ESPN.com's John Hollinger's Player Rankings

He admits to a flawed system but here it is. Let the rancor begin.

link

Productivity -- that's the name of the game in the NBA. Make more positive plays and fewer negative ones than your opponent, and there's a good chance your team will win the game.

Thus, a good way to measure players against each other is to compare how many positive and negative plays they make. To do so, I developed a system called the Player Efficiency Rating, or PER.

PER takes into account all of a player's statistical contributions -- points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, missed shots, turnovers and fouls -- and rolls them up into a score for every player in the league.

PER relies on a complex formula to rate a player's contribution in each of these categories, awarding or subtracting points depending on how much the player added or subtracted to his team. But it doesn't stop there. It adjusts every player's rating for the team's pace, an important consideration when comparing players from, say, Indiana and Phoenix.

Perhaps more important, it is a per-minute rating, not the per-game averages we're used to seeing. This distinction is important because we can then compare players whose playing times may be very different and answer questions such as "Should Player X play more than Player Y?" or "Could Player B be helpful to Team A?"

To simplify things, I set the league average in PER to 15.00 for each season. This makes comparisons between seasons very easy, which affords other opportunities. For instance, we can evaluate a player against his previous seasons, compare players from different eras, or produce objective answers to questions such as "Are there more great power forwards now than at any time in history?"

Furthermore, using 15.00 is a helpful benchmark because that's about what we expect a run-of-the-mill starter to score in an NBA game. Thus, we can use barometers already hard-wired into our heads -- above 20 is excellent, above 25 is superstardom, and below 10 is brutal.

Finally, there is one partial blind spot: defense. PER analyzes players based on blocks, steals and fouls, but that's a small part of overall defense. As a result, defensive specialists who get few blocks or steals, such as Bruce Bowen, end up with a lower rating than we might expect. Similarly, bad defensive players who nonetheless pile up steals or blocks, such as Jason Williams or Raef LaFrentz, rate higher than they ought to.

So, let's get to the fun part. Just who were the most productive players last season? The chart below shows the NBA's top 10 in PER last season. I also inserted each player's per-40-minute stats to show how each ended up on the list:

PER: Top 10 (min. 500 minutes)
Player Pts/40 Reb/40 Ast/40 PER
Kevin Garnett, Minnesota 23.3 14.2 6.0 28.35
Tim Duncan, San Antonio 24.4 13.3 3.3 27.13
Shaquille O'Neal, Miami 26.8 12.2 3.2 26.95
Amare Stoudemire, Phoenix 28.8 9.9 1.8 26.69
Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas 26.9 10.0 3.2 26.18
LeBron James, Cleveland 25.7 6.9 6.8 25.75
Andrei Kirilenko, Utah 19.0 7.6 3.9 24.45
Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 27.1 5.8 5.9 23.28
Allen Iverson, Philadelphia 29.0 3.8 7.5 23.23
Yao Ming, Houston 23.9 10.9 1.0 23.22


Garnett's team didn't make the playoffs, but he was the highest-rated player for a second straight season. Garnett ranked ahead of players like Duncan, Shaq and Stoudemire primarily because he stuffed the stat sheet in so many ways. While he averaged fewer points per minute than the next six players, Garnett was better at nearly everything else. He had one of the highest rebound rates in basketball, with only Duncan coming close among the top five in PER. Garnett had nearly twice as many assists per minute as the others and was well ahead in steals too. And compared to Duncan, his only rival in rebounding, Garnett shot better both from the floor and the free throw line.

Sum it all up and it's no surprise that Garnett rated No. 1; it's just unfortunate that the team around him fell apart, denying him a second straight MVP award. Speaking of MVPs, you might notice somebody isn't on the list. Phoenix's Steve Nash won the award but ranked only 18th in PER. While his assist rate and shooting percentages were phenomenal, only two players in the top 40 (Jason Kidd and Brad Miller) scored less frequently, and Nash didn't help his cause in the rebounding and defensive categories.

OK, we've looked at the best ... now how about the worst?

