two years were better than Marc's first two were.

Sorry, man. You're entitled to your opinion... but it's wrong.

the_ouskull

[Scott D]

I didn't say he was better, I said he was more talented.

[the_ouskull]

Please, explain. Typically, when you say that Player A is more talented than Player B, it's because they're better. Otherwise you're dealing with potential, which, when you have raw numbers, is nice to discuss, but it can be waved away by the facts of statistics.

the_ouskull

[Scott D]

I was saying out of two reasons, one as you said..the vaunted potential we kept hearing about. The secondary reason was just to disagree with Eielson. Although, while being a decent benchmark, I don't know that comparing the two of them at the point in their careers that Marc is at is 100% reliable, because despite the continuation of franchise inadequacy. The roster that surrounds Marc is more diverse and probably better than the one that surrounded Pau at the same point, so Marc isn't relied upon as much.

Pau was definitely more polished than Marc at that age, and both of them are light years ahead of Darko Milicic at any point in his career.

[Eielson]

The secondary reason was just to disagree with Eielson.

Marc is more talented than Pau. HA!