PDA

View Full Version : Quantifying NBA Awards and 2017-18 Regular Season Player Rankings



Lionel20
04-24-2018, 11:33 PM
Sheet 1 is a breakdown of the formula results for the 2017-18 NBA Awards. Of course the actually awards voting is more susceptible to human error (eg using team record in determining individual performance) and bias. But based on player performance measures, this is how the awards and selections should play out for the 2017-2018 regular season. The formula is based on player volume and efficiency.

Sheet 2 is the 2017-18 sortable player rankings file based on the raw data. The rankings are sorted by value shares.

Sheet 3 is the adjusted raw box stats and defensive ratings. The raw stats are adjusted by a linear weights formula I developed from my own regression analysis and various sources such as Basketball on Paper. The adjusted player rankings allow for a neutral time period for all players from 1950 to the current to be compared in.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSddJgOlZKd2AgvT7A2LmVBMQo2elufYB8HpuJW_hsCEZxc3G 8J3eLdDGiBSsCD5L60hFdD7XgiR55C/pubhtml

More-Than-Most
04-25-2018, 12:29 AM
Lebron james as mvp.. I need not see anything else I applaud this formula.

More-Than-Most
04-25-2018, 12:30 AM
O.o then I see gobert as 6 on DPOY and think... wow.

tredigs
04-25-2018, 01:18 AM
Lmfao. When a guy with a clear agenda meets a stats degree from a mid-major. 72 first place MVP votes allocated to Lebron. 1 MVP vote allocated to the - VERY CLEAR - MVP in Harden. Your formula is ****.

mightybosstone
04-25-2018, 06:02 AM
I'm sure you put a lot of thought into this, OP, but as tredigs already said, your formula is clearly terrible at predicting the actual MVP. According to another forum I won't name, among public votes that have been counted so far, Harden has 33 first-place votes already is clearly going to be the runaway winner. Lebron is a distant second with five.

With Harden (who will win whether you like it or not) coming in fourth in your formula, doesn't it kind of beg the question "Maybe there's something wrong with my formula?" You may have your own personal opinions on what the MVP should be, but once you allow personal bias to interfere with data, which should be completely unbiased, your data is obviously going to be skewed.

Honestly, though, I don't know why you would put so much work into a formula like this and what you're trying to prove. Anybody could come up with a formula based on statistics of their choosing that would ultimately lead to a specific player getting or not getting MVP. But I can't even tell here how you came to that conclusion or what your math was. And frankly, it's a completely moot point, because Lebron James is not going to win the MVP. Harden is.

If you want a better predictor at predicting who will actually win the MVP, look at Basketball Reference, which has Harden as the runaway favorite with Lebron in distant second. It's hardly perfect, as Chris Paul is absolutely not going to finish in the top 3, but it's definitely going to come closer than your formula will.

sixer04fan
04-25-2018, 08:48 AM
It looks like a regression analysis exercise, not a prediction of who the voters are going to choose. Hats off to the OP for developing this. It’s clear that the people criticizing you don’t understand how this works, based on what the complaints are.

tredigs
04-25-2018, 09:04 AM
It looks like a regression analysis exercise, not a prediction of who the voters are going to choose. Hats off to the OP for developing this. It’s clear that the people criticizing you don’t understand how this works, based on what the complaints are.

Lol. I'm well aware it is not supposed to be a prediction, but his attempt to quantify who should have actually won. In his last attempt at this, the basis for LBJ for being "the clear MVP" was the fact that LBJ accrued more total points, rebounds and assists than the other candidates. No mention of total minutes played was included in this hard hitting analysis mind you.

We get it, he likes LeBron.

Lionel20
04-25-2018, 01:10 PM
I'm sure you put a lot of thought into this, OP, but as tredigs already said, your formula is clearly terrible at predicting the actual MVP. According to another forum I won't name, among public votes that have been counted so far, Harden has 33 first-place votes already is clearly going to be the runaway winner. Lebron is a distant second with five.

With Harden (who will win whether you like it or not) coming in fourth in your formula, doesn't it kind of beg the question "Maybe there's something wrong with my formula?" You may have your own personal opinions on what the MVP should be, but once you allow personal bias to interfere with data, which should be completely unbiased, your data is obviously going to be skewed.

Honestly, though, I don't know why you would put so much work into a formula like this and what you're trying to prove. Anybody could come up with a formula based on statistics of their choosing that would ultimately lead to a specific player getting or not getting MVP. But I can't even tell here how you came to that conclusion or what your math was. And frankly, it's a completely moot point, because Lebron James is not going to win the MVP. Harden is.