PER: Bottom 10 (min. 500 minutes)
Player Pts/40 Reb/40 Ast/40 PER
Theron Smith, Charlotte 8.2 9.1 2.2 5.10
Mark Madsen, Minnesota 5.8 8.5 1.2 6.76
Rafael Araujo, Toronto 10.6 10.0 0.9 6.87
Junior Harrington, Indiana 11.9 4.6 4.5 7.63
Ryan Bowen, Houston 7.4 5.0 1.2 7.65
Calbert Cheaney, Golden State 10.5 5.2 2.7 7.76
George Lynch, New Orleans 7.0 7.5 3.8 7.83
Jarron Collins, Utah 8.9 6.8 2.5 7.92
Erick Strickland, Milwaukee 11.9 4.1 4.5 8.01
Walter McCarty, Boston-Phoenix 11.5 6.1 1.6 8.08


Catch them while you can, folks, because you won't be seeing most of these guys in the NBA for much longer. One glaring exception is Madsen, the league's second-least productive player a year ago, who inexplicably received a five-year deal from the Wolves in the offseason.

Looking at last year's best and worst is informative, but we can also take things a step further. By comparing a given player to the most similar performers from recent NBA history, and then seeing how those similar players fared in subsequent years, we can project how a player's performance is likely to change in future seasons. Using just such a method, I have projected stats for every regular player, which you can find in the Insider section of the player stats. Based on those projections, we can determine the league leaders in PER for 2005-06.

Looking into the crystal ball, we shouldn't expect the top 10 to change much. Again, KG is on top:

PER: Projected 2005-06 Top 10
Player Pts/40 Reb/40 Ast/40 PER
Kevin Garnett, Minnesota 22.7 14.0 5.1 26.39
Tim Duncan, San Antonio 23.4 13.2 3.3 25.12
Shaquille O'Neal, Miami 22.1 11.9 2.7 24.24
LeBron James, Cleveland 26.7 6.2 7.1 24.09
Yao Ming, Houston 23.6 12.2 1.7 24.05
Tracy McGrady, Houston 27.3 6.1 5.7 24.03
Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas 23.9 9.6 2.9 23.52
Amare Stoudemire, Phoenix 25.9 10.2 1.9 23.51
Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 25.7 5.7 5.7 22.46
Dwyane Wade, Miami 23.9 5.2 6.2 22.39


Projections have their weaknesses -- for example, they don't know that Stoudemire just had microfracture surgery. But as a forecasting tool, projections can point us in unexpected directions. For instance, the two Rockets, McGrady and Yao, both project to be more productive than they were a year ago. If true, that would make Houston a much more serious threat in the West than many have anticipated.

But in the big picture, the triumvirate that has been ruling the league for nearly the entire post-Jordan era -- Garnett, Duncan and O'Neal -- again figures to lead the pack. That's hardly surprising -- they've accounted for four of the past six MVP awards and six of the past seven championships. Unless 2005-06 becomes Year 1 of the LeBron Era, look for the trio to make it five of seven on the MVPs and seven of eight on the championships.

Somewhere....sickdsm is smiling! :p

Hollinger is a moron.

Am I the only one that is fed up with Hollinger and his PER system???
Seriously, I am tired of it. It seems like he wants to go down in history as the person who reinvented stats and a way to rank players (I don't know how long the system has been around, but he takes credit for it). And the system is so flawed, not only on the defensive side either. It just does not take into account other intangibles, and what teamates the player plays with, and the worth of a player to a franchise. Who cares who is more efficient, how many players in the top 10 lead their team to the Finals, much less a win in the finals.

Heck, 3 of the 10 didn't even lead their teams to the playoffs. And how did Iverson end the playoffs? And Houston has 2 players in the top 6???
I am not denying the talent of these players, I believe they are great, but the fact that Rasho is not in the bottom 10 proves that this system is a crock. Oh, and only 4 Spurs are above average, all the rest are below average......

Sorry, had to vent.....

