Blazer Position Rankings

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PapaG said:
We assumed you had retired from the internet?

Although I could also see this being cmeese, since he talks about living in North Carolina.
Click to expand...

I knew schools were poor in Montana but Connecticut is like a 1000 miles to the north.
 
This thread was interesting to me because it is so subjective. I decided to look at some statistics to make the rankings. I like using WS/48 because it evens things out for minutes played & it is a way to take the "little things" like tips & deflections (or the hustle plays) into account.

The following is a 2 year average of the players at each position (with a minimum of 25 starts & 500-minutes in the season). In cases like Brook Lopez who missed a significant portion of a year, I used their career average WS/48 for the second year. Data is from basketball-reference.com

Here are the results:
Point Guard
PG Year 1 Year 2 Average
Tier 1
  1. Chris Paul 0.287 0.270 0.279
  2. Stephen Curry 0.225 0.180 0.203
    Tier 2
  3. Russell Westbrook 0.195 0.178 0.187
  4. Tony Parker 0.206 0.141 0.174
    Tier 3
  5. Mike Conley 0.172 0.161 0.167
  6. George Hill 0.177 0.154 0.166
  7. Kyle Lowry 0.197 0.133 0.165
  8. Deron Williams 0.184 0.125 0.155
  9. Goran Dragic 0.186 0.106 0.146
  10. Damian Lillard 0.157 0.088 0.123
  11. Jose Calderon 0.165 0.122 0.144
  12. Ty Lawson 0.141 0.136 0.139
  13. Isaiah Thomas 0.149 0.114 0.132
  14. John Wall 0.134 0.128 0.131
  15. Eric Bledsoe 0.140 0.115 0.128
  16. Kyrie Irving 0.128 0.125 0.127
  17. Darren Collison 0.136 0.114 0.125
I have to admit that I bumped Lillard up a few spots because of that 0.088 WS/48 as a rookie. Otherwise he would be 17th. The top 4 are just who everyone would expect. After 4, the next 10-12 are very close to each other. This list also does not include Rose since he has been hurt for much of the last 2 years.

Shooting Guard
Tier 1
  1. James Harden 0.221 0.206 0.214
    Tier 2
  2. Dwyane Wade 0.192 0.149 0.171
  3. Kobe Bryant 0.174 0.132 0.153
  4. Jimmy Butler 0.131 0.158 0.145
    Tier 3
  5. Kevin Martin 0.117 0.157 0.137
  6. Kyle Korver 0.137 0.118 0.128
  7. Danny Green 0.128 0.122 0.125
  8. Lance Stephenson 0.130 0.115 0.123
  9. J.J. Redick 0.147 0.091 0.119
  10. Thabo Sefolosha 0.146 0.092 0.119
  11. Wesley Matthews 0.142 0.093 0.118
    Tier 4
  12. Marco Belinelli 0.140 0.076 0.108
  13. DeMar DeRozan 0.141 0.075 0.108
  14. Tony Allen 0.115 0.100 0.108
  15. C.J. Miles 0.122 0.092 0.107
  16. Courtney Lee 0.114 0.082 0.098
  17. Gordon Hayward 0.123 0.062 0.093
  18. Klay Thompson 0.112 0.070 0.091
Again, the players you would expect are still at the top. The values show the relative weakness of the position in the NBA at this point. Mathews is just about were you would expect. The two surprises to me are that Gordon Hayward & Klay Thompson are ranked so low.

Small Forwards
Tier 1
  1. LeBron James 0.322 0.264 0.293
  2. Kevin Durant 0.295 0.291 0.293
    Tier 2
    Tier 3
  3. Kawhi Leonard 0.193 0.166 0.180
  4. Carmelo Anthony 0.184 0.172 0.178
  5. Paul George 0.178 0.145 0.162
    Tier 4
  6. Danilo Gallinari 0.151 0.140 0.146
  7. Andre Iguodala 0.135 0.124 0.130
  8. Paul Pierce 0.135 0.119 0.127
  9. DeMarre Carroll 0.119 0.134 0.127
  10. Chandler Parsons 0.131 0.121 0.126
  11. Nicolas Batum 0.128 0.124 0.126
  12. Martell Webster 0.138 0.112 0.125
  13. Trevor Ariza 0.141 0.102 0.122
    Tier 5
  14. Mike Dunleavy 0.121 0.109 0.115
  15. P.J. Tucker 0.117 0.098 0.108
  16. Andrei Kirilenko 0.142 0.070 0.106
  17. Gerald Green 0.126 0.069 0.098
LeBron & Durant are both beasts. Having a WS/48 near 0.3 is unbelievable. It also shows how far Leonard, Melo, & George have to go to get in the same category. Again, this metric places Batum near the players we would expect him to be around (Parsons, Ariza, AI, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Post Continued....