If you want a better predictor at predicting who will actually win the MVP, look at Basketball Reference, which has Harden as the runaway favorite with Lebron in distant second. It's hardly perfect, as Chris Paul is absolutely not going to finish in the top 3, but it's definitely going to come closer than your formula will.

Yeah, as some of the other posters have pointed out, this is not a probability formula. I know the format may've been misleading. I think the current voting system for most of the NBA awards is flawed. Team record should really have nothing to do with an individual performance award. My work is based on a value shares formula that I've shared many times on this site. It's the same formula that as much as possible seeks to isolate individual performance. Volume/Durability is one side of the equation but so is player efficiency. I'm not trying to predict what the voters are going to do, I'm explaining through my metric how the voting breakdown should go based off the regular season statistics. For player defensive rating, I used a combination of SportsVU individual opponent FG% and defensive rating.

Vee-Rex
04-25-2018, 01:21 PM
I like your formula's and analytical approach to things, Lionel. I don't always agree, but it's a different approach than all the usual stuff you see on this site.

And while I'm Harden 100% for MVP, I personally don't get the sheer outrage @ anyone who dare suggests LeBron.

Lionel20
04-25-2018, 01:40 PM
Lol. I'm well aware it is not supposed to be a prediction, but his attempt to quantify who should have actually won. In his last attempt at this, the basis for LBJ for being "the clear MVP" was the fact that LBJ accrued more total points, rebounds and assists than the other candidates. No mention of total minutes played was included in this hard hitting analysis mind you.

We get it, he likes LeBron.

Let me explain something,

I'm not analyzing players from the standpoint of a fan. I was a Kobe fan. I'll be the first to admit James is nowhere near the mental makeup of Bryant. James is more patient and team-oriented. I used to watched Bryant go 1 on 4 on fast breaks. James can't restructure his DNA. He's as much a facilitator as a scorer. That's just how he seems to be built. Bryant, similar to Jordan, was a reluctant passer.

I'm a businessman. I relate more to Bryant's temperament. I think the team building concept is somewhat overrated. Sure, nobody can do everything. But I'd rather not delegate for the sake of synergy if I'm confident that I can do a task better than my staff. But the fact that James is a team first, lets-do-this-together guy, doesn't mean that he's weak-minded or less competitive.

When folks came out of the woodworks following the Mavericks finals to criticize James -- I thought it was excessive.

finish later....

valade16
04-25-2018, 04:40 PM
Yeah, as some of the other posters have pointed out, this is not a probability formula. I know the format may've been misleading. I think the current voting system for most of the NBA awards is flawed. Team record should really have nothing to do with an individual performance award. My work is based on a value shares formula that I've shared many times on this site. It's the same formula that as much as possible seeks to isolate individual performance. Volume/Durability is one side of the equation but so is player efficiency. I'm not trying to predict what the voters are going to do, I'm explaining through my metric how the voting breakdown should go based off the regular season statistics. For player defensive rating, I used a combination of SportsVU individual opponent FG% and defensive rating.

Do you believe an individual players performance affects the team's record?

Lionel20
04-25-2018, 11:43 PM
Do you believe an individual players performance affects the team's record?

Of course, but team record should not be a determining factor for an individual award. There are multiple other players that can affect a teams record negatively or positively.

valade16
04-26-2018, 12:19 AM
Of course, but team record should not be a determining factor for an individual award. There are multiple other players that can affect a teams record negatively or positively.

And yet the individual is often a determining factor in a team's record.

mightybosstone
04-26-2018, 06:01 AM
Yeah, as some of the other posters have pointed out, this is not a probability formula. I know the format may've been misleading. I think the current voting system for most of the NBA awards is flawed. Team record should really have nothing to do with an individual performance award. My work is based on a value shares formula that I've shared many times on this site. It's the same formula that as much as possible seeks to isolate individual performance. Volume/Durability is one side of the equation but so is player efficiency. I'm not trying to predict what the voters are going to do, I'm explaining through my metric how the voting breakdown should go based off the regular season statistics. For player defensive rating, I used a combination of SportsVU individual opponent FG% and defensive rating.

Team record absolutely should matter. For example, you can't tell me that a player with slightly better numbers who plays for a sub-.500 team should win the award over a guy with slightly worse numbers who plays on a 60-plus win team. That would be absurd.

Also, we've gone over this already, but I think your formula probably puts too much emphasis on volume and durability. It's obvious in the DPOY award as well, where Gobert is hardly in the conversation.

Also, isn't opponent FG% kind of a poor metric for determining defensive performance? Wouldn't opponent eFG% or TS% be a much better measurement? If I hold a player to 42 percent from the floor a game, but most of his makes are from the 3-point line and I send him to the line 2-3 times, then I haven't done a great job at preventing him from scoring. FG% is just kind of an antiquated way to judge performance, IMO.