Chris Andersen 18.54 Hornets
Jackie Butler 90.84 Knicks (must be an error)
Dan Gadzuric 18.11 Bucks
Earl Boykins 17.15 Nuggets
Brevin Knight 18.06 Bobcats


Just a quick run through of some of the obvious upgrades the Spurs could make to our roster and get rid of some of out "below average players"

The only thing this system seems to show, is how important a player is withown their own system., in other words how big of a piece of the pie the get in their offense.
Could be usefull for Fantasy Basketball, however, I would seriously doubt the projections though.

In general, I agree with Hollinger's method but I believe that it fails to fully account for the true value of a player.

Introducing Marcus Bryant's Index (MBI)...

Player Points/40, Rebounds/40, Assists/40, MVPs, Championships, MBI
Tim Duncan, San Antonio 23.4 13.2 3.3 2 3 30.12
Kevin Garnett, Minnesota 22.7 14.0 5.1 1 0 26.39

I like the system in general, a nice index rating. Obviously it doesn't capture the intagibles, such as position defense, team chemistry etc... But it does factor PACE and quality of stats per MINUTE (which is better than simple OUTPUT).

Not mentioned here, but Hollinger has identified a "most similar at age" for each player.

After years of this, there is some sweet irony that for Shaquille O'Neal, Hollinger says the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Hollinger

Most similar at age: David Robinson

---

Still, how do you account for whether a player makes his team better? To me you would have to include some kind of wins/loss measure or perhaps +/- points.

So in other words guys like horry should rank much, much higher than the Kidd's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

So in other words guys like horry should rank much, much higher than the Kidd's?

---

I think that's oversimplifying the point that Marcus is making. I suspect, with regard to Horry, that the point is that he clearly isn't a worse player than the NBA average, which is the conclusion that Hollinger makes.

That point also is, I think, that saying Kevin Garnett is a better player than Tim Duncan based purely on statistics and without regard to what his team does makes the measure a little suspect.

Problem is basketball is a team sport. These are mostly individual stats. Wade might be able to beat anyone on the list one on one, but so what? This whole thing is interesting to talk about, but is really a bunch of bullshit when trying to say who is a better player.

Spin it how you want it but the fact remains as this.

Career tag alongs would unfairly rank higher than they should. This is much more of an injustice than rewarding someone who plays under one of the, scratch that, THEE best front office/coaching staff in the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I think that's oversimplifying the point that Marcus is making. I suspect, with regard to Horry, that the point is that he clearly isn't a worse player than the NBA average, which is the conclusion that Hollinger makes.

That point also is, I think, that saying Kevin Garnett is a better player than Tim Duncan based purely on statistics and without regard to what his team does makes the measure a little suspect.

---

You act as though KG's played on shitty teams or wallowed through seasons. He hasn't been a vince carter, Kidd or ray allen. They have always been pretty darn good under him. His teamates have been shitty alot of the times but he's always pulled above it. Hell, he even says in his article about the MVP worthy talk he would have generated with a better record even with a gimpy knee.

Cuts both ways. If Duncan weren't surrounded by greater talent, was more of the teams focus what effect would that have on his stats.

I'd like to see some numbers on the amount of double and triple teaming players draw. KG would not be close to Duncan there. That translates to improving others play. You always here players talking about the space that Duncan's doubling gives them, Finley was the latest. You hear the same talk regarding Shaq. Don't recall ever hearing that about KG.

PER is just a big men index
PG and SG can't be analysed with it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

You act as though KG's played on shitty teams or wallowed through seasons. He hasn't been a vince carter, Kidd or ray allen. They have always been pretty darn good under him. His teamates have been shitty alot of the times but he's always pulled above it. Hell, he even says in his article about the MVP worthy talk he would have generated with a better record even with a gimpy knee.

---

Oh, I don't know about comparing him to Kidd or Ray. Ray has been the lead player on at least two teams that have gotten past the first round and Kidd has twice lead his teams to the Finals.

The point is that you can't just look at numbers and say, well, KG is clearly the better player. There is some component of what happens on the floor that is attributable to a player's ability to help his team win -- not just his ability to accumulate numbers. KG has wonderful numbers every season, but that never seems to make much of a difference to his team, even when he's played with guys who make All-Star teams.