Center
Year 1 Year 2 Average
Tier 1
  1. Brook Lopez 0.191 0.211 0.201
  2. Anthony Davis 0.212 0.159 0.186
    Tier 2
  3. Tiago Splitter 0.197 0.163 0.180
  4. Andre Drummond 0.182 0.172 0.177
  5. Tyson Chandler 0.207 0.143 0.175
    Tier 3
  6. Joakim Noah 0.190 0.145 0.168
  7. Marc Gasol 0.197 0.137 0.167
  8. DeAndre Jordan 0.186 0.148 0.167
  9. Nikola Pekovic 0.169 0.163 0.166
  10. Anderson Varejao 0.173 0.144 0.159
  11. Robin Lopez 0.176 0.126 0.151
  12. Kosta Koufos 0.171 0.124 0.148
  13. Dwight Howard 0.161 0.134 0.148
  14. Al Horford 0.153 0.141 0.147
  15. Marcin Gortat 0.146 0.147 0.147
  16. Samuel Dalembert 0.147 0.137 0.142
  17. Andrew Bogut 0.176 0.106 0.141
  18. DeMarcus Cousins 0.166 0.095 0.131
  19. Roy Hibbert 0.129 0.108 0.119
  20. Timofey Mozgov 0.123 0.099 0.111
  21. Nikola Vucevic 0.116 0.106 0.111
  22. Larry Sanders 0.149 0.057 0.103
This list had some surprises to me. I didn't expect Brook to be so dominate. I placed Davis in the Tier 1 because it is only his second year, & he had a dramatic improvement from year 1 to year 2. I was really surprised that Howard & Hibbert were so low... but it makes sense considering how aloof they are sometimes.

Power Forward
Year 1 Year 2 Average
Tier 1
  1. Kevin Love 0.245 0.223 0.234
  2. Blake Griffin 0.205 0.196 0.201
    Tier 2
  3. Tim Duncan 0.191 0.164 0.178
  4. Serge Ibaka 0.181 0.173 0.177
  5. Dirk Nowitzki 0.199 0.145 0.172
  6. David West 0.179 0.157 0.168
  7. Chris Bosh 0.175 0.152 0.164
    Tier 3
  8. Kenneth Faried 0.167 0.144 0.156
  9. David Lee 0.160 0.150 0.155
  10. Terrence Jones 0.169 0.128 0.149
  11. Al Jefferson 0.146 0.143 0.145
  12. Ed Davis 0.159 0.129 0.144
  13. Jordan Hill 0.141 0.147 0.144
  14. Ersan Ilyasova 0.159 0.128 0.144
  15. Amir Johnson 0.151 0.136 0.144
  16. Paul Millsap 0.154 0.129 0.142
  17. LaMarcus Aldridge 0.144 0.124 0.134
  18. Jonas Valanciunas 0.141 0.127 0.134
  19. Zach Randolph 0.145 0.113 0.129
  20. Trevor Booker 0.132 0.126 0.129
  21. Kris Humphries 0.143 0.109 0.126
  22. Josh McRoberts 0.132 0.116 0.124
  23. Thaddeus Young 0.136 0.110 0.123
    Tier 4
  24. J.J. Hickson 0.142 0.092 0.117
  25. Nene Hilario 0.116 0.117 0.117
  26. Derrick Favors 0.112 0.117 0.115
  27. Shawn Marion 0.127 0.086 0.107
  28. Kevin Garnett 0.133 0.054 0.094
Now this list is going to piss a lot of people in the forum off. It definitely was not my intention for this to be the result when I looked into the actual numbers.

This metric has been consistently identifying the best players in the league and ranking them in the top 1-3 positions. This is no exception as Love & Griffin take the top to spots (by a sizable margin I might add). Here, LMA is ranked 17th. There is a close enough difference in WS numbers that I could possibly justify him being ranked as high as 10 (right behind David Lee). The "perception" is that LMA is one of the best players in the league. Based on this metric, he is no where near that. When I try to reconcile why he ranks so low compared to his perceived peers, I believe it is because he doesn't do the little things to make his team better. He has all the talent to be better than Love or Griffin, but he puts little to no effort into things like going for loose balls, rotating defensively, or taking charges.
 
Last edited:
I think using one stat to rank a player always has major flaws. WS/PER/+ - all have their drawbacks when used just by themselves and thats because there is no "end all stat" for discussing basketball, if there was it would be really easy to rank players. Its why so many teams have several analytics people devoted to crunching tons of different numbers to come up with someones worth.
 
@ tester.