Chronz
04-26-2018, 10:48 AM
Team record absolutely should matter. For example, you can't tell me that a player with slightly better numbers who plays for a sub-.500 team should win the award over a guy with slightly worse numbers who plays on a 60-plus win team. That would be absurd.
Sometimes



Also, we've gone over this already, but I think your formula probably puts too much emphasis on volume and durability. It's obvious in the DPOY award as well, where Gobert is hardly in the conversation.
It's a special year for dpoy. But wouldn't this be a first for dpoy to play so little? Maybe they're not putting enough emphasis, maybe he's being more consistent in his approach.

valade16
04-26-2018, 11:37 AM
Sometimes

It's a special year for dpoy. But wouldn't this be a first for dpoy to play so little? Maybe they're not putting enough emphasis, maybe he's being more consistent in his approach.

Perhaps, but as it pertains to DPOY, If anything Gobert's absences have simply demonstrated his defensive importance. Last night being a good example. The Jazz blew what a 25 point lead in large part because Gobert was not on the floor in foul trouble.

Gobert has been unquestionably the best defensive player in the league this year. In fact, if you offered me the 2nd best defensive player at however many games they played, or Gobert at however many games he's played, I'm still taking Gobert.

Lionel20
04-26-2018, 03:52 PM
And yet the individual is often a determining factor in a team's record.

Yeah, here's why that's wrong.

If the Suns somehow acquired James Harden at the beginning of the season in exchange for Devin Booker and I apply James Harden's same numbers over the 72 games that he's played for the Rockets this year and to the Suns record -- I would project the Suns go 33-49 as opposed to the 21-61 record they actually had this year.

Same performance for Harden, except he's plugged into a much worse supporting cast. In fact this exercise shows how good the supporting cast is in Houston compared to Phoenix. The Rockets, according to the value shares metric, would've won in the neighborhood of 52-53 games this year if Harden never played a possession and some average player was allocated Harden's minutes. Likewise, the Suns, with average player substituted for Bookers minutes in Phoenix, win around 18-19. The Rockets supporting cast is an estimated 34 wins better than the Phoenix Suns'. My formula using linear regression models to estimate isolated player performance.

So Harden plays for the Rockets, they win a league best 65 games. If he would've duplicated that same performance in a Suns uniform this season they win 33 and miss the playoffs and he might get some 5th place MVP votes. So for the same exact performance, he barely cracks the top 5 because of team record.

tredigs
04-26-2018, 06:23 PM
Yeah, here's why that's wrong.

If the Suns somehow acquired James Harden at the beginning of the season in exchange for Devin Booker and I apply James Harden's same numbers over the 72 games that he's played for the Rockets this year and to the Suns record -- I would project the Suns go 33-49 as opposed to the 21-61 record they actually had this year.

Same performance for Harden, except he's plugged into a much worse supporting cast. In fact this exercise shows how good the supporting cast is in Houston compared to Phoenix. The Rockets, according to the value shares metric, would've won in the neighborhood of 52-53 games this year if Harden never played a possession and some average player was allocated Harden's minutes. Likewise, the Suns, with average player substituted for Bookers minutes in Phoenix, win around 18-19. The Rockets supporting cast is an estimated 34 wins better than the Phoenix Suns'. My formula using linear regression models to estimate isolated player performance.

So Harden plays for the Rockets, they win a league best 65 games. If he would've duplicated that same performance in a Suns uniform this season they win 33 and miss the playoffs and he might get some 5th place MVP votes. So for the same exact performance, he barely cracks the top 5 because of team record.
While it's true that there is a bias for the leaders of HCA teams to have a crack at MVP, that's just the way it is. Jordan probably should have gotten more MVP consideration in '87 than 10% of the 1st place votes after he put up 37/5/5 as a top 5 defender in the league, but Magic was also brilliant and he was the leader of the 1 seed. That's the nature of the award, whether you like it or not. Granted, there are anomalies like Westbrook last season as a 6 seed, but that was able to happen in part because the other top option was only a 3 seed.

I will point out one major flaw in most every "wins added" metric, and that's the notion that adding 15 wins from a 35 win team to a 50 win team is the same as adding 15 wins from a 50 win team to a 65 win team. They're far from equal. The latter occurs when not only are you beating up on the bottom feeders (especially home games), but you are also beating the strong teams of the league on a regular basis, and doing much of that damage on the road. Those wins are NOT created equal. As far as this correlates to the Cavs/Rockets and Lebron/Harden, the Cavs went 22-23 against teams over .500, but 28-9 against those below .500 (29-12 at home, 21-20 away). The Rockets went 37-12 against teams over .500, and 28.5 against those below .500 (34-7 at home, 31-10 away).

Again, 50 wins >> 35 wins, 65 wins >>>>> 50 wins.

valade16
04-26-2018, 06:30 PM
Yeah, here's why that's wrong.

If the Suns somehow acquired James Harden at the beginning of the season in exchange for Devin Booker and I apply James Harden's same numbers over the 72 games that he's played for the Rockets this year and to the Suns record -- I would project the Suns go 33-49 as opposed to the 21-61 record they actually had this year.

Same performance for Harden, except he's plugged into a much worse supporting cast. In fact this exercise shows how good the supporting cast is in Houston compared to Phoenix. The Rockets, according to the value shares metric, would've won in the neighborhood of 52-53 games this year if Harden never played a possession and some average player was allocated Harden's minutes. Likewise, the Suns, with average player substituted for Bookers minutes in Phoenix, win around 18-19. The Rockets supporting cast is an estimated 34 wins better than the Phoenix Suns'. My formula using linear regression models to estimate isolated player performance.

So Harden plays for the Rockets, they win a league best 65 games. If he would've duplicated that same performance in a Suns uniform this season they win 33 and miss the playoffs and he might get some 5th place MVP votes. So for the same exact performance, he barely cracks the top 5 because of team record.

You can't say I'm wrong and then post proof I'm right. According to your very own calculations James Harden is worth 12 whole wins for the Suns.

So factually he impacts their winning record. So... thanks for proving me right. So why doesn't your stat account for a player's impact on team wins?

mightybosstone
04-26-2018, 06:43 PM
Yeah, here's why that's wrong.

If the Suns somehow acquired James Harden at the beginning of the season in exchange for Devin Booker and I apply James Harden's same numbers over the 72 games that he's played for the Rockets this year and to the Suns record -- I would project the Suns go 33-49 as opposed to the 21-61 record they actually had this year.

Same performance for Harden, except he's plugged into a much worse supporting cast. In fact this exercise shows how good the supporting cast is in Houston compared to Phoenix. The Rockets, according to the value shares metric, would've won in the neighborhood of 52-53 games this year if Harden never played a possession and some average player was allocated Harden's minutes. Likewise, the Suns, with average player substituted for Bookers minutes in Phoenix, win around 18-19. The Rockets supporting cast is an estimated 34 wins better than the Phoenix Suns'. My formula using linear regression models to estimate isolated player performance.

So Harden plays for the Rockets, they win a league best 65 games. If he would've duplicated that same performance in a Suns uniform this season they win 33 and miss the playoffs and he might get some 5th place MVP votes. So for the same exact performance, he barely cracks the top 5 because of team record.

I seriously disagree with the notion that if Harden was on the Suns from the start of the season that the team would have won 33 games. There are so, so many things you're not factoring in. Guys who sat out games to help the team tank wouldn't have sat out so many games. Guys were weren't getting clean looks because the team didn't have an elite playmaker would be getting better shots. Young guys would play better. Veterans would play harder. And the team wouldn't have dumped any decent trade assets they had throughout the season.

When you have a superstar, top 5 caliber player in the NBA versus being a bottom five team, your entire strategy is completely different. You're talking about a front office that actively wants to win games versus one that wants to actively lose games. A team with Harden, Bledsoe, Warren, Jackson, Dudley, Chandler and some other motivated young guys easily would have scrapped their way to a .500 season. Look at the craptastic roster Harden played with his first season in Houston: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2013.html

His second best player that season was Chandler Parsons and the third best guy was... maybe Jeremy Lin? That team was garbage, and they still won 45 games. And that version of Harden is inferior in every way to this version today. Hell, you put Harden on any other team in the league at the start of this season, and that team almost certainly makes the playoffs if the front office and coaching staff give a crap and actually want to.

FlashBolt
04-26-2018, 07:39 PM
Well, I think this playoffs is showing who the actual (not NBA-criteria) MVP is. Cavs are a total mess without LeBron.

tredigs
04-26-2018, 10:34 PM
Well, I think this playoffs is showing who the actual (not NBA-criteria) MVP is. Cavs are a total mess without LeBron.

Year 15 of his career and you don't yet realize that this very common theme is a result of how teams begin to operate with him. Bron ball is about him 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Harden was excellent and they won with ease. On to the next one.

Lionel20
04-26-2018, 10:39 PM
While it's true that there is a bias for the leaders of HCA teams to have a crack at MVP, that's just the way it is. Jordan probably should have gotten more MVP consideration in '87 than 10% of the 1st place votes after he put up 37/5/5 as a top 5 defender in the league, but Magic was also brilliant and he was the leader of the 1 seed. That's the nature of the award, whether you like it or not. Granted, there are anomalies like Westbrook last season as a 6 seed, but that was able to happen in part because the other top option was only a 3 seed.

