Cool, he mentions B-R. However, he has this wrong:
Eric Neel wrote:
Check his most-comparable listing over at basketball-reference.com and you find Clyde Drexler is the most similar player through age 27.
My similarity scores are for seasons, not careers. Drexler had the most similar season at age 27. _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball Stats!
-- indicates that after 20 games in Toronto, Vince was #63 in the league, surely his lowest ranking ever (in my book).
Now he's at #18, though part of that is illusory. I've merely superimposed his Tor+NJ totals onto the NJ milieu and given him too much credit -- as though he'd played all year with a much lower-paced club.
(I'll ferret it all out at end of season.)
Now, the Neel article revives the prospect that Carter may yet be an all-time great player. This isn't news to those with more than a 2-year memory, even though Stuff Happens (and did, with Vince); ask Grant Hill.
Neel mentions that in playoffs, Carter's numbers have gone up, across the board. Such a broad statement gets my hackles up, so I check -- and he is Right.
I've got VC ranked at #132 alltime, coming into this year. Of the 131 ranked above him, all of 10 players have better PO/RS numbers (that's playoff-to-regularseason productivity ratio):
1.10 Isiah Thomas
1.10 Bernard King
1.09 Ray Allen
1.08 Jerome Kersey
1.08 Anfernee Hardaway
1.08 Gus Williams
1.07 Cliff Hagan
1.07 Hakeem Olajuwon
1.06 Reggie Miller
1.06 Michael Jordan
1.05 Vince Carter
Like Ray, Vince has been absent for a while. I should mention that after King, those 2 have the lowest % of their minutes (of these 11) in postseason play, by quite a bit: They're under 5%, while the others are all 10% and more.
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 671 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject:
Mike: I just wanted to say how much I like the PO/RS stat. I think it's a really interesting way of looking at playoff production. The only name on that list that surprised me was Jerome Kersey.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1523 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:10 pm Post subject:
Kersey was fortunate in that his best individual seasons coincided exactly with the Blazers' best playoff runs. Thus, he got the bulk of his playoff minutes when he was at his best.
Penny Hardaway also fits this situation. as does Bernard King. If you follow much of my rumination, you may notice 2 disparate PO/RS figures. One of them is the "playoff career / regularseason career" comparison. This one is referenced with regard to Vince et al, and doesn't distinguish between the timing of major playoff appearance and career trajectory.
The alternative PO/RS does take into account the yearly "translation" from season to playoff. For a number of players, there can be quite a difference. I think we called it the "Cartwright Effect", after a guy who had allstar numbers and meager playoffs for the first half of his career, and mediocre rates for the 2nd half -- which happened to be the playoff-heavy half.
Since I believe in Fate, and Karma, and Just Due, it seems fitting that Bill doesn't get undue credit for racking up big numbers for lousy Knicks teams; and also appropriate that he gets compensation for his blue-collar work with the Bulls.
As for Kersey, he was only the 3rd- or 4th-best player on his team during his prime. But those were some damn good teams. And, he definitely was prime-time.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1523 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:32 pm Post subject:
Of players who have appeared in as many games as Jerome Kersey, only 15 have more pts AND reb, per 48 min. Only 8 of those have as many Offensive Reb/48.
He's #76 in Player Wins, since 1978 (thanks, b-r.com)
Does anybody know Carter's PER in Toronto vs. his PER in New Jersey?
82games.com indicates that his PER at the time of the trade was 18.6 (which I found shockingly high, but I suppose his high usage rate and low TO rate made up for his lack of scoring efficiency). His PER in Jersey is something like 24.3 (there's no total rating, only 'by position').
Let me just say that, as a Raptor fan, I place myself in the minority by not hating Carter - but I *do* tend to fly into a rage when I think of the "value" Babcock got in return for him.
Let me just say that, as a Raptor fan, I place myself in the minority by not hating Carter - but I *do* tend to fly into a rage when I think of the "value" Babcock got in return for him.