That's such an incomplete list.
Just looking @ the shooting guard spots.
Derozan adds less to his team than Korver added to his. Jimmy Butler also provided more to his team Stevenson as well...... Marco Belinelli really?

looking @ the power forward position.. Jordan Hill, Ed Davis, Terrance Jones, Amir Johnson added more to their teams than Aldridge did...
Some of these players are bench players, that should not be starting on playoff teams.

Not going through all of them.
(not quoting both posts)
 
You guys should say something when we have a troll in the forum. We can get rid of them a lot quicker.
 
We need a grammar troll to tell you that quicker is an adjective, not an adverb.
 
tester551 said:
The "perception" is that LMA is one of the best players in the league. Based on this metric, he is no where near that. When I try to reconcile why he ranks so low compared to his perceived peers, I believe it is because he doesn't do the little things to make his team better. He has all the talent to be better than Love or Griffin, but he puts little to no effort into things like going for loose balls, rotating defensively, or taking charges.
Click to expand...

No reconciling needed. It's obvious to the unbiased eyeball test. Aldridge thinks only about shooting. If he had any ambition, he could be the best player in the league.
 
jlprk said:
No reconciling needed. It's obvious to the unbiased eyeball test. Aldridge thinks only about shooting. If he had any ambition, he could be the best player in the league.
Click to expand...

Starting to recycle your old Rasheed Wallace posts, I see.
 
jlprk said:
No reconciling needed. It's obvious to the unbiased eyeball test. Aldridge thinks only about shooting. If he had any ambition, he could be the best player in the league.
Click to expand...

that's a little bit of an overstatement. Seriously doubt there is a way he could pass LBJ/Durant.........................

Not going to bother with the rest of your post, it's obviously "unbiased" and "non-homer"
 
So who was panther fan just a random troll or an old member scorned
 
honkicracker said:
@ tester.

That's such an incomplete list.
Just looking @ the shooting guard spots.
Derozan adds less to his team than Korver added to his. Jimmy Butler also provided more to his team Stevenson as well...... Marco Belinelli really?

looking @ the power forward position.. Jordan Hill, Ed Davis, Terrance Jones, Amir Johnson added more to their teams than Aldridge did...
Some of these players are bench players, that should not be starting on playoff teams.

Not going through all of them.
(not quoting both posts)
Click to expand...

I am not saying that the WS/48 is the end all - be all statistic, and readily admit that there is a lot more that needs and should go into evaluations. However, this stat also has a strong correlation with the best players in the league. When players no not rank with their "piers" (either positively or negatively), more investigation ought to be done as to why.

Regarding Derozon / Korver / Butler - remember this is a two year average. Derozon really came on this year, but the prior year really hurt him. I still don't believe he is anywhere as good as he gets credit for (sort of like Rudy Gay). Korver has been fairly consistent. Butler is admittedly higher than I expected, however I also I think he does more to help his team win than people give him credit for.
 
cmeese47 said:
I knew schools were poor in Montana but Connecticut is like a 1000 miles to the north.
Click to expand...

Schools in Montana aren't poor at all. :dunno:

Last I checked, the IP addy was from South Carolina, anyhow.
 
tester551 said:
I am not saying that the WS/48 is the end all - be all statistic, and readily admit that there is a lot more that needs and should go into evaluations. However, this stat also has a strong correlation with the best players in the league. When players no not rank with their "piers" (either positively or negatively), more investigation ought to be done as to why.

Regarding Derozon / Korver / Butler - remember this is a two year average. Derozon really came on this year, but the prior year really hurt him. I still don't believe he is anywhere as good as he gets credit for (sort of like Rudy Gay). Korver has been fairly consistent. Butler is admittedly higher than I expected, however I also I think he does more to help his team win than people give him credit for.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that a large part of Butlers WS comes from his def.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
IP address is unique. No current or previous members are using it.

From Fort Mill, South Carolina.
Click to expand...

So then why the ban? His posts while not exactly flattering to the Blazers, they were hardly ban worthy.
 
PapaG said:
Schools in Montana aren't poor at all. :dunno:

Last I checked, the IP addy was from South Carolina, anyhow.
Click to expand...

Really Montanta State University ranked Montana 49/49 in teacher quality with no data available from Oregon.

The American Legislative exchange council annual report card gave Montana a D in their educational policy.

So they have bad teachers and a bad policy.

They did manage a c- from education week and a rank of 44/51. DC making 51.

Not even from Michelle Whee the ever controversial studentsfirst pundit was kind giving Montana an F and a rank of 50/50.
 
Last edited:
The same Terrence Jones who LMA destroyed in the Houston series? He adds more than LMA?

