Advertisement
October 7, 2009
Believe it or not, it’s that time of year again. Although the onset of fall typically gets people thinking more about football, around here the arrival of October means one thing — basketball season is right around the corner.
While the Kansas University football program’s recent success has helped push back people’s craving for college hoops, it’s not as if KU fans aren’t aware that the season is about to tip off. Late Night in the Phog is set for Friday, Oct. 16 and the opening exhibition game (Nov. 3 vs. Fort Hays State) is now less than a month away.
If the young guys are getting ready to tip off, that can only mean that their NBA counterparts are doing the same thing. In fact, NBA preseason camps opened last week and many teams already have begun to play preseason games.
Here’s a quick rundown of what we’ve learned so far:
Drew Gooden might finally have found a home in Dallas. Although he didn’t start the Mavs’ most recent preseason game, Gooden did play 23 minutes off the bench, finishing with 18 points and 6 rebounds on 6-of-11 shooting. I’d look for this to continue once the season rolls around. I doubt the Mavs will elect to start Gooden, but I’m guessing they’ll value him tremendously as a super sixth man of sorts. It’s about time somebody did.
Second-year Miami Heat guard Mario Chalmers has picked up right where he left off. After finishing his rookie season fourth in the NBA in total steals (160), Chalmers swiped a pair in the Heat’s four-point loss to Detroit the other night.
It appears that Indiana Pacers guard Brandon Rush will in fact be given the opportunity to be the team’s full-time starter at shooting guard. In the Pacers’ preseason opener last week, Rush started alongside former Texas point guard T.J. Ford in the Pacers backcourt and finished 5-of-10 from the floor — including 2-of-4 from three-point range — for 13 points. He also added two blocks and four rebounds in 27 minutes.
I’m well aware of that fact that preseason games don’t exactly get the blood boiling, but this might. ESPN.com’s John Hollinger recently released his preseason player rankings for the upcoming season. In his blog, Hollinger ranked the Top 333 players in the NBA in a system he calls “Player Efficiency Rating.”
According to Hollinger, the PER measures each player’s per-minute productivity. In includes elements such as field goals, free throws, three-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, as well as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls. It also accounts for each team’s pace of play and how that may or may not impact each player’s projected ceiling.
Anyway, enough about the particulars, let’s look at the players.
No. 1 on his list was none other than LeBron James. James had a PER of 31.76, a little more than double the league average of 15.0.
Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant came next, all with PER’s between 24 and 30.
Moving down the list a little, guess how low you had to go to find the first former Jayhawk. Twenty? Thirty? Thirty-five? Nope.
Try 66. That’s right, Boston forward Paul Pierce was the first former Jayhawk listed on Hollinger’s scale. Big surprise, right? In a way, it kind of was.
It’s been well-documented in this blog that I was a little critical of Pierce’s game last year. But to think that he’s just the 64th best player in the league is crazy.
Pierce’s 16.91 PER is less than two points above the league average and barely two points higher than that of Julian Wright (14.30), who has yet to play a single meaningful minute in an NBA game.
I like the formula and I love rankings, I’m just not sure that these PER numbers should be taken as the gospel for evaluating how important and/or productive a player is to his team. Just a look at the former Jayhawks alone shows that Hollinger may have missed the boat in a couple of areas.
Still, the rankings are fun to chew on while we wait for the season to arrive.
Here’s a look at Hollinger’s PER’s for the rest of the former Jayhawks in the Association:
117 - Drew Gooden, Dallas, 15.19
135 - Mario Chalmers, Miami, 14.44
140 - Julian Wright, New Orleans, 14.30
154 - Nick Collison, OKC, 13.90
161 - Kirk Hinrich, Chicago, 13.64
188 - Darrell Arthur, Memphis, 12.92
285 - Brandon Rush, Indiana, 9.26
Not Listed: Darnell Jackson, Cleveland and Raef LaFrentz, Portland.
Comments
HawkWave (anonymous) says...
It's not exactly accurate to say that Julian Wright is yet to play a meaningful minute in an NBA game.
October 7, 2009 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gutter (anonymous) says...
Matt - What the hell is this supposed to mean? "Julian Wright (14.30), who has yet to play a single meaningful minute in an NBA game". Are we to assume you know nothing about NBA Basketball? I would love for you to elaborate on your comment.
October 7, 2009 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mwilliam (anonymous) says...
Paul Pierce, an all-star with a PER of 16.91...that's ludicrous. This guy is telling us that the MVP of the '08 finals is only the 66th best player in the NBA. Paul was overlooked as a rookie, should have been rookie of the year; was overlooked several times as an all-star; was the only player on the Boston team until management finally got smart and brought in some help and this yahoo says he is only the 66th best in the league. Give me a break...
October 7, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt_tait (Matt Tait) says...
mwilliam - I agree completely. Pierce is way too low on this list. I'm assuming that the fact that he's getting up their in years has a lot to do with it, but in looking over the list, I'd still take Pierce ahead of at least 30 or 40 of those guys listed ahead of him...
As for Wright, me writing that was not a knock on the guy, but, come on... When has he played in a crucial part of a game that meant something? I haven't seen it yet. And I've been looking for it.
