NY Times Article: 3 Spurs' players in the top 10 most underrated list

[Rick Von Braun]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/sports/basketball/10score.html?oref=login

April 10, 2005

A Statistical Holy Grail: The Search for the Winner Within

By DAN T. ROSENBAUM

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/a.gif glance at ordinary statistics - points, assists, rebounds - suggests Jason Kidd and Dwight Howard are two of the league's better players. Kidd, the Nets' starting point guard, is considered one of the league's silkiest passers, and Howard, a rookie forward for the Magic, is one of the top rebounders.

Yet a closer look reveals they are players of vastly different value. The Nets are much better - 14 points better per 48 minutes - when Kidd is on the floor than when he is not. The Magic is slightly worse when Howard is on the floor. Orlando is outscored by 2 points per 48 minutes when he plays, and plays its foes even when he sits, according to 82games.com (http://82games.com/).

That traditional statistics and the increasingly popular plus-minus differential can measure players so differently highlights the difficulty in designing a rating system for the N.B.A.

Unlike baseball, with its repeated encounters between pitchers and batters, basketball is not a series of one-on-one contests. In baseball, the game's essence is captured remarkably well by box scores.

In basketball, statistics in box scores focus almost entirely on the player with the ball. This omits critical aspects of the game, like teamwork and defense.

These blind spots have made many fans and old-school basketball disciples skeptical of statistical analysis. Dean Oliver, author of "Basketball on Paper" and a statistical consultant for the Seattle SuperSonics, has likened attempts to produce an overall player rating to the quest for the Holy Grail.

But the statistic du jour in the N.B.A. - the plus-minus statistic - offers an opportunity to remedy many drawbacks of the traditional box score, even if it is limited. More teams are now using plus-minus as an important part of their front-office work.

In their most common form, plus-minus statistics measure how a team performs when a given player is on the floor versus when he is on the bench. When Stephon Marbury is on the floor, the Knicks lose by 0.1 points per 48 minutes. Put Marbury on the bench and the Knicks lose by 12.7 points. Marbury's net impact is a positive 12.6 points per 48 minutes.

Because plus-minus statistics depend on team performance, they capture almost every contribution a player can make. The good pick, the solid help defense, the threat of a 3-point shooter - all these contributions are captured by net plus-minus statistics. In theory, they are an ideal measure of a player's effectiveness.

But interpreting what plus-minus statistics tell us about players requires care and knowledge. For example, the impact of Joe Johnson, a Phoenix Suns guard, is overstated because he shares the court with several All-Stars. So is the impact of players, like Marbury, who have poor substitutes.

These factors can be mitigated by further refining plus-minus statistics to account for the quality of a player's teammates and opponents. Surprisingly, few teams use these adjusted plus-minus statistics.

Plus-minus statistics are especially difficult to interpret when the analysis is applied to a small number of games, a point not well understood by many proponents of the statistics. Stable results take more than half a season; stable box-score statistics require only about 10 games.

Small samples of plus-minus statistics are probably more distracting than useful. For example, Minnesota's Kevin Garnett had the league's best net plus-minus in 2003-4 but one of the worst over the past month.

People in the game often claim to know instinctively how to measure intangibles, but salaries suggest otherwise. Teams pay for little more than the glory statistics (points, rebounds and, to a lesser extent, assists).

Although steals, blocks, shooting percentage and an ability to avoid turnovers are crucial to a team's performance, players proficient in these aspects are rarely rewarded with bigger paychecks.

Consider our most underrated players, whose adjusted plus-minus statistics most exceed their glory statistics. (The most overrated players are those whose glory statistics most exceed their adjusted plus-minus statistics.)

The underrated list has many role players, as well as Utah's Andrei Kirilenko and San Antonio's Manu Ginóbili, stars who are strong defenders with well-rounded games. The overrated players include three Olympians and several maximum-salary players.

The overrated list is dominated by high-volume shooters who commit lots of turnovers, like Richard Jefferson and Carmelo Anthony. Many are also low-percentage shooters, like Allen Iverson and Antoine Walker.

Scorers like Jermaine O'Neal, Zach Randolph and Michael Redd who generate few assists are less valuable to their teams than is generally understood.

More can be learned by analyzing adjusted plus-minus statistics. With analysis, they can shed light on the age-old question of what kind of player helps a team win.

Dan T. Rosenbaum is an assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.



http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/09/sports/20050410score.jpg

[Nikos]

I wish Dan would post his entire adjusted +/- list. One of the Mavericks articles on APBR mentions where certain top players rank on his 'list' (Marion, Manu, Kirlenko, Dirk, Duncan etc.... are high on the list), but he hasn't posted it yet and I am not sure if he said he will when the regular season ends.

Do you know, RVB if he will by seasons end? I want to see how players shaped up this season, as opposed to previous seasons.

[Solid D]

Very interesting. Good info RVB!

[whottt]

Old news to some of us...but maybe some of our more Erratic TParke er posters will be able to use this article to unwedge their heads from their you know whats...

[Solid D]

Shandon Anderson is a bit of a surprise to me. I'll admit it. He plays well vs. the Spurs though.

[ChumpDumper]

Ruffin's being rated that highly is a surprise to me.

[whottt]

I am sure a player you didn't want brought back(Horry), a player you have hated on all season when he hasn't shot well(Barry), and a player who you once judged as < Hedo(MAnu) because he wasn't shooting as well as Hedo, all being on it, surprise you as well...Fucktard!

What surprises me is you giving this any relevance at all...it's basically the same arugment I have used all season that got nothing but non-reconition from you...

[ChumpDumper]

I am sure a player you didn't want brought back(Horry)Lies are early this time. I siad we wouldn't have to pay him more than the minimum. You were the one willing to lose Barry to overpay him when no one else would. Bravo.
a player you have hated on all season when he hasn't shot well(Barry)Again, making shit up. I hated on him for being a pussy, passing up open shots to guys who were forced to take worse shots.
and a player who you once judged as < HedoWe've been all over that -- it was never about that point in time, it was about careers.

I'm not at all surprised you have to lie about everything.

[whottt]

Lies are early this time. I siad we wouldn't have to pay him more than the minimum.

And you were wrong about that...we signed him 2 a 2 year deal with a player option for the second...details of the second year haven't been announced and a 2 year deal is not the vet min anyway.


You were the one willing to lose Barry to overpay him when no one else would.

I never said that...I said we should make him more of priority than Malone and offer to take care of him in the future when we get his early bird rights.



