How many guys in the NBA are above average players?

[montestewart]

Have to come up with a two-tier below average system to separate the quality role players from the barely hanging on.

[FreeBalling]

Ok, here's what I come up with:

Franchise changing superstars

1. F LeBron James
2. F Kevin Durant
3. G Chris Paul

Legitimate 1st options / all-star caliber talent

4. G Derrick Rose
5. G James Harden
6. G Tony Parker
7. F Blake Griffin
8. G Russell Westbrook
9. G Dwyane Wade
10. C Tim Duncan
11. C Brook Lopez
12. F Carmelo Anthony
13. G Deron Williams
14. G Stephen Curry
15. G Kobe Bryant

Elite level role players

16. C Tyson Chandler
17. C Marc Gasol
18. C Tiago Splitter
19. F Serge Ibaka
20. F David West
21. G George Hill
22. C Chris Bosh
23. C Anderson Varejao
24. G Mike Conley
25. C Andre Drummond
26. F Kawhi Leonard

Very good starters

27. F Amar'e Stoudemire
28. F Kenneth Faried
29. G Jose Calderon
30. C Nikola Pekovic
31. F Anthony Davis
32. F Ersan Ilyasova
33. G Kevin Martin
34. F Paul Millsap
35. C Al Horford
36. F Danilo Gallinari
35. F Amir Johnson
36. F David Lee
37. C Larry Sanders
38. C DeAndre Jordan
39. F Paul George
40. C Joakim Noah
41. F Dirk Nowitzki
42. F Zach Randolph
43. C Al Jefferson
44. G Ty Lawson
45. F Thaddeus Young
46. F Paul Pierce
47. C Dwight Howard
48. G John Wall
49. C Roy Hibbert
50. G Kyle Lowry

Very good role players

51. C Brandan Wright
52. C Kosta Koufos
53. C Javale McGee
54. F Ed Davis
55. F Carl Landry
56. G Jimmy Butler
57. C Nick Collison
58. G Manu Ginobili
59. F Tyler Hansbrough
60. C Andray Blatche
61. G Patrick Beverley
62. F Matt Barnes
63. G Thabo Sefolosha
64. F Jared Sullinger
65. F J.J. Hickson
66. F Andrei Kirilenko
67. F Martell Webster
68. F Vince Carter
69. F Wilson Chandler
70. F Kyle Korver
71. G Nate Robinson
72. C Kevin Garnett
73. F Dorell Wright
74. G Danny Green
75. F Shawn Marion
76. G Ray Allen
77. G Steve Nash
78. C Robin Lopez

Quality starters

79. C Jonas Valanciunas
80. F Ryan Anderson
81. G Kyrie Irving
82. F LaMarcus Aldridge
83. F Gordon Hayward
84. F Chandler Parsons
85. G Mario Chalmers
86. G J.R. Smith
87. F Derrick Favord
88. G Jamal Crawford
89. F Nene
90. G Tony Allen
91. G Eric Bledsoe
92. G Jarrett Jack
93. G Lance Stephenson
94. G Isaiah Thomas
95. G Jeff Teague
96. C Omer Asik
97. F Carlos Boozer
98. G Rajon Rondo
99. F Pau Gasol
100. G Goran Dragic
101. C Andrew Bogut
102. C Nikola Vucevic
103. F Loul Deng
104. G Tyreke Evans
105. C Greg Monroe
106. F Brandon Bass
107. F Nicolas Batum
108. F Jeff Green
109. F Danny Granger

