NBA Centers ranked by adjusted plus minus for 2008-9

[Wolves2011]

NBA centers ranked by adjusted plus minus for 2008-2009 season.


1) Nene 9.15
2) Yao 7.46
3) Pau Gasol 6.04
4) Jefferson 5.04
5) Camby 4.11
6) Bogut 3.70
7) Noah 3.07
8) Duncan 2.54
9) McDyss 1.81
10) Przybilla 1.35
11) Hibbert 1.12
12) Howard 1.04
13) Oden 0.44
14) Ilgauskas 0.18
--------------------------------------------
15) Okur minus 0.48
16) Biedrins minus 0.55
17) Okafor minus 0.98
18) Amare Stoudemire minus 1.22
19) Marc Gasol minus 1.50
20) Lopez minus 1.61
21) Davis Lee minus 1.96
22) Shaq minus 2.26
23) Krstic minus 2.72
24) Horford minus 2.76
25) Chandler minus 3.91
26) Dalembert minus 4.70
27) Hawes minus 7.50
28) Jermain O'Neal minus 7.95
29) Bargnani minus 9.26
30) Perkins minus 11.53
31) Dampier minus 13.93

[GreenDreamer]

Which just goes to show that the adjusted plus/minus system is crap. Seriously dude. What is your point in posting this info? To "convince" us that Perk is actually a bad player? That a POS like Bargnani is "better" than him? I'll go with this stuff

1. Dwight Howard-ORL 94.6
2. Kevin Garnett-BOS 97.5
3. LeBron James-CLE 99.1
4. Anderson Varejao-CLE 100.0
5. Kendrick Perkins-BOS 100.2
6. Tim Duncan-SAS 100.2
7. Zydrunas Ilgauskas-CLE 100.5
8. Chris Andersen-DEN 100.6
9. Yao Ming-HOU 100.9
10. Rajon Rondo-BOS 100.9
11. Lamar Odom-LAL 101.7
12. Trevor Ariza-LAL 102.2
13. Gerald Wallace-CHA 102.4
14. Joel Przybilla-POR 102.4
15. Luis Scola-HOU 102.4
16. Samuel Dalembert-PHI 102.6
17. Emeka Okafor-CHA 102.7
18. Rashard Lewis-ORL 102.8
19. Chris Paul-NOH 103.1
20. Rasheed Wallace-DET 1

The defensive rating leaders for last season. Perk does his job well.

[Wolves2011]

Which just goes to show that the adjusted plus/minus system is crap. Seriously dude. What is your point in posting this info? To "convince" us that Perk is actually a bad player? That a POS like Bargnani is "better" than him? I'll go with this stuff

1. Dwight Howard-ORL 94.6
2. Kevin Garnett-BOS 97.5
3. LeBron James-CLE 99.1
4. Anderson Varejao-CLE 100.0
5. Kendrick Perkins-BOS 100.2
6. Tim Duncan-SAS 100.2
7. Zydrunas Ilgauskas-CLE 100.5
8. Chris Andersen-DEN 100.6
9. Yao Ming-HOU 100.9
10. Rajon Rondo-BOS 100.9
11. Lamar Odom-LAL 101.7
12. Trevor Ariza-LAL 102.2
13. Gerald Wallace-CHA 102.4
14. Joel Przybilla-POR 102.4
15. Luis Scola-HOU 102.4
16. Samuel Dalembert-PHI 102.6
17. Emeka Okafor-CHA 102.7
18. Rashard Lewis-ORL 102.8
19. Chris Paul-NOH 103.1
20. Rasheed Wallace-DET 1

The defensive rating leaders for last season. Perk does his job well.

I thought many people on this site liked adjusted plus minus data. I know they do on the wolves realGM site. I thought you were someone who liked things like on court/off court. This is just a more sophisticated version. [Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.]

I'm not try to convince anyone of anything. Frankly I was surprised by the ranking.

You never labelled the data above. What is it?

You said above was some type of defensive ranking. But plus minus, on court off court, adjusted plus minus are a combination of offense and defense.

Adjusted plus minus also adjusts for the quality teammates on the floor and opponents.

You can be great defender or defensive team and not score or vice versa, a great offensive team and not defend. In theory adjusted plus minus is supposed to be the best of both, looking at total productivity on the floor when adjusted for teammates and opponents.

[GreenDreamer]

I absolutely DESPISE that system. It is a nice idea, to try and put an objective number figure on a guy's scoreboard impact, but it is completely erratic and fatally flawed at its core. A player actually gets "punished" for playing with good players in this system. Hell, look at what Pierce's numbers have been. Do you honestly think that he, in any way, holds this team back? Seriously. Do you think that Paul Pierce is a NEGATIVE?

Of course not. Its BS. If we didn't have all of the talent that we have, then Paul would have a massive positive rating. He is just on a loaded team.

Basketball-reference is really good, and wages of wins and 82games have their strong points.

[Wolves2011]

I absolutely DESPISE that system. It is a nice idea, to try and put an objective number figure on a guy's scoreboard impact, but it is completely erratic and fatally flawed at its core. A player actually gets "punished" for playing with good players in this system. Hell, look at what Pierce's numbers have been. Do you honestly think that he, in any way, holds this team back? Seriously. Do you think that Paul Pierce is a NEGATIVE?

Of course not. Its BS. If we didn't have all of the talent that we have, then Paul would have a massive positive rating. He is just on a loaded team.

