ESPN Top 500 Player Rankings

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Do I count the ones I have drank?
 
Draco said:
I thought it was rank of NBA player value. A ranking of impact would be stupid that would basically be a fantasy basketball ranking. This is what ESPN says:
Click to expand...

Why would it be stupid? Impact is completely different than fantasy ratings. Fantasy ratings are based on individual stats. Impact is how a player effects his team's chances of winning and includes things not measurable by the simple, basic stats used in calculating a fantasy rating.

For example, last year J.J. Hickson had great individual stats, and therefore an inflated fantasy rating. However, all the advanced stats, and anyone who watched him play, revealed that he had very little positive impact on his team's chance's of winning due to the fact that individual stats did not capture how weak the team's interior defense was with Hickson playing center. Hickson's individual rebounding stats were impressive, but the advanced stats showed the Blazers actually rebounded better as a team with Hickson on the bench. Again, inflated fantasy rating based on individual stats, but poor impact on team performance.

Of course, Neal Olshey, LaMarcus Aldridge , most Blazer fans and most other GMs recognized that Hickson's impact was much less than his individual stats would indicate. That's why Olshey let him walk without attempting to resign him, why LaMarcus Aldridge asked for a true center to bang down low for 25 minutes a game and why Hickson had to settle for a much lower contract that he hoped to get.

This includes both the quality and the quantity of his expected contributions, combined in one overall rating.
Click to expand...

To me that sounds a lot like another way of saying how much impact a player has on his team. A player who plays well (quality) and plays big minutes (quantity) will have the greatest impact on his team's performance and will therefore, be ranked highly in this Top 500 list. Which is why I think Robin Lopez, our starting center, will have greater impact (and hence, a higher ranking) than Mo Williams, our backup combo guard.

BNM
 
I'd be interested in rankings of players pure aptitudes. I don't think an inferior player should rise in ranks because nobody on his team plays his position. Nor should a player be penalize because he has very good teammates at his position. I'd be most curious how all NBA guys would be drafted if coaches got to pick players playground style but for only the next season irrespective of age or contract. That's what I initially thought these rankings were. Oh well.

So McCollum would've been ranked significantly higher if he played on the Bobcats? That makes these ranks far less useful.
 
#130 Wes Mathews

Last year he was #109
 
ESPN projects Wes Matthews as slightly above the average 5th man.

The results of the bench rankings is complete. Our second 5 have a net average of 0.74 above the league average. This agrees with what I thought and what I was hoping for. Our third five probably won't play much, and ESPN doesn't think they should: 1.0 Below the league average.

Update ("Down" to 129):
Blazer's 5th man: 4.3, Average 5th man: 4.5 >>>>> Net: +0.2
-------
Blazer's 6th man: 5.6, Average 6th man: 5.5 >>>>> Net: -0.1
Blazer's 7th man: 6.2, Average 7th man: 6.5 >>>>> Net: +0.3
Blazer's 8th man: 6.7, Average 8th man: 7.5 >>>>> Net: +0.8
Blazer's 9th man: 6.8, Average 9th man: 8.5 >>>>> Net: +1.7
Blazer's 10th man: 8.5, Average 10th man: 9.5 >>>>> Net: +1.0
-------
Blazer's 11th man: 12.3, Average 11th man: 10.5 >>>>> Net: -1.8
Blazer's 12th man: 12.6, Average 12th man: 11.5 >>>>> Net: -1.1
Blazer's 13th man: 13.7, Average 13th man: 12.5 >>>>> Net: -1.2
Blazer's 14th man: 14.1, Average 14th man: 13.5 >>>>> Net: -0.6
Blazer's 15th man: 14.7, Average 15th man: 14.5 >>>>> Net: -0.2

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

5th man Wes Matthews (130) is ranked as 4.3rd man
-------
6th man Mo Williams (169) is ranked as a 5.6th man
7th man C. J. McCollum (185) is ranked as 6.2th man
8th man Dorrell Wright (200) is ranked as 6.7th man
9th man Thomas Robinson (204) is ranked as 6.8th man
10th man Leonard (255) is ranked as 8.5th man
-------
11th man Watson (370) is ranked as a 12.3rd man
12th man Barton (379) is ranked as a 12.6th man
13th man Crabbe (412) is ranked as a 13.7th man
14th man Claver (422) is ranked as a 14.1st man
15th man Freeland (441) is ranked as a 14.7th man
 
Here's how the players have changed from last year to this summer:

We're currently at #129.
The rankings of Damian Lillard and Robin Lopez will show positive improvement.

The ranking for Wes Matthews went down likely because of the team's overall record last year (Batum may also suffer this fate).

The ranking of Meyers Leonard went up, so he played slightly better than ESPN rankers thought he would.