Quality role players

110. C Chris Andersen
111. C Jordan Hill
112. G Chauncey Billups
113. C Samuel Dalembert
114. F Mike Miller
115. F DeMarre Carroll
116. F Matt Bonner
117. F Jeff Pendergraph
118. C Kenyon Martin
119. F DeJuan Blair
120. F Trevor Booker
121. F Antawn Jamison
122. F Quincy Pondexter
123. F Boris Diaw
124. G Pablo Prigioni
125. G Reggie Jackson
126. G Andre Miller
127. G C.J. Watson
128. F Shane Battier
129. F Chris Copeland
130. F Steve Novak
131. C Zaza Pachulia
132. G Darren Collison
133. G Devin Harris
134. G D.J. Augustin
135. F Patrick Patterson
136. F Mike Dunleavy
137. F Taj Gibson
138. F John Henson
139. F Kris Humphries
140. G Jerryd Bayless
141. F Udonis Haslem
142. C Elton Brand
143. F Jared Dudley
144. F Reggie Evans
145. C Marreese Speights
146. G Louis Williams

Dat thanks for the write up. Where would you put Kevin Love?

[Dat2U]

Freeballing, I'm re-doing/re-ordering the list, so folks can make better sense of it. The list above was not really made to be a clear cut ranking of NBA players. It may be actually part of a blogpost that'll give a link to at some point in the near future.

[Nivek]

Using my Player Production Average stat (I'm accepting suggestions for renaming it, by the way), 153 players last season had a 100 or higher (average = 100). If I require 500 total minutes of playing time, 10 guys are eliminated, so it's 143.

[Dat2U]

Using my Player Production Average stat (I'm accepting suggestions for renaming it, by the way), 153 players last season had a 100 or higher (average = 100). If I require 500 total minutes of playing time, 10 guys are eliminated, so it's 143.

I love to see a position breakdown of this. I'd bet the C position is probably 35 deep while the SF & SG positions won't match that total combined.

[Nivek]

Using my Player Production Average stat (I'm accepting suggestions for renaming it, by the way), 153 players last season had a 100 or higher (average = 100). If I require 500 total minutes of playing time, 10 guys are eliminated, so it's 143.

I love to see a position breakdown of this. I'd bet the C position is probably 35 deep while the SF & SG positions won't match that total combined.

Code: Select all

POS     COUNT   %
PG      31      22%
SG      18      13%
SF      22      15%
PF      36      25%
C       36      25%


Close -- center was 36 deep. SG and SF combined total 40.

[Dat2U]

Using my Player Production Average stat (I'm accepting suggestions for renaming it, by the way), 153 players last season had a 100 or higher (average = 100). If I require 500 total minutes of playing time, 10 guys are eliminated, so it's 143.

I love to see a position breakdown of this. I'd bet the C position is probably 35 deep while the SF & SG positions won't match that total combined.

Code: Select all

POS     COUNT   %
PG      31      22%
SG      18      13%
SF      22      15%
PF      36      25%
C       36      25%


Close -- center was 36 deep. SG and SF combined total 40.

So only 40 out of the 60 starting spots on the wings are filled by average or above average players. If your a starting PG, PF or C, you'll need to be at least average and likely significantly above average to really stand out at either of those 3 positions.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Code: Select all

POS     COUNT   %
PG      31      22%
SG      18      13%
SF      22      15%
PF      36      25%
C       36      25%


Close -- center was 36 deep. SG and SF combined total 40.

To me, that's a critical variable here, although very difficult to calibrate for. There are quite obviously certain positions in the NBA that are geared towards production. In the modern NBA, those positions are PF/Cs (who tend to be closer to the basket for rebounds and more efficient offense and PGs (who handle the ball more). With some of the rule changes regarding hand-checks, 3-seconds, etc. it means that the wing positions have evolved a bit and it's tougher to put up measurable numbers from the wing spots, although there are a few potential variables here and it may be more of a systematic developmental thing where PGs are getting more of the ballhandling growing up than wings, because guys like Paul Pierce and Vince Carter didn't really get impacted in terms of production by anything but age.

Regardless of reasons, as such, it's tougher to look like an above average player at SG or SF than it is at the other positions, what does that mean for average players? You can't just trot out 5 PF/Cs and expect to win. In many cases you'd be better off trotting out a couple below-average players by definition than above-average ones if you actually wanted to win games. It turns a complicated game of definitions even more complicated.

