Self Editor

Forum: hoop
Page 8036
Subject: PROFL Experts League

Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 09:36

This year, I am going to be in two "expert" Hoops leagues. Last year, I finished 4th in a 12-team "Dirty Dozen" League, and will be competing in that league again this year as well. In addition, I'm also in a PROFL league (more on that in a moment). Both leagues are sponsored and organzied by FantasyRef.com.

I'm still not clear on the particulars of our Dirty Dozen draft this year, but the PROFL draft has just started. As I did last year, I'll post the results of this draft as it unfolds. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts, as I found your input last year to be helpful in clarifying my thinking, and in providing some alternative ideas.

The PROFL is actually a four sport league, with 12 teams competing in each of the four major sports, and some sort of consolidated ranking at the end of the full year - I'm just running the basketball leg of one team. There is more info about this league at FantasyRef, although the Hoops info is still based on last season, I believe.

We are using traditional roto scoring with eight standard categories: Points, Assists, Rebounds, Steals, Blocks, 3-pointers, FG%, and FT%. This is the same format used in the ESPN leagues, which is convenient because the ESPN player rater is a relevant resource, (even though it is based on last year's stats).

I get the first pick, and then the picks snake back and forth. So I don't pick again until #24 and #25. I'm not sure I like that position, but it's the luck of the draw. It is a slow (email) draft, and we'll be doing well if we can get this done before the season starts!

Here are the league participants (in 1st round draft order):
1.01 Dave Hall (RotoGuru)
1.02 Kip Ludwig (not sure of his affiliation, if any)
1.03 Adam Slotnick (Jackpotsports)
1.04 Ken Slight (MonsterBasketball
1.05 Liss - (RotoWire)
1.06 Dave Fitzpatrick (HoopsAvenue)
1.07 Georgoplous (BasketballGuys)
1.08 McLaughlin (FRef)
1.09 Gentles (ProFantasySports)
1.10 McRae - (Sportsline)
1.11 Langendorf - (Sporting News)
1.12 Connors - (FantasyRef)

Along with each pick, we are expected to provide a brief commentary. My experience last year is that most managers waited until after the draft was over to do this, so I may not be able to share much of that as we go along.

My first pick was Tim Duncan, who unfortunately is only eligible as a forward at this point, but may gain center eligibility sometime this season.

My commentary:
Tim Duncan, F – Duncan offers superior totals in rebounds and shot blocking, and also very good numbers for scoring and FG percent. Perhaps just as importantly, he isn’t likely to trash the team’s free throw percentage (as long as he doesn’t shoot like he did two years ago). He’s also been durable, playing in all 82 regular season games in each of the last two seasons. He was the top rated player (for this scoring format) last year, and is certainly capable of a repeat performance.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 09:41

I guess I should provide a few more particulars on league rules:

Roto categories used...
Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals, Blocks, FG%, FT%, Total 3s

16 Round draft
No roster limits on positions this year.
Must start (weekly):
2 centers
4 forwards
4 guards
2 flex

Player has to have played 10 games at the position last season according to ESPN. By looking at their splits, you can determine how many games played at each position.

Rookie positions will go by NBA.com listing.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 11:05

Second pick (Ludwig):
1.02 Kevin Garnett, F - Kevin Garnett, although considered most to be one of the five best players in basketball, is still underrated in fantasy terms. KG has been putting up 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists a night ever since he was a lower case G. Now that he's a big G, KG has learned to fill out the rest of the stat sheet. Last year, Garnett accumulated almost 100 steals and 130 blocks, shot over .800 from the line, and shot a decent percentage from the field. It's entirely possible that he also ended world hunger, and it was overlooked because his statistics are so bloody unbelievable.

comeback kid
ID: 249311711
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 11:16

Can't go wrong with TD at no.1! I recomend at least one point guard (or two!) with your next 2 picks, PG pickings will get scarce if you wait until rounds 4 and 5. I assume Payton Kidd and Francis will be gone but Miller or Nash (or both!) might be available. If you got those 2 guys you'd have an excellent start in every category (especially if you can get Miller who rebounds well).

I'm not sure if Liss was in it but I played in an all rotowire league last year (except myself) and crushed them all. Think it was mostly beat writers, but one of the founders was definitely in it, that was a fun time, the most incredible draft I ever had . . .

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 12:43

1.03 D. Nowitzki (F/C) - DAL (Slotnick)

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 13:00

Great to see this thread again Guru. It was a lot of fun to follow last year. Amazing that you picked number 1. Agree it is not optimal, but certainly better than picking 4th or 5th (IMHO). I prefer 7th or 8th in a 12 team league.

Will be interesting to see the next pick. I'll guess either Tmac, Pierce or Kidd.

Early guess for best available at 24 and 25: Marbury, Rose, LaFrentz, Nash, Cassell, R. Wallace, J. O'Neal.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 13:39

1.04 Paul Pierce – He's a great contributor in three categories and only hurts in one. After an up and down conference finals and an embarrassing World Basketball Championships, he may have something to prove this year. Plus he's played all 82 games the past two seasons.

YOUNGBUCK
ID: 99321812
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 14:33

do you think his point totals and attempts might go down due to the aquisition of Baker?

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 14:42

I don't. Baker is a role player when healthy, which isn't that often anymore. The team belongs to Pierce (and Walker).

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 14:48

1.05 RotoWire selects Kobe Bryant, LA Lakers with the fifth pick.

With Shaq ailing, Kobe will be expected to shoulder more of the load. Plus he put on 15 pounds of muscle in the offseason, and that should increase his durability and help him off the glass. Good FG and FT numbers, tons of points, some threes, steals and a few assists make Kobe a the best choice on the board at this point.

YOUNGBUCK
ID: 99321812
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 14:54

guru,

you think that kobe was a better pick than mcgrady?

comeback kid
ID: 249311711
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 14:58

I'm particularly interested in this thread because I will be drafting #2 out of 11 in a few days. I will take Duncan or Dirk (eligible at center). So I'm thinking along similar lines about building a well-rounded team from that draft position. . .

I've got 2 PGs (hopefully Nash and Miller) earmarked for rounds 2 and 3. If I can't get 2 that I'm satsified with I would also take a quality big man who shoots 80% at the line - either Shareef or the mailman. However, I'm quite confident that at least Nash will be there, which would make me very happy - quality PGs and "sharpshooters" are relatively scarce rotisserie commodities, and he's both.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 14:58

Andrew Chizzik has replaced Chris Liss at the RotoWire manager.

(Wow. Not even through the first round of the drat and already one coach has been dumped!)

comeback kid
ID: 249311711
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 15:05

see, these rotowire guys do not represent . . .

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 15:07

I rank Kobe and McGrady pretty even.

McGrady is better in rebounds, blocks, and 3s.
Bryant is better in the shooting percentage categories - a lot better in FT%.

McGrady is probably better for a scoring system like TSN's, which doesn't isolate the value of individual statistical categories. But it's easy to overlook the value of those % categories in this roto scoring system. In particular, you'd like your guards to help you in FT%, because it's hard to find big men with good percentages (aside from Nowitzki). That might lead me to prefer Kobe slightly. (Incidently, it is what seriously hampers the value of Baron Davis.)