Get the fuck out with that gibberish. Either it's an obvious attempt to troll, or the person posting it knows nothing about basketball. Either way, it's a foolish opinion.
 
cmeese47 said:
Really Montanta State University ranked Montana 49/49 in teacher quality with no data available from Oregon.
Click to expand...

Take a look at test scores. North Carolina and Oregon both do worse on than ACT and SAT than Montana. Does that make people from North Carolina and Oregon generally dumber than those from Montana? Anyhow, I'm quite happy with the schooling I received. It's served me well.
 
cmeese47 said:
Really Montanta State University ranked Montana 49/49 in teacher quality with no data available from Oregon.

The American Legislative exchange council annual report card gave Montana a D in their educational policy.

So they have bad teachers and a bad policy.
Click to expand...

Yet your same report shows Montana to be 7th in Education Output and 7th in Education Efficiency.

Cost of living is lower, so teachers are paid less. Kids are generally smarter, though, going through the system.

http://www.msubillings.edu/caer/quality_rankings_of_education_in.htm

Way to use a link that contradicts whatever point you were trying to make. Was the point that I must be stupid because I went to HS, and did my undergrad work, in Montana? That's a pretty dumb point to make. According to your own list, Texas is #1 in the rankings. I guess we should listen to anybody who went to school in Texas, and just consider them correct on any issue since they went to school in Texas.
 
What kind of "intelligent" person uses criteria that belie their own claims?

According to your link, Montana doesn't pay teachers very well, and allows the state to fire bad teachers. Which leads to 7th in the USA in Output (test scores) and efficiency (test scores plus percent of citizens w/college degrees). According to your own source, Montana ranks highly in test scores, and in percent of the population who get college degress.

LMAO at you.

http://www.msubillings.edu/caer/quality_rankings_of_education_in.htm

Teacher Quality

This is the result of the recent Thomas Fordham Foundation study. Teacher "quality" was measured by how the:

States punish or reward teachers and administrators for student achievement,
Conducts checks on teachers' backgrounds and college course work, and
How much power the state gives for individual schools to hire and fire teachers.
Education Input

Four measurements were standardized and then averaged for this variable:[2]

Average teacher salaries,
Pupil/teacher ratios,
Education cost per student, and
The Thomas Fordham results.
Education Output

Output was calculated by using the standardized average of:

Percent of 4th graders at or above grade level as measured on NAEP tests on
Reading, and
math
Mean ACT score for the state.[3]
Education Social Impact

The measurement is problematic. In this case it was simply measured by using the standardized average of three measures:

Per capita income,
Percent of population with college degrees, and
The average number of books checked out of libraries per capita.
Education Efficiency

This measurement is basically the "bang-per-buck" of education. It is a measurement that businesses would use if they were measuring efficiency. It was calculated by using the standardized average of the cost per student per unit measured output. Three measures were used:

The cost per student per percent of reading above or at 4th grade level,
The cost per student per percent of math above or at 4th grade level, and
The cost [4
Click to expand...
]
 
PapaG said:
Take a look at test scores. North Carolina and Oregon both do worse on than ACT and SAT than Montana. Does that make people from North Carolina and Oregon generally dumber than those from Montana? Anyhow, I'm quite happy with the schooling I received. It's served me well.
Click to expand...

Of course your state rated higher since you don't have minorities to bring down your test scores.
 
PapaG said:
Yet your same report shows Montana to be 7th in Education Output and 7th in Education Efficiency.

Cost of living is lower, so teachers are paid less. Kids are generally smarter, though, going through the system.

http://www.msubillings.edu/caer/quality_rankings_of_education_in.htm

Way to use a link that contradicts whatever point you were trying to make. Was the point that I must be stupid because I went to HS, and did my undergrad work, in Montana? That's a pretty dumb point to make. According to your own list, Texas is #1 in the rankings. I guess we should listen to anybody who went to school in Texas, and just consider them correct on any issue since they went to school in Texas.
Click to expand...

Contradicts what, Montana is ridiculously white and they spend very little on education so their efficiency score is bound to be high. Furthermore, the education outputs ranking was based only mean act score and the percentage of 4th graders score on reading and math. Considering Montana runs ACT Prep curriculum and has very few of those pesky minorities to lower their test scores they ranked well.

Montana ranked 46/49 in education input and social impact they were a robust 42/50 thanks to low wages, a lack of college degrees and the number of books checked out of libraries.

In the above data, there is a strong negative relationship between the percentage of minorities in a state and the educational output.
 
Can you two please take this to the Off Topic section.
 
PapaG said:
I'm not sure why Montana was brought up in the first place. Seems irrelevant to this discussion. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Not sure why you suggest I would be the person behind the Panthers fan account, I have never felt the need to hide when I have something to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top