XFactor's Stat game -- Who is the most consistent player in the NBA?

[XFactor]

So I decided to play the stats game a bit and took the averages of the top 20 performances of some of the best players on each team(at least most of the teams). Then I took their top 40 performances and figured out the differential. The lower the differential the more consistent the player is. Here is what I got:

1. Kevin Durant
Top 40: 32.8ppg 8.8rpg 3.6apg .537%
Top 20: 35.9ppg 10.95rpg 4.7apg .611%
Differential 6.964

2. Dirk Nowitzki
Top 40: 28.5ppg 8.9rpg 3.1apg .530%
Top 20: 32.1ppg 10.45rpg 4.3apg .601%
Differential 6.976

3. Derrick Rose
Top 40: 23.3ppg 4.8rpg 6.8apg .541%
Top 20: 27.2ppg 6.1rpg 7.9apg .614%
Differential 7.026

4. Rajon Rondo
Top 40: 16.6ppg 5.4rpg 11.2apg .585%
Top 20: 20ppg 7.2rpg 12.8apg .664%
Differential 7.465

5. Deron Williams
Top 40: 20.9ppg 4.8rpg 11.2apg .522%
Top 20: 24.4ppg 6.1rpg 13.1apg .606%
Differential 7.483

6. Lebron James
Top 40: 34.4ppg 9.8rpg 8.3apg .543%
Top 20: 38.6ppg 11.6rpg 9.8apg .596%
Differential 7.880

7. Dwayne Wade
Top 40: 29.5ppg 5.6rpg 7.4apg .520%
Top 20: 33.5ppg 7.3rpg 9.1apg .548%
Differential 7.893

8. Chris Bosh
Top 40: 27.4ppg 13rpg 2.9apg .589%
Top 20: 31.5ppg 14.9rpg 4.1apg .673%
Differential 7.963

9. Dwight Howard
Top 40: 22.3ppg 15.5rpg 2.2apg .714%
Top 20: 26.1ppg 18.0rpg 3.2apg .811%
Differential 8.108

10. Tim Duncan
Top 40: 21.5ppg 12.5rpg 3.7apg .576%
Top 20: 25.0ppg 15.2rpg 4.9apg .651%
Differential 8.2

11. Paul Pierce
Top 40: 19.6ppg 5.1rpg 3.7apg .492%
Top 20: 23.9ppg 6.8rpg 5.1apg .594%
Differential 8.390

12. Steve Nash
Top 40: 21.0ppg 5.4rpg 13.1apg .583%
Top 20: 25.4ppg 5.3rpg 15.4apg .662%
Differential 8.458

13. Joe Johnson
Top 40: 25.3 ppg 5.8rpg 5.5apg .511%
Top 20: 30.3 ppg 7.2rpg 7.2apg .564%
Differential 8.555

14. Brandon Roy
Top 40: 24.4ppg 4.8rpg 5.2apg .516%
Top 20: 29.6ppg 6.3rpg 6.5apg .616%
Differential 8.969

15. Carmelo Anthony
Top 40: 30.4ppg 6.7rpg 3.6apg .481%
Top 20: 35.9ppg 8.3rpg 5.1apg .559%
Differential 9.357

16. Kobe Bryant
Top 40: 31.9ppg 6.3rpg 5.5apg .518%
Top 20: 37.4ppg 8.1rpg 7.2apg .583%
Differential 9.478

17. Chris Paul
Top 40: 20.3ppg 4.5rpg 11.1apg .495%
Top 20: 26.1ppg 6.2rpg 13.9apg .593%

[23LeBronJames23]

Can you post Russell Westbrooks stats?

[monosylab1k]

undoubtedly plagiarized from somewhere

[XFactor]

undoubtedly plagiarized from somewhere

I don't plagiarize.....

[XFactor]

Can you post Russell Westbrooks stats?

Russell Westbrook
Top 40: 19.6ppg 6.2rpg 9.1apg .465%
Top 20: 23.8ppg 7.6rpg 11.0apg .549%
Differential 8.259

That would place him between #10 and #11

[nkdlunch]

Tim Duncan was by far up until this season

[XFactor]

Tim Duncan was by far up until this season

Definately agree, I was shocked to see him that low.

[D2Procon]

CROFL @ Kobe Bryant and Chris Paul.

[redzero]

CROFL @ Kobe Bryant and Chris Paul.

Chris Paul was dealing with an ankle sprain when he came back.

[Ghazi]

and a hurt pussy :)

[XFactor]

Chris Paul was dealing with an ankle sprain when he came back.

True but thats why I chose top 40 games. His bad performances would be settled to the bottom.

[D2Procon]

6. Lebron James
Top 40: 34.4ppg 9.8rpg 8.3apg .543%
Top 20: 38.6ppg 11.6rpg 9.8apg .596%
Differential 7.880

That statline is just ridiculous

[redzero]

That statline is just ridiculous

LeBron's been far and away the best player in the league for quite some time.

[JamStone]

By taking out there bottom 10-15 games (however many other games they played), aren't you miscalculating consistency? You should add the poor performances (all their stats) to include the highs and lows, which also tells the story of consistency.

For hypothetical example, if LeBron James' top 20 performances are something like 40/10/10, then his top 40 games are 35/8/8, and the rest of his performances calculate to be 34/8/7. But a player like sayyy Derrick Rose has top 20 performances of 23/5/10 and his top 40 performances are 21/5/9, but the rest of his performances add up to 11/3/3.

Now under "your" notion of consistency, Derrick Rose would be more consistent. But, I'd beg to differ because the stats you use to calculation your idea of "consistency" are manipulated to ignore part of what consistency really is.

I'm just saying.

[XFactor]

By taking out there bottom 10-15 games (however many other games they played), aren't you miscalculating consistency? You should add the poor performances (all their stats) to include the highs and lows, which also tells the story of consistency.

For hypothetical example, if LeBron James' top 20 performances are something like 40/10/10, then his top 40 games are 35/8/8, and the rest of his performances calculate to be 34/8/7. But a player like sayyy Derrick Rose has top 20 performances of 23/5/10 and his top 40 performances are 21/5/9, but the rest of his performances add up to 11/3/3.

Now under "your" notion of consistency, Derrick Rose would be more consistent. But, I'd beg to differ because the stats you use to calculation your idea of "consistency" are manipulated to ignore part of what consistency really is.

I'm just saying.

Fair criticism,

However, a lot of these players that I mentioned have had injuries during their season, when they comeback they aren't their best yet. Derrick Rose was injured in the first part of the season, Chris Paul was injured, and so was Deron Williams and Kobe Bryant and others. It would be unfair to measure consistency based on the performances they had because of an injury. By taking the top 40 games you get rid of those games that could be possibly due to injury. I agree with you that the bottom 10-15 games were not all related to injury and might be just due to bad performance but it would take forever to cherry pick all the games which the player was in bad condition. If for example we had 5 games due to injury and the other 5 due to bad performance, those 5 games won't have that much of an impact anyways.

[JamStone]

You get rid of "some" games that could be due to injury, but you'd also be getting rid of simply poor performances that are just poor performances.

Additionally, you shouldn't calculate the difference between top 20 and top 40 performances. You should calculate the difference between the top 20 performances and the top 21-40 performances. Top 40 performances would include top 20 performances, which also would skew the numbers, however minute. It's still an exercise of inaccurate statistics.

[XFactor]

You get rid of "some" games that could be due to injury, but you'd also be getting rid of simply poor performances that are just poor performances.

Additionally, you shouldn't calculate the difference between top 20 and top 40 performances. You should calculate the difference between the top 20 performances and the top 21-40 performances. Top 40 performances would include top 20 performances, which also would skew the numbers, however minute. It's still an exercise of inaccurate statistics.

That I should have done, good point.