I think part of that is the unmeasurable things that a player does, and I think Tim Duncan does more of the immeasurable things than Kevin Garnett does.

Tim's defense at the rim -- his ability to change shots and create bad looks (even if he doesn't block the shot) is horrendously underrated, but it can't be measured. I'm certain that he does more of that than KG does.

Tim's ability to defend the pick and roll and force teams out of their sets with his defense is also something that isn't measurable. But I'm certain that he does it better than KG does.

Tim's ability to find an open teammate out of the double team that he commands doesn't always result in an assist for himself, but it may create an assist for the unselfish teammate who moves the ball to beat the rotation. Again, that's not measurable, but I see it happen. Since Tim doesn't make the pass that leads to the basket, he gets no credit for that play, but without his pass, there is no resulting hoop. That, again, is an unmeasured contribution that Tim makes to helping his team win lots and lots of games.

You cannot say, as Hollinger attempts to do, that statistics alone are the measuring stick of player performance. Statistics are an important tool in that effort, and they do disclose a lot of important information about a player, but they're far from the only tool because they aren't precise.

Spurs: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/hollinger?team=sas

Kori, or anyone with insider: can you post the complete profiles on some of the spurs players?

I've said once and ill say it fucking again....KG IS FUCKING OVERRATED

Here it is, in somewhat of a theory, the solution to make the system a little more accurate. Someone above mentioned win/loss being added to the equation. This lead to a great idea. Here it goes.

You would take a team's record and disect it, wins vs. losses. You would subtract the number of wins from the number of losses. Example, If the Spurs were to go 60-20 this season, they would have a margin of +40. If the Lakers were to finish the season 38-44, they would have a margin of -6. Now figure out the percentage of time a certain player is in the game. The easiest way to figure out the importance of a certain player's role on a team would be by the amount of minutes he recieves. Then you would take the win/loss margin and caculate it against the percentage of time they are in the game compared to their teamates. A pie chart would be good for this. I wish I could remember the 3rd grade. Anyways, I would imagine these equations would be used. A player who's team qualifies for the playoffs should recieve an extra point or something. As, well, awards should be put into consideration, to cover for intagibles which cannot be placed onto a stat sheet.


What do you think?

You have to account for the impact a player has on his team. Anyone who's followed the game over the last 8 seasons knows that Tim Duncan has had the ability to carry his team to 3 championships in 7 seasons. That has to be factored in at some point. Perhaps it cannot be quantified and is captured in terms of MVP awards and rings won. Personally, I think Garnett is not that much of a post player and dominates the rock too much. His greater assist totals seem to bear that out. Maybe you can add in a factor for 4th quarter scoring.

Garnett has had plenty of talent to play with during his career with the Timberwolves. To me, Garnett is not in the class of a Duncan or a Shaq.

I wouldn't use the word over rated to describe KG. He is a very very good player, probably in the top 5 ... make that he is one of the top 5 players in the league, and as a fantasy basketball league player, probably the best. He put up amazing stats, and give his team a chance to win every night, just by his presence.
However, players like Duncan not only put up the stats, but make the players around him better, and allow them to be a threat to make the team win. So instead of hurting the other team based purely on his own skills, he made everyone on his own team a threat, multiplying the chances of his team winning.
When you look at the championship teams, with the exception of 2005, there isn't a team with a clearcut Allstar along side Duncan, perhaps Robinson in 1999, but that is a stretch.
So how does his team win? Sure he benefits from a great system, but will that system even be possible without Duncan? Let's see. On offense, the Spurs, especially in 1999 and 2003, is simple. Dump the ball to Duncan, either he scores, or he draws a defender, kick the ball back out for a wide open jumper (and we see in 2004 what happens when that jumper doesn't fall). On defense, Bowen, Parker and Jackson plays tight defense (talking 2003), and relies on help defense from the teammates. If Duncan was substituted with KG, the offense will not work, given that KG is not as much of a post threat as Duncan, the defense probably would still work.
Now, over in Minnesota, if Duncan was the man in the middle, it will open up jumpers for Cassell, Szcerbiak, Sprewell and Hoiberg. While the defense wouldn't improve much, given that those guys don't really play defense that much, the offense will probably be more potent.
I guess what I am trying to say after rambling for 4 pages, is that Duncan makes the offense much easier for his teammates because of his post presence than KG does.

