ACC Player Ratings - Mid-Season

[pfrduke]

Last week, SeattleIrish mentioned a poster on IC who ran player ratings, and requested that someone try to post them over here. That poster's handle is unc92sax, and here are the ratings (note: I am just a messenger - I have no idea how the ratings are computed, other than what's mentioned below; used with unc92sax's permission).

A+ RATINGS
none

A RATINGS
1) .856 Lawson (UNC)
2) .842 Paulus (DU)
3) .807 Rivers (CU)
4) .765 Nelson (DU)
5) .754 Singletary (UVA)
6) .750 Causey (GT)

B RATINGS
7) .717 Hansbrough (UNC)
8) .705 Hayes (MD)
9) .676 Morrow (GT)
10) .674 Hammonds (CU)
11) .667 Allen (VT)
12) .656 Peacock (GT)
13) .655 Rice (BC)
14) .643 Douglas (FSU)
15) .639 Gist (MD)
16) .638 Scheyer (DU)
17) .635 Fells (NCSU)
18) .632 Collins (UM)
19) .627 Vasquez (MD)
20) .617 Johnson (WF)
21) .615 Hickson (NCSU)
22) .613 Mays (CU)
23) .612 Thompson (UNC)
24) .610 Henderson (DU)
25) .606 Joseph (UVA)
26) .600 Thompson (VT)
27) .598 Oates (BC)
28) .591 Vassallo (VT)
29) .588 Singler (DU)
30) .577 Mims (FSU)
31) .568 Grant (NCSU)
32) .564 Osby (MD)
33) .543 Oglesby (CU)
34) .529 Booker (CU)
35) .521 Smith (GT)
36) .517 Teague (WF)
37) .511 Smith (WF)
38) .509 Dews (UM)

C RATINGS
39) .496 Echefu (FSU)
40) .486 McClinton (UM)
41) .479 Ellington (UNC)
42) .464 Green (UNC)
43) .458 Tucker (MD)
44) .457 Skeen (WF)
45) .455 Washington (VT)
46) .454 Delaney (VT)
47) .440 King (UM)
48) .436 Gonzalez (NCSU)
49) .417 Baker (UVA)
49) .417 Rich (FSU)
51) .410 McFarland (WF)
52) .407 Stitt (CU)
53) .399 Diane (UVA)
54) .394 Hurdle (UM)
55) .384 Spears (BC)
56) .380 Milbourne (MD)
57) .377 Blair (BC)
58) .372 Thorns (VT)
59) .362 Sanders (BC)
60) .356 Reid (FSU)
61) .345 Swann (FSU)
62) .334 Ginyard (UNC)
63) .327 Asbury (UM)
64) .302 Hale (WF)
65) .296 McCauley (NCSU)
66) .275 Bell (GT)
67) .273 Clinch (GT)
68) .270 Thomas (DU)
69) .266 Paris (BC)
70) .254 Scott (UVA)

D RATINGS
71) .230 Costner (NCSU)
72) .002 Pettinella (UVA)

F RATINGS
none

TEAM SEASON RATINGS (Includes all players' ACC stats; NOT PACE-ADJUSTED)

.664 Duke
.658 North Carolina
.630 Maryland
.607 Clemson
.562 Georgia Tech
.554 Boston College
.493 Wake Forest
.461 N.C. State
.455 Miami
.432 Florida State
.417 Virginia Tech
.406 Virginia

OPPONENT SEASON RATINGS

.409 Duke
.444 Virginia Tech
.463 Clemson
.506 Georgia Tech
.507 Florida State
.551 Miami
.561 N.C. State
.567 North Carolina
.567 Virginia
.568 Maryland
.589 Wake Forest
.604 Boston College

TEAM vs OPPONENT QUOTIENT
1.623 Duke
1.313 Clemson
1.160 North Carolina
1.111 Georgia Tech
1.109 Maryland
.939 Virginia Tech
.917 Boston College
.852 Florida State
.837 Wake Forest
.826 Miami
.822 N.C. State
.715 Virginia

EXPLANATION:
Using player stats, I came up with a way to rate player productivity based on stats per minute played.

Based on the official box score, players get positive rating points for the obvious things; rebounds, points scored, blocks, assist, and steals. They lose rating points for fouls and turnovers. Shooting percentages also effect the ratings, factored by how many shots are attempted. Basically, shooting exactly 50% 2pt-FGs, 33% 3pt-FGs, or 75% FTs equals 0 rating points. Anything above those percentages will increase rating points and anything below those percentages will reduce rating points. Finally, the total rating points are divided by the minutes played.

I also assign grades based on the ratings.

