Player's 13 (P13- a new advanced stat for player comparison)

[ChiLA Bullkers]

So... I invented a stat.

It's called "Player's 13" - "P13" for short.

Here's the key:


PPG & PPG/36 (X13/X12)

Above 31 = 13
29 – 30.9 = 12
27 – 28.9 = 11
25 – 26.9 = 10
23 – 24.9 = 9
21 – 22.9 = 8
19 – 20.9 = 7
17 – 18.9 = 6
15 – 16.9 = 5
13 – 14.9 = 4
11 – 12.9 = 3
9 – 10.9 = 2
0 – 8.9 = 1

APG & APG/36 (X11/X10)

Above 14 = 13
13 – 13.9 = 12
12 – 12.9 = 11
11 – 11.9 = 10
10 – 10.9 = 9
9 – 9.9 = 8
8 – 8.9 = 7
7 – 7.9 = 6
6 – 6.9 = 5
5 – 5.9 = 4
4 – 4.9 = 3
3 – 3.9 = 2
0 – 2.9 = 1

RPG & RPG/36 (X9/X8)

Above 18 = 13
16.5 – 17.9 = 12
15 – 16.4 = 11
13.5 – 14.9 = 10
12 – 13.4 = 9
10.5 – 11.9 = 8
9 – 10.4 = 7
7.5 – 8.9 = 6
6 – 7.4 = 5
4.5 – 5.9 = 4
3 – 4.4 = 3
1.5 – 2.9 = 2
0 – 1.4 = 1

SPG & SPG/36 (X7/X6)

Above 2.8 = 13
2.6 – 2.7 = 12
2.4 – 2.5 = 11
2.2 – 2.3 = 10
2.0 – 2.1 = 9
1.8 – 1.9 = 8
1.6 – 1.7 = 7
1.4 – 1.5 = 6
1.2 – 1.3 = 5
1.0 – 1.1 = 4
0.8 – 0.9 = 3
0.6 – 0.7 = 2
0 – 0.5 = 1

BPG & BPG/36 (X5/X4)

Above 3.5 = 13
3.2 – 3.4 = 12
2.9 – 3.1 = 11
2.6 – 2.8 = 10
2.3 – 2.5 = 9
2.0 – 2.2 = 8
1.7 – 1.9 = 7
1.4 – 1.6 = 6
1.1 – 1.3 = 5
0.8 – 1.0 = 4
0.5 – 0.7 = 3
0.2 – 0.4 = 2
0 – 0.1 = 1

FG% (X3)

Above .650 = 13
.625 – .649 = 12
.600 – .624 = 11
.575 – .599 = 10
.550 – .574 = 9
.525 – .549 = 8
.500 – .524 = 7
.475 – .499 = 6
.450 – .474 = 5
.425 – .449 = 4
.400 – .424 = 3
.375 – .399 = 2
.000 – .374 = 1

3PT% (X2)

Above .420 = 13
.400 – .419 = 12
.380 – .399 = 11
.360 – .379 = 10
.340 – .359 = 9
.320 – .339 = 8
.300 – .319 = 7
.280 – .299 = 6
.260 – .279 = 5
.240 – .259 = 4
.220 – .239 = 3
.200 – .219 = 2
.000 – .199 = 1

FT% (X1)

Above .940 = 13
.900 – .939 = 12
.860 – .899 = 11
.820 – .859 = 10
.780 – .819 = 9
.740 – .779 = 8
.700 – .739 = 7
.660 – .699 = 6
.620 – .659 = 5
.580 – .619 = 4
.540 – .579 = 3
.500 – .539 = 2
.000 – .499 = 1

The total score is then divided by 91 (13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1).

So, let's say in 90-91, Jordan averages were:

31.5 ppg (30.6 ppt/36), 5.5 apg (5.4 apg/36), 6.0 rpg (5.8 rpg/36), 2.7 spg (2.6 spg/36), 1.0 bpg (1.0 bpg/36), .539 FG%, .312 3P%, .851 FT%

So, using the key above, you can take Jordan's stats and plug them in. Apply this value system:

PPG - X13
PPG/36 - X12
APG - X11
APG/36 - X10
RPG - X9
RPG/36 - X8
SPG - X7
SPG/36 - X6
BPG - X5
BPG/36 - X4
FG% - X3
3P% - X2
FT% - X1

So...