Basketball-reference is really good, and wages of wins and 82games have their strong points.

2 years ago in the Championship year our top 2 players for adjusted plus minus were KG and Pierce. Their productivity has dropped according to this system [see link below for details.]

Frankly I don't know what to make of adjusted plus minus. Sometimes it really surprises me, as was the case for ranking of centers last season.

See the posting below for details of Celtics player trends adjusted plus minus performance for regular season and playoffs since the big 3 got here. 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons plus playoffs.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=962909

[Wolves2011]

Which just goes to show that the adjusted plus/minus system is crap. Seriously dude. What is your point in posting this info? To "convince" us that Perk is actually a bad player? That a POS like Bargnani is "better" than him? I'll go with this stuff

1. Dwight Howard-ORL 94.6
2. Kevin Garnett-BOS 97.5
3. LeBron James-CLE 99.1
4. Anderson Varejao-CLE 100.0
5. Kendrick Perkins-BOS 100.2
6. Tim Duncan-SAS 100.2
7. Zydrunas Ilgauskas-CLE 100.5
8. Chris Andersen-DEN 100.6
9. Yao Ming-HOU 100.9
10. Rajon Rondo-BOS 100.9
11. Lamar Odom-LAL 101.7
12. Trevor Ariza-LAL 102.2
13. Gerald Wallace-CHA 102.4
14. Joel Przybilla-POR 102.4
15. Luis Scola-HOU 102.4
16. Samuel Dalembert-PHI 102.6
17. Emeka Okafor-CHA 102.7
18. Rashard Lewis-ORL 102.8
19. Chris Paul-NOH 103.1
20. Rasheed Wallace-DET 1

The defensive rating leaders for last season. Perk does his job well.

You never did say what stats are those above and where did they come from?

[TonyMontana]

O.P Im so happy your a Cs fan. God knows I couldnt deal with seeing these threads or your posts on the Lakers board like you do on here.

In fact we use to have a guy like you and his old name was Star24 and then he changed to Dexmore. Some how I have a feeling your him since he bandwagons on every team and every board and since you came on here he has been MIA on our board. Who knows you guys share the same pattern of posts.

[hairybyrd]

I thought many people on this site liked adjusted plus minus data.

Name 1.

What is the point of this post? You never interrogate discussion you just regurgitate statistics. I posted a thread last night "Top 5 Centers - does Perk make the cut" and you posted the same meaningless statistics you used to create this thread in my original post. What's the point? Why do you have to post stuff on other people's threads (which then dilutes the conversation) and then re-post the same information in your own? Unless your asking a question or directing people to hard news stories from the Globe or the Herald, you're only stroking your own ego by constructing these odd statistical diatribes. Nobody cares about these stats and they are literally meaningless if you don't analyze their importance. In the future you need to 1) ask a question or 2) analyze something. Otherwise you'll always be the guy at the party re-telling the same stories from high school.

[Jammer]

I have previously posted why I thought adjusted plus minus is crap (to use an appropo term of an earlier poster).

Wolves, I've studied all the various statistical sites you reference in your plethora of posts in the past few days.

I have never placed anyone on ignore, no matter how annoying. But this stuff is getting to be really annoying. Surprisingly you are the closest ever.

I'm a professed supporter of NET PER and Roland Ratings (which are 60 % NET PER, 40% straight plus minus).

This is different and not as hokey as adjusted plus minus, which I think is completely irrelevant since it's a totally meaningless perversion of statistics. I'm too tired to repeat what I've said in the past on this.

[canman1971]

I have previously posted why I thought adjusted plus minus is crap (to use an appropo term of an earlier poster).

Wolves, I've studied all the various statistical sites you reference in your plethora of posts in the past few days.

I have never placed anyone on ignore, no matter how annoying. But this stuff is getting to be really annoying. Surprisingly you are the closest ever.

I'm a professed supporter of NET PER and Roland Ratings (which are 60 % NET PER, 40% straight plus minus).

This is different and not as hokey as adjusted plus minus, which I think is completely irrelevant since it's a totally meaningless perversion of statistics. I'm too tired to repeat what I've said in the past on this.

Well, you won't have to put him on ignore now.

[SonicYouth34]

So happy the OP got waived.

[GregB]

[Cyclical]

Thank you.

Good bye.

[Zin5]

I have previously posted why I thought adjusted plus minus is crap (to use an appropo term of an earlier poster).

Wolves, I've studied all the various statistical sites you reference in your plethora of posts in the past few days.

I have never placed anyone on ignore, no matter how annoying. But this stuff is getting to be really annoying. Surprisingly you are the closest ever.

I'm a professed supporter of NET PER and Roland Ratings (which are 60 % NET PER, 40% straight plus minus).

This is different and not as hokey as adjusted plus minus, which I think is completely irrelevant since it's a totally meaningless perversion of statistics. I'm too tired to repeat what I've said in the past on this.

Well, you won't have to put him on ignore now.

[GopherIt!]

[TonyMontana]

LMAO nice Zin................ Are you a Top Gear fan???

You should go on off topic board brah we got a nice thread on this show going on.

[Zin5]

LMAO nice Zin................ Are you a Top Gear fan???

You should go on off topic board brah we got a nice thread on this show going on.

Hell yeah, haven't been keeping up with the new series though. I'll check out the thread after I get caught up.