Bucks Three Best Players - A ratings comparison
Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25
Bucks Three Best Players - A ratings comparison
- ReasonablySober
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 106,972
- And1: 41,490
- Joined: Dec 02, 2001
- Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
- Contact:
Bucks Three Best Players - A ratings comparison
I'm simply doing this because I'm sick of xTitan hijacking every thread to let everyone know how incredible Andrew Bogut is, and how terrible Redd and Mo are.
NBA.com Efficiency Rating
Mo Williams: +18.14 (8th PG)
Andrew Bogut: +18.19 (11th C)
Michael Redd: +19.44 (7th SG)
Hollinger Rating
Mo Williams: 17.20 (10th PG)
Andrew Bogut: 16.84 (16th C)
Michael Redd: 20.28 (6th SG)
Sportsline Rating
Mo Williams: 75.18 (6th PG)
Andrew Bogut: 69.72 (10th C)
Michael Redd: 76.17 (11th SG)
I like Andrew a lot and have stated numerous times that he and Yi would be the two I'd prefer to keep.
But please, can the love-fest stop? Mo Williams and Michael Redd are not the sole reason he hasn't lived up to his billing. He's got one post move. He still doesn't rebound well night in and night out. He can't shoot to save his life. I like that he's now been getting doubled for all of four weeks now, but he's been far less effective once that double has started to come.
So for the Bogut defenders that take it as a personal insult whenever someone points out even the slightest flaw, keep in mind that he's been an average starter in nearly every imaginable metric so far as I can tell, and ranks below the two players in the backcourt in terms of position ranking and overall effectiveness.
NBA.com Efficiency Rating
Mo Williams: +18.14 (8th PG)
Andrew Bogut: +18.19 (11th C)
Michael Redd: +19.44 (7th SG)
Hollinger Rating
Mo Williams: 17.20 (10th PG)
Andrew Bogut: 16.84 (16th C)
Michael Redd: 20.28 (6th SG)
Sportsline Rating
Mo Williams: 75.18 (6th PG)
Andrew Bogut: 69.72 (10th C)
Michael Redd: 76.17 (11th SG)
I like Andrew a lot and have stated numerous times that he and Yi would be the two I'd prefer to keep.
But please, can the love-fest stop? Mo Williams and Michael Redd are not the sole reason he hasn't lived up to his billing. He's got one post move. He still doesn't rebound well night in and night out. He can't shoot to save his life. I like that he's now been getting doubled for all of four weeks now, but he's been far less effective once that double has started to come.
So for the Bogut defenders that take it as a personal insult whenever someone points out even the slightest flaw, keep in mind that he's been an average starter in nearly every imaginable metric so far as I can tell, and ranks below the two players in the backcourt in terms of position ranking and overall effectiveness.
- SupremeHustle
- RealGM
- Posts: 28,408
- And1: 30,935
- Joined: Feb 11, 2005
- Location: Cloud 9
-
Test question.
If the statement "Bogut sucks because Mo and Redd suck" is true, then the following is also true:
A) Redd sucks because Mo and Bogut suck.
B) Mo sucks because Redd and Bogut suck.
C) Gadzuric's turnaround jumper might kill someone.
D) All of the above.
If the statement "Bogut sucks because Mo and Redd suck" is true, then the following is also true:
A) Redd sucks because Mo and Bogut suck.
B) Mo sucks because Redd and Bogut suck.
C) Gadzuric's turnaround jumper might kill someone.
D) All of the above.
jschligs wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't know who the **** SupremeHustle is?
- blkout
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,689
- And1: 1,914
- Joined: Dec 12, 2005
- Location: Melbourne
-
It'd be nice if you explained how those ratings are calculated, as I (and I'm assuming most other people here) have no idea. That being said, I'm fairly certain any statistical comparison is going to make Mo and Redd look better, their scoring and FT% is enough to push them over the top in most accumulative statistical categories.

- Magic 32
- Banned User
- Posts: 69
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 10, 2008
Bogut is the player you have to build around. Scorers/shooters arent hard to find. If a coach gives a player a green light to put up 20 + shots a game they will develop and find ways to score. Some work harder than others, but thats a diffrent story.
I've stated that Mo can do just as good on this team if he was the two guard. Yeah he's a little undersized but he has the ability to create his own shot with the best of them. So I guess that leaves Redd as the odd man out. We need to trade him for that reason.
Those ratings are misleading. What do they really explain. If they rank Redd that high then we should get something for him.
I've stated that Mo can do just as good on this team if he was the two guard. Yeah he's a little undersized but he has the ability to create his own shot with the best of them. So I guess that leaves Redd as the odd man out. We need to trade him for that reason.
Those ratings are misleading. What do they really explain. If they rank Redd that high then we should get something for him.
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,490
- And1: 872
- Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Whatever the algorithm, the results are basically the same--three slightly, somewhat above average performers for their position. Not really good enough. Need one at least well above average contributor. It would also help to have some of the remainder bordering on average contributors.
Yes, high volume and high efficient scorers with low turnovers to assists will generally rank higher to someone who isn't, except for high efficiency field scoring. Of course, rebounding and shot blocking helps also.
Yes, high volume and high efficient scorers with low turnovers to assists will generally rank higher to someone who isn't, except for high efficiency field scoring. Of course, rebounding and shot blocking helps also.