The rankings of the Williams and Wright went down which explains why we were able to get them cheaply (actually it's a chicken and egg thing).

The rankings for Thomas Robinson went up slightly, so despite the common perception that he had a disappointing season, his rating went up.
-------

LaMarcus Aldridge:
2012=20, 2013=x, improvement = ?​
Nicolas Batum:
2012=63, 2013=x, improvement = ?​
Wesley Matthews:
2012=109, 2013=130, improvement = -21​
Mo Williams:
2012=125, 2013=169, improvement = -44​
Robin Lopez:
2012=169, 2013=x, improvement = ?​
Dorrell Wright:
2012=182, 2013=200, improvement = -18​
Damian Lillard:
2012=211, 2013=x, improvement = ?​
Thomas Robinson:
2012=215, 2013=204, improvement = +11​
Meyers Leonard:
2012=330, 2013=255, improvement = +25​
 
Last edited:
Draco said:
So McCollum would've been ranked significantly higher if he played on the Bobcats? That makes these ranks far less useful.
Click to expand...

In theory, because he'd be playing more minutes (that's the quantity part of the equation).

While these rankings may "reward" or "penalize" individual players based on the quality of their teammates, I think it's interesting from a team standpoint - which is the approach Wizard Mentor is taking. How do our starters compare to the rest of the league's starters? Ditto for our top bench players. That's what I find interesting, because if these rankings are reasonably accurate, it should give some indication of expected team success - which is what interests me most.

Of course, they still have to play the games, there will be injuries, some players will have unexpected breakout years, others will see their performance decline more rapidly than expected, etc. But hey, it's October and we're still 8 weeks away from the start of the season. So, this gives us something to talk about.

BNM
 
ESPN projects Robin Lopez as significantly worse than the average 4th man.
ESPN projects Wes Matthews as slightly above the average 5th man.

My feeling is that it isn't that Robin Lopez is "great", but that his skills align so well with our team needs that he fits like a glove. He will be much more valuable to the team than his ranking suggests.

The results of the bench rankings is complete. Our second 5 have a net average of 0.74 above the league average. This agrees with what I thought and what I was hoping for. Our third five probably won't play much, and ESPN doesn't think they should: 1.0 Below the league average.

Update (To 126):
Blazer's 4th man: 4.3, Average 5th man: 3.5 >>>>> Net: -0.8
Blazer's 5th man: 4.3, Average 5th man: 4.5 >>>>> Net: +0.2
-------
Blazer's 6th man: 5.6, Average 6th man: 5.5 >>>>> Net: -0.1
Blazer's 7th man: 6.2, Average 7th man: 6.5 >>>>> Net: +0.3
Blazer's 8th man: 6.7, Average 8th man: 7.5 >>>>> Net: +0.8
Blazer's 9th man: 6.8, Average 9th man: 8.5 >>>>> Net: +1.7
Blazer's 10th man: 8.5, Average 10th man: 9.5 >>>>> Net: +1.0
-------
Blazer's 11th man: 12.3, Average 11th man: 10.5 >>>>> Net: -1.8
Blazer's 12th man: 12.6, Average 12th man: 11.5 >>>>> Net: -1.1
Blazer's 13th man: 13.7, Average 13th man: 12.5 >>>>> Net: -1.2
Blazer's 14th man: 14.1, Average 14th man: 13.5 >>>>> Net: -0.6
Blazer's 15th man: 14.7, Average 15th man: 14.5 >>>>> Net: -0.2

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

4th man Robin Lopez (128) is ranked as 4.3rd man
5th man Wes Matthews (130) is ranked as 4.3rd man
-------
6th man Mo Williams (169) is ranked as a 5.6th man
7th man C. J. McCollum (185) is ranked as 6.2th man
8th man Dorrell Wright (200) is ranked as 6.7th man
9th man Thomas Robinson (204) is ranked as 6.8th man
10th man Leonard (255) is ranked as 8.5th man
-------
11th man Watson (370) is ranked as a 12.3rd man
12th man Barton (379) is ranked as a 12.6th man
13th man Crabbe (412) is ranked as a 13.7th man
14th man Claver (422) is ranked as a 14.1st man
15th man Freeland (441) is ranked as a 14.7th man
 
Here's how the players have changed from last year to this summer:

We're currently at #126.
The ranking of Damian Lillard will show positive improvement.

The ranking for Robin Lopez has gone up by 41 spots. ESPN is acknowledging that RoLo will now be a starter and that he should be a starter. This is a profound improvement considering he was probably penalized for being on a losing team.

The ranking for Wes Matthews went down likely because of the team's overall record last year (Batum may also suffer this fate).

