RealGM

Just put the Toronto Raptors roster on their 1 to 12 and you have your list.

The proof this list is a wash is that Thad Young, one of the most athletic wing players in the game today is on the list. I can't recall a single bad shot Thaddeus Young has taken.

boogydown wrote:Just put the Toronto Raptors roster on their 1 to 12 and you have your list.

why so sour? a raptor fan knocked up your mother is and became your bastard father?
is that why you're so angry? or was it BC or Bosh that did that?

Clearly hasn't seen how much people think Carmelo sucks. No way dudes overrated. Most posters here think he sucks

Lakeshow2417 wrote:Bogus.


Id take half of those "overrated" players and put them on an expansion team. Granger is an upcoming all star.

if you read the blog, he specifically mentions granger when he says that being on the overrated list doesn't mean a player is bad. just that his stats don't reflect his impact towards producing wins.

and yes, this isn't measuring impact vs. perception, this is stats vs. wins produced. i won't change the term overrated because thats what the author used, and i just copy and pasted.

dcash4 wrote:

Apollo33 wrote:I don't get it... they're basing on some stats to see who's overrated and who's not? What's the deal here?

first ranking is ppg vs. wins produced
second is nba efficiency vs. wins produced
third is PEE vs. wins produced

wins produced is to david berri what PER is to hollinger. the higher your stats in the 1st number vs. the lower your wins produced number, the more overrated you are.

I could very well be wrong, but if he is going by straight 'wins produced' to determine this list, instead of wp48 or something that levels the playing field.....wouldn't that put guys who missed a big chuck of games due to injuries or played less minutes in general, at some sort of disadvantage?

Win produced underrates scorers anyway and overrates rebounder. That is the reason why Berri had Shawn Marion as the 5th best player in 2006/07 (ahead of Steve Nash) and Carlos Boozer at 7th (ahead of Dirk Nowitzki). The problem is that his stats doesn't reflect Net +/- values at all. Boozer for example had a negative value in 2006/07 (-0.6) while Nowitzki had +13.0. Who really believes that swapping Boozer and Nowitzki in 2006/07 would have give the Mavericks at least the same amount of wins?

Granger is another example. With +6.6 he had the highest Net +/- of all Pacers. He actually made them way better in eFG%, rebounding rate, less turnovers. The offensive efficiency went from 103.9 to 112.2 while Granger was on the floor.

Berri mixes his box score stat up with impact, because he weights his regression analysis that high. One of his biggest mistakes is his lack of understanding the basketball game. I wrote that in another thread, but someone has to take a shot before the 24 sec clock expires, otherwise it will result in a turnover by default. His marginal values are quite funny, because he values a rebound as high as a steal. Actually the offensive efficiency is the highest after a steal, the defensive efficiency is worse after a turnover. His values are making not much sense in terms of the basketball game itself.