Evaluating the starting five in every game to date.

[bigricho12]

Forgive my indulgence, but I was intrigued, so I developed a way to assess the performance of each player on an every game basis.

Thus each player assessed will recieve a total score and due to DNP also a more accurate game score average.

I have rated players using the following point score for every game, and I have listed each players game rating score.

0 points Shocker
2 Poor
4 Slightly below average
5 Average
6 Slightly above average
8 Good game
10 Great game


A 10 can only be achieved if a very high level of play is achieved, while the individuals play directly resulted in a win for their team.

A high number of turnovers, poor defence, poor shooting percentages, poor positionally important statistics all effect the score recieved by the player.

A '0' score can only be achieved if the player in question played but had no or vertually no impact while having opportunity to do so.

The fact that Simmons minutes have at times been limited due to coming off the bench, have been taken into account as well as the fact that Yi for example does not recieve the shots that Redd might.

The results are:

Date- Bogut mo redd yi simmons

Jan 6- 10 6 dnp 4 5
Jan 4- 4 4 dnp 5 5
Jan 2- 6 8 2 6 5
Dec 31- 4 dnp 4 6 2
Dec 29- 5 6 6 6 2
Dec 28- 8 8 8 5 2
Dec 26- 2 6 2 2 0
Dec 22- 8 10 5 10 5
Dec 19- 8 6 6 5 4
Dec 17- 4 5 5 6 2
Dec 15- 6 8 8 8 2
Dec 14- 0 4 2 2 4
Dec 12- 6 6 10 8 2
Dec 10- 6 6 5 4 dnp
Dec 9- 8 8 2 2 dnp
Dec 7- 6 4 8 5 dnp
Dec 5- 5 2 4 6 5
Dec 4- 10 6 8 4 4
Dec 1- 4 4 4 4 6
Date
Nov 30- 5 5 6 4 2
Nov 28- 8 6 5 2 2
Nov 27- 2 5 5 5 dnp
Nov 24- 8 8 8 4 5
Nov 21- 5 6 8 6 5
Nov 20- 6 10 10 2 2
Nov 17- 10 6 6 2 4
Nov 14- 10 6 8 5 2
Nov 11- 4 6 2 6 4
Nov 9- 2 6 6 8 2
Nov 6- 6 6 6 6 6
Nov 3- 2 4 8 8 2
Nov 2- 8 5 5 2 2 Oct 31- 4 2 5 4 8


Bogut: 190 points total (5.75 average)
Mo: 188 points total (5.87 average)
Redd: 177 points total (5.70 average)
Yi: 162 points total (4.91 average)
Simmons: 101 points total (3.48 average)

The stats support that Mo is currently Milwaukee's best performed player for the year of 2007-08, closely followed by Bogut and then Redd.

Yi has been a surprise performer and then there is a significant drop off.

I am yet to total points for CV and Bell, but I would expect CV might be a little ahead of Simmons and Bell perhaps a little behind.

So.............

Lets leave the top 3 alone for a while shall we?? We need a small forward as well as some production from our bench, that is the bottom line.

[LUKE23]

So what is the formula to come up with your number?

[paulpressey25]

So what is the formula to come up with your number?

He doesn't have one....he just arbitrarily credits Bogut with good games when we win.....

Just imagine how dominant Bogut would be on our x-boxes if NBA Live or NBA 2k8 were produced in Australia......

[paul]

-= original quote snipped =-



He doesn't have one....he just arbitrarily credits Bogut with good games when we win.....

Just imagine how dominant Bogut would be on our x-boxes if NBA Live or NBA 2k8 were produced in Australia......

I'd be interested to know how he's evaluating it as well, but in fairness he had Mo as #1, not Bogut.

[Fort Minor]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'd be interested to know how he's evaluating it as well, but in fairness he had Mo as #1, not Bogut.

He could have Bogut at #4 and he'd still get bashed for having a Bogut-bias just because he's from Australia.

I defiantely agree with Mo being #1.

[buckybadgerfan]

Luke23 wrote:

So what is the formula to come up with your number?

Answer:

....I have rated players using the following point score for every game, and I have listed each players game rating score.

Looks purely subjective to me.... Pretty much emphasizes scoring based on the rating trend.

I give this post a 3 (maybe a 4 for the effort).

[bigricho12]

The formula will cause debate I am sure as it is based on me watching the games (and following the opinions on this board for the games I missed)

10 - An outstanding performance that also ensures the team wins is a 10.

Bogut got a 10 tonight, Mo got a ten against Charlotte on Dec 22, Redd a 10 against Orlando Dec 12.

8- A near flawless game, except for one area of below average play or/and team losses

6- Slightly above average game, solid without being outstanding, Mo today as an example or Bogut's 13 and 12 on January 2nd against Miami.

5- An average game...... I think you get the point.

Statistics only tell us so much, so I have used them as a trigger for some games but they dont hold heavy weighting.

Are there any you dont agree with??

[paulpressey25]

Richo is a good poster....I'm just giving him the business......

But all tonights and these other games point out to me is that our players are all inconsistent.....which is the mark of average players.

I remember they showed a graphic two weeks ago when Yi had his big game and it highlighted Bucks rookies who had games over 20 points as a rookie.....Jerald Honeycutt had three games over 20 as a rookie.....that just points out that even bad players, if they get enough playing time, can put up some nice statistical nights every now and then.

The all-stars are the ones who can put up those same nights in 4 of 5 games rather than 1 or 2 of every 5 games like the lower tier players do.

[bigricho12]

Richo is a good poster....I'm just giving him the business......

But all tonights and these other games point out to me is that our players are all inconsistent.....which is the mark of average players.

I remember they showed a graphic two weeks ago when Yi had his big game and it highlighted Bucks rookies who had games over 20 points as a rookie.....Jerald Honeycutt had three games over 20 as a rookie.....that just points out that even bad players, if they get enough playing time, can put up some nice statistical nights every now and then.

The all-stars are the ones who can put up those same nights in 4 of 5 games rather than 1 or 2 of every 5 games like the lower tier players do.

This is true and comes out in the results.

For example:

Mo has had 7 below average games this year ( a 4, 2 or 0 rating)
Redd has had also 7 below average games this year
Bogut has had 11
Yi 14
and Simmons.....19!

Now of course this is arbitrary, but I think I have been pretty fair here.

And for the record I am a little old for the current new age game crap that is out so how bout we cut the crap and stop slagging people for the sake of it.

[jeremyd236]

This is really stupid because it's all relative. Not just that, it's your opinion. Bogut's "good game" to Redd's "good game" are completely different.

If Bogut has 18 points and 6 rebounds, this board goes crazy and loves him. If Redd has that stateline, he needs to be traded immediately.

[bigricho12]

This is really stupid because it's all relative. Not just that, it's your opinion. Bogut's "good game" to Redd's "good game" are completely different.

If Bogut has 18 points and 6 rebounds, this board goes crazy and loves him. If Redd has that stateline, he needs to be traded immediately.

Thats it slag away.

Most Best and Fairests are arbitrary as are mvp's.

Which game assessment do you disagree with????

[buckybadgerfan]

Richo is a good poster....I'm just giving him the business......

But all tonights and these other games point out to me is that our players are all inconsistent.....which is the mark of average players.

I remember they showed a graphic two weeks ago when Yi had his big game and it highlighted Bucks rookies who had games over 20 points as a rookie.....Jerald Honeycutt had three games over 20 as a rookie.....that just points out that even bad players, if they get enough playing time, can put up some nice statistical nights every now and then.

The all-stars are the ones who can put up those same nights in 4 of 5 games rather than 1 or 2 of every 5 games like the lower tier players do.

But not as a rookie... Some rookies are groomed to be stars but never really achieve their expectations. While others may battle for playing time and respect to emerge a force. Not every all-star caliber player has been so consistent their first two years as you might assume.

About the Rating method:
The scoring that is used would benefit from having more than just 1 persons input.... Averages are more valid when drawn from larger numbers/pools. (suggest voting method...maybe?)

Then there is the issue of applying math to something so purely subjective... If a player scored 18 pts but made 4 turnovers and played poor defense but didn't cost us the game what should he get (an 8 or a 5...)? A person like CV will put in good stats but played below average defense and make crucial shots as well as turnovers in the final minutes.

I can see how this method takes into account intangibles such as leadership, gritty defenders and energy/sparkplug types but the bottomline is that people are do tend to have selective amnesia when they favor players.

Players like Simmons and Yi may average around 4 in your rating scale but do they really provide you the same quality minutes? Yi's probably going to do better given extended minutes while Simmons will get you much less.

[bigricho12]

-= original quote snipped =-



But not as a rookie... Some rookies are groomed to be stars but never really achieve their expectations. While others may battle for playing time and respect to emerge a force. Not every all-star caliber player has been so consistent their first two years as you might assume.

About the Rating method:
The scoring that is used would benefit from having more than just 1 persons input.... Averages are more valid when drawn from larger numbers/pools. (suggest voting method...maybe?)

Then there is the issue of applying math to something so purely subjective... If a player scored 18 pts but made 4 turnovers and played poor defense but didn't cost us the game what should he get (an 8 or a 5...)? A person like CV will put in good stats but played below average defense and make crucial shots as well as turnovers in the final minutes.

I can see how this method takes into account intangibles such as leadership, gritty defenders and energy/sparkplug types but the bottomline is that people are do tend to have selective amnesia when they favor players.

Players like Simmons and Yi may average around 4 in your rating scale but do they really provide you the same quality minutes? Yi's probably going to do better given extended minutes while Simmons will get you much less.

This is all true. I would love for others to use my method and do their own ratings, post the ratings on here to prove they are legit and then we can average out the score. A collection of 5 willing participants would give the theory some credence. Anyone want to do it?

[buckybadgerfan]

Don't get me wrong... This method of rating is good to describe how you feel about certain player's impact on a game.

Only problem is you are deluding yourself trying pass it off as objective statistics by applying math to something subjective---Yes, your own feelings about player participation is subjective even when a number is appointed to describe it.
Even the best of us fall victim to selective amnesia when we have biases and agendas.

In Yifansclub there would be much bias in favor of Yi even on a night like tonight.

[bigricho12]

In fact I would appreciate just even Europa completing his assessment using the method I have used. He is in my opinion, less biased than most and I would value his figures.

[buckybadgerfan]

I would participate BUT given how poorly the Bucks have been playing....
All the players would likely average about a 3 or 4 over the next 5 games.

This wouldn't reflect their contributions but more to the fact that I'm despondent and have poor opinions of my players.

Think about it.... A 2-point win versus a 2point loss would yeild different scores for most Bucks players right?

Recent examples: A single digit win results in Mo appreciation posts. A single-digit loss results in Mo/Redd-trade posts.

[bigricho12]

I would participate BUT given how poorly the Bucks have been playing....
All the players would likely average about a 3 or 4 over the next 5 games.

This wouldn't reflect their contributions but more to the fact that I'm despondent and have poor opinions of my players.

Think about it.... A 2-point win versus a 2point loss would yeild different scores for most Bucks players right?

Recent examples: A single digit win results in Mo appreciation posts. A single-digit loss results in Mo/Redd-trade posts.

Interesting question.....

If we lost this game by 2, it would mean Bogut potentially didn't come up big at the end, so it would definately effect his rating (maximum of 8 for any performance if a loss occurs), but other than Bogut... probably not.(probably, indicates clarification that we are talking about a mock scenario)

[bigricho12]

For the record I would have rated the players like this for todays game:

Bell - 8
Bogut - 10
Mo - 6
Yi - 4
Simmons - 5

If we had of lost, Bogut would have been an 8 most probably, but the rest would have probably stayed the same.

I mean, no system is perfect, I would have preferred to give Mo a 6.5 to 7 but it was not possible in the rating system. However this also makes a very clear distinction between a slightly above average and good game, weighting being biased towards really good and really bad performances, which helps to erradicate the tendancy to overrate or slightly inflate performance ratings.

[paul]

For the record I would have rated the players like this for todays game:

Bell - 8
Bogut - 10
Mo - 6
Yi - 4
Simmons - 5

If we had of lost, Bogut would have been an 8 most probably, but the rest would have probably stayed the same.

I mean, no system is perfect, I would have preferred to give Mo a 6.5 to 7 but it was not possible in the rating system. However this also makes a very clear distinction between a slightly above average and good game, weighting being biased towards really good and really bad performances, which helps to erradicate the tendancy to overrate or slightly inflate performance ratings.

I would probably agree with those rankings, with the exception of maybe Simmons moving up a notch to a 6. No complaints from me though.

[jerrod]

we could start having everyone rate the players after games, average them out and then go from there