A+ is 1.000+ (Star Player!)
A is .750 to .999
B is .500 to .749
C is .250 to .499
D is .000 to .249
F is for a negative rating (doing more bad than good)

[shadowfax336]

eh, I mean I'm as big a Paulus fan as anybody, and I've enjoyed watching Causey in the 2 GT games I've seen this year, but my eyes are telling me that these rankings are a bit on the unreliable side...

plus there seems to be a rather strong trend towards favoring scoring point guards (Lawson, Paulus, Singletary, Causey, Rivers, Hayes) are 6 of the top 8...
and yeah I know that Rivers isn't playing the point for clemson this year, but he did some last year...)

[CDu]

eh, I mean I'm as big a Paulus fan as anybody, and I've enjoyed watching Causey in the 2 GT games I've seen this year, but my eyes are telling me that these rankings are a bit on the unreliable side...

plus there seems to be a rather strong trend towards favoring scoring point guards (Lawson, Paulus, Singletary, Causey, Rivers, Hayes) are 6 of the top 8...
and yeah I know that Rivers isn't playing the point for clemson this year, but he did some last year...)

Agreed, although Rivers isn't in any way a point guard (nor was he last year). Last year, Hamilton and Hammonds played PG. Rivers has always been a shooting guard.

But even ignoring Rivers, I agree. That formula is heavily biased towards guards, and more specifically point guards. There is no way you can convince me that Causey deserves the 6th best rating among ACC players. And Paulus shouldn't be the #2 rated player, either.

Not only is it skewed towards point guards, it doesn't seem to do a good job of rating big men either. Oates rated higher than Singler? Collins above Hickson? Peacock above Gist, Osby, Singler, and Hickson? That's just an incredibly flawed metric.

[SeattleIrish]

Paulus is rated, by this metric, as the #2 player in the ACC, and 5 Duke players are B-rated or higher, with Duke being the only ACC team to have 2 "A" rated players.

One can argue the construct (although to no avail, if 92sax won't post here to explain it), but I do think this highlights how under-appreciated Greg has been, even among our own fans. I also think Duke's strong representation here does indicate the metric may be telling of SOMETHING.

s.i.

[darthur]

At least it's a nice change from Hollinger's NBA stats, which errs (strongly in my opinion) on the opposite side.

[sandinmyshoes]

All the statistical formats are fun, but all are limited. There doesn't seem to be a format that can really capture two of basketball's most important aspects, heart and intangibles. For every stat tracked in basketball game I think there are dozens of untracked events. Coaches keep even more stats than we normally see and make note of even more Screens. Passes that set up the pass that is credited with the assist. Deflections. Tip outs. Defensive rotations. That presence of mind that some players have to instinctively know that a guy is weak going to his left, or that a defender will bite on ball fakes. I love this game.

[CDu]

Paulus is rated, by this metric, as the #2 player in the ACC, and 5 Duke players are B-rated or higher, with Duke being the only ACC team to have 2 "A" rated players.

One can argue the construct (although to no avail, if 92sax won't post here to explain it), but I do think this highlights how under-appreciated Greg has been, even among our own fans. I also think Duke's strong representation here does indicate the metric may be telling of SOMETHING.

s.i.

I disagree. It only highlights that fact if you believe in the metric. Since I don't believe, for example, that:

1. Peacock should be rated higher than Gist, Osby, Singler, etc;
2. Causey should be the #6 rated player; or
3. Point guards are 5 of the top 8 players;

I have no reason to believe that Paulus is really under-appreciated.

That's not to say that Paulus isn't under-appreciated. He may in fact be under-appreciated, but this metric does nothing to show that. Invalid measures don't validate someone's performance.

[gw67]

I started another thread yesterday summarizing the ACC player rankings put together by a poster on the Maryland site. I liked his/her ranking system because there is a good correlation between the ratings and the All ACC selections for the last several years. That system seems to give equal weight to big men, point guards and perimeter players. I've repeated my post below. By the way, for those who only watch ACC games with Duke, one of the reasons that point guards score high is that there are a number of good point guards in the ACC this year.

"I note that a poster on the Maryland site has provided a tabulation of player rankings through Saturday’s games. I bring this up because he has been doing this for years and there is a pretty good correlation between his rankings and All ACC teams. I don’t know if it is proper to link to their site and besides I wouldn’t want to harm Duke fan orthodoxy so I will provide a summary and my thoughts instead. I note that his approach has a factor for winning so Duke and UNC are well represented.

• No matter how he slices the data (all games, ACC games only, ACC games only without winning factor), the top 3 players are Hansbrough, Nelson and Lawson.
• When winning is considered, 5 Duke players are in the top 11 players for all games and the top 16 players for ACC games only. The big surprise in both cases is the 2nd ranked Duke player – Paulus.
• In ACC games only, Maryland players, Gist, Vasquez and Hayes join Paulus, Singler, Scheyer and Henderson from Duke and Rivers from Clemson to make up the 8 players behind the big three. Rice is 13th and Singletary is 34th.
• In ACC games without the winning factor included, only Paulus joins Nelson in the top 15 players. Gist is 4th and Rice moves up to 5th. Vasquez, Hayes and Rivers remain in the top 10. Singletary moves up to 12th. Singler is 16th and Scheyer and Henderson are 23-24.

There are still a bunch of games to be played and Lawson needs to recover from his injury but these rankings would seem to indicate that Hansbrough, Nelson, Lawson, Rice and Gist may be the frontrunners."

gw67

[shadowfax336]

that seems much more reasonable...

I don't think anybody could gripe too much about a
Lawson
Rice
Nelson
Gist
Hansborough

lineup, except for UVA fans, and those who would try to (unreasonably) claim that UNC shouldn't have more 1st teamers than Duke if Duke is leading the conference

[CDu]

I started another thread yesterday summarizing the ACC player rankings put together by a poster on the Maryland site. I liked his/her ranking system because there is a good correlation between the ratings and the All ACC selections for the last several years. That system seems to give equal weight to big men, point guards and perimeter players. I've repeated my post below. By the way, for those who only watch ACC games with Duke, one of the reasons that point guards score high is that there are a number of good point guards in the ACC this year.

"I note that a poster on the Maryland site has provided a tabulation of player rankings through Saturday’s games. I bring this up because he has been doing this for years and there is a pretty good correlation between his rankings and All ACC teams. I don’t know if it is proper to link to their site and besides I wouldn’t want to harm Duke fan orthodoxy so I will provide a summary and my thoughts instead. I note that his approach has a factor for winning so Duke and UNC are well represented.

• No matter how he slices the data (all games, ACC games only, ACC games only without winning factor), the top 3 players are Hansbrough, Nelson and Lawson.
• When winning is considered, 5 Duke players are in the top 11 players for all games and the top 16 players for ACC games only. The big surprise in both cases is the 2nd ranked Duke player – Paulus.
• In ACC games only, Maryland players, Gist, Vasquez and Hayes join Paulus, Singler, Scheyer and Henderson from Duke and Rivers from Clemson to make up the 8 players behind the big three. Rice is 13th and Singletary is 34th.
• In ACC games without the winning factor included, only Paulus joins Nelson in the top 15 players. Gist is 4th and Rice moves up to 5th. Vasquez, Hayes and Rivers remain in the top 10. Singletary moves up to 12th. Singler is 16th and Scheyer and Henderson are 23-24.

There are still a bunch of games to be played and Lawson needs to recover from his injury but these rankings would seem to indicate that Hansbrough, Nelson, Lawson, Rice and Gist may be the frontrunners."

gw67

Having not seen the complete list, at least your top 10 seems reasonable. Much more reasonable than the other one. Any metric that has Causey rated ahead of Hansbrough in an overall player rating is quite simply wrong.

[MarkD83]

The metric is weighted towards guards since categories such as assists and steals are more guard oriented stats. Blocks are for the big men but guards can have a few of those and in any event there are only 2-3 blocks per game whereas there may be 12-14 assists or 10-12 steals.

The idea that this metric is flawed brings out a deeper question.

For big men to have a good game they need to get the ball where they can "do some damage". To stop a big man you can have an equally good big man or guards that can stop the big man from getting the ball.

To stop a good guard you need good guards. A good big man can't do anything against a good guard. So ton win do you want good guards or good big men?

Answer: Both but Duke is 9-0 with alot of good perimeter players.

[CDu]

The metric is weighted towards guards since categories such as assists and steals are more guard oriented stats. Blocks are for the big men but guards can have a few of those and in any event there are only 2-3 blocks per game whereas there may be 12-14 assists or 10-12 steals.

The idea that this metric is flawed brings out a deeper question.

For big men to have a good game they need to get the ball where they can "do some damage". To stop a big man you can have an equally good big man or guards that can stop the big man from getting the ball.

To stop a good guard you need good guards. A good big man can't do anything against a good guard. So ton win do you want good guards or good big men?

Answer: Both but Duke is 9-0 with alot of good perimeter players.

I'd take a team of Tyler Hansbroughs or Kyle Singlers long before I'd take a team of Matt Causeys. Same with any number of players listed after Causey. It's a flawed metric.