Thus far, Wright's career has been disappointing. Some of that has been his fault, some of that has been the fault of the Hornets and the way they've used him. I love the guy, always will, but until he plays any real NBA minutes he probably shouldn't be ranked so high on these kinds of player rankings.
Maybe, just maybe, this ranking is a sign of good things to come this season. Let's hope so.
October 7, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
d_prowess (anonymous) says...
I am actually most surprised by Brandon's ranking. He is going to be the starting SG for the Pacers this year with a green light on the offensive end. I am expecting him to put up decent points and his defense is always good (see the two blocks already mentioned).
And, although the Julian statement was harsh, I am not sure I can disagree with it. From what I remember he was only playing in blow outs until the end of the year when he did start a few games but the team was not in the playoff hunt so it is hard to say those minutes were meaningful. They were obviously just trying to get him some game action before the end of the year.
October 7, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt_tait (Matt Tait) says...
Agreed, d_prowess.... I think the biggest issue of all here is not that Julian's ahead of Kirk or that Pierce is so low, but that Rush is SOOOOO low.
I didn't look too closely, but at 285 in the rankings, he has to be the lowest rated projected starter on the list. Wonder why?
Is it because he's still widely unknown at the NBA level? Is B-Rush's ranking hindered by that "pace of play" element? The Pacers aren't really a run-and-gun kind of team.
Still, to have him starting yet ranked more than 100 spots behind guys who aren't, seems a bit crazy.
Remember, though. This is just one guy's opinion. And even though he may have a few guys out of place, I commend Hollinger for tackling such a large task.
October 7, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justanotherfan (anonymous) says...
PER is a great stat. What hurts Pierce's numbers (especially last year) was that when the big 3 was healthy, his scoring was down because they spread the ball around. He's never been much of an assist guy, and never been a big rebounder, so those numbers aren't going to rise even as his scoring declines. As a result, his PER will stagnate between 16-19. Once Garnett got hurt, Pierce had to score more, but he took more (tougher) shots while doing that, so his shooting percentages declined.
An explanation of PER can be found here.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns...
October 7, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gutter (anonymous) says...
Matt - Your original quote, ....."who has yet to play a single meaningful minute in an NBA game". Now you ask - "When has he played in a crucial part of a game that meant something"? What next? So regular season games mean nothing? He had a few "meaningful" minutes in many regualr season games. If the Hornets lost a playoff game in which Julian played - then he didn't play a meaningful minute?
If you need a meaningful minute (playoff game) from Julian in a Hornets win - how about looking at the game against Dallas on April 27th 2008? Chose one of those 19 minutes in which he scored 11 points.
October 7, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt_tait (Matt Tait) says...
You got me there.
I'm just saying, Pierce should be ranked substantially higher than Wright on lists like these because for every quality minute that Wright has played, Pierce has played 20.
justanotherfan - Thanks for the insight. Good stuff.
October 7, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gutter (anonymous) says...
Matt - Sorry for busting your balls! I agree 100% that Pierce should be substantially higher than Wright. I commented yesterday on the boards that Hinrich wasn't listed in the top 100 Guards and there was garbage ranked ahead of him. The PER is far from being a PERfect indicator of true talent and worth.
October 7, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
esorrentino (Eric Sorrentino) says...
Hey Tait, good stuff. Do you think it'd make more sense for Gooden to start for my Mavs? I like what you said about him being the sixth man, but they'll probably leave Jason Terry in that role since he was solid in it last year. So Kidd, Howard, Marion, Dirk, Gooden? I don't like Howard at the 2, but I don't know what else they'd do. And Gooden has to be better than Dampier, right? Please, anyone but Dampier!!
October 7, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KUFan90 (anonymous) says...
You guys are talking about this list almost as if Hollinger decided the rankings. "Is it because he's still widely unknown at the NBA level?", "this yahoo says he is only the 66th best in the league", etc.
These rankings are driven by stats. You can disagree with the weighting of the stats, but "reputation" isn't a stat, and it's not "this guy says"...it's the stats that say it.
Comments like "I think Kirk should be ranked ahead of Julian" or "Brandon should be moved up on the list" don't make any sense.
If this was "Hollinger ranks the players based on his opinion of them" then these comments make sense, but otherwise I don't think some of you are getting it.
October 7, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt_tait (Matt Tait) says...
It's his formula, though, right? And because of that he can choose which stats he uses and which stats he doesn't therein shaping the list in his image a little bit.
"Pace of play" is not a stat but he incorporates that into his rankings.
I get what you're saying and I agree to a large extent. But if this guy's stat-based formula ranks Wright ahead of Hinrich then the whole thing might be garbage. Hinrich has done more, has played more, has greater potential (at least for 2009-10) and is on a team that knows how to use him.
Again, I'm not hating on Wright here, I just don't think the guy has garnered enough stats to be ranked ahead of so many other people who have.
October 7, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt_tait (Matt Tait) says...
I just went back and read over Hollinger's blog and I think the most important thing to remember here is that the PER rankings are based on a per-minute scale...