[payitforward]

So. If there are 30 teams with 12 players each (360 players total), about 132 are above average. So your method of weighting players by minutes played just about nailed it.

I really need to start teaching statistics. These real life examples are worth their weight in gold.

Good work!

Now, the distribution of minutes compensates for the exponential distribution of productivity (productivity not "talent"), and this is true by definition. Thus if you correct for number of minutes played, you do get a bell-shaped curve.

That's what I said!

Why yes, come to think of it, so it is....

[Zonkerbl]

Using my Player Production Average stat (I'm accepting suggestions for renaming it, by the way), 153 players last season had a 100 or higher (average = 100). If I require 500 total minutes of playing time, 10 guys are eliminated, so it's 143.

Yeah. Rosters are 15 deep in the pros, not twelve, my bad. 15x30=450, a third of that is about 150. So if you're doing it right you should be getting a little more than 150, and remember you're not accounting for injured players.

[payitforward]

Now, lets take this analysis one step further:

In order to avoid worrying about adjusting for minutes, lets suppose for a moment that a team consisted entirely of exactly average nba players -- guys who put up overall average numbers for a player at their position.

What would you expect that team's record to be at season's end?

[montestewart]

Now, lets take this analysis one step further:

In order to avoid worrying about adjusting for minutes, lets suppose for a moment that a team consisted entirely of exactly average nba players -- guys who put up overall average numbers for a player at their position.

What would you expect that team's record to be at season's end?

Is it the Wizards or some other team?

[nate33]

Code: Select all

POS     COUNT   %
PG      31      22%
SG      18      13%
SF      22      15%
PF      36      25%
C       36      25%


Close -- center was 36 deep. SG and SF combined total 40.

To me, that's a critical variable here, although very difficult to calibrate for. There are quite obviously certain positions in the NBA that are geared towards production. In the modern NBA, those positions are PF/Cs (who tend to be closer to the basket for rebounds and more efficient offense and PGs (who handle the ball more). With some of the rule changes regarding hand-checks, 3-seconds, etc. it means that the wing positions have evolved a bit and it's tougher to put up measurable numbers from the wing spots, although there are a few potential variables here and it may be more of a systematic developmental thing where PGs are getting more of the ballhandling growing up than wings, because guys like Paul Pierce and Vince Carter didn't really get impacted in terms of production by anything but age.

Regardless of reasons, as such, it's tougher to look like an above average player at SG or SF than it is at the other positions, what does that mean for average players? You can't just trot out 5 PF/Cs and expect to win. In many cases you'd be better off trotting out a couple below-average players by definition than above-average ones if you actually wanted to win games. It turns a complicated game of definitions even more complicated.

Lots of good insight here. I wonder if this holds up historically. Is it truly more difficult to tabulate statistics as a SG or a SF than it is for a PG or big man; or is it simply that we are in an era where the PG and big man talent happens to be pretty good and the swing man talent is not?

Nivek, when you get a chance, maybe you ought to check out those positional rankings over a few different eras. If it's true that SG's and SF's always score a bit lower, then maybe you ought to apply a correction factor for positions into your PPA formula. Or maybe you develop a Positionally Adjusted PPA (PAPPA) to use whenever you want to compare players at different positions.

[I_Like_Dirt]

What complicates that kind of thing, nate, is that positions are a little more fluid than what I'd like for any type of statistical purposes. It really comes down to role. The few wing players that do defy the odds and do succeed in the measurable statistical categories, are the ones that essentially replace the PG on their team. Pierce did it for years and then dramatically changed his game (to his credit, including a massive spike in his 3-point shooting) when he started playing with Ray Allen, who was about as good of an off-the-ball perimeter player as I've ever seen. Guys like Kobe, Lebron and Wade basically play the role of 'ball-dominator' on their teams which in turn relegates their PG, whoever it is, to the role usually assigned to the wing player which doesn't do so well statistically. Really, the issue is that there are only so many stats to go around and, for the most part, you want your best ball-handler/passer/fastest player to be the same person and to handle the ball all the time while your biggest players get dunks and rebounds. It's pretty rare that your wing players are either the biggest players on the court or your your best ball-handler/passer/fastest player.