Hey, fellow Torontonian. I feel that Vince was seriously undervalued, both by fans and the media, and perhaps by Babcoock. My numbers suggest that he was a very productive player (although not all that much this season), and that replacing his production will not be an easy task. The trade with NJ was some kind of salary dump, although it doesn't look to me like the benefits were all that great. In any case, dumping salary doesn't seem like a great idea to me unless it's used to rebuild the team, which I don't see happening now. Maybe in the future, I hope. _________________ ed
I've got VC ranked at #132 alltime, coming into this year. Of the 131 ranked above him, all of 10 players have better PO/RS numbers (that's playoff-to-regularseason productivity ratio):
1.10 Isiah Thomas
1.10 Bernard King
1.09 Ray Allen
1.08 Jerome Kersey
1.08 Anfernee Hardaway
1.08 Gus Williams
1.07 Cliff Hagan
1.07 Hakeem Olajuwon
1.06 Reggie Miller
1.06 Michael Jordan
1.05 Vince Carter
Who besids, a hard core Portland Trail Balzer fan would have guessed Mercy, Mercy Jerome Kersey would pop up number four in your list of all time playoff performers? Can't help but notice that he is the only non-all Star caliber player on the list.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1523 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject:
Kersey of course isn't the "#4 alltime playoff performer". His playoff production was some 108% as strong as his regular seasons. Compared to the average of 95%, that's very good.
After 3 years off the bench, Kersey had his best year, capped with a stellar playoff outburst. In the next 5 years, he continued this pattern; including a 3-year stretch when the Blazers went 21, 16, and 21 games.
His career tapered off, and he bounced around for several years; but he was always as good or better in the playoffs. Here are his relative career rates:
His entire improvement is in the scoring load, and shooting efficiency. He was a guy who could get a shot, from about anywhere. Kind of a Karl Malone Lite. Good defensive numbers and low TO. Never a great player, but a reliable one in the playoffs (opposite of Buck Williams and Cliff Robinson).
I think the bigger issue is that you're only looking at the top 132 players of all time; of course, that list is going to be virtually entirely comprised of stars. There are probably journeymen (Raja Bell, for example, topped John Hollinger's playoff study a couple years ago) who turn it up more than Kersey, but don't rank anywhere amongst the all-time greats.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1523 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:22 am Post subject:
Raja isn't in my top 558 players (with at least 10,000 pts+reb+etc), but Bimbo Coles is. Bimbo only played a couple hundred playoff minutes too.
What I'd call Career Playoff Overproduction requires annual subtotals of each year's rates subtracted from that year's playoff rates * minutes. But for most players, multiplying and subtracting career rates is pretty close. In this method, the alltime top overproducers for playoffs are:
971 Michael Jordan
765 Hakeem Olajuwon
625 Bill Russell
527 Isiah Thomas
442 Scottie Pippen
439 Reggie Miller
434 Jerry West
386 Roger Brown
382 James Worthy
378 Rick Barry
374 John Havlicek
367 Elvin Hayes
356 Tim Duncan
338 Dave Cowens
331 JoJo White
313 Maurice Cheeks
312 Robert Horry
305 Gus Williams
282 Cliff Hagan
281 Dennis Johnson
268 Anfernee Hardaway
260 Magic Johnson
256 Walt Frazier
254 Jerome Kersey
247 John Starks
The infamous Robert Horry is here, as well as the famous Reggie Miller and the other postseason legends. And yes, Starks was streaky but good -- another guy whose personal peak coincided with long playoff runs.
Pippen isn't remembered as a playoff monster so much as his sidekick. But he did just 1% better overall (adjusting for the game-paces). 1.01-.95 = .06 , and so I say 6% of all his playoff totals were "overachievements".
For guys with huge playoff minutes of course this guesstimate is critical. And .95 makes whole columns of player-totals add to near zero
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