:rolleyes Minnesota has had one of the more efficent offenses for quite some time now. So you want to surround Tim with two of the three best shooters MN ever had, but forgetting the fact that KG did what he did without them most of his time there? Why don't you shove a Peeler (out of the NBA two years removed from starting 2 guard) and Felipe Lopez (likewise at this point )around him on the wings like KG has done? Tim is a better scorer than KG, most people recognize that. Its the fact that KG does a lot of the other stuff better. Neither one is "clearly" better than the other. I think a good way of putting it, if positions were blurred, KG would be a 3.5 PF/SF and TD would be a 4.5 C/PF. Everyones knock on KG here is because of the position differential. Sure he's not as good of a post up defender scorer. He's still pretty fucking good. Theres a lot less of a difference between the two here than there is outside the paint.


LOL at Marcus Bryant. You want to add 4th quarter scoring in? "But when KG does it its stat padding" :lol It doesn't go both ways.

I am suprised at some of the things said about KG.

Duncan is my favorite player in the league, and I do think he is the best player in the NBA. But the difference between KG and Duncan is minimal at best. By minimal I mean they are almost identical in impact on the floor. Difference is Duncan had better support for most of his career and probably has the edge in overall impact come playoff time cause of experience. He is more effective in the post as a scorer, but aside from that there really isn't a big difference between the two.

When Duncan didn't have the support (ie. 2002, he also failed to get his team past the second round against LA -- despite having an incredible playoffs). Actually Duncan couldn't really do anything to 'lead' his team in 2001 either, practically giving up after Game 2 of the WCF. Why does no one mention this? It still annoys me to this day how the Spurs just folded like a cheap suit that series.

KG actually had the troops to win the title in 2004, but remember Cassell getting injured? That loss is equavalent to the Spurs losing Manu in last years playoff run. Imagine that?

Blaming KG is kind of silly. Since 0203 he has been the best player in the NBA along with Duncan and Shaq. He hasn't failed as an individual at all. Give him very good support, and he will battle it out with the big boys as well. But unfortunately this season he won't have the support either, and everyone will continue to bring up how KG 'fails' again to lead his team anywhere when the playoffs roll around.

IMO KG receives a little too much criticisim.

Wow, we're crunching numbers furiously.
I like Marcus' method of number crunching better than Hollinger. My impression of Hollinger is that he seems to misunderestimate the Spurs (yes, that was intentional). Anyone who does that has a flawed way of analyzing the NBA.

I think that probably we can rely on statistics to show the difference between Shaq and Nazr for example, especially when we include the stuff Marcus put into his formula (mvp, championships) and perhaps add finals' mvps. On the other hand, in my opinion, I don't think that statistics can show us who is really better, Tim or KG. In other words, there are intangibles which are not measured (usually because they are too hard to reliably measure) or currently not included in formulas. Making your teammates better falls into the former category. I think that Tim is a better leader which is certainly no knock on KG because I think that he can be a great leader. However, Duncan, does this better than KG in at least two areas: leadership and forcing double teams which open up your teammates so that they will be more productive.

So, like I said, I like Marcus' formula and I think that it can reliable separate a top tier player vs an average player. However, in my view, statistics, while necessary to win a debate, are not sufficient by themselves to prove one person is right and another person is wrong.

TD>KG.
KG's numbers are better on paper, but he plays alot more minutes than Timmy.
I love KG the fantasy basketball player, 'cause he plays meaningless minutes during the regular season just to get a triple double.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kolko

Spurs: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/hollinger?team=sas

Kori, or anyone with insider: can you post the complete profiles on some of the spurs players?