Bravo.Again, making shit up. I hated on him for being a pussy, passing up open shots to guys who were forced to take worse shots.

Idiot...read the fucking article again...I don't think you understand it's point.

But anyway..thanks for at least admitting you hated on him and called him a pussy...

So the point still remains...you've been hating on one of the most under-rated players in the NBA...IOW your perceptions suck...Charlie!



We've been all over that -- it was never about that point in time, it was about careers.

I'm not at all surprised you have to lie about everything.

You were in favor of giving Manu permanent fuck job so you could blow Hedo..on the bench or else letting him go, you were the one wanting permenant charity...you also underestimated how much Manu would get offered...

[whottt]

Bottom line you have been willing to let all 3 of these guys go....for players that don't do as much.

You sir/maam need to shut your hole and know your role...it isn't talent evaluation....chokerlover.

[missmyzte]

Wow, look at Horry high on that list! :)

[ChumpDumper]

And you were wrong about that...we signed him 2 a 2 year deal with a player option for the second...details of the second year haven't been announced and a 2 year deal is not the vet min anyway.You need to do your homework on minimum contracts.
But anyway..thanks for at least admitting you hated on him and called him a pussy...He was playing like a pussy.
you've been hating on one of the most under-rated players in the NBA.His December +/- was nowhere near what it is now.
You were in favor of giving Manu permanent fuck job on the bench or else letting him go.I said he's a pussy if he can't take the benching. He took it better then you predicted -- you said he'd walk.
you also underestimated how much he would get offered...I have to call bullshit on that one. What was my estimate? How far was I off? The only thing I remember saying about Manu was everyone was OVERESTIMATING what Denver would offer. As there was no max offer, I was right.

You said he'd walk.

[slayermin]

If you were playing a game between the two lists, which team would you bet on?

I would go with the overrated team.

[ChumpDumper]

Bottom line you have been willing to let all 3 of these guys go.If they sucked as bad as you said they always would, yes.

You're the one who underestimated Manu's acceptance of his role and Barry's ability to not play like a pussy. You overestimated the demand for Horry when I told you he would never get above the minimum and thought he would be a pouting pussy and sign elsewhere out of spite.

Bottom line is all three players weren't the pussies you made them out to be. Just as I thought.

[Rick Von Braun]

I wish Dan would post his entire adjusted +/- list. One of the Mavericks articles on APBR mentions where certain top players rank on his 'list' (Marion, Manu, Kirlenko, Dirk, Duncan etc.... are high on the list), but he hasn't posted it yet and I am not sure if he said he will when the regular season ends.

Do you know, RVB if he will by seasons end? I want to see how players shaped up this season, as opposed to previous seasons. I think so... he said he would do it and he is pretty reliable.

For those who don't know about the article Nikos is referring to, here it is:

http://www.dallasbasketball.com/morestories.asp?id=3202&NAV=1

Why Dirk Is MVP
Stat Study Places UberMan Atop List
David Lord -- DallasBasketball.com - Posted: 4/7/05

By David Lord -- DallasBasketball.com

The NBA’s voting for its Most Valuable Player award each year is based on the regular season play alone. With the arrival of April, each team is down to its last ten games or so, and we sat down to take a glance around the league at the favorites for this year’s top player trophy. From crunching the numbers and the other factors that merit a designation as “most valuable,’’ we ended up with the following surprising conclusion: Dirk Nowitzki merits the MVP award this year. He isn’t merely one of many logical choices - he instead is the choice, and deserves the crown. If voters look at the same factors we looked at, Dirk should and will win.
Here’s how we narrowed the field, separated hype from substance, analyzed the numbers and came to our conclusion:

NARROWING THE CHOICES
In analyzing the MVP candidates, we started first with the process of elimination, to make the task easier. There are approximately 450 players in the NBA, but when looking for an MVP, history tells us that (barring extreme circumstances) we can quickly narrow the field down to a half dozen players or less. Gaudy stats on a losing team - or even on a borderline playoff team - are dismissed with the concept that personal excellence only matters if it leads a team to the top echelon in the standings. (Too bad, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, and Allen Iverson.) So we look at the top teams, and from those top teams we pick out the outstanding players, and look at what they have contributed towards producing a winner.

Using that standard, the top half dozen teams would be Phoenix, San Antonio, Seattle, and Dallas in the West, and Miami and Detroit in the East. Below those are other teams that have won lots of games this year, but frankly no players on those lower playoff teams have had a year so incredible that it will inspire voters to deem them this year’s MVP. With a nod to teamwork and defense, there is no player on Detroit that merits the award. We also eliminated Seattle’s Ray Allen because the Sonics team is sliding down the homestretch - when voters will be making decisions. We also believe that though Allen is an All-Star and the Sonic team leader, his play has not been dominant enough to merit an MVP selection. That leaves us with the stars of 4 teams to consider.

The MVP candidates from Phoenix would be Steve Nash, with Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion also deserving a look. From San Antonio, Tim Duncan is the man, though the subtle All-Star level contributions of Manu Ginobili have been a big factor in the Spurs success this year. In Miami, the obvious choice is Shaquille O’Neal, but a look has to be given to the contributions of Dwyane Wade. In Dallas, the lone star this year has been Dirk Nowitzki.

We will take time to look at the contributions of Stoudemire, Marion, Ginobili, and Wade in our analysis, but the MVP award will not go to any of them, because for one reason or another they are outshined by a player on their own team and therefore can’t win. Thus our finalists are Nash, Nowitzki, Duncan, and O’Neal.

LOOKING AT STATS AND COMBINED STATS

Though it isn’t the only factor, big numbers on the stats sheets are needed to drive a player’s candidacy for MVP. No matter how valuable a player is, voters will tend to grade him lower if his stats don’t measure up to the stats of the other viable candidates.

Which numbers matter the most? It’s hard to say, but in general a player must have something that a voter can use to justify that “this guy was the best.’’ All the finalists here have stats that in one way or another look good on their resume. Some have more than others.

In looking at the numbers, it makes sense to also consider “combined numbers’’ -- ie, various rankings of NBA players by the basketball stat gurus that do their best to quantify what matters and who excels on a basketball court. For the purposes of this analysis, to varying degrees we contacted, consulted with, and used combined numbers created by the following NBA experts: Dean Oliver, Dan Rosenbaum, Roland Beech, Ed Kupfer, John Hollinger. If you are a basketball stat junkie and are not familiar with the work of these incredible number crunchers, we encourage you to check them out: you will be amazed at the breadth and depth of their analyses.