[Nivek]

I'll take a look at position breakdowns when I get a chance. I've been leery of doing position adjustments (it's one of the issues I have with Berri's Wins Produced) because I think the adjustment obscures valuable information -- namely the (unsurprising) reality that bigs are more productive and more valuable.

Also, it's often tough to say what position a guy plays. As I_Like_Dirt points out, positions are often pretty fluid. Some stat guys have begun looking at ways to group players by their roles -- to let their stats determine their "position." It's interesting work, and might have some applications for roster building.

Teams need certain work done to win games. I'm thoroughly unconvinced that it matters much which of the 5 traditional "positions" is doing that work. Historically, much of that work gets done by bigger players.

I'll take a look at it.

Always something more to study.

One other note: for positions, I just used whatever b-r has designated a player's position to be. I think folks may quibble with some of those designations.

[payitforward]

Using my Player Production Average stat (I'm accepting suggestions for renaming it, by the way), 153 players last season had a 100 or higher (average = 100). If I require 500 total minutes of playing time, 10 guys are eliminated, so it's 143.

I love to see a position breakdown of this. I'd bet the C position is probably 35 deep while the SF & SG positions won't match that total combined.

Code: Select all

POS     COUNT   %
PG      31      22%
SG      18      13%
SF      22      15%
PF      36      25%
C       36      25%


Close -- center was 36 deep. SG and SF combined total 40.

This is a problem with your analysis method, Nivek. It's a fact that bigs almost always put up better raw numbers than wings/points. That's why wp48 adjusts for position, and it enables one to rank across positions.

Ranked by wp48, there are 155 players average or above (at 500+ minutes), of whom 34 are Centers, 30, PFs, 37 SFs, 24 SGs, 30 pgs. So 64 bigs, 61 wings and 30 point guards. Pretty even.

[Zonkerbl]

What's weird is wing players, I think, average more minutes per game than bigs. But the bigs get paid more.

That only makes sense if the bigs are in fact more productive than the wings.

[Dat2U]

Just looking at Wp48 list, the order doesn't look right to me. Chris Paul ahead of LeBron? Kirilenko, Marion & Leonard are top 10 players? Reggie Evans, Jason Kidd & Pablo Prigioni are in the top 20? Color me skeptical regarding Wp48.

[I_Like_Dirt]

What's weird is wing players, I think, average more minutes per game than bigs. But the bigs get paid more.

That only makes sense if the bigs are in fact more productive than the wings.

NBA salaries are another mess altogether and even tougher to decipher, at least rationally (it isn't hard to understand why players get paid, even if it doesn't make sense). Are the Thunder a good team because they're paying Kendrick Perkins a lot of money, or because they aren't paying Thabo Sefolosha a lot of money? Are the Bulls getting better value from Carlos Boozer, or Luol Deng? Is it Duncan that makes the Spurs, or is it Ginobili and Parker? The Heat are only paying one PF/C much of anything and have moved to almost exclusively perimeter players but the Bobcats just paid Al Jefferson a bunch of money and the Wizards paid a lot of money to Okafor and Nene last season. Salaries don't have to make perfect sense in the NBA. The NBA as a league has always been of a mindset that bigger players should be paid more. Sometimes that's true and sometimes it isn't and sometimes it's in an even muddier in-between space.

[montestewart]

Just looking at Wp48 list, the order doesn't look right to me. Chris Paul ahead of LeBron? Kirilenko, Marion & Leonard are top 10 players? Reggie Evans, Jason Kidd & Pablo Prigioni are in the top 20? Color me skeptical regarding Wp48.

I remember back in 2009, WoW ran a story on the 10 most underrated (or maybe it was underpaid, can't find the link) players in the league, based on wp48, I think. Dom McGuire and Mike Miller (just traded to the Wizards) were on the list. I was like, "Yeah! Add that to all my other delusions, and here comes the championship!"