---

i want to two manu and duncan
but dun have insider http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/s...idepressed.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

:rolleyes Minnesota has had one of the more efficent offenses for quite some time now. So you want to surround Tim with two of the three best shooters MN ever had, but forgetting the fact that KG did what he did without them most of his time there? Why don't you shove a Peeler (out of the NBA two years removed from starting 2 guard) and Felipe Lopez (likewise at this point )around him on the wings like KG has done? Tim is a better scorer than KG, most people recognize that. Its the fact that KG does a lot of the other stuff better. Neither one is "clearly" better than the other. I think a good way of putting it, if positions were blurred, KG would be a 3.5 PF/SF and TD would be a 4.5 C/PF. Everyones knock on KG here is because of the position differential. Sure he's not as good of a post up defender scorer. He's still pretty fucking good. Theres a lot less of a difference between the two here than there is outside the paint.

---

Yeah, but KG is no Jordan. Over the last 10 seasons there have been 3 dominant players: MJ, Shaq and TD. Dominance as in championships.

Quote:

---

LOL at Marcus Bryant. You want to add 4th quarter scoring in? "But when KG does it its stat padding" :lol It doesn't go both ways.

---

Sure it does. He gets the rock a lot during games and he struggles in the 4th. Not hard to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

:rolleyes Minnesota has had one of the more efficent offenses for quite some time now. So you want to surround Tim with two of the three best shooters MN ever had, but forgetting the fact that KG did what he did without them most of his time there? Why don't you shove a Peeler (out of the NBA two years removed from starting 2 guard) and Felipe Lopez (likewise at this point )around him on the wings like KG has done? Tim is a better scorer than KG, most people recognize that. Its the fact that KG does a lot of the other stuff better. Neither one is "clearly" better than the other. I think a good way of putting it, if positions were blurred, KG would be a 3.5 PF/SF and TD would be a 4.5 C/PF. Everyones knock on KG here is because of the position differential. Sure he's not as good of a post up defender scorer. He's still pretty fucking good. Theres a lot less of a difference between the two here than there is outside the paint.


LOL at Marcus Bryant. You want to add 4th quarter scoring in? "But when KG does it its stat padding" :lol It doesn't go both ways.

---

I don't question that, I believe KG is a great player on both offense and defense, but because of the nature of their games, Duncan is much easier to build around. Hell, you can argue that KG is a better at passing the ball, but that is the nature of his game, because he is, technically, a point forward, and he actually handles the ball in the half court set a LOT of times. On the other hand, Duncan is a point centre in the sense that he directs the offense of the Spurs. he doesn't really handle the ball that much, but when Duncan is on the floor, the offense starts with the ball going to him.
And I believe that Peeler could be a decent SG in the Spurs system. We likewise had Jaren Jackson, a very erratic Stephen Jackson (he wasn't as good as he is now), made a 96 year old Steve Kerr into a playoff hero, had Avery Johnson at the point, a player many said could never lead a championship, an extremely young PG in Parker in 2003.
Duncan's game put much more pressure on the opposing team. KG is a very very tall SF, and it is difficult to find the right pieces to fit around him. But that's not a slight. Jordan was unconventional, and he requires a certain type of player around him to succeed (tough interior rebounders and defender, a PG who just stands there and shoots 3pters, and a point forward in Pippen to direct the offense).

Peeler's playing overseas. Go ahead and sign him then.

Personally I think the question will be , what came first the chicken or the egg? What i mean by that is a lot of players were not great players or even good players when they came to the spurs. Did Tim duncan make them better or were the spurs just lucky in landing those guys.? Now with Tims Dominance and ability to play team ball guys want to play with him, (see finley and van exel) he is attracting talent because of his ability to make people better. There is a reason that proven guys that the spurs bring on to the team succeed the way they do, same with the younger. There is a reason finley picked duncan over shaq, and van exel picked duncan over mcgrady and yao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Peeler's playing overseas. Go ahead and sign him then.

---

I am not saying that Peeler will be a better player than the players the Spurs currently have, but with a player like Jaren Jackson at the 2 guard, the Spurs STILL managed to win a championship.
I don't suppose you can argue that Jaren Jackson had a better, or even equal, career to Peeler.
The Spurs have Ginobili, Barry, Finley at the two now, can I help it that the players are flocking to sign with the Spurs just for the chance to play with Duncan and have a good chance at winning a ring?

Hold up there, since when have they been "flocking" and attracting talent? Only this year. The closest Tim Duncan ever came to attracting talent before was Rasho Nesterovic. What other big name superstar with capspace on his team has struck out when it comes to known big time FA's? Crickets is all I hear. Barry came and proceeded to suck. What guy has came over to SA and blew up and when/if he left sucked? Not too terriblly many have. Around the league, McHale has been known for bringing in guys that for some reason or another have bounced around, been cut, dissapointment, etc. and made them into a wanted commodity. Is it McHale or is it KG? Face it, the biggest SA has attracted with Duncan there prior to this year have been Barry and Rasho. Both underachieving dissapointments and as I speak the FO is trying like hell to get rid of there contracts.

Is everyone in this thread one year old? Because there is a history beyond this years free agent pool.

Is it ironic that it comes during the same time as the new amnesty rule? I don't know.


As for finley, you might remember that he was HEAVILY considering the wolves. Even though there not a title contender, even though he would have made less money, even though its cold as hell and there's not much of a downtown district. Miami, Mn, SA were his three finalists. Alledegedly some have said it did come down to MN and SA. Funny, why was KG and co an option with all the knocks agaisnt them? Because NBA players CONSISTANTLY name KG as one of their faverite players they would love to play with.

So the Spurs have had trouble recruiting quality free agents and they've still managed to win 3 titles. No shit.

-MB

His average rating for the Pistons (counting only guys who were on the playoff roster) is 13.94. The frontcourt (Wallaces, Dice & Tay) averages out to a "slightly better than average" 16.84, with nobody even rating an 18.

As for the current champs, they've got a total of 4 players rated better than average, they've got a starting small forward who rates an atrocious 9.53 (one whole point better than our boy Delfino), and a couple of new free-agent acquisitions who are sub-par.

So my questions are: who dosed Hollinger, and with how many tabs? (I'm guessing "Walton" and "a LOT").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Hold up there, since when have they been "flocking" and attracting talent? Only this year. The closest Tim Duncan ever came to attracting talent before was Rasho Nesterovic. What other big name superstar with capspace on his team has struck out when it comes to known big time FA's? Crickets is all I hear. Barry came and proceeded to suck. What guy has came over to SA and blew up and when/if he left sucked? Not too terriblly many have. Around the league, McHale has been known for bringing in guys that for some reason or another have bounced around, been cut, dissapointment, etc. and made them into a wanted commodity. Is it McHale or is it KG? Face it, the biggest SA has attracted with Duncan there prior to this year have been Barry and Rasho. Both underachieving dissapointments and as I speak the FO is trying like hell to get rid of there contracts.

Is everyone in this thread one year old? Because there is a history beyond this years free agent pool.

Is it ironic that it comes during the same time as the new amnesty rule? I don't know.


As for finley, you might remember that he was HEAVILY considering the wolves. Even though there not a title contender, even though he would have made less money, even though its cold as hell and there's not much of a downtown district. Miami, Mn, SA were his three finalists. Alledegedly some have said it did come down to MN and SA. Funny, why was KG and co an option with all the knocks agaisnt them? Because NBA players CONSISTANTLY name KG as one of their faverite players they would love to play with.

---

Still two more than Garnett ever attracted. Besides, who have become wanted commodities? Cassell? Sprewell? Wally? Olowakandi?
The Spurs is one of the smallest TV market of all the NBA cities, and still managed to attract Barry (for far less $), Rasho, Finley and NVE, not bad at all. Besides, other than Stephen Jackson, there has not been any notable players who chose to sign elsewhere after playing with the Spurs. Manu decided to stay with the Spurs despite the lure of the Nuggets, Parker never even seriously entertained other deals.
As for Finley considering the Wolves, this is really the first time I have heard. I have heard the Spurs, Miami, Phoenix, and Chicago. Perhaps he considered the Wolves, but the frontrunners has always been those four (well, not so much Chicago ....)
As for your comment on KG being the favourite player to play with, I don't know, and I am sure Shaq and Duncan would rank high on that list too.