Summary of stats info. In discussing the stats, it needs to be mentioned that in the final analysis of the voters, almost all of the stat details noted below will be tossed aside. Only the most general and obvious stat data will be looked at.
Thus, if a player scored 23 ppg or 21 ppg, the difference looks so minor on a summary sheet that it will get glossed over. The distinctions between whether a player is 3rd or 5th or 12th or whatever in rebounding probably will go unnoticed, if the stats sorta look alike. It isn’t particularly fair, but that’s how the system works. So what will emerge will be snippets of qualifications, with a few supporting stats that seem to glitter.

Nash will be credited with being the leader of the top team in the league, and for leading the league in assists. Then it will give his averages for points (16), rebounds (3.4), and assists (11.5). Dirk’s resume will mention that he is 3rd in scoring, and that he uniquely is in the top 10 in the NBA this season in both points and rebounds. Perhaps it will note he is 2nd in Efficiency. Then it will give his averages for points (27), rebounds (10.1), and blocks (1.5). Regarding Duncan we will hear that he is the reason the Spurs win so much, and his scoring (21), rebounds (11.4), and blocks (2.7) will be noted. Shaq will get credit for the Heat’s dominance in the East, and his averages in points (23), rebounds (10.5), and blocks (2.4).

The voter looking at that list who likes passing and assists will vote for Nash. Dirk’s scoring will give him a clear lead for voters who like scoring. The voters for the rebound-blocks work of a big man will probably favor Duncan, who leads Shaq and Dirk in both categories.

For those who want more details and analyses, here is a closer look at how these players stack up by the numbers.

Steve Nash. From a pure statistical standpoint, Nash is far and away the least qualified of our 4 finalists. The one major stat category in which he is in the top 35 for the year is assists, where he is first - but it has to be noted that some of the credit on each assist has to go to the player who makes the shot rather than misses it. He also ranks in the top echelon in shooting accuracy categories (FG% - 11th, 3-pt % - 7th, FT % - 8th). On the downside, he is 7th in the “most turnovers’’ list.

Nash’s flaw is defense, and the stats confirm that. He appears nowhere in the top 50 in any of the defensive-oriented categories (steals, blocks, defensive rebounds), and his reputation on the defensive end is less than stellar.

In the combined stat systems, Nash comes out better in general, though he is still overshadowed by the other 3 finalists in every ranking. The NBA’s ranking of Player Efficiency has him at 14th. Hollinger’s PER puts him at 21st, and he is 9th in the PER+ rankings. Rosenbaum’s DanVal ranking has him no higher than 10th. Meanwhile, the other 3 finalists are all in the top 10 in every one of those player ranking systems for their play this season. Oliver’s rankings, as outlined in his Basketball on Paper and which are proprietary to the Sonics, is unavailable to the public - but using the criteria of that highly regarded system, Nash ranks at the bottom among the 4 finalists.

But there is one other stat where Nash ranks at the top, and its impact on the voting can’t be overlooked. The Suns have the NBA’s best record, and that likely will be the case when the season ends. As the acknowledged team leader on the #1 team, Nash will earn mental bonus points in the minds of the voters.

Dirk Nowitzki. This season, Dirk’s game has improved greatly across the board, and the numbers reflect that. In every way imaginable, Dirk’s numbers are MVP-worthy.
Dirk is 3rd in scoring which is tops among the finalists. He is the only player in the NBA in the top 10 in both scoring and rebounding (9th).

Nowitzki’s defense, formerly a weak point, now shows up positively in the stats. He is one of only 3 players in the league who ranks in the top 30 in both steals and rebounds (Garnett and Marion are the other two), and his defensive rebounding numbers are 2nd in the league. Dirk now is a significant factor in getting the ball back - he is much more than a scorer.

Not surprisingly, Dirk’s place in combined stat systems ranks right near the top. The NBA Efficiency rankings have him 2nd overall, highest of the finalists. Hollinger’s PER+ has him 2nd. Oliver ranks him in a dead heat with Duncan for #1 overall. Rosenbaum has Dirk 3rd overall, trailing Duncan but ahead of O’Neal and Nash.

The only stat that might hurt Nowitzki’s MVP candidacy is the Mavs record, which is 5th in the league at the moment. We think that a winning streak from now til season’s end might allow the Mavs to overtake the Spurs for 2nd in the West - and it also might be the difference between a Dirk win or an also-ran finish in the MVP voting.

Tim Duncan. For several years Duncan has arguably been regarded as the best player in the league, and his production this year is as good as ever.

His scoring is solid at 19th, and he is an inside force in both rebounds (3rd) and blocks (3rd).
In the combined stats, Duncan is tied for 5th in NBA Efficiency. He is 1st in PER+. Rosenbaum has him 1st overall, and the Oliver system has him in a dead heat with Dirk for 1st among the finalists here.

The Spurs have been at or near the top of the league all year. With Duncan out they have slid to 3rd, but are still right on the cusp of the best record. Since their slide has been due to Duncan’s absence, he will still get some credit for being the best player on arguably the best team.

Shaquille O’Neal. Shaq has always put up incredibly strong numbers each year, and this year is no exception.

His scoring is strong (12th), and he is still a force in the middle (6th in blocks and rebounds).
In the combined stats, Shaq is 8th in NBA Efficiency. He is 5th in PER+. Rosenbaum has him trailing Duncan and Dirk at 4th overall, and the Oliver system has him 3rd among these 4 finalists.

Miami has been the dominant team in the East all year, and their record is in the top echelon with Phoenix and San Antonio. Also, the Lakers’ losing record this year without him - after going to the Finals last year with him - will underscore his value to voters. He was replaced by 3 good players, and the Lakers won’t make the playoffs without him.

Stoudemire, Marion, Ginobili, and Wade. We have dismissed these four because their candidacy is (in our view) overshadowed by another player on their team. But each of them is a star on one of the top 3 teams in the league, and it is noteworthy how highly each ranks in the stats.

Stoudemire is the young, high-flying inside force for the league-leading Suns and has been mentioned as MVP-worthy in some circles this year. He is 5th in scoring, 21st in rebounding, and 22nd in blocks. The NBA Efficiency rankings have him 4th, and PER+ ranks him 8th. He is the top player on the Suns, the league’s top team, in those combined stat systems.

Marion is the do-it-all guy for those same Suns, and also has some support for the MVP award. He is 24th in scoring, 4th in rebounding, 4th in steals, and 22nd in blocks. He joins Dirk in the top 30 in the defensive trifecta of steals, blocks, and defensive rebounding (3rd). The NBA Efficiency rankings have him 5th, and PER+ ranks him 16th. Rosenbaum has him 2nd overall in the league, trailing only Duncan. His stat resume, with both offensive and defensive excellence showing, and with a #2 ranking by Rosenbaum, is the most glittering for any of the Suns.

Wade is the Mr. Outside for Miami, to Shaq’s Mr. Inside, and is the driving force in crunch time that complements Shaq - with his ball-handling, shooting, and free throwing ability. He is 8th in both scoring and assists, is 11th in steals, and surprisingly he is 34th in blocks. The NBA Efficiency rankings have him 10th, and PER ranks him 5th (and 30th in the PER+ rankings).

Ginobili is the do-it-all guy in San Antonio that complements Duncan, and the way he appears in the stats is interesting. In the individual categories, he is only 43rd in scoring, 41st in assists, and 8th in steals. The NBA Efficiency ranking has him at 45th. But when the stat gurus lend their expertise, he suddenly sails near the top. Hollinger’s PER has him tied for 6th, and in the PER+ ranks he is 3rd. Rosenbaum ranks him 5th in MVP-worthiness. Roland Beech’s statistical analysis of players’ production late in close games, called “Clutch PER,’’ ranks Ginobili as the best player in the NBA.

Who gains most from the stats?. Based on the numbers alone, there is rationale available to vote for each of the 4 finalists. Just from the stats above, let’s give Duncan 2 points (1 each for best big man stats, top tier team), Dirk 1.5 points (1 for best scorer, 0.5 for all-around stats excellence), Nash 1.5 points (1 for top tier team, 0.5 for assists), and Shaq 1.0 points (top tier team).
But the stats aren’t the only factors. The numbers alone don’t decide the MVP award. Subjective intangibles always play a big part in the voting, and this year will be no different.

THE SUBJECTIVE INTANGIBLES THAT SWAY VOTES

Sympathy Votes. In some years the perception arises that a player’s excellence has been overlooked over the years and thus deserves extra consideration for an MVP award. By this standard, Karl Malone beat out Michael Jordan for the award in 1997, with the rationale being that “Jordan has already gotten his share of MVP honors.’’ Jordan was the league’s best player, had the best year, and played on the best team, but Malone took home the MVP award primarily because Jordan had been awarded 4 in prior years while Malone had none.

This year the sympathy votes will go to Shaquille O’Neal. “He has been the dominant player in the league for many years but only has one MVP award to show for it - so we owe him one’’ is the thinking that has been expressed.

Leadership. The vague concept of leadership will be mentioned, but among these four finalists it will not add or subtract a thing. Nash, Nowitzki, Duncan, and O’Neal are each considered to be the leader of their team and the key player that drives them to wins.

Difference maker. If you take this player off this team, how far would they fall? Isn’t that the best measure of value, in deciding an MVP winner? You will hear that idea expressed in discussions about the MVP, and this year two players will benefit from it.

Shaquille O’Neal was traded to Miami this year, for 3 good players. His addition has vaulted Miami to dominance in the East, despite losing those 3 players.

Steve Nash signed with Phoenix as a free agent before this season, and the Suns have risen from mediocrity to become the top team in the league. In addition, Nash was injured during the season and missed 4 games in mid-January that the Suns lost, adding to the perception that he has been indispensable to the Suns success this year.

Games missed. Getting injured and missing a sizable part of the season costs votes. How can a player be the most valuable, if he was not on the floor?

Tim Duncan has battled ankle problems all year and only played 62 games. It appears he will miss the rest of the regular season, meaning his contribution will be limited to 75% of the Spurs’ games, and that will lower his chances in the MVP voting.

Finishing the season strong. The MVP voting occurs as the season ends, and the freshest images in the voters minds are those from the last month of the season.

Tim Duncan is off the floor. His value is noticed as the Spurs lose more frequently without him - but the fact that he is not playing also is underscored.

Phoenix, Dallas, and Miami are all playing well.

Myths. In every area of life, myths get spread that are not supported by facts. In voting, perception equals reality. Steve Nash’s MVP support this year will be bolstered by perception that is fueled by myth that has been recited repeatedly in the media.

Nash joined a Suns team that won 29 games last year, a fact that is often cited. The assumption is that Nash made it into a big winner. What is overlooked? Quite a bit.

Last year the Suns actually had a fairly good team - a team that had made the playoffs the prior year and was considered to be up and coming. But they ended up losing a ton of games for several factors. One was the loss of Stoudemire, who was hurt and missed a 1/3 of the season. Even more importantly, they pulled off a midseason trade that junked their season, sending their two primary ball handlers to NY to free up cap room, in exchange for next to nothing. Before Stoudemire’s injury and the trade, the Suns were a talented team, played at a .500 pace, and showed great potential. With first the loss of Stoudemire and then the loss of their ball handlers, their record didn’t reflect their talent.

The return to health this year of Stoudemire, plus the addition of ANY credible ball-handler, was going to make them better no matter what.

Furthermore, Nash was not Phoenix’ only addition in the offseason. The Suns also signed Quentin Richardson in free agency, whose numbers (averages of 15.4 pts, 6.2 rebs, 2.0 assists, 1.3 steals) have been as strong as those of Nash this year.

The myth of Nash’s unmatchable value to Phoenix exploded into the media when he was injured in mid-January this year and the Suns lost 4 in a row without him. What is overlooked is that at the time they had also lost their backup PG to injury, so in Nash’s absence they were down to their 3rd option. Also, the games they lost were all against playoff teams, and 3 were on the road.

Who gains most from the intangibles? We think it is valid to cast a vote factoring in intangibles such as leadership and games played, but we deplore the votes driven by sympathy and myths. In our view of the intangibles, we give Shaq 0.5 points for being a difference maker, and we subtract 0.5 points from Duncan for missing 1/4 of the season. If we are reflecting the real voting, we also have to add another 0.5 to Shaq for the sympathy factor and 0.5 to Nash for the myths that will influence voters.

In the real voting, from what we have discussed to this point in both stats and intangibles, we see a slight edge towards Shaq and Nash. However, on our ballot, so far we would have essentially a 4-way tie.

THE BIGGEST INTANGIBLE - WILL IT BE OVERLOOKED?

There is one final factor that might get little discussion, yet to us should be near the top of the list. In making their team a winner, who had the least help? That factor, once included, forces us to our original premise: Lone Star Dirk should be the MVP this year.

In Phoenix, Nash has been complemented by both Stoudemire and Marion - each of whom are so good that some think they rather than Nash should be the MVP for the entire league. Duncan has been accompanied by Ginobili, an all-star and one of the league’s best in every analysis. Shaq also has an all-NBA caliber running mate in the person of Wade.

But Dirk? If you take a poll of fans and media as to the 2nd best player on the Mavs, you will find out quickly that there is no consensus whatsoever. His main help has varied from week to week, and even game to game. There are lots of contributors here and there - a cast of thousands, as the saying goes. But there is no second banana for Dirk to rely on each night.

In former years in Dallas, there was a big 3 of Dirk, Nash, and Finley. This year, Nash is gone and Finley’s game has declined. In spite of that, the team has gotten even better: Dirk has put this team on his back, and overcome those losses. With the loss of Nash, the PGs who are needed to set up Dirk have been inexperienced - so Dirk has fueled the team while they learn. In fact, Dirk only has 2 players alongside him from the Dallas team that went to the Western Conference Finals 2 years ago - and instead of falling to the bottom, they are rising to the top. In Dallas, it isn’t a group of 2 or 3 players that has keyed this team’s ability to win - it is all about Dirk.

Interestingly, the lesser ability of Dirk’s surrounding cast is a concept that is supported by the numbers. Beech’s +/- analysis measures the success of a team without a particular player on the floor, and is often overused. But an interesting number pops out at us. When Nash, Duncan, or Shaq sits, their team still plays about even with the opposition - meaning they would still be around a .500 team without them. When Dirk sits, the Mavs lose almost 10 points per 48 minutes - which would make them one of the worst teams in the league.

OUR FINAL TALLY

Any of our finalists may win the actual MVP award this year. But in our view, we think the facts should make it go as follows.

Nash has had an outstanding year, but he plays no defense, and much of his resume is built on myth rather than fact.

Duncan has been the best player on the team when he has played - but his missing 1/4 of the season drops the Spurs in the standings and drops him from the top as well. Shaq has made the Heat dominant in the East - but his stats aren’t as good as Duncan or Dirk, and his accomplishments this year are in the weaker conference.

That leaves us with Lone Star Dirk as our choice. His ability to carry this team to the top without a 2nd star is the deciding factor in our minds. Behind Dirk, our ballot would read (in order) Shaq, Duncan, Nash. For others, Dirk’s one “flaw’’ on his resume will be the fact that the Mavs record is 5th in the league at this point. If the Mavs can fashion a long winning streak in April, and move up to a record near or better than the Spurs, the rest of the league may also agree that Lone Star Dirk is this season’s Most Valuable Player in the NBA.

EDITORS NOTES: Dean Oliver is considered an authority in the application of statistical analysis to NBA issues and now works exclusively for the Seattle Sonics in analyzing NBA players and teams. His ideas and system are outlined in his book “Basketball On Paper.’’

BASKETBALL ON PAPER (http://www.basketballonpaper.com/)

Dan Rosenbaum is an economics professor at UNC--Greensboro and a former NBA Players Assn consultant who is considered an authority in the application of statistical analysis to NBA issues such as cap issues and player rankings.

ROSENBAUM’S WORK (http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/nba.html)

John Hollinger applies statistical analysis to player evaluation. His work can be found at:

ESPN.COM (http://www.espn.com/)

Roland Beech is the creator of many NBA analytical tools, including the Roland System that analyzes a player's plus-minus effect on a team. His work can be found at:

82GAMES.COM (http://www.82games.com/)

Ed Kupfer analyzes NBA data and players. His site "Brother Ed- Stats Pimp" is currently unavailable to the public.

Some of the partial rankings info Nikos referred to can be found in the article. I highlighted the comments on Duncan and Ginobili.

[ChumpDumper]

And you were wrong about that...we signed him 2 a 2 year deal with a player option for the second...details of the second year haven't been announced and a 2 year deal is not the vet min anyway.Here, learn something:
((g) Minimum Player Salary Exception.

A Team may sign a player to, or acquire by assignment, a Player Contract, not to exceed two (2) Seasons in length, that provides for a Salary for the first Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to that player (with no Unlikely Bonuses). A Player Contract signed pursuant to the Minimum Player Salary Exception covering two (2) Seasons shall provide for a Salary for the second Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to the player for such Season (with no Unlikely Bonuses). http://www.nbpa.com/cba/articleVII.html#section6

Admit you're wrong about that.

[Nikos]

Oh ok, I remember asking Dan months ago what his list looked like and he said he didn't really have one yet. I figured he was not going to post it, but you have got the impression that he will post it once the season is over correct?

If so, thats awesome. Let me know what he does if you find out before me!

BTW, I think the overrated team has accumulated way more minutes than the guys on the underratted team. I am not sure the point is to compare the list of players, the point is to show the difference makers based on their relative minutes and respective role.

I am sure Iverson or O Neal could be pretty good if they just took a few less shots, or were on a more superior and balanced team. Then the +/- might be a bit more kind on them. But all it probably means is they are being overtaxed, and aren't as valuable as their stats might indicate. I don't think the idea is to compare these two different sets of player lists.

[whottt]

If they sucked as bad as you said they always would, yes.

Link to where I said Manu and Horry sucked? Link to where I said Barry sucked as anything other than sarcasm?


You're the one who underestimated Manu's acceptance of his role and Barry's ability to not play like a pussy.

No idiot...I was quite aware of Manu's acceptance of the role....What I said was that he didn't like it and wouldn't do it again, which you argued...even after I posted fucking quotes by him saying he didn't like...at which point you said fuck him if he won't play off the bench and then and called him a pussy...

None of us were arguing that he should start last season...so either you can't fucking read or you are full of shit.

As for Barry...read the article again idiot...it says he is underated because his +/- exceed his stats, IOW idiot, it is saying he helps the team even if he isn't shooting well...idiot, that is what I have been saying all season...you are the one that defended benchign him for poor shooting in the first half(and you did it after losses) and if you deny it again, I will go find the fucking quotes...



You overestimated the demand for Horry when I told you he would never get above the minimum and thought he would be a pouting pussy and sign elsewhere out of spite.

I overestmated...We didn't have any thing but the mimimum to sign him with clown...I said perhaps we should show more interest so that he doesn't go to Miami..and you like a fucking idiot said fuck him, get Malone...where would we be now?


Bottom line is all three players weren't the pussies you made them out to be. Just as I thought.

Bottom line idiot is that you are the only one on the fucking forum that thinks I have have called those guys pussies...you are the one that has called them pussies...

All the while your head was so far up fucking Hedo's ass last season he couldn't bend over...You are the one who wanted unlimited charity for Hedo.

[ChumpDumper]

What I said was that he didn't like it and wouldn't do it again, which you argued.Nope, you said he'd walk. I argued that. And was right. And he would be a pussy if he didn't accept it again.
you are the one that defended benchign him for poor shootingI defended benching him for playing like a pussy and passing up wide open shots.
I overestmated...We didn't have any thing but the mimimum to sign him withWait, you just said he didn't sign for the minimum. Get your story straight.
I said perhaps we should show more interest so that he doesn't go to Miami..and you like a fucking idiot said fuck him, get Malone...where would we be now?If Malone was healthy enough, who knows? He decided he wasn't.
Bottom line idiot is that you are the only one on the fucking forum that thinks I have have called those guys pussies.You never thought Barry would improve at all this season and you thought Manu and Horry were pouting pussies whose feelings were as easily hurt as yours and they'd leave the Spurs because of hurt feelings. You were projecting your pussiness onto them and you suck for that.

[ChumpDumper]

Now admit you were wrong about the minimum.

[ChumpDumper]

And you were wrong about that...we signed him 2 a 2 year deal with a player option for the second...details of the second year haven't been announced and a 2 year deal is not the vet min anyway.
We didn't have any thing but the mimimum to sign him with clown.....

[whottt]

We didn't have anything but the minimum to sign him with for this year....it's a 2 year deal...and since it's not his first year with the team I suggest you go study the salary cap FAQ. Furthermore a 2 year deal pays better in the second year than two 1 year deals with a renouncemnt of rights will......go study it, or not only will you get owned on talent evaluations...you will get owned on the salary cap, my weakest area.

And finally...I advocated showing interest in Horry and making Bowen like commitments beyond this season...that may not show up in the initial year...he does have a player option you notice? And we will have his early bird rights next season...So you don't know what was promised or what changed that situation...

But obviously a 2 year deal means that they did make concessions to Horry over a standard vet min contract, which is my ultimate point..the degree of those concessions won't be known until next year...

[ChumpDumper]

We didn't have anything but the minimum to sign him with for this year....it's a 2 year deal...and since it's not his first year with the team I suggest you go study the salary cap FAQ.Horry was renounced last summer. You run along and learn what that means.
And finally...I advocated showing interest in Horry and making Bowen like commitments beyond this season...that may not show up in the initial year...he does have a player option you notice? And we will have his early bird rights next season...So you don't know what was promised or what changed that situation...I know exactly what is promised -- at least another year's salary. Since it's a player option, even if the Spurs don't want him or if Horry retires, they'll have to pay him the minimum salary next year--all he has to do is say the word. So the Spurs technically guaranteed Horry at least $2.3 million to play one more season for them. If Horry declines that option and negotiates a new contract, then we can speculate on a wink-wink. You can't say it isn't a minimum contract though. You just fucked up thinking you couldn't make it a two year deal.

[whottt]

Horry was renounced last summer. You run along and learn what that means

I guess that means no early bird rights, although I am not certain that's what the Spurs did...doesn't matter thought because they will still have more money to play with this offseason than they did when he was signed.


.I know exactly what is promised -- at least another year's salary. Since it's a player option, even if the Spurs don't want him or if Horry retires, they'll have to pay him the minimum salary next year--all he has to do is say the word.

Thank you...so it's not true vet minimum contract it's more than that, it contains future concessions and could be as much as 2.3 million dollar deal for 1 year of play...Not a true minimum contract.

...which is what I said the Spurs should do something like and you argued against...

And are we still debating if Horry is only worth the minimum anyway? He's a fucking steal for the vet minimum.


Thank you.



So the Spurs technically guaranteed Horry at least $2.3 million to play one more season for them. If Horry declines that option and negotiates a new contract, then we can speculate on a wink-wink. You can't say it isn't a minimum contract though.

I sure as fuck can because he can make double pay for one year of play if he chooses...and who knows what the Spurs offered under the table? He's also guranteed two years if he only plays one due to injury...


You just fucked up thinking you couldn't make it a two year deal.

I knew you could make it a 2 year deal, I also knew it wasn't a standard vet min deal...it has many concessions to Horry beyond the standard vet min deal...in fact it has every concession they could give to Horry with he cap constraints they had at the time...

Either you are splitting hairs or you are stupid and lack common sense...I wish I could say that I knew you were just splitting hairs...sadly, I don't know that anymore and I honestly think you can't see the difference.

[Kori Ellis]

Aren't you two tired? :)

[whottt]

This little blurb deserves it's own post....because I am tired of hearing you use it to deflect past stupidity and I finally did decide to go out and shove them down your throat...




I defended benching him for playing like a pussy and passing up wide open shots.

Tell me you aren't justifying the benchings based on his shooting PCT in these quotes...



You don't care if a player sucks as long as he gets his quota of minutes you have determined based on his NCAA career or one game you saw during the Olympics.

I think .200 shooting for one of the best shooters in the NBA sucks. It's difficult to care why.



Thanks for supporting my point. The Spurs aren't as good as you thought.


Actually...we were off to the best start in team history...until...So unfortunately for you there's not much evidence to prove we weren't as good as I thought...


Plenty of evidence to prove that not playing Barry in the second half hurts the team a hell of a lot more than it hurts Barry.


Don't front -- it's exaclty what you wantthen why are you arguing against it retroactively?Duh.I'm not afraid to say when a player is sucking and should have to earn back his minutes. You are.Artificailly inflated as I showed you. 70 wins indeed.And now he's hitting 20% and getting killed on D. That's his problem.You are the one who thinks he's a pussy who can't play like that again without the Hedo treatment.


No welfare.





We get it. You like playing shooters who can't shoot because maybe someday they'll shoot again.

Quit insulting the players who actually do well. It's pathetic.



Yep, 30 minutes of Shane Barry's .000 shooting the past two games could only have helped.



how can barry prove his worth playing 5 and 6 minutes?



Make a shot.

Don't get burned on D.

Rocket science.



You are fucking owned bitch.


By the way...last season...according to this forumla...Shane Heal was also under-rated...he had one of best +/- on the team. Anthony Carter had the worst.

Ask TimVP to dig up the original Hedo>Manu thread and I know the reason you were all over Hedo's jock was because of his 3 shooting for that month...Listen to me for once and maybe you won't be a chokerlover. I have reasons for liking the players I like, beyond shooting %. Unlike you.

[whottt]

And I hate to break it to you but Barry has been getting what you call "welfare" and what I call not being the team bitch behind rookies and NBDL players...because of Devin's injury...that's what ended his slump...if we'd be giving him "welfare" all along we might already have HCA and my fucking 65 win prediction would still be possible!

[Rummpd]

I would have no problem if Dirk > Shaq or Nash for MVP this year but the truth is that Duncan is more valuable period.

[ManuTastic]

BTW, I think the overrated team has accumulated way more minutes than the guys on the underratted team. I am not sure the point is to compare the list of players, the point is to show the difference makers based on their relative minutes and respective role.

I am sure Iverson or O Neal could be pretty good if they just took a few less shots, or were on a more superior and balanced team. Then the +/- might be a bit more kind on them. But all it probably means is they are being overtaxed, and aren't as valuable as their stats might indicate. I don't think the idea is to compare these two different sets of player lists.

I'm not sure about this. The lists don't attempt to contextualize the players by roles or minutes. And they are pretty weird. Besides AK-47 and Manu, would you or I really rather have any of the 'underrated' players over ANY of the 'overrated' players (well, except Walker)? I agree the simple stats on points, rebs, etc., don't capture a players' whole value, but it looks to me like the +/- system is leaving out something pretty important, though I don't know what it is. But come on, Shandon Anderson? I don't buy that.
Don't have a better system myself, I must admit. It's a very intriguing project, though.
Maybe a good idea would be to add a player's +/- 'score' to his ppg, rbg, apg profile, as an additional data point, but not as a replacement.

[whottt]

Hey RVB and Nikos...give me your input on these 82 games +/-(pairs) related threads...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13316

RVB, I would like you to take a look at the above thread in particular...

Not only do Barry, Horry, and Manu's +/- totals exceed their glory stat contributions...

But when they are on the court together their +/- differentials are even greater than their individual +/- ratings...

What makes it really unfortunate is that it is next to impossible to find many 5 man lineups with Horry, Manu, and Barry together, in spite of the fact that they seem to elevate each others games.....and it's even more rare to find them together with Duncan...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13313

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13314

[whottt]

I don't think this article is intending to say the under-rated guys are better than the over-rated guys...only that the under-rated guys are better than people realize and the over-rated guys aren't as great as people think they are...

As for which team would win a game if they played....

The team that doesn't have Antoine Walker on it will win IMO. That guy is the worst player in the NBA...the stat that accurately reflects how truly bad a player he is hasn't been invented yet...He's not the least talented, he's very talented...which is what makes him even more dangerous to the teams he plays for...but he is the worst player in the NBA IMO.

[IcemanCometh]

trade barry for iverson

[Rick Von Braun]

I'm not sure about this. The lists don't attempt to contextualize the players by roles or minutes. And they are pretty weird. Besides AK-47 and Manu, would you or I really rather have any of the 'underrated' players over ANY of the 'overrated' players (well, except Walker)? I agree the simple stats on points, rebs, etc., don't capture a players' whole value, but it looks to me like the +/- system is leaving out something pretty important, though I don't know what it is. But come on, Shandon Anderson? I don't buy that.
Don't have a better system myself, I must admit. It's a very intriguing project, though.
Maybe a good idea would be to add a player's +/- 'score' to his ppg, rbg, apg profile, as an additional data point, but not as a replacement. Nikos is correct ManuTastic. The list implicitly contextualize based on roles and minutes. What the list shows is the difference between a ranking based on statistical boxscore and adjusted +/- (NOT what you find in 82games.com) for each individual player. The list shows the relative production difference of each individual player using both rankings, and it is not meant for comparison among different players.

For example, using totally ficticious numbers, a player A in the underrated list may have a statistical boxscore production of 10 (ranked 100) and an adjusted +/- of 15, (ranked 70). The difference between his 2 rankings would be equivalent to +4 points per 40 minutes (I made this up). Player B in the overrated list may have a statistical boxscore production 30 (ranked 20) and an adjusted +/- of 20 (ranked 50). The difference between his 2 rankings would be equivalent to -5 points per 40 minutes.

Player B may have both better boxscore production and even adjusted +/-, but his boxscore production may be overrated with respect to what he actually produces to the team in term of +/- points to the team. I hope you understand now.

In order to compare all the players, you could use the adjusted +/- list (ajusted for minutes played as well), which is precisely what Nikos was asking in this thread. Even better would be to use the DanVal metric to compare different players, which uses both the adjusted +/- values and a statistical index derived from the boxscore, and has been shown to be even less noisy.

[Rick Von Braun]

Hey RVB and Nikos...give me your input on these 82 games +/-(pairs) related threads...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13316

RVB, I would like you to take a look at the above thread in particular...

Not only do Barry, Horry, and Manu's +/- totals exceed their glory stat contributions...

But when they are on the court together their +/- differentials are even greater than their individual +/- ratings...

What makes it really unfortunate is that it is next to impossible to find many 5 man lineups with Horry, Manu, and Barry together, in spite of the fact that they seem to elevate each others games.....and it's even more rare to find them together with Duncan...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13313

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13314 Whottt,

I agree with most of what you stated in the first thread, specifically the comments on Duncan, Manu, and Horry.

The Parker/Beno, Manu, Barry, Horry and Duncan lineup seems to be the most efficient. No surprises there.

Cheers!

[wildbill2u]

Aren't you two tired? :)

Are these guys, like you know, handicapped or something, so they don't work or have a family life and can stay online all day and all night? I'm seriously curious.

Actually they sound like an old married couple who hate each other but wouldn't know what to do with themselves if one of them died and left the survivor with no one to argue with.

Their arguments get old after about the 5th back and forth post when they start posting arcane quotes from three months (or 3 years) ago to prove a point. Maybe after 5 posts back & forth in any thread you could banish them to their own thread where anyone who cares could go watch them bicker.

[Nikos]

I'm not sure about this. The lists don't attempt to contextualize the players by roles or minutes. And they are pretty weird. Besides AK-47 and Manu, would you or I really rather have any of the 'underrated' players over ANY of the 'overrated' players (well, except Walker)?

All in all that you should take from these lists that certain players who aren't putting up 'glory stats' are still making more of a difference for their respective team then meets the eye. It isn't saying someone is a better player per se, but it says how much of a difference they make for their respective team based on the minutes they play.

If Jermaine O'Neal and Iverson were used for 30-35min on a team loaded with talent, they probably would have more efficient numbers, instead of overshooting. And as a result, you might see more efficient numbers or better +/- rating.

[whottt]

...
Smart people realize there is an ignore feature...others complain.

[picnroll]

Is their any analysis on how these values hold up year to year for players? Does it on average remain reasonably steady and does it hold up when a player, particularly an established one, moves from team to team like say Barry or Horry?

[ChumpDumper]

I guess that means no early bird rightsWrong again. You really don't know anything about this do you?
which is what I said the Spurs should do something like and you argued against. Wrong again.
He's a fucking steal for the vet minimum. I said he was worth it several times.
I sure as fuck canNo.
I knew you could make it a 2 year dealBullshit. Why did you say it wasn't a minimum deal if it's two years? You say there was only the minimum to offer and that's what was offerred. and accepted. It's not like the Spurs are paying it all anyway; but i'm sure you don't know about that either.
I think .200 shooting for one of the best shooters in the NBA sucks. Does it not? Is it good?
The Spurs aren't as good as you thought.They weren't. Our record was inflated after playing team after team with injured players. We don't think the Knicks are that good after beating us without Tim do we? Oh yeah, they're tanking -- the OT victory over Indiana proves that.
And now he's hitting 20% and getting killed on D.That's not a problem? That's no reason to give Devin, who was playing better and still needs to be developed any time?
You like playing shooters who can't shoot because maybe someday they'll shoot again.Yeah, Shane Heal.

I stand behind everything I said. You can't make shots you don't take. You can't deny Barry was playing timid and passing up wide open shots. You admitted that, so why go back on that now? Shooters shoot. You can find that quote too.

You're saying you're satisfied with .200 shooting from Barry. I understand that. Forgive me for thinking he could do better. Now I'm resigned to his shooting poorly on the road from now on and very well at home. I apologize profusely for overestimating Barry's worth as a shooter. I have and will let Barry's overall mediocre road shooting slide from now on for all the excuses you have given him. I have seen the light - Barry is not the shooter I thought he was.

[Rick Von Braun]

Is their any analysis on how these values hold up year to year for players? Does it on average remain reasonably steady and does it hold up when a player, particularly an established one, moves from team to team like say Barry or Horry? The data used to calculate adjusted +/- (adjusted considering the quality of the teammates and the opponents) is available for the last 2 years only (3 years counting this year), so there isn't much analysis done to study the variability of +/- data. However, I know some studies are under way using the last 3 years of data.

Dan has suggested that the noise levels on pure adjusted +/- data are larger, but this may be solely due to lack of samples. He has suggested that using aggregated +/- data for the last 3 years may be a very stable player performance predictor.

[whottt]

an assload of backpedaling and hair splitting that would only be convincing to those who can't read

[ChumpDumper]

I admit I don't know what a minimum contract or renouncing a player means.

[whottt]

I think 2.3 million for one season is a minimum contract. It's stupid for me to think that, but then again, I think a lot of stupid things. It's my art

[ChumpDumper]

I said we didn't offer a minimum contract, then I said we only had the minimum to offer. Now I say both are right and hope no one can see that I kicked my own ass right there. I'm completely out of my depth here. What the hell does renouncing mean anyway? I think it's time to lie about something ChumpDumper posted as a stalling tactic. It's all I have left.

[whottt]

Split hairs! Split!

[ChumpDumper]

I wish CD would give me a link to that renouncing thing.

[whottt]

I wish the Spurs renouncing(or not) Horry's rights, had something to do with anything we are talking about. I also wish I could renounce that root whottt just rammed up my ass.

[ChumpDumper]

I still don't know what reouncing means but will pretend that I don't care and that it has nothing to do with the discussion even though I'm the one who brought up Horry's contract and fucked myself over twice with my own ignorance. Just about time to make up something else to draw attention away from my stunning lack of knowledge.

[whottt]

Chump...it doesn't change anything...can't you just admit you've been wrong about Barry(and Horry and Hedo)?

Is it really that hard to just say, "I am a dumbass"...say it...to get better you must first admit you have an illness.

You are doing it already in deed if not word...just admit it.

The list of you chokers you have loved is a long one...learn, live, grow, wisen the fuck up!

[timvp]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/buck/image/play/av616.jpg

Hey mang, you broke da string. Stick to da basics.

[ChumpDumper]

can't you just admit you've been wrong about Barry(and Horry and Hedo)?If I was, I would. I knew Barry could play better than the pussy game he was playing in December and you thought was the best he could and would ever do. I knew Horry wasn't going to be offered anything more than the minimum while you cried a river about his hurt feelings and thought he would sign with another team out of some pussy spite you projected onto him. As far as Hedo goes, I simply wish we had more time with him before having to make the choice. The Spurs absolutely made the right choice -- I've said so many times.Anything I said about him in relation to Manu was speculating about careers if both stayed Spurs. It's very easy for you to lie about it now and I understnd your motivation to do so when you feel cornered and your arguments fall apart on points of your ignorance.
just admit it. Like you are admitting you contradicted yourself about the minimum contracts and don't know how renouncing a player affects a player's rights? Or Horry signing with Miami after having his feelings hurt? Or Manu bolting for Denver after being benched and having his feelings hurt? About Barry not playing 10mpg?

[whottt]

Main Entry: 1grade
Pronunciation: 'grAd
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Latin gradus step, degree, from Latin gradi to step, go; akin to Lithuanian gridyti to go, wander
1 a (1) : a stage in a process (2) : a position in a scale of ranks or qualities b : a degree of severity in illness <grade III carcinoma> c : a class organized for the work of a particular year of a school course d : a military or naval rank
2 a : a class of things of the same stage or degree b : a mark indicating a degree of accomplishment in school c : a standard of food quality
3 a : the degree of inclination of a road or slope; also : a sloping road b : a datum or reference level; especially : ground level
4 : a domestic animal with one parent purebred and the other of inferior breeding
5 plural : the elementary school system
- grade·less /-l&s/ adjective




Main Entry: 2grade
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): grad·ed; grad·ing
transitive senses
1 a : to arrange in grades : SORT b : to arrange in a scale or series c : to assign to a grade or assign a grade to
2 : to level off to a smooth horizontal or sloping surface
intransitive senses
1 a : to form a series b : BLEND
2 : to be of a particular grade
- grad·able /'grA-d&-b&l/ adjective

[whottt]

........

:blah