The ranking of Meyers Leonard went up, so he played slightly better than ESPN rankers thought he would.

The rankings of the Williams and Wright went down which explains why we were able to get them cheaply (actually it's a chicken and egg thing).

The rankings for Thomas Robinson went up slightly, so despite the common perception that he had a disappointing season, his rating went up.
-------

LaMarcus Aldridge:
2012=20, 2013=x, improvement = ?​
Nicolas Batum:
2012=63, 2013=x, improvement = ?​
Wesley Matthews:
2012=109, 2013=130, improvement = -21​
Mo Williams:
2012=125, 2013=169, improvement = -44​
Robin Lopez:
2012=169, 2013=128, improvement = 41​
Dorrell Wright:
2012=182, 2013=200, improvement = -18​
Damian Lillard:
2012=211, 2013=x, improvement = ?​
Thomas Robinson:
2012=215, 2013=204, improvement = +11​
Meyers Leonard:
2012=330, 2013=255, improvement = +25​
 
In addition to the things you mention, what I find interesting is the national consensus on our individual players. I happily admit to biases in my own judgement and it's nice to compare.

Boob-No-More said:
In theory, because he'd be playing more minutes (that's the quantity part of the equation).

While these rankings may "reward" or "penalize" individual players based on the quality of their teammates, I think it's interesting from a team standpoint - which is the approach Wizard Mentor is taking. How do our starters compare to the rest of the league's starters? Ditto for our top bench players. That's what I find interesting, because if these rankings are reasonably accurate, it should give some indication of expected team success - which is what interests me most.

Of course, they still have to play the games, there will be injuries, some players will have unexpected breakout years, others will see their performance decline more rapidly than expected, etc. But hey, it's October and we're still 8 weeks away from the start of the season. So, this gives us something to talk about.

BNM
Click to expand...
 
Climate science is more precise than this.
 
#115 Jarrett Jack ranked better than all but three Blazers. I thought he was a great guard off the bench for us but fans really hated on him his last year here.
 
Draco said:
#115 Jarrett Jack ranked better than all but three Blazers. I thought he was a great guard off the bench for us but fans really hated on him his last year here.
Click to expand...

I think he did too many things that Roy did, so he couldn't show off his skills properly.
 
#114 for Oladipo at first glance is about right. However, they're going to try to make him a PG which he has never done, so I think it should lower.
 
We'll, that or maybe the fact that he's a much better player now the he was six years ago in Portland. He's improved significantly in the five seasons since he last played for the Blazers.

Still this isn't another Jermaine O'Neal situation. It's not like Jarrett was buried on the bench here, didn't get any minutes and blossomed into an all-star the instant we traded him. He got plenty of minutes in Portland and his improvement since leaving has been much more gradual.

For one thing, he's reduced his turnovers significantly over the last five seasons. His last year in Portland his TOV% was 19.6. The last two seasons it was 14.1 and 14.3. I liked Jarrett a lot when he was here, but he was a turnover machine. Perhaps some of those fans who didn't like him weren't so stupid after all.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
For one thing, he's reduced his turnovers significantly over the last five seasons. His last year in Portland his TOV% was 19.6. The last two seasons it was 14.1 and 14.3. I liked Jarrett a lot when he was here, but he was a turnover machine. Perhaps some of those fans who didn't like him weren't so stupid after all.

BNM
Click to expand...

I think playing in a system less predictable in Indiana was the cure for JJ.
 
There's a picture of Carlos Boozer guarding Nikola Vucevic (who is #97).

Boozer not listed yet, so he's maybe top 90 players?

What a shock.
 
Denny Crane said:
There's a picture of Carlos Boozer guarding Nikola Vucevic (who is #97).

Boozer not listed yet, so he's maybe top 90 players?

What a shock.
Click to expand...

Boozer should be a top 60 player. He is still a good rebounder and an efficient scorer but his D sucks and he is a very overpaid player.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
 
Rhal said:
Boozer should be a top 60 player. He is still a good rebounder and an efficient scorer but his D sucks and he is a very overpaid player.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Do teams like to have top 60 players?

EDIT: he was #67 in the previous ratings.
 
Denny Crane said:
Do teams like to have top 60 players?

EDIT: he was #67 in the previous ratings.
Click to expand...

There is something here I'm missing. Did the bulls amnesty boozer and I missed it or are you trying to point out boozer is a decent player after everyone shat on him all summer in the hypothetical Bulls LMA trade thread?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
 
Rhal said:
There is something here I'm missing. Did the bulls amnesty boozer and I missed it or are you trying to point out boozer is a decent player after everyone shat on him all summer in the hypothetical Bulls LMA trade thread?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I'm surprised at some of the ratings. And that Boozer is as good as ESPN says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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