I will point out one major flaw in most every "wins added" metric, and that's the notion that adding 15 wins from a 35 win team to a 50 win team is the same as adding 15 wins from a 50 win team to a 65 win team. They're far from equal. The latter occurs when not only are you beating up on the bottom feeders (especially home games), but you are also beating the strong teams of the league on a regular basis, and doing much of that damage on the road. Those wins are NOT created equal. As far as this correlates to the Cavs/Rockets and Lebron/Harden, the Cavs went 22-23 against teams over .500, but 28-9 against those below .500 (29-12 at home, 21-20 away). The Rockets went 37-12 against teams over .500, and 28.5 against those below .500 (34-7 at home, 31-10 away).

Again, 50 wins >> 35 wins, 65 wins >>>>> 50 wins.

Jordan's '89 and '90 seasons were the top two individual season performances all-time. I adjusted all player stats to a neutral time period. In each of those seasons Jordan is an estimated 5 wins better than the next closes player performance. An 5 wins is a huge margin. It's the difference between an average player this season like Michael Beasley and an all star Bradley Beal. In other words Jordan was far and away the best player in the world in 1989 and 1990 and finished as the runner up in 1989, and third in 1990. I'd have to explore more of what the voters were thinking in 1989, but in 1990 I believe team record was overemphasized.

I love Magic, and his late 80s years were great. But Jordan was all-time great on both sides of the ball. He should've have unanimous. In a neutral period, these are two of the greatest seasons. Should the fact that his team win total was sub 60 even matter in an individual award?

mightybosstone
04-26-2018, 11:06 PM
Well, I think this playoffs is showing who the actual (not NBA-criteria) MVP is. Cavs are a total mess without LeBron.

Except the MVP is a regular season award, so... :shrug:

FlashBolt
04-26-2018, 11:25 PM
Year 15 of his career and you don't yet realize that this very common theme is a result of how teams begin to operate with him. Bron ball is about him 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Harden was excellent and they won with ease. On to the next one.

Or, it's just people who just want to blame him for his teammates mishaps. Am I supposed to believe LeBron can't play the way Harden does for Houston? Am I supposed to believe Harden can turn this Cavs team around? I mean, Morey spoke of how he develops a system and if lebron isn't #1 in them, they start a system over. His teammates are horrible and he's making up Kyrie's absence alone.

Lionel20
04-27-2018, 08:43 AM
You can't say I'm wrong and then post proof I'm right. According to your very own calculations James Harden is worth 12 whole wins for the Suns.

So factually he impacts their winning record. So... thanks for proving me right. So why doesn't your stat account for a player's impact on team wins?

?

Harden’s individual performance is worth 17 wins. If the Suns didn’t have Bookers’ performance this year, and instead had Harden’s... or hypothetically if Booker played 72 games instead of 54, and had Harden’s exact performance — all other things equal — the Suns win about 33 games. The Suns win 12 additional games over the 5 wins that Bookers actual individual performance contributed to this year.

In other words, the Suns still suck. There overall “team record” of 33 - 49, would cost Harden, at the very least, hundreds points in the MVP voting compared to playing on a 65 win team. My point is it’s the EXACT same performance! But just because his teammates are as skilled, he should lose votes, in an INDIVIDUAL award? My system estimates value based on individual performance regardless of whether the “team” won 21 games or 65. I’m using a series of win correlations and linear weights in an attempt to single out the most valuable player in the NBA. The actual NBA award voting system seems far more concerned with team value.

Now I’d to get into the other flaws in the actual award voting system, including how Westbrook won MVP last year with a below 50 win team seemingly because he averaged a triple double. He averages a triple double this year, basically the team wins the same amount of games. Yet, he’s nowhere near the favorite to win this year.

I think Westbrook has been more efficient especially Assist/Tov and on the defensive end. All said, he’s given a performance equaled to last year in my rankings. But because he’s got more stars on his team the narratives have changed for the voters. It’s about the perceived talent on the roster, not about triple doubles anymore. It’s a wildly inconsistent process. My math is the exact same.

Lionel20
04-27-2018, 09:04 AM
I seriously disagree with the notion that if Harden was on the Suns from the start of the season that the team would have won 33 games. There are so, so many things you're not factoring in. Guys who sat out games to help the team tank wouldn't have sat out so many games. Guys were weren't getting clean looks because the team didn't have an elite playmaker would be getting better shots. Young guys would play better. Veterans would play harder. And the team wouldn't have dumped any decent trade assets they had throughout the season.