- emunney
- RealGM
- Posts: 62,803
- And1: 41,138
- Joined: Feb 22, 2005
- Location: where takes go to be pampered
Re: Bucks Three Best Players - A ratings comparison
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,254
- And1: 42
- Joined: Feb 25, 2006
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bucks Three Best Players - A ratings comparison
this point applies to any pro-camp. As clearly indicated by you starting the thread.DrugBust wrote:
So for the Go Mo or Max Redd defenders that take it as a personal insult whenever someone points out even the slightest flaw.
- paulpressey25
- Senior Mod - Bucks
- Posts: 62,521
- And1: 29,523
- Joined: Oct 27, 2002
-
I'm looking at the current Hollinger rankings that have Mo at 12th with a 17.20 per. For comparison, Paul is #1 at 27.04. The 29th ranked guy is Hinrich at 13.42.
Bogut in the 16th spot scores a 16.84. The leader is Amare at 27.14 PER.
For discussion sake, the 29th guy is Joakim Noah at 14.84. Sandwiching Bogut are Nazr and Swift. Brendan Haywood is up at 10th with a 18.63 PER.
I just wanted to add that commentary because while I think Mo's not a very good PG, the PER analysis would not exactly show Bogut lighting things up either compared to his peers. I think where the guy really suffers is that he not a top tier rebounder with a rebound rate that ranks him 30th.....for comparison purposes, Brian Skinner ranks 29th.
Look at Bogut's true shooting percentage which takes into account 3's and getting to the line and he ranks 32nd among centers there.
Even his assist rate only puts him at 11th among centers......
Bogut in the 16th spot scores a 16.84. The leader is Amare at 27.14 PER.
For discussion sake, the 29th guy is Joakim Noah at 14.84. Sandwiching Bogut are Nazr and Swift. Brendan Haywood is up at 10th with a 18.63 PER.
I just wanted to add that commentary because while I think Mo's not a very good PG, the PER analysis would not exactly show Bogut lighting things up either compared to his peers. I think where the guy really suffers is that he not a top tier rebounder with a rebound rate that ranks him 30th.....for comparison purposes, Brian Skinner ranks 29th.
Look at Bogut's true shooting percentage which takes into account 3's and getting to the line and he ranks 32nd among centers there.
Even his assist rate only puts him at 11th among centers......
- europa
- RealGM
- Posts: 44,919
- And1: 471
- Joined: Jun 25, 2005
- Location: Right Behind You
Citizen.Eras3d wrote:I'm not sure there is a single accumulative statistic that would rank them any differently. Though I've always been confused by the "Bogut is our best player" claims, I've never seen it that way personally but I suppose he offers something different to the other two.
In January of this year I think he was the best player on this team. But that's been the only time in his career when I think one could reasonably make that claim.
And not to nitpick, but Hollinger's stats have Mo ranked 12th among PGs, not 10th.
Nothing will not break me.
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,490
- And1: 872
- Joined: Jan 25, 2006
emunney wrote:Would it be quick and easy for you to list their rankings in WS/minute, Epi? Or is it likely to be so similar to what's above that it's not worth the trouble?
As I recall, the WS/min or the bigger brother WinsProduce/min are pretty much the same. These take into consideration the average performance of the position to wins produced. Beri's site has these numbers in a recent look he did on the Bucks.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 42,327
- And1: 2,551
- Joined: Dec 05, 2005
I just want to add to this thread that I think it is still ridiculous there is a pro-Mo, pro-Redd and pro-Bogut groups on the board.
I've said this several times this season...
I think what it really comes down to is that those three guys are pretty good basketball players, the rest of the team is the major problem that we have. We have two of the worst (possibly the worst) starting forwards in basketball and one of the worst benches in the league.
I've said this several times this season...
I think what it really comes down to is that those three guys are pretty good basketball players, the rest of the team is the major problem that we have. We have two of the worst (possibly the worst) starting forwards in basketball and one of the worst benches in the league.
- BuckFan25226
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,707
- And1: 1,091
- Joined: Jan 30, 2006
- Location: Wauwatosa, WI
Good thread, DB. Of course, I'm sure there must be a logical explanation as to why those numbers have no merit. Hearing those explanations will be entertaining.
"didnt you watch the game with the raptors?bucks is also a playoff team ,they have enough ability to find wins from dalas and utach,
blow jazzs bitches and mavericks bitches out !"
- yiyiyi
blow jazzs bitches and mavericks bitches out !"
- yiyiyi
- ReasonablySober
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 106,972
- And1: 41,490
- Joined: Dec 02, 2001
- Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
- Contact:
- europa
- RealGM
- Posts: 44,919
- And1: 471
- Joined: Jun 25, 2005
- Location: Right Behind You
DrugBust wrote:I thought someone would mention Mo's ranking in Hollinger's, but I took both Terry and Ford out. One, because Ford's played less than half of his team's games and Terry because he's been a SG the majority of the season and Harris and Calderon are both high on the rankings.
I agree with Terry. He's basically become a SG for the Mavs now. I disagree about Ford now that he's returned. I think he should remain on the list. And no, that's not just because I'm a fan of his but as long as he can stay healthy he'll have a big role on the Raptors as either the backup PG or the starter for the rest of the season.
Nothing will not break me.
- ReasonablySober
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 106,972
- And1: 41,490
- Joined: Dec 02, 2001
- Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
- Contact: