where was wallace on that list?
82games.com has come out with a new defensive rating system for all NBA players. In their system they have Emeka as one of the top 10 defensive players in the league (no arguments here).
Although its pretty easy to bend statistics and make them say whatever you want them to, I think that they did a pretty good job of analysis and their system has some merit.
its worth taking a look.
where was wallace on that list?
I noticed that the teams on here that made the playoffs have no more than two players with a "DCS" in single digits (exception of Utah and Washington).
As a little summary for the Bobcats, we have four under 10, each of which are listed at a different position, including Brezec, Carroll, Morrison and McInnis (who got a 0).
Now, I don't know if they're algorithm is great, or even what it is, but it seems that their rankings would correlate with the general consensus of who's good on D and who sucks on D.
Brevin also scored highly on the index, which shouldn't really surprise anyone since he was among the leaders in the league in steals a couple years ago. Oh well, we've waived him and now it seems the Clippers are looking at him.
What would be interesting is if someone has the time, to see a compiling of this list with a list of free agent centers and PGs. It certainly wouldn't be the end-all who's best on D list, but it would be very interesting to see.
Gerald Wallace scored 81.
Richard Jefferson scored 11.
...just sayin', the guy's a tool.
The point about playoff teams is pretty interesting. Although, one of three methods they came up with the index is by looking at +/-, a rating based on how good a team is when the player is on the court vs. off the court. According to 82games.com, their system addresses a lot of the issues that make hockey +/- unreliable. (If you're the starting defenseman on a team with a high powered top line, you'll have a great +/-. Meanwhile a fantastic forward can have a terrible +/- because he plays with a poor defensive pairing.) However, it still seems that the average player would appear better on a solid team than on a mediocre team. When one of the Spurs bench subs in, they sub in to play with some mixture of Tony, Gino, and Duncan; they could still have an o.k. +/- because they're still playing with a good team. But, if you're Lebron's sub, you're probably hating life since the Cavs have been terrible with Lebron on the bench. In Charlotte, there have only been a couple of reliable of players. If you were replacing them off the bench (like Morrison would of Wallace from time to time), you're +/- is going to look pretty bad no matter how complex of an algorithm they come up with. Plus, the bench players on better teams are also benefiting from playing in a solid system, where as poorly coached teams might have good players flopping around during their bench relief minutes.Originally Posted by Muttley
The only reason I bring that up isn't to defend Morrison or any of the other guys. But when you're talking about the bottom of the barrel, it doesn't seem surprising that well coached playoff teams would have less players below a certain point while young teams like ours have multiple guys that appear to be terrible.
That's one of the things I hate the most about statistics: they don't take into account the system a player is in or what the player is expected to do in that system. I realize that Dan's system tries to take into account a player's production relative to his teammates, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a direct comparison of players' skill sets.
SOMEONE will pay for THIS!
RJ=11?Originally Posted by Muttley
i'm loving that system now. LOL