Jordan's 90-91 looks like this:

PPG - 13 X 13 = 169
PPG/36 - 12 X 12 = 144
APG - 11 X 4 = 44
APG/36 - 10 X 4 = 40
RPG - 9 X 5 = 45
RPG/36 - 8 X 4 = 32
SPG - 7 X 12 = 84
SPG/36 - 6 X 12 = 72
BPG - 5 X 4 = 20
BPG/36 - 4 X 4 = 16
FG% - 3 X 8 = 24
3P% - 2 X 7 = 14
FT% - 1 X 10 = 10

TOTAL = 714

714 / 91 = 7.85

Jordan 90/91 = 7.85

The whole point of inventing a advanced stat was to match my eye test... and this one does. Here are some players/seasons:

Michael Jordan 88/89 - 8.60
Kareem Abdul Jabbar 75/76 - 8.08
Michael Jordan 90/91 - 7.85
Chris Paul 08/09 - 7.60
Dwyane Wade 08/09 - 7.59
Magic Johnson 86/87 - 7.58
Larry Bird 84/85 - 7.52
John Stockton 89/90 - 7.39
Larry Bird 87/88 - 7.37
Isiah Thomas 84/85 - 7.37
Rick Barry 74/75 - 7.35
Hakeem Olajuwan 94/95 - 7.32
LeBron James 12/13 - 7.19
Tracy McGrady 02/03 - 7.00
Clyde Drexler 87/88 - 6.99
Kevin Garnett 03/04 - 6.96
Kobe Bryant 02/03 - 6.96
Karl Malone 89/90 - 6.92
Charles Barkley 92/93 - 6.82
Scottie Pippen 94/95 - 6.82
Shaquille O'Neal 99/00 - 6.80
Patrick Ewing 89/90 - 6.73
Larry Bird 83/84 - 6.68
Kevin Durant 12/13 - 6.53
Allen Iverson 00/01 - 6.40
Russell Westbrook 10/11 - 6.38
Dwight Howard 10/11 - 6.37
Grant Hill 96/97 - 6.36
Russell Westbrook 12/13 - 6.35
Bill Walton 77/78 - 6.31
James Harden 12/13 - 6.12
Jason Kidd 98/99 - 6.05
Bobby Jones 76/77 - 6.03
Tim Duncan 01/02 - 6.02
Vince Carter 00/01 - 5.92
Derrick Rose 10/11 - 5.85
Rajon Rondo 12/13 - 5.73
Monta Ellis 10/11 - 5.73
Stephen Curry 12/13 - 5.58
Andrei Kirilenko 03/04 - 5.49
Steve Nash 05/06 - 5.46
Carmelo Anthony 12/13 - 5.37
Dirk Nowitzki 06/07 - 5.36
Blake Griffin 10/11 - 5.33
Jrue Holiday 12/13 - 5.29
Tony Parker 12/13 - 5.18

Obviously this isn't the ONLY stat I use in discussions/arguments for best player ever or best player season-to-season or even player's impact on their team.

But the stat does show LeBron is #1, Durant #2, and everyone who we all agree is Top 10 or so are up there. There aren't any big shockers.

It's a stat that is weighted, partially, by the Bill Russell/Pepsi quote: "This game is, and always has been, about buckets." That's a paraphrase.

But I weighted PPG highest. And I wanted to look at the impact of players like Ricky Rubio who are really good players, but play under 36 minutes per contest. So he actually shows up with a higher P13 than, let's say, Deron Williams... which matches MY eye test, and not too many other people's.

I created an excel sheet to facilitate the process faster. You might want to do the same if you want to tinker with the stat.

So, please let me know your thoughts.

[Keller61]

Interesting, but I don't think the efficiency stats are weighted high enough. Is SPG really 13 times more important than FT%? Keep in mind that steals don't necessarily indicate solid defense.

[ardee]

You should figure out a way to include negatives, specifically turnovers and fouls. And definitely weight the efficiency stats much higher.... It underrates guys like Nash and Dirk like crazy.

[ChiLA Bullkers]

You should figure out a way to include negatives, specifically turnovers and fouls. And definitely weight the efficiency stats much higher.... It underrates guys like Nash and Dirk like crazy.

