Ranking the last 2 drafts

[funkykingston]

I don't put any faith into PER. As much as I find fault with the NFL's "passer rating", at least it's an accepted statistic and has been discussed and tweaked by the league. PER is simply one analyst's notion of productivity.

It does not incorporate defense in any meaningful way and it heavily rewards volume shooting.

 

[Section 101]

I don't put any faith into PER. As much as I find fault with the NFL's "passer rating", at least it's an accepted statistic and has been discussed and tweaked by the league. PER is simply one analyst's notion of productivity.

It does not incorporate defense in any meaningful way and it heavily rewards volume shooting.

So explain how do you incorporate defense into any stat?

 

[Kingster]

There's no wow just wow here. The Spurs don't win because they have HOF talents at the guard positions. They have very good occasional All Star talents at the guard positions, but they win with defense, depth and experience. Which one of these bobbsey twins is supposed to be so overwhelmingly talented that there is no comparison:

Manu 17.9pts (.427 .353 .869) 3.8reb 4.9ast 1.6stl 0.4blk 2.3TO
Parker 17.4pts (.525 .341 .787) 3.1reb 6.7ast 1.3stl 0.0blk 2.5TO

Fact is neither is a franchise guy, or even close. Manu has always shown the wider range of skills and at his peak gave the impression he might be a guy who could average 22ppg or so if needed, but he's never consistently dominated. He''s made 2 All Star games in 9 years. Parker has made 3 All Star games in 10 years, has only had one season where he was anything more than a #2 or #3 option, and makes for a fairly clear comparison as he basically has a similar offenive skillset to Tyreke -- to the hoop, shaky shot that he had to work into, not a big assistman -- in a smaller, weaker package that can't help on the glass or defensively. Neither of those players can remotely look down talentwise on a guy who could be a perennial All Star through his prime years.

I think those stats show how overated stats can be in determining how good (or not) players are. Those are extremely good players whose stats don't reflect how good they are. But the wins and losses of their team certainly do.

 

[mr. moustache]

So explain how do you incorporate defense into any stat?

Steals, defensive rebounds, and blocks to start. There are other more complicated defensive metrics which give a score based on who a player guards and how much they produce in 1:1 situations.

 

[Section 101]

Steals, defensive rebounds, and blocks to start. There are other more complicated defensive metrics which give a score based on who a player guards and how much they produce in 1:1 situations.

So a player that gambles all the time on defense for steals and allow their man to go by and players that blocks shots that go out of bounds or to the other team who gets the basket anyways are good defensive players.

How about there arent defensive stats because there is no real way to produce them. Also, the key to defense isn't with an individual it starts with team defense and good scouting.

 

[Lockehead]

There's no wow just wow here. The Spurs don't win because they have HOF talents at the guard positions. They have very good occasional All Star talents at the guard positions, but they win with defense, depth and experience. Which one of these bobbsey twins is supposed to be so overwhelmingly talented that there is no comparison:

Manu 17.9pts (.427 .353 .869) 3.8reb 4.9ast 1.6stl 0.4blk 2.3TO
Parker 17.4pts (.525 .341 .787) 3.1reb 6.7ast 1.3stl 0.0blk 2.5TO

Fact is neither is a franchise guy, or even close. Manu has always shown the wider range of skills and at his peak gave the impression he might be a guy who could average 22ppg or so if needed, but he's never consistently dominated. He''s made 2 All Star games in 9 years. Parker has made 3 All Star games in 10 years, has only had one season where he was anything more than a #2 or #3 option, and makes for a fairly clear comparison as he basically has a similar offenive skillset to Tyreke -- to the hoop, shaky shot that he had to work into, not a big assistman -- in a smaller, weaker package that can't help on the glass or defensively. Neither of those players can remotely look down talentwise on a guy who could be a perennial All Star through his prime years.

Stats are stats. In the end it comes down to how much a player helps his team win, which is where Manu and Parker beats Tyreke with ease. Talent wise, Tyreke has more upside, but hes not more talented than Parker or Ginobili. Ginobili has the slashing game and eurostep just as well as Tyreke does. He has a better 3 point shot, jumpshot, and better free throws. Add to that his decision making, play making, and veteranship and id say hes a better player than Tyreke. Parker has a wide array of offensive moves as well, floaters, slashing, jumpshot. Hes one of if not the top shooting guard, and by that i mean FG percentage not the SG position, in the league.
Tyreke could help his team win as well as those two do after a lot more experience and development.

 

[rhythmless]

So a player that gambles all the time on defense for steals and allow their man to go by and players that blocks shots that go out of bounds or to the other team who gets the basket anyways are good defensive players.

How about there arent defensive stats because there is no real way to produce them. Also, the key to defense isn't with an individual it starts with team defense and good scouting.

You can go into +/- and points per possession allowed on and off court.

 

[funkykingston]

So explain how do you incorporate defense into any stat?

It's not an easy process, but average opponent FG% vs the league average for the position is one indication. I'd agree that steals are not a great indicator of defensive ability.

Individual defensive prowess is difficult to quantify in the NBA. Even harder is to quantify a player's contribution to the team defense. But that wasn't my point.

My point was that using PER alone is not a sufficient way to to claim one player is better than another or having a better year.

 

[Spike]

Sheer lunacy abounds. Now Manu and Parker are more talented? They are more experienced and know their roles within the Spurs offense. Pop has a veteran laded team full of players who ultimately know that it's Duncan who butters the bread.

Lunacy.

Martin is certainly NOT the focus of the other team's defense. If anything, they allow Martin to get his points knowing it won't affect the outcome of the game.

 

[mr. moustache]

So a player that gambles all the time on defense for steals and allow their man to go by and players that blocks shots that go out of bounds or to the other team who gets the basket anyways are good defensive players.

How about there arent defensive stats because there is no real way to produce them. Also, the key to defense isn't with an individual it starts with team defense and good scouting.

Saying there aren't defensive stats doesn't mean there aren't defensive stats. Steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds are absolutely defensive stats. I never said the key to defense was individual man to man defense, just that there are metrics that track iso defense. If you want to change the argument to iso vs. help defense; you can argue that alone.

 

[Lockehead]

Sheer lunacy abounds. Now Manu and Parker are more talented? They are more experienced and know their roles within the Spurs offense. Pop has a veteran laded team full of players who ultimately know that it's Duncan who butters the bread.

Lunacy.

Martin is certainly NOT the focus of the other team's defense. If anything, they allow Martin to get his points knowing it won't affect the outcome of the game.

That doesnt have anything to do with talent. Comparing Reke, Parker, and Manu as individual players, Parker and Manu has a wider skillset and simply can put the ball in the basket more ways than Tyreke can.
I dont have doubts that Tyreke will become more talented than them in the future.

 

[ParniValjak]

That doesnt have anything to do with talent. Comparing Reke, Parker, and Manu as individual players, Parker and Manu has a wider skillset and simply can put the ball in the basket more ways than Tyreke can.
I dont have doubts that Tyreke will become more talented than them in the future.

Talent and production are 2 very different things. Talent you are born with and you can further develop it with hard work and practice. You don't become more talented with time, you become more productive with time.

Tyreke is probably more talented than Parker and Ginobili but he might not be as productive as them. There is a difference between talent and productivity

 

[Lockehead]

Talent and production are 2 very different things. Talent you are born with and you can further develop it with hard work and practice. You don't become more talented with time, you become more productive with time.

Tyreke is probably more talented than Parker and Ginobili but he might not be as productive as them. There is a difference between talent and productivity

Not sure i follow what youre saying. To me talent means skills and abilities. Tyreke is more talented at his slashing game, but players can have talents in other areas as well, such as their jumpshot and 3 point shot, something Tyreke lacks. Overall i think Manu and Parker is more talented. Productivity would be putting their talents to use in helping their team win. I think the two are more talented and productive than Tyreke.

 

[Bricklayer]

Not sure i follow what youre saying. To me talent means skills and abilities. Tyreke is more talented at his slashing game, but players can have talents in other areas as well, such as their jumpshot and 3 point shot, something Tyreke lacks. Overall i think Manu and Parker is more talented. Productivity would be putting their talents to use in helping their team win. I think the two are more talented and productive than Tyreke.

You are conflating talent and current skill level. You are also leaving a lot of things out of "talent".

In fact shooting, up to a certain point of medicority, is rarely even cosidered a talent at all -- the theory goes that almost anyone can make themselves a decent shooter just by practice (as opposed to somebody with remarkabel feel for it -- i.e. talent -- such as Peja). Not necessarily true of course, but certainly far more true than somebody at this comparatively late stage of their career working themselves into Reke's driving ability. The closer something comes to an innate ability, that's talent. And yes under any traditonal formulation Reke is a feakish talent. Few players can match his package of natural abilities and instincts. And Parker and Manu aren't any of them. Could Parker or Manu end up having better careers than Reke? Sure, but only if Reke squanders his talent. Ony if he doesn't put in the work. With work its no contest at all. 10 years into their careers, playing for the same franchise and same coach and same system with the same core teammates year after year after year, and already there is a question with a kid in his second year surrounded by other kids and a handful of middling vets.

the honest question you have to ask yourself is if LeBron James of 2003 entered the league this year and had the same rookie season he had 7 years ago, would you claim that Manu and Parker were more talented than he was? If you would, your definiton of "talent" needs severe overhaul. Those guys are good. But if you pooled all their talent together into one body they still wouldn't be as talented as LeBron. As gifted. As instinctual and powerful.

 

[Asaf]

the honest question you have to ask yourself is if LeBron James of 2003 entered the league this year and had the same rookie season he had 7 years ago, would you claim that Manu and Parker were more talented than he was? If you would, your definiton of "talent" needs severe overhaul. Those guys are good. But if you pooled all their talent together into one body they still wouldn't be as talented as LeBron. As gifted. As instinctual and powerful.