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 15:20

Here is the Nowitzki analysis:

1.03 - D. Nowitzki, F/C, DAL
We are thrilled to get Dirk at this spot. With Shaq out for a few weeks at the start of the season (and probably a few more during), Nowitzki was a logical pick here as he qualifies at center. In this roto league, Dirk will post great numbers across the board (except assists). How many centers do you know that can hit 125-150 threes?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 22:30

1.06 HoopsAvenue - G Tracy McGrady

T-Mac will give us solid contributions across the board in every category. Even with the possibility of another great player playing alongside him, we feel strongly that McGrady's fantasy value will not diminish.

Mike D
Donor
ID: 13823206
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 22:37

No surprises yet. Kidd likely next, though others like Payton/CWeb could sneak in.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 23:01

The official draft recap for the league is now posted at http://fantasyref.com/profl/basketball/draft01.html. It will supposedly be updated at least daily.

In most cases, I'll be able to keep this thread more current. But on Saturday, I'll be away from a computer for a good part of the day, and it's possible that the official site will be updated before I can update here. (Not likely, but possible.)

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Oct 19, 2002, 07:33

1.07 - Shaquile O'Neal. - For those that know me, you know I've been an advocate of Shaq being devalued in roto leagues. But being available at #7, he is clearly the top center and I can always tailor my draft to make up for the horrendous FT%... which was an almost-acceptable 55% last year.

1.08 Gary Payton,G,Seattle

The Glove hasn't slowed down yet. His teammates (Lewis,Norris,Radmanovic) should be better this year. Plus, he's durable. He played all 82 last year. Possibly the best scoring point guard in the league.

1.09 Jason Kidd,G, NJ Nets

With Payton off the board I had no choice to go with arguably the best all-round point guard to play in the NBA since Magic Johnson. Kidd brings it all to the table: points, assists, rebounds, steals, FT% and 3 pointers made - a rotisserie leaguer's dream. His FG% could be better (39.4% in 2001) but that is easy to overlook especially when you consider how much he contributes to the other categories. He's extremely durable as well playing in all 82 games last season. Kidd should have been a top 5 pick based on the league rules and scoring so I'm glad he fell to me at #9.

Ender
ID: 13443221
Sat, Oct 19, 2002, 10:31

I don't know if I'd call Kidd "extremely durable." How soon we forget the 2 years prior to last year...

Comeback Kid
ID: 249431410
Sat, Oct 19, 2002, 13:01

I'll believe a first placed rotisserrie team can be built around Shaq when I see it . . .

That guy better hope Ben Wallace and Baron Davis are available in rounds 2 and 3 . . .

Aris
ID: 56710623
Sun, Oct 20, 2002, 03:52

Don't you think that Shaq's FG% offsets his FT% problem? Much like as his FT% guarantess that you won't win the category, his FG% gives you an excellent chance to win. And then you have PTS, REB, BLK and about 4 assist/gm.

At no. 7, the only other players that I would conisder are CWebb and Francis but they both have durability issues. (Shaq always misses a few games but not as many as Webber and Francis.)

Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Oct 20, 2002, 14:36

C. Webb has been indicted for lieing to a grand jury. Which at least on paper carries possible serious jail time. Wonder how that affects his play/value?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Oct 20, 2002, 14:41

I'm sure that Shaq's FT% can be overcome, but it is a challenge, and limits the type of players that can fit into the rest of the lineup.

BTW, there haven't been any new picks in the last 24 hours. We've hit a bottleneck, evidently. It is going to be very tought to get this done before the season starts. Maybe we won't start until after the first week.

chuckball
Donor
ID: 58856303
Sun, Oct 20, 2002, 15:02

Maybe the bottleneck is because this was the guy that didn't back up all the team information at CBS Sportsline...

(They had a hardware failure that lost all the league info for everyone...at $120/league...heads are gonna roll at CBS for not having a backup that could be restored)

At any rate, good to see this thread again Guru. Good luck.

Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 34321201
Sun, Oct 20, 2002, 21:14

I am glad to see overt ineptitude at sportsfeline. The sooner that site is completely gone the better. Hope someone competent inherits their scoreboards. I will never forgive them for what they did to Sandbox.

wazaaap_guy
ID: 78101216
Sun, Oct 20, 2002, 21:16

what did they do?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 21, 2002, 09:54

1.10 Steve Francis, G, Houston

Comment: I started to take Webber at this spot, but his future is a bit shady due to his current off-court issues. I feel guards are just as important as forwards and Francis is the best guard available at this slot. He was one of the best rebounding guards last season. His rebounds will probably decrease with Yao Ming clogging up the middle, but Francis should still be solid in all the major categories.

comeback kid
ID: 249311711
Mon, Oct 21, 2002, 12:03

Best rotisserie studs available right now: Shawn Marion, Ray Allen, Elton Brand (depending on seriousness of health issues)

I'd probably take any of those 3 over Shaq in rotisserie. You can't go wrong sticking to a never take anyone with a statistical downside in the early rounds strategy, you just can't, unless you're satisfied with something less than a first-place finish. In the later rounds all the attractive sleeper picks invariably have some statistical downside, usually fg% or ft%. You can draft them with relative impunity if you exclusively draft statistically sound studs in the early rounds. Trust me, it's a huge difference maker. Let someone else draft Shaq, Antoine Walker, Baron Davis, etc . . .

Aris
ID: 399161218
Mon, Oct 21, 2002, 14:21

comeback kid: I agree. That's why the rankings of players with weaknesses should be lower. Shaq is still up there in my top 10 due to his dominance in at least 3 categories.

I expect Allen's numbers to increase after the departure of the Big Dog and that he reverts to his old durable self.

How do we know that Francis won't be bothered by headaches again? I had him last year and I'm still not sure if his headaches of mine were worse...

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 10:39

This draft is moving slug-butt slow. We may revert to a live drive at some point soon.

1.11 - skipped (Langendorf)
1.12 Shawn Marion-F-PHO
2.01 Ray Allen-G-MIL

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 11:42

1.11 Andre Miller
2.02 Antoine Walker

comeback kid
ID: 249311711
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 12:52

The guy who took Antoine is one less competitor to worry about. The guy who took Marion and Allen, however, is someone to watch out for (so far).

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 13:03

Yeah, I had both Marion and Allen ranked in my top ten.

I had Antoine ranked about #25.

Here's a recap so far:
1.01 Hall - Duncan - F - SAN
1.02 Ludwig - Garnett - F - MIN
1.03 Slotnick - Nowitzki - C - DAL
1.04 Slight - Pierce - G - BOS
1.05 Chizzik - Bryant - G - LAL
1.06 Fitzpatrick - McGrady - G - ORL
1.07 Georgoplous - O'Neal - C - LAL
1.08 McLaughlin - Payton - G - SEA
1.09 Gentles - Kidd - G - NJ
1.10 McRae - Francis - G - HOU
1.11 Langendorf - Andre Miller - G - LAC
1.12 Connors - Shawn Marion - F - PHO

2.01 Connors - Ray Allen - G -MIL
2.02 Langendorf - Antoine Walker - F - BOS

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 13:48

2.03 - Chris Webber

Commentary: Webber won't score as much as he has in the past, but he should still be a solid player overall. I expect him to score a lot while Bibby is out and pass more once Bibby returns.

wiggs@work
Donor
ID: 447432423
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 14:27

guru. I was just curious to find out why you ranked walker so low? 25 seems hard for me to believe out of a guy that could 3D on any given night.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 14:59

Walker is a killer in FG%. He shoots less than 40%, and he takes a ton of shots, so it has a disproportionate impact on a team average.

He makes positive contributions in 5 categories, and detracts in 3 (FG%, FT%, and blocks). His strongest category is 3 pointers, so he can be useful if the team otherwise has that weakness.

I should mention that I've noticed that my ranking system tends to penalize poor shooters more than some other ranking systems. For example, using per-game averages, I rank Walker #21 overall using last year's actual stats. ESPN ranked him #16 on the same basis.

Flying Polack
ID: 48914212
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 15:11

Don't be too hard on Antoine, 2 seasons ago he shot 41% and finished in the Top 10 of ESPN player rater (I can't find the link, but for some reason the number 6 is sticking in my head.) Other than that his numbers are almost the same. He could easily repeat that season, this year. I'm hoping the addition of Vin Baker has a positive effect on his shooting percentage.

At least that's what I'm hoping.

Farn@lab
ID: 9827515
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 15:14

wow, I have never heard Vin Baker spoken about in such context.

Usually the only positive effect he has is on
A) the local McDonald's profit
B) opposition's win percentage

comeback kid
ID: 249311711
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 15:25

There's *always* someone better to take than Antoine in rounds one and two. Sure he fills up a stat sheet, but you have an entire draft to develop statistical depth. Rome wasn't built in a day. It's all about drafting players who compliment each other. Even if he shoots 41% from the floor Antoine's downside is too severe. Maybe if he could shoot 80% from the line it would be more bearable.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 17:45

2.04 Elton Brand

Commentary: I just can't get enough of the all-rounders. Much like Kidd, Elton Brand puts up big numbers in nearly every categeory. He's a high percentage shooter (53% last season) who not only gives you points (18.2), rebounds (11.6) and blocks (2.0), but also finds the time to get at least a steal a game. The only worry with Brand is that he's coming off arthroscopic knee surgery but Clippers expect him to be ready for the season opener so his health is no longer a concern. Alot of positives, not too many negatives. Exactly what you want from an early draft pick.

Mike D
Donor
ID: 13823206
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 18:32

Looks like most of the players in post 5 will be available for you Guru. No one really sliding yet either.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 20:23

Here are the comments submitted for the 12th and 13th picks:

1.12 Shawn Marion: Marion was undoubtedly a roto stud the last 2 seasons and now that he's started to increase his range to 3 point territory, he may be the only player in the league that can truly help your team in all 8 categories. The scary part? He probably hasn't reached his full potential yet and could raise his game to yet another level this year.

2.1 Ray Allen: Allen is another type of player that I like in roto leagues. He was a top 5 roto player two years ago but slipped a bit last year while missing 13 games. A great shooter who will be among the league leaders in FT%, PPG and 3's and like my earlier pick, hurts you in no categories. With the Big Dog off to Atlanta look for for Allen to take full control of the team as the Bucks leader and goto guy this season.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 20:26

2.05 Shareef Abdur-Rahim

Comments: SAR puts up similar numbers to Marion but at the 4. I think the additions the Hawks made in the offseason will only make him better. He's almost automatic for 20/8 a game and has good % numbers as well.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 07:20

2.06 Vince Carter

Commentary: Worried a little about his durability, but we'll gamble on that... puts up points, rebounds, assists and FT. Not a bad pick for mid-2nd round.

2.07 Allen Iverson

Although Iverson will miss about 10 games every season, he'll give us a head start in points and steals. He does a decent job rebounding the ball for a guard and should have more assists this season with the new weapons around him. Blocks are low, but we aren't expecting that much from a guard in this category and we'll just have to make up for FG% with the rest of our roster.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 11:34

One name not yet mentioned in any of the above posts is Jason Terry. I have him ranked comparably with Cassell and slightly above Baron Davis and Steve Nash.

Do people think his numbers will be down this year?

Dave R
Leader
ID: 12441623
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 11:42

Guru, I'm no Yahoo expert by any means but I would find it hard to rank Terry ahead of Baron. Comparable to Cassell and Nash, OK.

I think Baron is near stud like in performance. Maybe there are factors in your league that would prove me wrong.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 11:46

The problem with Baron is his attrocious shooting percentages, especially FT% (58%). It is particularly difficult to recover from that FT%, because you generally look to guards to bring that number up.

wiggs@work
Donor
ID: 447432423
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 11:48

Its hard to argue with the guru. He seems to know just about everything about everyone.

Dave R
Leader
ID: 12441623
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 11:48

True, you'd think a guard especially could make FT's, I think I could do better

Farn
Donor
ID: 4921123
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 11:51

Take into account that Jason Terry will probably move to the SG to make room for Dickau in the starting lineup. His assists will probably dip a little from last year, but his scoring should see a slight gain.

Either way, I dont see Jason Terry ranking ahead of Baron, Cassell or Nash...

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 12:01

Terry is a very nice all-around player, but yeah, his scoring could go down this year. Hard to say though. He's in the same class as those other guys for sure (though Cassell makes me nervous). I'd also consider Stockton with that bunch, less flashy, but so incredibly solid.

Baron's another guy that someone else will always want before I do . . .

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 12:04

Personally, I like Nash the best. Took him ahead of all those guys. But my league this year rates 3pt%, whereas he might not actually *make* more 3s than those other guys . . .

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 12:08

Using last year's per-game averages, here are the ESPN player ratings (customized for this scoring system):

23. Jason Terry
24. Baron Davis
25. John Stockton
28. Steve Nash
29. Sam Cassell

Terry's strengths are 3 pointers (a category that is often underrecognized) and steals.

Davis is strong in 3-pt, assists , and steals, but is a big liability in shooting percentages.

Stockton is helped by good shooting percentages, as well as assists and steals.

Nash is good in the shooting categories, but is a big liability in steals. Again, you like to get a positive contribution in steals from your point guards, but Nash detracts in that factor.

Cassell is not as flashy in any single category, but strong across the board. His limitiation is durability.

Every player has plusses and minuses. Sometimes, I think it is helpful to assess how easy it is to compensate for the weaknesses, and when guards do not shoot free throws well, then you need to have some big men who can - like Dirk, for example. They are generally harder to land.

miguel p
ID: 44912013
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 12:15

I personally have Terry ranked a bit behind Nash and level with Baron, based strictly on early-round risk-aversion. I just haven't been able to figure out for certain what Atlanta wants to do with its backcourt (the few times I saw Terry play point, he didn't look very good, but a Dickau/Terry backcourt is too small), and I can't say for sure that Robinson will slide into that lineup without taking away any of Terry's points or 3s.

As a general rule, I try to take relatively sure things in the early rounds to make sure I have a solid foundation for my team in some of the stats, and then I'll take the appropriate gambles later on to try to fill in my weaknesses. The cost of a mid-round gamble not coming through is lower than that of an early-round gamble. That sounds obvious, because you're dealing with bigger stats from your early-rounders, but the statement still applies even for an equal under-achievement stat-wise (in terms of absolute totals) from the early- and mid-round guys, because the early guys tend to shape the rest of your draft.