Of course that stuff is part of the conversation, but I didn't want stats like TO's to hurt a player like Nash or LeBron, guys who just have the ball in their hands more than other players so have higher TO's.

I think you're right about Nash and Dirk and their shooting stats. But I had to choose to weight one stat over the other. I think APG and APG/36 are just more important than FG%. Guys like Kobe and Iverson never had high FG%. They were volume scorers. I didn't want to penalize them too much. I also didn't want to boost guys up like Greg Smith or Nick Collison too much because they shoot over 60% FG. They play 9 minutes, go 2-3 FG. Yes, that's effective, but I couldn't rate their FG% higher than APG, BPG, SPG or RPG.

[BmanInBigD]

I've thought about using: (PER x Ortg/Drtg) x WS/48 x Usage rate

I've tried this on a few players and it seems to include most areas. Scoring, efficiency, defense, and weeds out effective but low-use players. Does a pretty job comparing similar-type players. Also a lot simpler and wouldn't put Kirilenko and Rondo above Dirk or Nash.

[PetroNet]

I like what you are trying to do... but i dont really understand the weights here. or why for instance rebounds are weighted less then assists. or why rebounds themselves arent seperated into offense and defense. Efficiency also seems to be ignored in place of volume stats, which in itself isnt a major issue but is magnified when using volumer per 36 minutes as well as not including negative stats...

6th or 7th man who scores a ton on low efficiency while playing 15 minutes which inflates his PER36 stats while turning it over a ton may have a durant or chris paul like score in your formula, since FG% is barely weighted, effieciency isnt waited, and negative plays arent included

[whitehops]

no offense but this stat is horrible.

[acrossthecourt]

It's not advanced and we have more than enough player metrics.

It's just a convoluted linear weights system.

You also don't adjust for pace. Of course if you play on a fast team you can pick up more box score stats. But the notable problem is, do you think the box score tells you everything you need to know about a player?

[ChiLA Bullkers]

It's not advanced and we have more than enough player metrics.

It's just a convoluted linear weights system.

You also don't adjust for pace. Of course if you play on a fast team you can pick up more box score stats. But the notable problem is, do you think the box score tells you everything you need to know about a player?

You obviously have a tough time reading and/or comprehending what I explicitly wrote along with introducing the stat, which is, and I'll repeat:

"Obviously this isn't the ONLY stat I use in discussions/arguments for best player ever or best player season-to-season or even player's impact on their team.

But the stat does show LeBron is #1, Durant #2, and everyone who we all agree is Top 10 or so are up there. There aren't any big shockers."

Yes, the stat doesn't account for pace. But if you know the Game, you can add that into the discussion. P13 isn't the end all be all. It's PART -- AGAIN -- of the conversation.

And I challenge you to name that ONE stat that best represents a player's overall impact or greatness...

Please. Let me know.

Because I just came up with one.

[ChiLA Bullkers]

I like what you are trying to do... but i dont really understand the weights here. or why for instance rebounds are weighted less then assists. or why rebounds themselves arent seperated into offense and defense. Efficiency also seems to be ignored in place of volume stats, which in itself isnt a major issue but is magnified when using volumer per 36 minutes as well as not including negative stats...

6th or 7th man who scores a ton on low efficiency while playing 15 minutes which inflates his PER36 stats while turning it over a ton may have a durant or chris paul like score in your formula, since FG% is barely weighted, effieciency isnt waited, and negative plays arent included

Rebounds are weighted less than assists because a rebound deals with ball possession, assist deals with scoreboard. So, grabbing a defensive rebound, although a dandy thing, isn't as important as passing to a man who scores.

As far as Turnovers are concerned, I'm not going to punish guys like James Harden and Steve Nash (who led the league in TO's in 2012-13 and 2009-10, respectively). They are high usage guys -- of course they're going to turn the ball over more than others.

And, again, for the slooow bball fans out there, this stat is PART of the conversation, no the end. So, if you feel a guy is undervalued based on P13 or overvalued because he turns the ball over a lot, then, by all means, feel free to mention that in your pro/con argument.