Even I've forgotten that.
With that said, it makes a little more sense that Wright would be ranked higher than a lot of guys because he hasn't played a ton of minutes and has done fairly well when receiving those minutes (mostly dunks and layups and high-percentage shots like that late in games)...
It's easy to see why Wright would be so "valuable" in this sort of ranking but I think Wright's case alone might be the best indicator of why the PER formula is not the best to rank players on the whole.
Sorry for the confusion...
October 7, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HawkWave (anonymous) says...
Matt, you wrote:
"As for Wright, me writing that was not a knock on the guy, but, come on... When has he played in a crucial part of a game that meant something? I haven't seen it yet. And I've been looking for it."
So you don't watch the NBA playoffs? Julian was a key contributor for the Hornets 2 seasons ago in the playoffs against the Mavs and Spurs. In a big Game 4 win against the Mavs, he played 19 minutes and scored 11 points. In Game 2 against the Spurs, he even hit two three-pointers. In game 4 against the Spurs, he also played 19 minutes. Sure his career hasn't been great in his first 2 years but to say he hasn't ever played a meaningful minute is a stupid comment that obviously wasn't researched.
October 7, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt_tait (Matt Tait) says...
Here's my question... Would the Hornets have won those games without Wright on the roster? My answer: Probably.
I love the NBA and I wish Wright would get more minutes and have the chance to develop into the player we all know he can become. Thus far, however, his minutes have been severely limited and all about offense. Until he figures out how to play consistent defense or gets shipped to another team, where he can have a fresh start, I just can't imagine him producing much, especially with the players who are ahead of him on the Hornets' depth chart.
Enough about Wright, though. How about the rest of the guys? Seems like Darrell's per-minute numbers should have him a little higher. I was also surprised to see Collison as high on the rankings as he was.
October 7, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kansas22 (anonymous) says...
The PER formula that Hollinger uses is not to rank the players from the best to worst basketball players. It is simply used for fantasy basketball and who might be the most valuable fantasy option. We all know Pierce is a way better basketball player than the 66th best in the NBA, but not necessarily for fantasy stats with the way NBA fantasy basketball works. Just like fantasy football, Ben Roethlisberger is a great football player that you would want if you had to win one game. But he may not be the best fantasy football player in terms of statistics.
October 7, 2009 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
d_prowess (anonymous) says...
I was thinking the same thing as kansas 22. However, do minutes played matter in fantasy basketball? I have never played so i don't know. I assume they do though because otherwise, you still would not rate Brandon so low since he will put up points and other stats compared to the other non-starters.
October 7, 2009 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt_tait (Matt Tait) says...
Typically, minutes played aren't a factor in fantasy hoops.
But... like anything, some of the real hardcore leagues out there might actually reward/penalize players for minutes played.
October 7, 2009 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
njjayhawk (anonymous) says...
If the PER rating is equal to the IAAM (It's All About Me) rating, the first 5 players noted are spot on. NBA? Boring to the core, with too much half-hearted effort and too much self-centered theatrics. Bring back the old NBA, where the players were truly special and knew how to play team basketball.
October 7, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hellx (anonymous) says...
One thing I'd be interested in is who had the median PER.
October 7, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FarneyMac (anonymous) says...
You started with a flawed premise and just kept digging your hole bigger. A lot of bench guys have higher-than-expected PER (like JuJu) because of limited sample size. You're getting way too bent out of shape about one stat. Don't be Joe Morgan, Matt.
October 8, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Asher87 (Asher Fusco) says...
PER is a nice stat, but it's really only meant to measure offensive production.
One positive a KU fan could take from all this is that each guy listed — aside from Pierce, who's just aging — is a more valuable asset on the defensive end than on offense.
Example: Chalmers isn't much better than average offensively because he only shot on 16.1 percent of Miami's possessions while he was on the court (average player takes 20 percent of his team's shots). BUT ... He was ranked third in the league in steal percentage. When you look at his Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating (calculated by Basketball Prospectus and available at http://www.basketballprospectus.com , Chalmers ends up at league average level. Not bad for a rookie point guard on a 'meh' team.
Nick Collison is a great rebounder and solid defender, but doesn't score much.
Brandon Rush is a long-armed defensive specialist in the NBA. He wasn't a particularly dynamic offensive player in college, either. Remember all the stories about how coach Bill Self wanted him to be more aggressive?
Those are just three examples of how PER might sell some of these players short.
••• hellx: The median PER is set to be approximately 15.
October 8, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Asher87 (Asher Fusco) says...
And 'kansas22': PER doesn't really judge players very well for fantasy basketball. It's a rate stat, meaning it's based on per-minute production rather than cumulative production. A guy who plays 10 minutes per game could post the same PER as a guy playing 35 per game.
The best stats are usually rate stats: Take on-base percentage in baseball or yards per passing attempt in football. They generally offer a much clearer picture of production than stats like runs batted in or touchdowns thrown.
October 8, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hawkman1031 (anonymous) says...
how many tigers are there? Maybe Kareem Rush?
tiger lilies lose to nebraska. poor poor lilies.
October 9, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )