NBA Guys Who Play Better Than Their Gross Stats, And Guys Who Play Worse

[duncan228]

A little numbers play I found in a blog. Thoughts?

By The Numbers -- NBA Guys Who Play Better Than Their Gross Stats, And Guys Who Play Worse (http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2008/10/by-numbers-nba-guys-who-play-better.html)

So what I did was take the top 50 guys in the NBA in Efficiency (admittedly a stat that somewhat favors big men, but still an excellent indicator of production) and then took their Efficiency per 48 minutes and subtracted out their Efficiency number.

Example -- Kareem Abdul Jabbar puts up a 40 Efficiency number and a 48 Eff48 number. He is +8.

What will this tell us? Well, it will tell us that there are some guys who score 20 points a game because they are on the floor all of the time and some guys who score 20 points a game but could score more if necessary. The guys with the bigger number are the better (i.e. more productive) players who don't need a lot of floor time to put up big numbers.

NOT AS GOOD AS THEIR GROSS STATS:

Honorable Mention -- Monta Ellis, Brandon Roy, Lamar Odom, Baron Davis

5th -- Vince Carter +4.99
4th -- Jason Richardson +4.84
3rd -- Caron Butler +4.62
2nd -- Andre Iguodala +4.28
1st -- Joe Johnson +3.43


EVEN BETTER THAN THEIR GROSS STATS WOULD INDICATE:

Honorable Mention -- Al Jefferson, Marcus Camby, Steve Nash

5th -- Tim Duncan +10.15
4th -- Manu Ginobili +10.88 (only non-big on the list)
3rd -- Kevin Garnett +11.53
2nd -- Amare Stoudamire +11.85
1st -- Andrew Bynum +14.56

Comparing Efficiency Rank to Eff48 Rank

Amare -- #2 v. #1 (he is the best per 48 producer in the whole league)
KG -- #9 v. #3 per 48 he is third best
Duncan -- #10 v. #6
Bynum -- #26 v. #2
Ginobili -- #35 v. #20

And the Bad (the per48 ranking is an approximate ranking -- they won't let me sort out the guys who don't play much so I just quickly tried to count them out)

Caron Butler -- #19 drops to #43
Vince Carter -- #28 drops to #55
Andre Iguodala #34 drops to #97
Jason Richardson #41 drops to #96
Joe Johnson -- #42 drops to #133

Lessons? 1) Ginobili is a great, great player. 2) there is a reason you want good big athletic players -- they are much, much more productive per minute than off guards and small forwards.

[mystargtr34]

Im surprised Howard isnt there, normally a 60% FG bumps the efficiency pretty good.

[Solid D]

Thanks for posting duncan228. Of course, we all know how good Timmy and Manu are but it's good to see the various attempts at showing overall effectiveness as a player.

Spurs fans are very fortunate to be able to witness Timmy, Manu, Parker, Bowen and company on a regular basis. To me, having been a Celtics fan for years, it just as special watching this group as it was watching Russell, Sanders, Havlicek, KC and Sam Jones in the 60s or Parish, McHale, Bird, Ainge and DJ in the 80s.

I will also say that LA has a real gem in Bynum, as long as his leg will hold up.

[m33p0]

Lessons? 1) Ginobili is a great, great player.
:king

[Manufan909]

Only small, nice.

[Manu-of-steel]

every nba fan knows manu's value to the team.

[Manufan909]

I wish. Sadly, he is too underated, in the east at least, their teams don't have to face him 4 times in the regular season.

[Obstructed_View]

Sorry, but a formula that has Amare and KG ahead of Manu and Duncan just shows me that it's a formula that still needs some refining.

[1Parker1]

I disagree about Caron Butler, I think he's as good as his stats indicate....

[mrspurs]

Thats why i say Timmy needs help more then any other positon on the floor. These stats prove my opinion. Just about every big mentioned has some sort of help within his position. Look after Timmy and you'll find guys who on most teams wont be playing. Both Fab and Kurt do nothing to help Timmy. Imo why Timmy has looked so lost the last 2 seasons. Timmys numbers are still great, imagine if he had help under the paint. As for Manu its easy to say he's great. Look at what they pay him for what he does. Same goes for TP and Bruce. They could be making tons of cash and give the same amount of play. The FO fooled them into thinking we could rule the world for many years. That joke ended 2 seasons ago. Now we have 9 new players, and maybe only 1 or 2 has a chance to play in the NBA. Bruce imo is still the best player in a spurs uniform. Kinda hard to yell at someone who never misses a game. Is your best defender. And is alway in better shape then anyone on the court. I dont care about any of the other players. They dont play for us.......

[Obstructed_View]

They dont play for us.......
You mean the Rockets?

[m33p0]

I disagree about Caron Butler, I think he's as good as his stats indicate....
the amount of minutes he plays dilutes his effectiveness.

[mathbzh]

I don't know what to think about these numbers.

Actually there are several reason to limit the minutes of your stars:
1) Your coach manage playing time so his top players are fresh for the playoffs.
2) Your top players can't play more than 30 MPG for a complete season (because of age, injuries, stamina issues...).
3) Your "star" (who said Stoudemire?) can't defend without fouling and have to spend some time on the bench.

If a player can't stay on the court (because he is foul prone) I think it is meaningless to project his efficiency on 48 minutes.
This is the same if your player needs some rest on the bench but it is harder to know. We don't really know if Duncan could still play 40MPG has he did in his early career.

[ambchang]

Does this measure favour players who play fewer minutes though? I am not surprised Bynum, Ginobili and Duncan were ranked this high, because they don't play a lot of minutes at all, and that the assumption is that the increase in number would have a linear relationship with the increase in production.

I would imagine dividing up a player's performance based on time buckets, then analyzing the difference in performance based on the time buckets would be more accurate. For example, a player has an EFF of X in the games he played 25 to 30 minutes, and an EFF of Y in games he played 30 to 35 minutes, then Z when he played 35 to 40 minutes, then try to create a trend. Problem is that most players play similar number of minutes every game, and there would be few games to draw a trend that are outside a player's normal playing time.

[Allanon]

Does this measure favour players who play fewer minutes though? I am not surprised Bynum, Ginobili and Duncan were ranked this high, because they don't play a lot of minutes at all, and that the assumption is that the increase in number would have a linear relationship with the increase in production.

I would imagine dividing up a player's performance based on time buckets, then analyzing the difference in performance based on the time buckets would be more accurate. For example, a player has an EFF of X in the games he played 25 to 30 minutes, and an EFF of Y in games he played 30 to 35 minutes, then Z when he played 35 to 40 minutes, then try to create a trend. Problem is that most players play similar number of minutes every game, and there would be few games to draw a trend that are outside a player's normal playing time.

You do have a point in that it does bend towards players with fewer minutes. That's why guys like Lebron, who are highly efficient, are not on the list.

At the same time, because they use PER as a baseline measure, this already makes them a baller if they score high in PER. And usually, ballers, with added minutes will produce. So it's not much of a stretch to project a linear increase in production along with minutes.

If you look at this list of names, these are guys who can perform, If you give them 48 minutes, they keep on producing....all the guys on this list are capable of massive games if the coach actually gives them the minutes and doesn't try to rest them. Only Bynum is untested over a long stretch.

5th -- Tim Duncan +10.15
4th -- Manu Ginobili +10.88 (only non-big on the list)
3rd -- Kevin Garnett +11.53
2nd -- Amare Stoudamire +11.85
1st -- Andrew Bynum +14.56

[pad300]

You do have a point in that it does bend towards players with fewer minutes. That's why guys like Lebron, who are highly efficient, are not on the list.

At the same time, because they use PER as a baseline measure, this already makes them a baller if they score high in PER. And usually, ballers, with added minutes will produce. So it's not much of a stretch to project a linear increase in production along with minutes.

If you look at this list of names, these are guys who can perform, If you give them 48 minutes, they keep on producing....all the guys on this list are capable of massive games if the coach actually gives them the minutes and doesn't try to rest them. Only Bynum is untested over a long stretch.

5th -- Tim Duncan +10.15
4th -- Manu Ginobili +10.88 (only non-big on the list)
3rd -- Kevin Garnett +11.53
2nd -- Amare Stoudamire +11.85
1st -- Andrew Bynum +14.56

Yeah, I suspect Bynum's placement on this list as well - he's a very large outlier relative to the rest of the set... The difference between 2nd and 5th place is and absolute value of 1.7 (and a relative value of 14.3% = 1.7/11.85). Whereas between 1st and 2nd, there is a gap of 2.71 (relative value 18.6% = 2.71/14.56)...If he were really that much better than the other big men, it would show more on the court.