If you're relatively confident in your projection for Terry's stats, then I can't argue with taking him early -- he could easily put up numbers that make it a good pick. But personally, I won't take that gamble (unless I learn something new before this Sunday at 3:45 pm EST).

Aris
ID: 56710623
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 13:04

Based striclty on last year's stats and a formula I'm working on for the last few of years (based on avearges and standard deviations of the players I expect to be drafted), I have them:

Nash
Terry
Cassell
Stockton
B Davis (way behind)

Maybe that's because I put too much emphasis on percentages (taking into account the number of shots) which helps Nash and kills Davis. If you assume that Nash and Terry might not repeat last year's performance, Cassell sits out games for ridiculous reasons and that Davis might make 65% of his FT% and 43% of his shots and that his number increased at the end of the season when he became the leader of the team, the new ranking is:

Nash
Terry
Stockton
Davis
Cassell

but the differences between them are smaller. I had Stockton and Nash in a league last year and finished second easily winning the percentages and steals (even with Nash).

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 14:31

2.08 Steve Nash

Comment: With terrific percentages, three pointers and assists, Nash will be a nice addition to our team in the late second round. His numbers have improved dramatically in each of the last few years and with the Mavs' style of play, we see no reason for him to stop now.

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 14:36

I'm starting to wonder whether these guys are spying on this thread . . .

skinneej
Sustainer
ID: 279151511
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 14:58

As the resident Atlanta hoops "expert", I'll give you my perception of the Hawks team. First, Kruger has stated Terry will move back to PG this season and Ira Newble will be the starting SG at the beginning of the season. They like his defense and hustle plus he doesn't take shots away from the big three. Glover and Dickau will come off the bench and provide scoring for the second string.

After watching three of the Hawks preseason games and reading player/coach comments in the paper, I think Terry and A-Rahim will defer some to BigDog. Looking at the shots attempted last season, Bigdog took 17.4, A-Rahim 16.8 and Terry 15.6 per game. I expect Terry's attempts will drop by at least 1 shot per game and he will be asked to set up the others more (which could improve on his 5.7 apg totals of last year). A-Rahim will not be affected as much as I believe G-Rob will open things up for him inside. The problem with the Big Three in Mil was they were all guards and had little to no post presence. The Atlanta Big Three will complement each other better.

My thoughts on the other guards mentioned:

Baron Davis-Yes his percentages hurt your team, but he is a good rebounding guard and is great in the steals category which is one I like to key in on. He's the best assist man of the other 4 mentioned and could be a top 10 player if only he pulled his shooting numbers up. I was surprised that his FT% dropped last season as players generally get better over the years. I look at how Malone and Duncan shot the first few years in the league from the stripe and how they improved significantly over the years. They average more than twice the attempts per game from the line so maybe Baron should go to the hoop more.

Steve Nash-solid shooting percentages from a guard and he helps you out in 3pm and assists. His numbers will likely stay about the same this season, but I have to wonder how Van Exel will affect him if he's not traded. After the trade last season that brought Van Exel and Lafrentz to Dallas, his numbers tailed off in March and April. I seem to remember him playing with some injuries and maybe missing some time plus Dallas may have been resting him as his minutes went down in April.

Sam Cassell-If he was not guaranteed to miss some time, he'd get a boost this season as he will have to pick up some of BigDog's production. I still like him over Nash and Terry this season.

Stockton-My all-time favorite player to watch will surely continue to put up the same solid numbers again this year. With a proven PG to back him up this year, Sloan may not feel the urge to rush him back into the game when the lead starts slipping away in the second half. Please don't retire John!

My rankings would thus be Baron, Cassell, Nash, Terry, and then Stockton. I tend to draft players with high shooting percentages, so I could eat Baron's poor numbers in those categories. Stockton tends to be overlooked even in "expert" leagues and I look to pick him up in the 4th round or trade for him later in the year. Stockton is being picked 40th on average in ESPN leagues so far. For non-keeper leagues he's still one of the best guards in the league.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 15:03

Three picks before my next two.

I'm guessing that Baron Davis will be gone. If so, I'll hopefully be able to get either Cassell or Terry. Don't know that I'd want both of them, though. Since I won't pick again until #48, I thought about shoring up the center slot. However, our rules for eligibility require that the player started 10 games at center last year. That means that none of Ben Wallace, Rasheed, Wallace, Jermaine O'Neal, or even Antonio Davis are eligible. The best centers available seem to be LaFrentz or Mutombo, and I'm not sure either warrants a pick this soon - although they will be gone by the next turn, no doubt. Besides, I've got Duncan's blocks to start with.

Thus, maybe I'm better off just going for the best player available. In addition to some of the forwards listed above, that list includes Stojakovic, Gasol, and Malone, Brent Barry (not sure I can expect a repeat of last year), Rose, Marbury, Stockton, ...

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 15:05

2.09 Rasheed Wallace

(no commentary provided yet)

biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 15:09

So you are having second thoughts on Terry, Guru?

It sounds like you've bumped Baron up over him.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 15:12

As another guide, here are the average draft picks for ESPN leagues so far this year. Since the scoring method is the same, this helps to sense where others rank the players. And while I am supposedly in an "experts league", I don't expect a lot of variation, at least not this early.

Note that Baron Davis has been picked #15 on average, and is the highest ranked player still available. The next three highest available picks are Gasol, Ben Wallace, and Malone, at 20-21-22. Curiously, Cassell and Terry are not going until 35 and 40. After Baron, the highest available PG is Marbury.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 15:13

I haven't decided on Baron. I'm generally assuming he'll be gone, so I won't have to decide!

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 15:49

Davis should go next, as much as I like to beat the stay away from bad % players drum, he would be a really nice compliment to Nowitzki.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 15:56

Here's the comment on Rasheed Wallace: Nothing great slipped to this pick so I decided to go with what I needed. Wallace scores, rebounds, and shoots threes well, plus I’ll get decent blocks, steals, and fg%. No assists, and he’s not great from the line, but that shouldn’t matter since he doesn’t get there too often. This won’t be the pick that costs me the league.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 16:00

I was thinking the same thing, comeback. Nowitzki and Baron do make a nice odd couple. Dirk shoots FTs like a guard, and Baron shoots 'em like a PF. Even so, the combo still shoots a little worse than average.

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 16:06

Guru, Davis may slip because of his back problem. That was not as big of an issue in the last couple weeks. Anyone drafting now has to give that a serious look. May be more of a lingering issue, which is a pain for him and his owners.

Back to post 5-----"Early guess for best available at 24 and 25: Marbury, Rose, LaFrentz, Nash, Cassell, R. Wallace, J. O'Neal."

Well, Nash and R. Wallace are gone. The others still remain. I have to believe Ben Wallace goes before you pick. B Davis ordinarily would too. If not, I'd grab Ben Wallace for sure and probably Davis if Wallace was gone.

That leaves Marbury, Rose, LaFrentz, Cassell, Jermo, Terry, Malone, Gasol as legitimate choices (in no order). There are a few others. I'd be thinking Gasol, then Marbury, then Malone. I really feel Marbury is primed for a great year, and would consider bumping him up here due to needing a PG (assists). If the draft continues to snake (and I guess it will), you'd quickly get a second choice could be very tough too. I'd then go Marbury, for a KG/Gasol/Marbury lineup.

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 16:13

Guru, for what it's worth I like these 4 players the best for you: Stockton, Malone, Terry, and Peja. Any combination other than Malone-Peja is solid.

Stockton-Malone: My favorite of the 3 combos. Clearly the most risk-averse choice (ironic to say given their ages). You're now off to not just a good start, but a great start in every category except 3 pts made. But looking at the espn player rater, many of the league leaders in 3s will clearly be available in later rounds. The shooting % stability here will also give you lots of flexibility in the long run. These are also the highest rated remaining players on the player rater.

Stockton-Terry: Along with Duncan, you're now off to a nice start in every category. A big man would have been nice, but you've already got the best. Plus, this might speed up the run on point guards (even more) so that a nicer big man than you'd expect to be available will trickle down to you in rounds 4-5.

Stockton-Peja: My least favorite of the 3 combos. I like Malone a lot more than Peja because of the assists and steals, but hey, that's why you got Stockton. Now you have a top 3pt specialist and your team ft% is looking even stronger. Also off to a nice across-the-board statistical start here.

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 16:23

Actually, yeah, throw Gasol in there. If he "takes it to the next level" this year, he'd be a first-round caliber player. My only concern is that the crowded frontcourt in Memphis will hold his stats in check, but no guts no glory.

Ref
ID: 28045169
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 16:29

I agree with Mike D, If ben wallace is on the board, it's a no brainer. baron will probably slip into the 3rd round with his back problems and lack of shooting %.

Rose is still being shopped around (who isn't though). I gotta beleive that he'll be a main scoring option but if the team in general can't score--he won't have the numbers.

I like Stockton, I took him at 3.3 (in one draft) though and think there are guys that will go before him.

wazaaap_guy
ID: 78101216
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 16:38

thought this was kind of funny, maybe they are reading this thread. here's what it says on fantasy ref about overrated players:

Baron Davis - G - Hornets
It’s become quite evident during the last 2 seasons that despite his ability to fill a stat sheet that he can’t shoot straight from anywhere. There will be several PG’s in your draft considered inferior to Davis (by most) such as Nash, Cassell, Stockton and Terry. I’d pick every one of them before drafting Davis.

Skip to My Lou
ID: 23942316
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 18:24

Guru,

Interestingly, I just encountered a startling similar situation in a 10-team ESPN draft, but the decision was made for me in the end.

As my pick was approaching, Davis; Nash; Terry; Cassell and Stockton we're all on the board. Davis went first, followed by Nash, Cassell and Stockton. To my considerable surprise, Terry fell into my lap.

In looking at the rosters of the teams ahead of me, I think the need for a "true point" guard in the assists sense appears to be the reason for the other teams' selections. When you stack up the numbers, comparing Terry to the others is a bit of apples and oranges. In fact, if I had to compare Terry to any other player in the league it would probably be Iverson. (The two are actually a very interesting and productive combo if you can take the fg% hit.)

That said, I think people who overlook Terry due to the fact that he is not a "true point guard" do so at their own risk. Certainly, a difference of two more assists a game should not be enough to justify the advantages that Terry brings to the table in scoring, three pointers and steals.

Just my $.02.

Skip

pax
ID: 579592012
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 21:15

Trust you instincts, Guru. I also have Terry ranked ahead of Nash, Cassell, Stockton, & Davis. Terry is the youngest & the least injury prone.

I have a hunch this will be his breakout year. A fre tidbits to support my hunch. Nash hasn't played an entire season healthy, ever. Cassell is sad that his best friend was shipped to ATL. Davis can't maintain a decent FG% or FT%, double wammy.

Take Terry.

(FYI: ESPN Avg. Picks is not a good judge of talent. I compared it to the Player Rater results at the end of the year, minimal corrrelation.)

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 22:01

I wasn't using the ESPN average picks as a gauge of talent. I was using it as an indication of when players might get taken.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 22:16

2.10 - skipped (timed out)
2.11 Baron Davis, G
2.12 Peja Stojakovic, F
3.01 Jason Terry, G

Baron Davis comments: Baron Davis is another stat sheet filler. Davis scored 18 points, dished out 8.4 assists and tallied 4.3 rebounds a game last year. Moreover, Davis racks up steals and threes. Even more startling were Davis' playoff stats of 22.6 points, 7.6 assists, 7.0 rebounds, and a whopping 3.56 steals over 9 games. Although Davis' shooting percentages are poor, at the tender age of 23 Davis still might improve in those areas.

I'll do my comments tomorrow, as I have another live draft yet tonight. However, I basically decided to go with my ranking model. I couldn't find a compelling reason to deviate at this point.

Mike D
Donor
ID: 13823206
Wed, Oct 23, 2002, 22:54

Wow. Can't wait to hear more Guru. I guess I can understand the statistical rationale behind Terry over Marbury, though I'm not a Terry believer this year. I think his breakout year may have been last year when they had all the injuries. This year he has Theo, Big Dog, and Reef t play with, which hurts some areas. The assumption is his assists are positively affected, but that may not be true if he plays a lot of 2 guard. He is starting off at the 1, but Newble at 2? Not for long. Marbury has the health issue but I think will have an outstanding year.

I also can't wait to hear why Ben Wallace has slipped this far. Peja over Wallace. Wow. That shocks me. Hope it works out, obviously, as none of us really "know" anything.

beastiemiked
Sustainer
ID: 298152019
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:16

I assume Guru didn't want Wallace because he doesn't qualify at center and he's already got TD.

Blooki
ID: 6838118
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:21

What position eligibility system is this?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:29

Here are my submitted comments:

2.12 - Peja Stojakovic - We’re already running low on good scorers, and Stojakovic offers solid contributions in all four shooting categories. While his other numbers aren’t flashy, they are not major liabilities, and I rank him as the
best available player at this stage of the draft.

3.01 - Jason Terry may be a bit of a surprise pick, as there are other available guards with wider recognition. The addition of Glenn Robinson and Dan Dickau may shift his stats slightly, but he should still provide solid scoring, assists, and especially steals. Last year, his numbers were good enough to warrant a 2nd round selection, and at age 25, he still has upside. Finally, in his 3 NBA seasons, he’s missed only 4 games. Call it a hunch.

My strength in this draft is most likely to result from quantative analysis, and not basketball savvy. I don't think Terry will have dramatically different stats vs. last year, and I rank him as a top 20 player with those numbers.

Ben Wallace just wasn't a good fit. Remember, I've already got Duncan. While Wallace is a rebounding and blocking monster, he kills the scoring and FT% categories (almost Shaq-like in his impact on FT%). This year, I rank him in the low 30s.

I did pick Wallace last year in the 4th round, and it was a great pick - but I had trouble compensating for his scoring and FT deficiencies, and also overachieved somewhat in boards and blocks. Even so, he would not have been a bad pick now, but "been there, done that." Decided to stick with my model, and try something different.

Cassell is just too much of an injury risk, and that's particularly troublesome in a league with only weekly roster changes. Malone was tempting, but it's hard to know how much he'll drop off.

At this juncture, I've got pretty good balance, with strong shooting %s and no glaring weaknesses. Should provide reasonable flexibility going forward.

And then, of course, I might just be an idiot.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:33

Position eligibility - for returning players, they must have started 10 games at a position last year, as reported in the ESPN splits. Rookies are eligible according to NBA.com listings.

So, as I noted in [60], Wallace was not eligible at center. That was another strike against him.

Blooki
ID: 6838118
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:36

I see. Could you be so kind as to comment on this trade Guru? :)

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:37

Backtracking to the skipped pick.

2.10 Jermaine O'Neal, F, IND
O'Neal made great improvements in his scoring game last season and, at only 24 years old, still has room to grow. With Brad Miller filling up the paint, we expect O'Neal to approach the 24.1 scoring average he posted over the final few weeks of last season. We also expect close to double figures in rebounds as well.

Recap of the first two rounds:
1.01 Hall - Duncan - F - SAN
1.02 Ludwig - Garnett - F - MIN
1.03 Slotnick - Nowitzki - C - DAL
1.04 Slight - Pierce - G - BOS
1.05 Chizzik - Bryant - G - LAL
1.06 Fitzpatrick - McGrady - G - ORL
1.07 Georgoplous - O'Neal - C - LAL
1.08 McLaughlin - Payton - G - SEA
1.09 Gentles - Kidd - G - NJ
1.10 McRae - Francis - G - HOU
1.11 Langendorf - Miller - G - LAC
1.12 Connors - Marion - F - PHO

2.01 Connors - Allen - G -MIL
2.02 Langendorf - Walker - F - BOS
2.03 McRae - Webber- F- SAC
2.04 Gentles - Brand - F - LAC
2.05 McLaughlin - Abdur-Rahim - F - ATL
2.06 Georgoplous - Carter - G - TOR
2.07 Fitzpatrick - Iverson - G - PHI
2.08 Chizzik - S, Nash - G - DAL
2.09 Slight - R. Wallace - F - POR
2.10 Slotnick - J. O'Neal - F - IND
2.11 Ludwig - B. Davis - G - CHA
2.12 Hall - P. Stojakovic - F - SAC

SillySpheres
ID: 58512252
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:47

While Ben Wallace's FT% is Shaq-like (actually much worse 55 - 43), it is almost irrelevant because he doesnt get to the line much. Last year he attempted less than 3 FT's per game compared to Shaq's 10+ per game.

The same can be said for Vince Carter. Yeah his 80% FT% is nice, but he only gets to the line 5 times per game.

SillySpheres
ID: 58512252
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:48

but let me add, given you already have Duncan and Wallace doesnt count at C, passing up Wallace wasn't the worst move you could have made. Peja won't disappoint.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:57

SillySpheres - you are grossly underestimating Wallace's FT impact. The only player with a worse impact on FT% is Shaq.

It's nowhere close to "almost irrelevant."

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 09:04

Yup. A Wallace-Nowitzki combo, for example, would be shooting a collective 72% from the line (and that's factoring in that Dirk has more than twice as many ft attempts). You usually want to aim your team ft% as close to 80% as possible.

Nice picks, assists need to be shored up, but under any scenario there was always at least one category you'd be lagging in a little bit at this stage.

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 10:32

Karl Malone is a no-brainer for this next guy. Malone, KG, and Baron would be an interesting combo because he'd have 2 big men shooting 80% from the line to offset his bad ft shooting guard.

Question, can players obtain center-eligibility during the course of the year? If not, then under your strict center requirements there just aren't any worth taking this early . . .

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 10:46

Yes, they can attain center eligibility if they start 10 games at center (again, as reported in the ESPN splits). It would be nice if Duncan would do that - although I'm not banking on it.

You're right - under this eligibilty rule, there just aren't many centers worth owning at all. And I'm going to have to find 2 for my roster. Ugh.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 11:10

With the 3.02 pick of the PROFL Draft, Kip Ludwig selects Forward J. Rose, Chicago.

In fantasy terms, there is often nothing better than the best player on a terrible team. When Rose was in Indiana, he averaged around 18 points, 4 rebounds and 4 assists. After the move to Chi-town, Rose up those numbers to 23.8 points and 5.3 assists. Moreover, Rose shoots for 45 percent from the field, and well over 80 percent from the line. The introduction of J. Williams into the lineup should take some of the pressure off of Rose, and allow Jalen to keep his shooting percentages up.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 13:02

3.03 Pau Gasol, F (no comment yet)

3.04 Karl Malone, F - Comment: I consider this a safe pick. I think his value will remain about the same as last year when he was a top 20 player. He'll probably get less steals but should improve in fg%. Plus there's no one on the bench that can take his minutes.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 13:07

3.05 Ben Wallace - F

While his foul shooting can be a category killer, his block and rebounds can be category winners. And we hope that our first two selections will dull the effect of his free throw shooting somewhat. 3.5 blocks and 13 rebounds per game are huge numbers for a third round pick (or any pick) and his 1.7 steals per game and high shooting from the field will help as well. We were thrilled to get him in the third round.

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 13:42

I really like that Bryant/Nash/B. Wallace team so far (sorry Guru!). Turning out to be an interesting draft.

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 14:19

just for fun . . .

based on last year's stats the kobe/nash/wallace team free throw average is 76%, which is lower than you want to have. But to be fair, they are looking nice in all the other categories.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 14:51

Actually, that team is also in the hole in total points.

I think the team with Pierce, R. Wallace, and Malone is looking the best (excluding mine) at this point. Its major weakness is assists, and perhaps FG%.

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:08

Kobe was 3rd in the league in points, and Nash was 29th. Definitely workable!

Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:38

Another reason I liked Ben Wallace (understanding his ft%) are his steals and blocks. These are two difficulot categories where numbers matter. Also, as far as FT % goes, he does get to the line less than shaq, but % are %--so that can't be thrown out. He also fits that center slot. But like Guru said, every team is different and you have to fit selections within your team. The best player available doesn't nec. mean it's the right pick for that team.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:42

Yes, it's workable. But the good scorers with other good stats are getting pretty rare now. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It just puts more constraints on the players that will fit this roster going forward.

I'm not saying you can't succeed with Ben Wallace. I had him last year, and if Francis and Allen had stayed healthy throughout, I might have won it all. I still finished fourth. But points scored is a difficult category to augment once the early rounds are history. And virtually impossible to address through free agency.

One of my strategies this year is to try to get some good scorers in the early rounds, while you can players who can produce stats other than points. Some of the other stats - like rebounds - are easier to pick up in subsequent rounds. We'll see how it works.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:44

Ref - as mentioned abefore, B. Wallace is not eligible at center in this league. That is a significant negative factor.

100

biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:53

Also, as far as FT % goes, he does get to the line less than shaq, but % are %--so that can't be thrown out.

Actually %s aren't just %s. I would guess that team % are calculated using (team FT Made)/(team FT attempted), no? so it's really just like two count stats, each counting for approx. 1/2 a ranking (though this isn't quite right, it is a useful way to think about %s in general, I feel).

101

Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:02

Guru, my bad, that does change a lot of strategy.
Obviously, my skimming of msgs comes back to bite me sometimes.

102

Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 87192619
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:07

Great thread--finally got the chance to read through the whole thing.

Mike D, you are clearly more hopeful about Marbury than I am! I understand he'll be playing with a painful left ankle all season.

Guru, it's interesting that you are placing such a high emphasis on percentages for the team. But I think you are right to take the scorers early and do spot stat cleanup the later rounds. It's difficult to pick up real consistent scorers later on--you end up with guys like Jordan, who can give you 25 or 5 depending upon which way the wind is blowing.

Keep it coming!

pd

103

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:13

You are correct in your calculation of team %, but I don't really buy your "two stats, each worth 1/2" analogy.

The two shooting percentage stats are the trickiest ones to rank, I think. The regular counting stats are directly additive, but the percentages have an interrelationship with the other players on the team. Wallace's FT shooting would have a greater impact on a team with less FT's taken in total.

To rank these percentage categories, I create a ranking stat equal to a team percentage which includes 11 average shooters plus the player in question. (12 man rosters)

Here's an example. Using the top 144 players in my ranking universe, the average player shoots 3.78 FTs and makes 2.92 per game. That's a percentage of 77.2%. Now, suppose I have 11 average players plus Ben Wallace. Assume that Wallace is projected to make 1.2 out of 2.8 attempts per game. Eleven average players plus Wallace would have a team FT average of 75.1%, which is a little more than 2% under the league average.

I can calculate a similar stat for every player. This takes into account not only the shooting percentage, but also the shooting frequency. Once I have this stat for each player, I can calculate the mean and standard deviation, just like I can for all of the counting stats. This is the basic ranking approach that I take. It seems to me that it is more accurate than a variety of approximation techniques that I have seen others use. However, I've also noted that it tends to elevate the importance of shooting percentage vs. most other systems, which is why I tend to reward good shooters more than many systems, and also punish poor shooters.

Using my system, although Wallace shoots very few FTs, he is still the second worst player to own for that category (behind only Shaq, who shoots better, but takes a ton of shots).

104

miguel p
ID: 44912013
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:29

For the record, the ESPN player rater agrees with that; the lowest-rated players in FT% are Shaq (-6.21), Wallace (-3.29), Baron (-2.59), Vlade (-2.12), Miles (-1.54). I don't know exactly how they arrive at those numbers, but they clearly take into account # of FT attempts, and I'm assuming they're just some linear function of standard deviations from the mean scaled according to FTA.

105

Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:29

Now I feel stupid ;)

I definitely wouldn't have made some of the choices that these people have made. But they could be right. Lord knows I'm no expert--but it's still fun trying.

106

Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:31

miguel, those numbers may be related to everyone else in the league in that category.

Btw, guru, thanks for this thread. the best thing about it are the comments and philosophy behind those picks.

107

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:35

3.06 Sam Cassell

Comments later.

108

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:42

Like I said - Wallace brings the stellar FT shooting of Kobe and nash down to 76% for the team. Even though he shoots less, being nearly FORTY POINTS below a desirable percentage creates a non-trivial amount of downward drag.

109

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:46

I'm a good foul shooter, and owning Wallace is a challenge, but I think I can turn him around.

110

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:46

BTW, I'm fairly sure that some of the "experts" in our league have no numerical expertise with this type of scoring format, even though it is a fairly standard roto format. So don't assume that these "expert" picks are necessarily made by "qualified" experts.

There are some who seem to know what they're doing, however. In last year's league, I'd surmise that about half were reasonably astute, and half were not managing in a very "expert" fashion.

My competitive advantage is my strength with numbers. If I had a better crytal ball, and could better anticipate the stats for each player, I think I could mop up. (I know, duhhh...) I know how to fit a roster together, but if I don't do a good job estimate the components, I'm going to be off.

Conversely, there are other experts who can undoubtedly do a much better job of projecting individual player stats. But some of them are relatively clueless at how to rank players (for this type of scoring framework) once they have a good set of projections.

111

biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:47

Hmmmm... For %s, wouldn't calculating a z-score using a mean and SD for your 144 that are weighted by a player's (shot/ft) attempts be more accurate? Then weight by attempts again when adding the individual z-scores for the 8 cats together.

I agree the numerator and denominator each as 1/2 a rank analogy isn't perfect - you have to assume similar team totals. I just like it as a way of thinking about %s that I can get my head around - it highlights the importance of considering the different weights for each player. I find it more useful for something like assist/turnover ratio, though it has the same caveats.

112

biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:53

Also, Guru, have worked with the rotowire projected stats before? I used them this year, though I have no idea how good they are. The few I took a closer look at seemed reasonable, but I think that I will try and compare them to actuals after the season to see how well they did.

113

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:54

ESPN player rater - as I understand it, a rating is based on how a player is likely to change your standing in each category.

For example, using per-game averages, Ben Wallace has a FT rating of -3.3. That means that if you replace an average player with Ben Wallace (for a full season), you should expect to drop three ranking points in that category. That is a similar approach to mine. The difference is that I use standard deviations in each cateory to assign relative ranks within the category. ESPN apparently uses empirical data, drawn from their vast database of league results, to scale the results for each category.

We generally get similar relative ranking results within a category, but when you compare totals across all categories, there are generally differences - although the overall results are still quite similar.

114

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:57

Perm Dude, one of many articles I have liked about Marbury for this season.

It's time Marbury deals with being Suns' leader

115

Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 17:03

It certainly is time, Mike D, and with Gugs back it should be easier this year for him to assert the role (like his last year in NJ).

But last year he averaged 20 points & 8 assists a game. It'll be hard for him to really push those numbers up by a lot, especially with him getting season-long treatment on a broken bone in his foot.

Or, maybe he can really ice it down while he's servicing his opening game suspension...

pd

116

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 17:06

I wish I could find the article that I felt was the best. Oh well.

From the above post, I liked this part:

"The Suns were encouraged by how Marbury dedicated his offseason entirely to basketball -- other than his time in jail, of course -- and how he got into the best shape of his life. They also view his marriage to his long-time girlfriend as another sign that he's now all business. In training camp, he has been a leader for Frank Johnson."

He's got a large chip on his shoulder after Kidd had such success in NJ, as the trade has been celebrated there. I like motivated players.

117

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 17:06

I haven't tried using RotoWire projections, but maybe I'll give that a whirl. They don't seem to provide quite enough data to plug directly into my model, but I may be able to reasonably fill in the blanks.

Another project!

118

Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 17:11

I guess Ben Wallace holders can only hope he doesn't go to the line much!!!

If he starts to be an offensive threat Hack a Shaq may turn into Wallop a Wallace?!?!

119

miguel p
ID: 44912013
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 18:49

About ESPN's player rater, I had thought that it was based either on expected effect on ranking (like Guru said in post 113) or on some function of standard deviations from the mean. (BTW, Ref, re 106, that system does take into account how other players in the league did in the category.)

It seemed like the former possibility didn't really make sense, though, because I don't see how Shaq could impose an expected drop of 6.21 ranking points in FT% (using totals, or -7.50 using averages). In a 12 team league (is it 12 or 10? either way . . .) your expected ranking in FT% would pretty much have to be around 6.5 for the 'average' team that they use as a base, depending on how exactly they choose that average team. I guess it's possible that if they select 12 NBA players at random, not specifically those who tend to appear on fantasy teams, then that average team could have a higher FT% than the average fantasy team, leading to an expected FT% ranking higher than 6.5 for the average team. (I don't think this would be the case, but I can't think of any other way it works out here.) If that's how they do it, than their player rater is a bit less useful than I was thinking. It's general usefullness is really what I'm trying to get at, since it's a great time-saver for those of us too lazy to make our own spreadsheets and whatnot, provided they use a reasonable means of determining their numbers.

120

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 19:09

Cassell commentary: Sam Cassell will bring solid numbers in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and total 3s, and has strong shooting percentages. He has also played in at least 74 games in the last 3 seasons. With the departure of Big Dog and insertion of Tim Thomas into the lineup, Cassell will likely be given more scoring opportunities and possibly more assist opportunities with the more athletic style of Thomas as compared to Robinson.

3.07 John Stockton

Commentary: We'll take Mr. Stockton in this spot. Yes, he's older than dirt and not the same player he was three years ago. But this is a roto league and you can't ignore the stats this guys is automatic for: 8+ apg, 1.8 spg, 3 rpg, 82%FT and perhaps most amazingly for a shooting guard, over 50% FG. Oh, and he's practically a given for 82 games.

121

Aris
ID: 399161218
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 02:16

Re: post 103

My system also favors high percentage shooters and I usually win these categories. It is more simplistic than Guru's but has pretty much the same strengths and weaknesses. I subtract from the player's FT% the league average (say 77.1%)and divide by the league's standard deviation of FT%. This gives a rating for the percentage. Then I multiply by FTA/GM by the player divided by the average FT attempts of the league. It's less sophisticated than Guru's, but it should give very similar results.

The problem is that you cannot differentiate between contributions due to percentage and number of attempts. Eg, a player that takes 10 FT a game at 80% and a player that takes 3 at 90% might improve the percentage of the average team by the same amount, BUT not all teams are average. If you have a great shooting team (above 80%), the 80% guy with the large number of attempts is dragging you down. On the other hand, in a terrible roster, the 80% pulls you closer to the average.

A simpler example is that players who shoot exactly the league average have a ranking of 0 regardless of attempts.

122

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 07:47

3.08 Antawn Jamison, F

Commentary: Jamison was a 20 ppg guy with good percentage numbers whose outside shot has improved with last year's move to the three. I think he will eventually move back to power forward, where his inside moves and quick release will allow him to continue to improve.

3.09 Eddie Jones, G

Commentary: Jones is one of the most underrated roto players in the entire NBA. Sure he's a scorer, a decent 3-point shooter and one of the league leaders in steals but did you know he's averaged over 1.2 blocks over the last 6 years? That’s crazy for a 2-guard. He just doesn't hurt in any one category, which is what you look for in the opening rounds of a draft. And with Alonzo Mourning out for the year, the Heat will be looking for Jones to become more involved in the offense. He's struggled a bit when asked to step up in the past, but I think he's ready to do so this year.

123

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 09:36

uh, how do you guys employ such a sophisticated % analysis in a live draft??? I value shooting %s heavily myself, but I usually just go gut-instinct style.

124

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 09:54

It's very hard to keep this all organized during a live draft. That's why I like the slow draft for this particular league. Allows me to think and re-evaluate as the draft goes along. I can keep track not only of my team's statistical projection, but how it relates to all of the other teams.

For a live draft. I just set up a general list sorted in rank order, and then try to stay in balance by gut. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Unfortunately, my gut is not always finely calibrated.

125

Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 10:04

You need to speak to Ender about that.

pd

126

Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 10:07

Indeed. No one can compare to his psychic Gut (capitalization intended).

127

Ender
ID: 13443221
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 11:25

:)

I'll let you know if I feel anything leading up to Tuesday night. It's been gurgling and rumbling a lot lately, but I believe that's simply due to some bad sausage :P

128

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 11:43

Then it sounds like good sausage to me!

129

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 11:53

3.10 S. Marbury, G - PHO

Commentary: Marbury should have another quality season averaging about 20 points and nine assists per game. His three-point percentage leaves a lot to be desired, but Marbury's field goal and free throw percentage will be adequate enough. Marbury's ankle injuries could be a problem later in the season, but he is worth the risk.

BTW, I'll start a new thread after the 3rd round is completed.

130

Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 12:52

By the way, I'm surprised Rashard Lewis still available. Is his injury really that serious? When he's healthy he puts up fantastic all-around rotisserie numbers.

131

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 13:22

I just loaded RotoWire's raw stats projections into my ranking model. I also ran their projected rankings for my league's scoring framework.

When I use their stats, I get rankings that are reasonably similar to their rankings. So our methods are similar.

What is more interesting is to look at the players that they rank significantly differently than the other rankings I've been looking at.

Let's start with the players they rank much better.
1. Antoine Walker - RotoWire is really projecting a banner season for him. They project 6.2 assists/game (vs 5 last year), 1.8 steals (vs. 1.5), 3.0 3-pointers (2.7), and consistent scoring at 22ppg. That raises him to #8 overall using my method, and they have him ranked #4 overall. Last year, he ended up in the mid-to-upper teens. Quite an improvement! (By the way, they rank Paul Pierce #1 overall, so Antoine's improvements are not at Pierce's expense.)

2. Looking at top-50 players, RotoWire seems to be notably more favorable than others on the following players (their ranking is in []): Iverson[6], Baron Davis[13], Van Exel[15-gotta be a mistake there!], Kirilenko[23], Szczerbiak[29], Mutombo[33], Gooden[41], and DaJuan Wagner[48].

Looking at the next tier, the following players stand out surprisingly well: Charlie Ward[52], Jordan [55], Vin Baker[67].

3. Again, looking at better players, they are notably more pessimistic on the following: Jason Terry[59- uh-oh], Grant Hill[62], Marbury[66], Shaq[69! -probably factoring in downtime].

I really haven't had much opportunity to look at the sources of the major differences, but it looks like they are not afraid to make some bold assumptions.

132

biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 13:48

Yeah - I was thinking that my method was off because I was getting Walker #2 (behind Garnett) for my 10 category league (we have turnovers and assist/turnover ratio, in addition to your 8 categories). It turns out that it was just the high assist projections from rotowire that are putting him that high. Do they think he will be feeding Baker more? I don't really understand their optimism, but I took him 7th anyway.

133

joe suspect
Donor
ID: 298531714
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 14:38

I also saw the optimistic #'s for Charlie Ward. I think they translate to about 28/tsnp. Definately reducing that for my analysis.

Also I was surprised at the pessimistic stats for Gilbert Arenas. Did anyone there look at his last 30 days from last year?

134

CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 15:23

I'm curious as to where Kenyon Martin falls in the rankings. I'm really optimisitic about this guys potential this year, especially with KVH and Todd MacCollough being replaced with a defensive stud. KMart should really improve his scoring numbers and continue to perform well in the defense side of the stat sheet. It is definatley time for Kenyon to step up and have a break through season as the main scoring threat on the Nets squad.

Any thoughts on him Guru. Could be a nice pickup at the bottom of the 4th round especially with Jamison being scooped and the drop off at PF after him.

135

Aris3
ID: 399161218
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 18:39

Joe: don't uncover the best kept secrets. He should/could be a real impact player for roto.

I think Antoine's increase in assists is because they think he'll play the point after the departure of Kenny Anderson. When I see him play the point regularly, I'll believe it.

Forum: hoopPage 8036Subject: PROFL Experts League

Forum: hoop
Page 8036
Subject: PROFL Experts League