When you have a superstar, top 5 caliber player in the NBA versus being a bottom five team, your entire strategy is completely different. You're talking about a front office that actively wants to win games versus one that wants to actively lose games. A team with Harden, Bledsoe, Warren, Jackson, Dudley, Chandler and some other motivated young guys easily would have scrapped their way to a .500 season. Look at the craptastic roster Harden played with his first season in Houston: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2013.html

His second best player that season was Chandler Parsons and the third best guy was... maybe Jeremy Lin? That team was garbage, and they still won 45 games. And that version of Harden is inferior in every way to this version today. Hell, you put Harden on any other team in the league at the start of this season, and that team almost certainly makes the playoffs if the front office and coaching staff give a crap and actually want to.

I somewhat agree to this.

My point was just a theoretical exercise where all other variables and screnarios outside of individual performance were consider equal.

The Suns are a terrible defensive team. Harden wouldn’t change that. Above the 12 wins that he’d contribute over Bookers’ performance I’d have a hard time figuring out where they’d get the 11 additional wins from to break even at 42-42.

In some of the situations you mentioned I could see them hitting the 37-38 win mark. I don’t see how Harden makes them a .500 team in the West.

mightybosstone
04-27-2018, 09:31 AM
I somewhat agree to this.

My point was just a theoretical exercise where all other variables and screnarios outside of individual performance were consider equal.

The Suns are a terrible defensive team. Harden wouldn’t change that. Above the 12 wins that he’d contribute over Bookers’ performance I’d have a hard time figuring out where they’d get the 11 additional wins from to break even at 42-42.

In some of the situations you mentioned I could see them hitting the 37-38 win mark. I don’t see how Harden makes them a .500 team in the West.

They get there by actually giving a damn. First off, they wouldn't have dealt Bledsoe or Monroe. Also, guys wouldn't be sitting out games just for the hell of it to help the tanking. That's my point. The difference alone between a team that wants to win games and a team that wants to lose games easily makes the difference of 8-10 wins over the course of a season.

If you want an example of this, look at Brooklyn and the Lakers. Those teams' rosters are absolute dumpster fires and not substantially worse than Phoenix on paper. They have some young talent, but they have at most maybe 1-2 guys who would be considered among the league's best 100 players. And Brooklyn's best player (Russell) missed half the season with a serious injury. Yet, they still managed to win 28 and 35 games, respectively, because those teams didn't have first round picks and, therefore, had no reason to tank.

I'm a firm believer that any team that has some competent NBA guys can win 30-35 games over the course of the season if that front office and coaching staff are actively trying to do so. But when you factor in the value of a high first round draft pick, tanking can amount to a team losing 10 or more games than they could feasibly would if they tried to win.

So if we conservatively factor in another eight wins just by the nature of giving a damn and then you add in the 12-win difference from Booker to Harden, we sit at 41 wins or exactly .500.

mightybosstone
04-27-2018, 09:37 AM
Also, another thing you're doing here, OP, that is misleading is this suggestion that Harden alone is worth 12 wins to the Suns. That's not really the case. You're not assuming that the Suns current roster just adds Harden without subtracting key pieces. You're adding Harden and then subtracting Booker, who is a pretty damn good basketball player. Now, Booker is far from perfect, but you're talking about a dude who averaged a pretty efficient 25 points a game this season with nearly 5 assists and 5 rebounds.

So the difference between 54 games of a 25/5/5 guy and 72 games of James Harden is 12 wins. That's HUGE! But what if the Suns team kept Booker and added Harden? That's a pretty potent offensive back court. That team is absolutely a playoff squad in the West.

ewing
04-27-2018, 11:09 AM
Or, it's just people who just want to blame him for his teammates mishaps. Am I supposed to believe LeBron can't play the way Harden does for Houston? Am I supposed to believe Harden can turn this Cavs team around? I mean, Morey spoke of how he develops a system and if lebron isn't #1 in them, they start a system over. His teammates are horrible and he's making up Kyrie's absence alone.

At least Lionel puts work into being a terrible poster. You’ve been singing that song for 15 years. It doesn’t matter who the teammates are or what they accomplished prior to playing next to Bron same song. Sad!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tredigs
04-27-2018, 02:06 PM
It's always on Bron's teammates. Mind you, they're playing a team of castoffs who aren't top 10 on either side of the ball, but we will pretend they're juggernauts for the time being.

tredigs
04-27-2018, 02:13 PM
Take Klay and Draymond off of GS and toss K Love over for a series. He'll be averaging an efficient 24 and 12 by Noon on Saturday. It's not always the players fault, sometimes it's the role and long term positions they've been pidgeon holed into.

Maybe it's best for the Cavs (I know it's best for Bron's stats), but somehow I think there's plenty of ways to maximize the talent on Bron's teams that for some reason just doesn't happen.

Lionel20
04-27-2018, 03:59 PM
They get there by actually giving a damn. First off, they wouldn't have dealt Bledsoe or Monroe. Also, guys wouldn't be sitting out games just for the hell of it to help the tanking. That's my point. The difference alone between a team that wants to win games and a team that wants to lose games easily makes the difference of 8-10 wins over the course of a season.

If you want an example of this, look at Brooklyn and the Lakers. Those teams' rosters are absolute dumpster fires and not substantially worse than Phoenix on paper. They have some young talent, but they have at most maybe 1-2 guys who would be considered among the league's best 100 players. And Brooklyn's best player (Russell) missed half the season with a serious injury. Yet, they still managed to win 28 and 35 games, respectively, because those teams didn't have first round picks and, therefore, had no reason to tank.

I'm a firm believer that any team that has some competent NBA guys can win 30-35 games over the course of the season if that front office and coaching staff are actively trying to do so. But when you factor in the value of a high first round draft pick, tanking can amount to a team losing 10 or more games than they could feasibly would if they tried to win.

So if we conservatively factor in another eight wins just by the nature of giving a damn and then you add in the 12-win difference from Booker to Harden, we sit at 41 wins or exactly .500.

So one of your assumptions is that if Harden started the season with the Suns instead of Booker, that Bledsoe and Monroe wouldn't have left. That's fair. But I don't think you walking properly through all the scenarios.

Eric Bledsoe is a really good player, both sides of the ball, my work estimates him at about 8 to 9 wins (8.5 to be exact). But if the Suns don't deal Bledsoe in November how do they acquire Greg Monroe anyway? Monroe would not be apart of this team under those circumstances, neither would Elfrid Payton or Shaquille Harrison.

Tyler Ulis was dreadful, worth about 2 wins in over 1650 MP. The Suns with Bledsoe at the point, Harden at the 2 create an additional 16 wins over their guard play this season (including the expected reduction in Troy Daniels MP).

Actual 2017-18 Suns Guard-play win breakdown
Ulis = 2.1 wins
Harrison = 0.4 wins
Payton = 1.6 wins
Daniels = 1.6 wins
Booker = 5.1 wins
Reed = 0.2 wins

Total = 11 wins

Est. Guard-play breakdown w/ Harden and Bledsoe
Harden = 17 wins
Bledsoe = 8.5 wins
Ulis = 1.1 wins
Daniels = 0.7 wins

Total = 27.3

Bledsoe/Harden guard-play additional wins = 16.3 (27.3-11)

Greg Monroe, although a defensive liability, is better than Alex Len, even Tyson Chandler at this point. They wouldn't have Monroe without the Bledsoe deal. I'm not sure how much better you'd expect TJ Warren to play. He's not going to get more than the 16 or 17 shots he already averages. He's not a great 3pt shooter than can stretch the floor. The rookie Josh Jackson isn't either. I think Dragan Bender performs better with Harden/Bledsoe facilitating. Daniels may get some better looks, but Bledsoe/Harden will eat into his minutes.

Suns record increases from 21-61 to 37-45/38-44... because I believe there would be a little lagniappe in team performance playing with Harden. But have no clue how you justify this team getting to .500 in the West -- keep in mind that's still about 5 games from the 8th seed. But I don't see how you get the 5 games over 37 wins? I think even with Harden/Bledsoe, this is still a below .500 Suns team.

mightybosstone
04-27-2018, 04:29 PM
So one of your assumptions is that if Harden started the season with the Suns instead of Booker, that Bledsoe and Monroe wouldn't have left. That's fair. But I don't think you walking properly through all the scenarios.

Eric Bledsoe is a really good player, both sides of the ball, my work estimates him at about 8 to 9 wins (8.5 to be exact). But if the Suns don't deal Bledsoe in November how do they acquire Greg Monroe anyway? Monroe would not be apart of this team under those circumstances, neither would Elfrid Payton or Shaquille Harrison.

Tyler Ulis was dreadful, worth about 2 wins in over 1650 MP. The Suns with Bledsoe at the point, Harden at the 2 create an additional 16 wins over their guard play this season (including the expected reduction in Troy Daniels MP).

Actual 2017-18 Suns Guard-play win breakdown
Ulis = 2.1 wins
Harrison = 0.4 wins
Payton = 1.6 wins
Daniels = 1.6 wins
Booker = 5.1 wins
Reed = 0.2 wins

Total = 11 wins

Est. Guard-play breakdown w/ Harden and Bledsoe
Harden = 17 wins
Bledsoe = 8.5 wins
Ulis = 1.1 wins
Daniels = 0.7 wins

Total = 27.3

Bledsoe/Harden guard-play additional wins = 16.3 (27.3-11)

Greg Monroe, although a defensive liability, is better than Alex Len, even Tyson Chandler at this point. They wouldn't have Monroe without the Bledsoe deal. I'm not sure how much better you'd expect TJ Warren to play. He's not going to get more than the 16 or 17 shots he already averages. He's not a great 3pt shooter than can stretch the floor. The rookie Josh Jackson isn't either. I think Dragan Bender performs better with Harden/Bledsoe facilitating. Daniels may get some better looks, but Bledsoe/Harden will eat into his minutes.

Suns record increases from 21-61 to 37-45/38-44... because I believe there would be a little lagniappe in team performance playing with Harden. But have no clue how you justify this team getting to .500 in the West -- keep in mind that's still about 5 games from the 8th seed. But I don't see how you get the 5 games over 37 wins? I think even with Harden/Bledsoe, this is still a below .500 Suns team.

I forgot about Monroe coming over the in Bledsoe deal, but I just disagree with your assessment completely. You're just looking solely at the face value of a player based on statistics without factoring in so many other things that would change as a result of adding a superstar player. I just showed you the supporting cast Harden had his first season in Houston. If that team could win 45 games, why couldn't this team with a superior Harden win 45 games?

Chronz
04-27-2018, 07:55 PM
Perhaps, but as it pertains to DPOY, If anything Gobert's absences have simply demonstrated his defensive importance. Last night being a good example. The Jazz blew what a 25 point lead in large part because Gobert was not on the floor in foul trouble.

Gobert has been unquestionably the best defensive player in the league this year. In fact, if you offered me the 2nd best defensive player at however many games they played, or Gobert at however many games he's played, I'm still taking Gobert.
What if we already knew he was dpoy material?

Who's second btw? Does Davis get passed up in your hypothetical

Chronz
04-27-2018, 08:02 PM
Take Klay and Draymond off of GS and toss K Love over for a series. He'll be averaging an efficient 24 and 12 by Noon on Saturday. It's not always the players fault, sometimes it's the role and long term positions they've been pidgeon holed into.

Maybe it's best for the Cavs (I know it's best for Bron's stats), but somehow I think there's plenty of ways to maximize the talent on Bron's teams that for some reason just doesn't happen.
Not buying it. Love can barely hold ontothe ball right now and has been off his game since the injury

tredigs
04-27-2018, 08:39 PM
Not buying it. Love can barely hold ontothe ball right now and has been off his game since the injury
Barely hold on to the ball? Now we're in LOL territory. He's completely fine. Dude shot like 47% from 3 post injury. Seems decent. Seems like a player the Warriors would utilize and capitalize with ball movement and
y'know, general team play.

ewing
04-27-2018, 09:49 PM
Barely hold on to the ball? Now we're in LOL territory. He's completely fine. Dude shot like 47% from 3 post injury. Seems decent. Seems like a player the Warriors would utilize and capitalize with ball movement and
y'know, general team play.

It doesn’t matter until he isn’t on James team everyone will say he is a d leaguer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
04-27-2018, 09:55 PM
Wrong thread

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
04-28-2018, 01:10 AM
Barely hold on to the ball? Now we're in LOL territory. He's completely fine. Dude shot like 47% from 3 post injury. Seems decent. Seems like a player the Warriors would utilize and capitalize with ball movement and
y'know, general team play.
Yeah yousaid that already, not buying it despite your lols. Love isn't in some drastically different situation here, he's legit never played this bad and plenty are suggesting he's hurting more than letting on. That orthe guy's declined. You're watching the games right, he can't abuse smaller guys atall.

Not sure whatyou think him shootingwell above his normal capacity in such a small sampleis suppose to suggest, I'm alluding tothe possible thumb injury and that he hasn't physically looked good, hotnot shooting aside. Listened to one of lowes pods recently and he recalled a play where inthe back if his mind he (and his guest) were wondering about his confidence protecting and holding onto the ball cuz ofthe injury. But hey, he's only one of the most respected journalists, lol plz would be proud

Chronz
04-28-2018, 01:11 AM
It doesn’t matter until he isn’t on James team everyone will say he is a d leaguer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's been on James team for awhilenow. He's never looked so ******. Facts trump your fake narrative

Chronz
04-28-2018, 01:13 AM
I love the argument that love is fine lmao. Compelling stuff chap.

ewing
04-28-2018, 11:31 AM
He's been on James team for awhilenow. He's never looked so ******. Facts trump your fake narrative

He's no Stacy King.