[ChiLA Bullkers]

I've thought about using: (PER x Ortg/Drtg) x WS/48 x Usage rate

I've tried this on a few players and it seems to include most areas. Scoring, efficiency, defense, and weeds out effective but low-use players. Does a pretty job comparing similar-type players. Also a lot simpler and wouldn't put Kirilenko and Rondo above Dirk or Nash.

I like it.

I chose Kirilenko's best season ever as a pro. So he looks good. But that's part of the stat. I always thought that AK47, when healthy, was a bit underrated. He could do it all, offense and defense. Jazz were always a winning team. Etc.

I will admit -- Dirk's and Duncan's P13 are a little under what I thought. But, like I've said quite a few times on here, the P13 stat is only part of the conversation. Obviously, it needs to have context. So, Dirk's shooting %'s are brilliant. Yes. But... he isn't a very good rebounder at 7'0". And he wasn't/isn't known to be a great passer or have above average court vision. That's why his P13 is lower. I'm cool with that... because I've seen a truckload of Dirk games and can add this to any conversation regarding player comparison. Duncan's stats are simply victim to Pop's system. Duncan could have averaged 30-15-4-1-3. But Pop's half court/slow game combined with up-tempo/fresh legs game added to a balanced roster gives Duncan's numbers a nick. Again, we all know Duncan has four rings, three Finals MVPs, so we can add that to any discussion.

[therealbig3]

You've made it clear that it's not the only stat you use, and yet in the "rank the starters for the Nets" thread, you rated Deron Williams 5th out of the 5 starters, and said something along the lines of "Wow, a lot of guys like D-Will. To me, he's the most overrated player in the league. Didn't you guys see my P13 stat, which proves he's the most overrated player in the league?"

Sounds a lot like you're HEAVILY weighing this stat in your player evaluation.

[PetroNet]

I like what you are trying to do... but i dont really understand the weights here. or why for instance rebounds are weighted less then assists. or why rebounds themselves arent seperated into offense and defense. Efficiency also seems to be ignored in place of volume stats, which in itself isnt a major issue but is magnified when using volumer per 36 minutes as well as not including negative stats...

6th or 7th man who scores a ton on low efficiency while playing 15 minutes which inflates his PER36 stats while turning it over a ton may have a durant or chris paul like score in your formula, since FG% is barely weighted, effieciency isnt waited, and negative plays arent included

Rebounds are weighted less than assists because a rebound deals with ball possession, assist deals with scoreboard. So, grabbing a defensive rebound, although a dandy thing, isn't as important as passing to a man who scores.

As far as Turnovers are concerned, I'm not going to punish guys like James Harden and Steve Nash (who led the league in TO's in 2012-13 and 2009-10, respectively). They are high usage guys -- of course they're going to turn the ball over more than others.

And, again, for the slooow bball fans out there, this stat is PART of the conversation, no the end. So, if you feel a guy is undervalued based on P13 or overvalued because he turns the ball over a lot, then, by all means, feel free to mention that in your pro/con argument.

i dont see how you can value possesions on one hand(rebounding) and then ignore them on the other(turnovers). the justifaction seems odd as well, not "punishing" players for high usage... which doesnt make alot of sense since your formula rewards them heavily for that same high usage since its based almost entirely on, and weighted extremely heavily in favor of volume stats.

for example, you spoke of harden. Yeah, his score would drop if you included turnovers. it is also inflated because you weight points the highest.

Also, there are players with similar usage to harden, that dont turn it over as much. they are being short changed by not benefitting from a higher score due to protecting the ball better.

in your formula grevis vazques looks pretty close to chris paul since you dont value turnovers at all, FG% isnt weighted much and neither are steals. it makes harden look like a significantly better player then steph curry because FG% is barely weighted and turnovers dont matter.

id be fine saying you dont want to punish high usage guys for turning it over. but you cant then also reward high usage guys for putting up volume stats

[PetroNet]

"Obviously this isn't the ONLY stat I use in discussions/arguments for best player ever or best player season-to-season or even player's impact on their team.

i think we all get that... i think what people are pointing out is that this isnt really a stat that brings anything to the table and is extremely flawed. its just a weighted collection of volume stats

But the stat does show LeBron is #1, Durant #2, and everyone who we all agree is Top 10 or so are up there. There aren't any big shockers."

Any weighted stat you can come up with is basically going to have the same top 5 or top 10 guys because they all put up outstanding numbers pretty much across the board. 10 players is a horrendous sample size for evaluating a metric or stat in a league of 450 or so players.

Yes, the stat doesn't account for pace. But if you know the Game, you can add that into the discussion. P13 isn't the end all be all. It's PART -- AGAIN -- of the conversation.

And I challenge you to name that ONE stat that best represents a player's overall impact or greatness...

Please. Let me know.

Because I just came up with one.

you really didint come up with one. you weighted 10-12 exsisting metrics and weighted them in a very linear fashion. you could weight them all equally and likely have a very similar result. its extremely incomplete, and rewards high usage scorers. it short changes efficiency and good shooting as well as ball possesion.

for example, i have a new stat. i call it CrazyIrrelevantRating or CIR

(points X3) + (rebs X2) + (FG % *10) (turnovers X-1) + (foul outs X -1)

top 5 players in my stat

Lebron
durant
Carmello
Kobe
Harden

my stat is garbage. its just a weighted collection that compltely ignores like 75% of the game. it doesnt even consider defense. it doesnt consider passing. it doesnt consider effeciency. yet it still predicts the top 5-10 players. that doesnt make it a good stat

[ChiLA Bullkers]

"Obviously this isn't the ONLY stat I use in discussions/arguments for best player ever or best player season-to-season or even player's impact on their team.

i think we all get that... i think what people are pointing out is that this isnt really a stat that brings anything to the table and is extremely flawed. its just a weighted collection of volume stats

But the stat does show LeBron is #1, Durant #2, and everyone who we all agree is Top 10 or so are up there. There aren't any big shockers."

Any weighted stat you can come up with is basically going to have the same top 5 or top 10 guys because they all put up outstanding numbers pretty much across the board. 10 players is a horrendous sample size for evaluating a metric or stat in a league of 450 or so players.

Yes, the stat doesn't account for pace. But if you know the Game, you can add that into the discussion. P13 isn't the end all be all. It's PART -- AGAIN -- of the conversation.

And I challenge you to name that ONE stat that best represents a player's overall impact or greatness...

Please. Let me know.

Because I just came up with one.

you really didint come up with one. you weighted 10-12 exsisting metrics and weighted them in a very linear fashion. you could weight them all equally and likely have a very similar result. its extremely incomplete, and rewards high usage scorers. it short changes efficiency and good shooting as well as ball possesion.

for example, i have a new stat. i call it CrazyIrrelevantRating or CIR

(points X3) + (rebs X2) + (FG % *10) (turnovers X-1) + (foul outs X -1)

top 5 players in my stat

Lebron
durant
Carmello
Kobe
Harden

my stat is garbage. its just a weighted collection that compltely ignores like 75% of the game. it doesnt even consider defense. it doesnt consider passing. it doesnt consider effeciency. yet it still predicts the top 5-10 players. that doesnt make it a good stat

I'll side with Bill Russell -- This game is, and always has been, about BUCKETS.

Yes, rating a guy who puts up 25 per game (Harden) over a guy who just rebounds and defends well (Reggie Evans) makes a lot of sense to me.

And Greivis Vasquez doesn't come close to Chris Paul in terms of P13.

Vasquez 2012-13 P13 = 4.549
Paul 2012-13 P13 = 6.308

Again, that's the point of the stat. It separates players like CP3, an all-time great and the best PG in the NBA, with a player like Vasquez, a solid, pass-first PG but nowhere near the skill level of Paul.

Start running players' P13... instead of just discounting it before you really analyze it. I think you'll find it's quite accurate. And when it isn't perfect (Duncan; Dirk) you know why (system; not really a good rebounder, passer, defender yet he's one of the most brilliant shooters in NBA history).

[ChiLA Bullkers]

You've made it clear that it's not the only stat you use, and yet in the "rank the starters for the Nets" thread, you rated Deron Williams 5th out of the 5 starters, and said something along the lines of "Wow, a lot of guys like D-Will. To me, he's the most overrated player in the league. Didn't you guys see my P13 stat, which proves he's the most overrated player in the league?"

Sounds a lot like you're HEAVILY weighing this stat in your player evaluation.

Oh I don't need the stat to tell you Deron Williams is the worst starter on the Nets...

[PetroNet]

There are 3 glaring fatal flaws with your "stat":

1) You over reward volume scoring. not only is scoring the highest weighted measure(PPG * 13) but its also the second highest weighted measure(PPG PER36 * 12). Not only is it redudant, but it skews the stat in favor of points which will end up overshadowing other parts of the game. basically, if you score 25 ppg, your going to be high on this list... which is why you have Stephan Curry behind monte ellis and what not.

2) You completely ignore turnovers and negative stats. So not only are you rewarding positive volume stats, you arent making that a 2 way street and having volume negative stats count at all. Basically, harden and monte ellis get a complete pass for being extremely turnover prone, but get props for volume scoring without having to even have great efficiency in doing so

3) You barely rate effeciency at all, and where you do, in raw shooting percentages, you weight them next to nothing. this difference between being a bad shooter and a great shooter is almost completely negligable in your stat. for example

shooting 42% from the field would count as + 0.14 in your stat. ((4*3)/91)
Shooting 50% from the field would count as + 0.23 in your stat. ((7*3)/91)'

so the difference between being a poor shooter and an excellent shooter according to your stat is 0.09

further, not only do you get just 0.23 points by shooting 50% from the field in your stat, you get almost twice that (0.55 points) for simply scoring 9 points per game(((2*13) + (2 *12))/91), and you find nothing wrong with that???

LeBron #1, Durant #2, etc. That was the point of inventing the stat.

you didnt have to invent a stat that rated lebron 1 and durant 2. pretty much any stat that involves a combination of pts/rbs/assts is going to give you that result. hell you dont even need that... for example, from this season:

Minutes per game during odd numbered months:
Lebron 39.6
Durant 38.5
Carmello 37.7
Kobe 37.2

wow what a great stat!

according to your metric a player who scores 12 ppg and shoots 38% from the field is BETTER then a guy who scored 10 ppg on 55% shooting from the field(assuming all else is equal)

10 ppg on 55% = .823
12 ppg on 38% = .889

the stat is trash. this is a prime example of why you dont find a stat to fit rankings, you instead find a metric with merit behind it, and let the rankings fall where they may fall.

[PetroNet]

From the other thread.... according to your stat a guy who shoots significantly higher, rebounds more, assists more, blocks more, steals but scores 0.5 points per game less is the lesser player.

It's not just .889 compared to .823... it's all the other weighted stats.

But I didn't need to tell you that -- you were getting there with a little more work.

the other stats dont matter because you weighted volume scoring through the freaking roof... in fact, the lower scoring player can be better at EVERYTHING, shooting insanely better, and still have a worse score... example:

player A
10.5 PPG/PER36
4.9 APG/PER36
7.2 RPG/PER36
1.1 SPG/PER36
0.6 BPG/PER36
1.5 TO
54.0% FG
37% 3pt
81% FT


player B
11.0 PPG/PER36
4.4 APG/PER36
6.0 RPG/PER36
1.0 SPG/PER36
0.5 BPG/PER36
4.0 TO
42.5% FG
30% 3pt
66% FT

Player A = 3.63
((2*13) + (2*12) + (3*11) + (3*10) + (5*9) + (5*8) + (4*7) + (4*6) + (3*5) + (3*4) + (8 *3) + (10 *2) + (9*1) = 330/91

Player B = 3.67
((3*13) + (3*12) + (3*11) + (3*10) + (5*9) + (5*8) + (4*7) + (4*6) + (3*5) + (3*4) + (4 *3) + (7 *2) + (6*1) = 334/91

So player A had more rebounds, assits, steals, and blocks, and shot SIGNIFICANTLY better from the field, from 3, and from the foul line, turned it over considerebly less but player B was better because he scored .5 points per game more?

im not the one who needs more work bro... your "stat" does

Your stat is completely flawed, and breaks down extremely quickly once you get to guys who are similar in rbs/asts/stls. Shooting percentages will NEVER impact who is better. in fact you could leave them out completely and your player rankings would barely even move, if at all.

[PetroNet]

You've made it clear that it's not the only stat you use, and yet in the "rank the starters for the Nets" thread, you rated Deron Williams 5th out of the 5 starters, and said something along the lines of "Wow, a lot of guys like D-Will. To me, he's the most overrated player in the league. Didn't you guys see my P13 stat, which proves he's the most overrated player in the league?"

