share

Positional Rankings

dmo21
dmo21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/24/2009
Posts: 1057
Points: 991
Online
Positional Rankings

So I'm going to give you the top 10 players at each position according to my stat that I have produced. I did this a couple months ago and it brought up some talk and discussions but things have changed. The stat is based off your normal per game stats, FG%, winning, and minutes logged. It is quite long and hard to type out, so I won't write out the whole thing here. It varies for each position, so the numbers cannot be compared between guys at different positions. These stats are for this year so far. I do not look at what they have done in the past or at their potential, it is what they have done so far this season. Some players are missing due to serious injuries or not a significant amount of minutes played (Rondo, Rubio, Love). So here they are:

Point Guard:
1. Tony Parker (12.02)
2. Chris Paul (11.41)
3. Russell Westbrook (10.51)
4. Stephen Curry (7.90)
5. Ty Lawson (6.98)
6. Jrue Holiday (6.69)
7. Deron Williams (6.67)
8. Mike Conley (6.20)
9. Raymond Felton (6.04)
10. George Hill (5.89)

Shooting Guard:
1. Dwayne Wade (11.57)
2. James Harden (10.97)
3. Kobe Bryant (9.34)
4. Joe Johnson (7.03)
5. Andre Iguodala (6.23)
6. Monta Ellis (6.08)
7. J.R. Smith (5.98)
8. Kevin Martin (5.91)
9. Jamal Crawford (5.80)
10. O.J. Mayo (5.78)

Small Forward:
1. Lebron James (21.32)
2. Kevin Durant (19.38)
3. Carmello Anthony (13.59)
4. Paul George (8.90)
5. Rudy Gay (8.59)
6. Luol Deng (8.15)
7. Danillo Gallinari (7.61)
8. Kawhi Leonard (7.01)
9. Chandler Parsons (6.80)
10. Paul Pierce (6.63)

Power Forward:
1. Blake Griffin (12.93)
2. Tim Duncan (12.76)
3. Chris Bosh (12.62)
4. David Lee (11.95)
5. Serge Ibaka (11.23)
6. Zach Randolph (11.15)
7. Lamarcus Aldridge (9.79)
8. David West (9.49)
9. Josh Smith (9.30)
10. Kenneth Faried (8.58)

Center:
1. Tyson Chandler (12.23)
2. Al Horford (11.09)
3. Joakim Noah (10.05)
4. Dwight Howard (9.89)
5. Brook Lopez (9.26)
6. Marc Gasol (8.77)
7. Al Jefferson (8.74)
8. Omer Asik (7.39)
9. J.J. Hickson (6.76)
10. Deandre Jordan (6.59)

I think I might have winning percentage weighted to much but this gives glue guys/defenders higher scores than chuckers on a bad team.

So what do y'all think of these rankings that my stat came up with? Any problem areas or questions about it?


Forte IV
Forte IV's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 767
Points: 2347
Offline
*Dwyane

*Dwyane

aamir543
aamir543's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/11/2009
Posts: 5062
Points: 5541
Offline
I can't remember your

I can't remember your formula, but it looks like a modified version of PER just by looking at the leaders. It values high percentages, and stats in categories like steals and blocks. Seems like a way to rank efficiency, can you post a link to your original post of this?

And can you post Rondo's? At this point he's only been out for about 8-9 games.

dmo21
dmo21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/24/2009
Posts: 1057
Points: 991
Online
Rondo

I just did Rondo's and he would have a score of 7.43, which would rank him after Curry. His high turnovers and lower winning percentage bring him down a bit.

dmo21
dmo21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/24/2009
Posts: 1057
Points: 991
Online
Original

Here is the first rankings I did from this year (was November or December or something). I also have the rankings from last season if you wanted to see how they ranked out last year.

NYK2010
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 2462
Points: 1498
Offline
No Lin in the top 10 shows

No Lin in the top 10 shows how much Harden, Asik are carrying that team.

As for Melo he's a PF for the Knicks and they need to move him back to SF.

Felton, JR, Chandler, Melo all in the top 10 so no reason the Knicks should be struggling so much.

Also Pierce he's dropped off and KG damn an All Star not even top 10.

DWill 7th wow he's been awful for him and guys like Curry, Holiday playing well.

Tongue-Out-Like-23
Tongue-Out-Like-23's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/16/2010
Posts: 8307
Points: 11858
Offline
I think the W/L ratio is

I think the W/L ratio is taken too much into account. For instance, would the Cavaliers be doing this bad or worse with say George Hill as their PG. Would the Pacers be better with Kyrie Irving as their PG?