There is nothing honest about that question. LeBron James =/= Tyreke Evans. The only thing similar is their individual stats in their rookie season. Tyreke carried a 17-win team to 25 wins. Lebron carried a 17-win team to 35 wins. Your assumption that the 20-5-5 stat makes Tyreke as good as LeBron is something that anyone in the league would laugh at, and that probably includes Tyreke.

 

[hrdboild]

I knew I was starting something with that comment. PER is not the end-all be-all of basketball performance. It's a good way to measure productivity on the floor however it doesn't account for who your teammates are, the pace you play at, your role on the team, or how much you impact your team defensively. It doesn't surprise me at all that Parker and Ginobili are more productive players right now. I'm not going to change my mind about Tyreke being the better player though. Those two guys are great complimentary players but they're never going to win anything on their own because they have too many weaknesses.

On any given night Tyreke can get you 10 rebounds, he can get you 10 assists, he can get you 30 points, he can get you 4 or 5 steals, and he'll probably be one of your best 2 or 3 defenders on the floor. He hasn't put it all together yet and he's not playing at that level consistently right now either, but his floor as a player is about even with where Parker and Ginobili are now and his ceiling is way way higher. Oh yeah, and defense matters too. Fine, call me a homer. But I watch a lot of basketball, and I feel that I know talent when I see it.

 

[ParniValjak]

There is nothing honest about that question. LeBron James =/= Tyreke Evans. The only thing similar is their individual stats in their rookie season. Tyreke carried a 17-win team to 25 wins. Lebron carried a 17-win team to 35 wins. Your assumption that the 20-5-5 stat makes Tyreke as good as LeBron is something that anyone in the league would laugh at, and that probably includes Tyreke.

You are either REALLY thick or you just like arguing for the sake of it!

No one has compared Tyreke's talent to that of LeBron. Their styles of player for the position are similar but it doesn't mean that Tyreke will be as good as LeBron. In fact I am pretty sure that everyone will agree that Tyreke will not be as good. Bricklayer has said this many times in the past.

However, the post that you just quoted rightly tried to point out the difference in talent and productivity. Talent is something you are born with and it does not deviate from year to year. If you don't work on it, you cannot fulfill your potential and sometimes you can work on it your entire life and still not be good enough.

Bricklayer used LeBron as an example but you could plug in any number of star players instead of LeBron in that example. Put in Wade, Paul Pierce, Kobe, Ray Allen etc...The point remains the same. Talent and production is not the same thing which is something that a lot of people seem to think its the same.

 

[Section 101]

I knew I was starting something with that comment. PER is not the end-all be-all of basketball performance. It's a good way to measure productivity on the floor however it doesn't account for who your teammates are, the pace you play at, your role on the team, or how much you impact your team defensively.

PER does account for pace.

No its not perfect and is does miss somethings. But it is better than looking at just points, rebounds, assist, etc on their own. And you know what? If you look at the top PER players it's hard to argue they arent the best in the league so it's getting something right.

 

[Lockehead]

You are conflating talent and current skill level. You are also leaving a lot of things out of "talent".

In fact shooting, up to a certain point of medicority, is rarely even cosidered a talent at all -- the theory goes that almost anyone can make themselves a decent shooter just by practice (as opposed to somebody with remarkabel feel for it -- i.e. talent -- such as Peja). Not necessarily true of course, but certainly far more true than somebody at this comparatively late stage of their career working themselves into Reke's driving ability. The closer something comes to an innate ability, that's talent. And yes under any traditonal formulation Reke is a feakish talent. Few players can match his package of natural abilities and instincts. And Parker and Manu aren't any of them. Could Parker or Manu end up having better careers than Reke? Sure, but only if Reke squanders his talent. Ony if he doesn't put in the work. With work its no contest at all. 10 years into their careers, playing for the same franchise and same coach and same system with the same core teammates year after year after year, and already there is a question with a kid in his second year surrounded by other kids and a handful of middling vets.

the honest question you have to ask yourself is if LeBron James of 2003 entered the league this year and had the same rookie season he had 7 years ago, would you claim that Manu and Parker were more talented than he was? If you would, your definiton of "talent" needs severe overhaul. Those guys are good. But if you pooled all their talent together into one body they still wouldn't be as talented as LeBron. As gifted. As instinctual and powerful.

I dont disagree that some players have a lot of raw talent coming into the league, Lebron and Reke being two of them. A better question to ask would be is Lebron more talented now than he was when he came into the league? I believe he is. I believe talent can be developed, and increased. For example, Tyreke is a talented ball handler, a lot more talented than most. But thats not something he was born with. I remember reading about how his brothers used to tape his hands behind his back and have him practice dribbling with each hand. So through that hard work and development, he was able to become talented at handling the ball going left and right. Theres no arguing that Tyreke has a lot more talent than most players who come into the league at age 20. But Manu and Parker arent sophomores, and were not comparing them at that stage. Manu and Parker has had years over Tyreke to develop and expand their talents. Dont get Tyrekes upside aka potential become confused with his talent. He is talented than most his age, but Manu and Parker at this stage of their careers, is more talented than Reke today.