Sounds a lot like you're HEAVILY weighing this stat in your player evaluation.

Oh I don't need the stat to tell you Deron Williams is the worst starter on the Nets...

he isnt the worst starter on the nets. not even according to your crazy PG13 metric. joe johnson is the worst going by your stat.

not to mention, every other stat on the planet, the eyeball test, every announcer, coach, player and unbiased fan would conclude williams isnt the worst either

[ChiLA Bullkers]

There are 3 glaring fatal flaws with your "stat":

1) You over reward volume scoring. not only is scoring the highest weighted measure(PPG * 13) but its also the second highest weighted measure(PPG PER36 * 12). Not only is it redudant, but it skews the stat in favor of points which will end up overshadowing other parts of the game. basically, if you score 25 ppg, your going to be high on this list... which is why you have Stephan Curry behind monte ellis and what not.

2) You completely ignore turnovers and negative stats. So not only are you rewarding positive volume stats, you arent making that a 2 way street and having volume negative stats count at all. Basically, harden and monte ellis get a complete pass for being extremely turnover prone, but get props for volume scoring without having to even have great efficiency in doing so

3) You barely rate effeciency at all, and where you do, in raw shooting percentages, you weight them next to nothing. this difference between being a bad shooter and a great shooter is almost completely negligable in your stat. for example

shooting 42% from the field would count as + 0.14 in your stat. ((4*3)/91)
Shooting 50% from the field would count as + 0.23 in your stat. ((7*3)/91)'

so the difference between being a poor shooter and an excellent shooter according to your stat is 0.09

further, not only do you get just 0.23 points by shooting 50% from the field in your stat, you get almost twice that (0.55 points) for simply scoring 9 points per game(((2*13) + (2 *12))/91), and you find nothing wrong with that???

LeBron #1, Durant #2, etc. That was the point of inventing the stat.

you didnt have to invent a stat that rated lebron 1 and durant 2. pretty much any stat that involves a combination of pts/rbs/assts is going to give you that result. hell you dont even need that... for example, from this season:

Minutes per game during odd numbered months:
Lebron 39.6
Durant 38.5
Carmello 37.7
Kobe 37.2

wow what a great stat!

according to your metric a player who scores 12 ppg and shoots 38% from the field is BETTER then a guy who scored 10 ppg on 55% shooting from the field(assuming all else is equal)

10 ppg on 55% = .823
12 ppg on 38% = .889

the stat is trash. this is a prime example of why you dont find a stat to fit rankings, you instead find a metric with merit behind it, and let the rankings fall where they may fall.

1) How many guys (can) score 25 ppg? FIVE guys in the entire league averaged over 25 in 2012-13. Only NINE guys over 20 ppg. Eight of those nine guys were on Playoff teams. Two of the nine on the champion Heat. I don't overvalue PPG. If anything, BUCKETS -- like Bill Russell said -- is undervalued. But I like the ring of Player's 13.

2) Of course I don't care about Turnovers. Great players with the ball in their hands most lead the league in Turnovers, whereas not-so-good players tend to have lower Turnovers because the ball ISN'T in their hands as much. I realize this is a difficult concept for you to grasp. With you logic, I should punish Steve Nash, who led the league in TO's TWICE?!? What about Jason Kidd??? Magic Johnson? Charles Barkley??? (*crickets*)

3) If football is a game of inches, basketball is the game of fractions. Yes, every .09 counts. But I'm not going to punish Kobe Bryant for never shooting over 47%. I'll take Kobe's 30 points on 44% shooting over Paul Millsap's 17 points on 53% shooting. Same goes for Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Kevin Martin, or any other volume scorer.

Again, I invite you to run the numbers and compare players. See if it fits your eye test.

PS - Why is everyone so down on Monta Ellis 10-11, which is that stat I posted for him? WE ALL KNOW -- or maybe 'we' don't -- that GSW's offense was high speed and Monta played over 40 mpg. I've written it 10 times, but it obviously bears repeating -- P13 is part of a conversation. If you're talking about Monta Ellis in the GSW years, you'll probably mention the style of play and his minutes.

But, then again, some people... don't have a clue... about that type of stuff.