The same can be said with Paul Pierce and Kawhi Leonard. Would the Celtics be better with Kawhi and would the Spurs be worse with Pierce?

I understand that winning has a lot to do with this formula and stating who is a better player but sometimes you're put into a tough situation where you have no team. I mean, is George Hill really that much better than Kyrie Irving, Kemba Walker, Brandon Jennings, and John Wall?

Would the Hornets be better off with J.R. Smith instead of Eric Gordon?

Is Kawhi really that much better than Pierce?

Would the Kings be an improved team with J.J. Hickson at center instead of DeMarcus Cousins?

You see what I mean?

dmo21
dmo21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/24/2009
Posts: 1057
Points: 991
Online
W/L

Yeah, that was the only problem I see too. But with the W/L thing (I do how many games the team wins with them in the lineup) it really rates how the player fills his role with the team and defense. I also include how many minutes they play, so a guy who plays a lot with a bad team is valued more than a guy who plays few minutes with a good team. FG% also comes in with these types of players too, like Cousins shoots 45% while Hickson shoots 57% (Hickson also averages more rebounds and blocks, which gets you a higher rating being a center).

I still might tweak it though so the winning doesn't contribute as much to the statistic.

Ang Puti Lalaki
Ang Puti Lalaki's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 1122
Points: 1169
Offline
i thought

I thought this was going to be another kobe fluff thread. But was really impressed

Ang Puti Lalaki
Ang Puti Lalaki's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 1122
Points: 1169
Offline
i thought

I blame my phone. The beer had nothing to do with it

NYK2010
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 2462
Points: 1498
Offline
Good one kid.

Good one kid.

DefenseWinsChamps
DefenseWinsChamps's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/14/2010
Posts: 306
Points: 1015
Offline
Can you give us a link to

Can you give us a link to this formula? I would like to see how you break it down. The eye test for this list makes me think a few names are a little bit off.

So is this list the best players? Most valuable players? Most efficient players? What exactly does your stat tell us?

dmo21
dmo21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/24/2009
Posts: 1057
Points: 991
Online
link

http://nbadraft.net/forum/positional-bests-so-far-year

Here is my first one from earlier this year (I thought I posted it above but now it won't let me edit my post). The equations are in there for each position.

I really don't know how to label these, I wouldn't say best because that takes in ability, most valuable takes it on a team to team level, most efficient doesn't look at roles and how much they actually do. Maybe you can get a better feel for it looking at the formulas, but I don't really know how to label the stat, was just something I played with.

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1120
Points: 3418
Offline
I hope this does not come

I hope this does not come across the wrong way. I feel that those formulas do not really show the worth of a player very well at all. When factoring in winning % you pretty much limit yourself to comparing between teammates, and when you factor in position by using arbitrary multiplying factors for different positions (i.e. an assist from a SF is worth more than an assist from a PF) you limit yourself to comparing between players who are the same position. I also really dislike the stat FG% when comparing players because it does not take into account either FG's or 3's, personally I use PPS (points per shot) because it is simple and does not rely on any random fractional multiplier, but some people like to use TS% (true shooting %). You also must keep in mind that any shooting % stat does not take into account something I find fairly valuable, especially for non-guards, % assisted (% of shots made that resulted in an assist being awarded). Notice that Hickson is assisted 1.5 times more than Cousins on made baskets.

http://www.hoopdata.com/advancedstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=C&yr=20...

dmo21
dmo21's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/24/2009
Posts: 1057
Points: 991
Online
stat

Thanks for the criticism and I don't take it as an offence. This is just something I made up for fun to see if I could get a better way of judging players without being biased (so having a factual argument).

With the winning %, if a great player can't help his team win then how good is he really? Also, as I have said numerous times before I might have to change the weighting of it as it contributes a lot to the final statistic.

I only wanted it per position and I guess I was rating them on how good they are at their own position, so an assist is more important to a point guard than a center and a blocked shot is more important to a center than a point guard. I guess I was rating them on the traditional needs of a position and what a team really wants from that particular position. Like having the best shot blocking point guard will not make a huge impact on your team but having the top shot blocking center on your team can make a huge difference.

With FG% I just went with the basic traditional FG%. I didn't want to look at 3P% as that already has inputs to their PPG, and I figure if someone can't make 3's and hits a lot of 2's and doesn't shoot 3's, why should they be penalized for playing within themselves? I might take a look at that TS% though, it seems like it could be able to fit and may deliver a better end product. Putting the %assisted is just adding to many variables, and the % assisted amounts may have different reasons for different players, for example do they play with a good point guard or are they good at pick and rolls or running around screens?

Thanks for the input and criticism though!

RSS: Syndicate content