[MarkD83]

I'll agree with you about Causey.

However, UNC's latest woes (if you can call 7-2 woes) could be their guard play.

Singler is an interesting case however. Would you take Hansborough on a team with poor guard play or Singler on a team without a frontcourt?

[pfrduke]

I'd take a team of Tyler Hansbroughs or Kyle Singlers long before I'd take a team of Matt Causeys. Same with any number of players listed after Causey. It's a flawed metric.

Merely for the record (not necessarily to defend the metric), this is somewhat skewed because: a) it's only ACC play, and b) it was through about 7-8 games for each team.

Matt Causey thus had the disproportionate benefit of his ridiculous 30-point performance. Also, Causey hasn't played very many minutes (relatively speaking), so his numbers on a per-40 basis are high - still below Hansbrough's in scoring, but I think north of 23 pts per 40 through the first 7 or so games. He also has good shooting percentage, which Hansbrough did not for the first 7 or so conference games.

The metric may, in fact, be flawed. But it's equally likely that there are sample size issues coming into play. I'd potentially reserve judgment of the relative merits of the rating metric until the end of the season, when there's a broader spectrum of games to use.

[SeattleIrish]

I disagree. It only highlights that fact if you believe in the metric. Since I don't believe, for example, that:

1. Peacock should be rated higher than Gist, Osby, Singler, etc;
2. Causey should be the #6 rated player; or
3. Point guards are 5 of the top 8 players;

I have no reason to believe that Paulus is really under-appreciated.

That's not to say that Paulus isn't under-appreciated. He may in fact be under-appreciated, but this metric does nothing to show that. Invalid measures don't validate someone's performance.

CDu:

Thanks for the post. You may feel the measurement is invalid because it, "(T)hat formula is heavily biased towards guards, and more specifically point guards", but how many people, even Duke fans, have been talking about Greg Paulus being one of the top guards in the ACC, let alone the #2 point guard?

Perhaps YOU have been singing Greg's praises during conference play (?), but I don't think many folks have been appreciating Greg as much as this ranking does. :D



s.i.

[CDu]

CDu:

Thanks for the post. You may feel the measurement is invalid because it, "(T)hat formula is heavily biased towards guards, and more specifically point guards", but how many people, even Duke fans, have been talking about Greg Paulus being one of the top guards in the ACC, let alone the #2 point guard?

Perhaps YOU have been singing Greg's praises during conference play (?), but I don't think many folks have been appreciating Greg as much as this ranking does. :D



s.i.


Except that, again, any formula that rates Peacock higher than Gist, Singler, Osby, Mays, and Hickson among PF/C can't be taken seriously. Similarly, any system that rates Causey ahead of Hayes, Rice, and Vazquez among PG can't be taken seriously. It's not just that it rates PG too high. It also does a terrible job of rating players within a position.

I don't think anything is worth noting from this rating system. The fact that it does an incredibly poor job of rating across positions as well as within positions makes any reasonable analysis moot. Invalid metrics lead to invalid results.

Paulus may be the second-best PG in the ACC this year (though I'm inclined to say not), but this isn't the metric to validly support that argument.

[darthur]

The metric is weighted towards guards since categories such as assists and steals are more guard oriented stats. Blocks are for the big men but guards can have a few of those and in any event there are only 2-3 blocks per game whereas there may be 12-14 assists or 10-12 steals.

All these metrics are inherently flawed.

Personally, I have always thought the worst offender is rebounds. Anybody at all can get maybe 7 or 8 rebounds a game by playing center for 40 minutes, blocking out a little, and picking up the garbage. That is not a good performance; that is adequate at best. But if a guard gets those rebounds by immediately running to the basket after a shot, and sneaking in/over opposing players, then he is giving the team a major lift. Think DeMarcus Nelson. Thus, 5 rebounds for a player permanently under the basket for your team are far less impressive than 5 rebounds for a perimeter player.

There are other examples though. Think point guards and assists. If you are getting the ball on every fast break, you *better* be getting some assists (or baskets). Otherwise, you are actively hurting your team. Similarly, a team is not going to run the ball through all 5 players every possession. If you are holding onto the ball 10 seconds every possession, you had *better* be scoring. If you can get your points without holding the ball much, it is far more valuable.

Basically there are roles on the team. And certain roles just get better stats than others. For yet another example, compare the offensive rebound guy versus the guy who stays back to hold off the opponent's fast break. The first guy gets offensive rebounds to pad his stats, the second guy gets... fouls.

Since different teams don't even have the same roles, the comparisons start to become very tricky. Any stats-based ranking system will have problems like this. That doesn't mean they aren't interesting though.