Smart ranked #65 in the League

[Moranis]

For the record, SI did their top 100 and Smart was not ranked.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/12/top-100-nba-players-2018-dwyane-wade-dirk-nowitzki-dwight-howard

SI's rankings make a lot more sense overall.  The Celtics had 3 players ranked all in the top 30.

Horford was 30
Irving was 21
Hayward was 16

[fairweatherfan]

@fairweatherfan

I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.

One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.

Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.

The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative.  A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by  /u/Morezingis on reddit.

Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).

This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.


For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/

Cut the pics out to trim the space a bit.

I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously. The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.


I am kinda bummed about the exclusion of Pettit though - he's a sort of old-timey binky for me because he seems to be the most forgotten great in league history.

They didn't misuse data though as the ranking isn't based on data, it is based on their experts opinions.  The little snippets are just interesting things that help support the ranking.

I know - though the rankings are based on data in the aggregated choices of the panel, they're not based on the factoids, no.

But I didn't take that as the intent of greece's post, or Boris'. Rather they're talking about the secondary issue of misrepresenting info in the blurbs attached to the rankings.

[Moranis]

@fairweatherfan

I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.

One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.

Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.

The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative.  A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by  /u/Morezingis on reddit.

Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).

This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.


For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/

Cut the pics out to trim the space a bit.

I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously. The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.


I am kinda bummed about the exclusion of Pettit though - he's a sort of old-timey binky for me because he seems to be the most forgotten great in league history.

They didn't misuse data though as the ranking isn't based on data, it is based on their experts opinions.  The little snippets are just interesting things that help support the ranking.

I know - though the rankings are based on data in the aggregated choices of the panel, they're not based on the factoids, no.

But I didn't take that as the intent of greece's post, or Boris'. Rather they're talking about the secondary issue of misrepresenting info in the blurbs attached to the rankings.

but it isn't misrepresented.  Those things are actually true. 

[greece66]

@bmd860

Groza is a good one.

The OP had addressed this issue in a comment, although IMO it's clear why Groza doesn't fit with the rest of the bunch.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zhcpt/only_5_players_in_history_have_never_averaged/dmv814v/

@fairweatherfan

Your post doesn't address any of the points I raised. Instead, you put in my mouth words that I never said.

[Roy H.]

It's interesting to see both SI and ESPN rank Hayward higher than Irving. That definitely doesn't seem to be the feeling amongst most Celtics fans.

[Roy H.]

@fairweatherfan

I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.

One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.

Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.

The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative.  A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by  /u/Morezingis on reddit.

Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).

This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.


For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/

Cut the pics out to trim the space a bit.

I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously. The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.


I am kinda bummed about the exclusion of Pettit though - he's a sort of old-timey binky for me because he seems to be the most forgotten great in league history.

They didn't misuse data though as the ranking isn't based on data, it is based on their experts opinions.  The little snippets are just interesting things that help support the ranking.

I know - though the rankings are based on data in the aggregated choices of the panel, they're not based on the factoids, no.

But I didn't take that as the intent of greece's post, or Boris'. Rather they're talking about the secondary issue of misrepresenting info in the blurbs attached to the rankings.

but it isn't misrepresented.  Those things are actually true.

Yeah, I think misrepresentation is the wrong word. Maybe they're using the facts suggestively, but they're still facts.

[jambr380]

Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???

And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).

I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.

[Roy H.]

Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???

And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).

I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.

No. He's a great 4th or 5th guy to have.

[Moranis]

Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???

And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).

I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.

No. He's a great 4th or 5th guy to have.

SI even said that, so I have no idea why they ranked him 44th. 

"Regardless, Crowder is an ideal fifth starter or lead reserve on a team with championship aspirations, and he should find a clean fit with the Cavaliers, who could have desperately used his services in the 2017 Finals"

[JBcat]

Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???

And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).

I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.

No. He's a great 4th or 5th guy to have.

SI even said that, so I have no idea why they ranked him 44th. 

"Regardless, Crowder is an ideal fifth starter or lead reserve on a team with championship aspirations, and he should find a clean fit with the Cavaliers, who could have desperately used his services in the 2017 Finals"

How many teams realistically have championship aspirations?  I agree that he is probably ranked too high but he could easily be a 3 guy on several subpar teams maybe even 2 on some bad ones.

[fairweatherfan]

@fairweatherfan

Your post doesn't address any of the points I raised. Instead, you put in my mouth words that I never said.

? ? ?

@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.

One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.

I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously.

Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.

The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.

I'm so confused.  Didn't mean to offend regardless but I definitely thought I was responding directly to what you said your issues were.

[Big333223]

For the record, SI did their top 100 and Smart was not ranked.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/12/top-100-nba-players-2018-dwyane-wade-dirk-nowitzki-dwight-howard

SI's rankings make a lot more sense overall.  The Celtics had 3 players ranked all in the top 30.

Horford was 30
Irving was 21
Hayward was 16

He did make their 25 biggest snubs list, so I guess he's top 125.

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/11/biggest-snubs-top-100-nba-players-derrick-rose-jeremy-lin-malcolm-brogdon

[Moranis]

Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???

And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).

I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.

No. He's a great 4th or 5th guy to have.

SI even said that, so I have no idea why they ranked him 44th. 

"Regardless, Crowder is an ideal fifth starter or lead reserve on a team with championship aspirations, and he should find a clean fit with the Cavaliers, who could have desperately used his services in the 2017 Finals"

How many teams realistically have championship aspirations?  I agree that he is probably ranked too high but he could easily be a 3 guy on several subpar teams maybe even 2 on some bad ones.

True but who would you rather have next year Jae Crowder or Andre Drummond?  Or Otto Porter?  Or Avery Bradley?  Heck who is more valuable to Cleveland next year, Jae Crowder or Tristan Thompson?  Those 4 guys are ranked 51-54 (I didn't mention them in order) by SI and I pretty confident that most everyone would take at least 2 and many would probably take all 4 ahead of Jae Crowder. 

I really don't get the love affair being shown Crowder.  He is no better than a 4th starter on all of the top level teams (and he will come of the bench in Cleveland and would in Golden State as well).  That isn't a guy that will have the 44th best season next year (or a top 40 season as ESPN predicts). 

I do think SI's list is a lot better than ESPN.  It just makes a lot more sense overall.

[Who]

I thought Crowder was a top 50 player and a quality choice at #38 a year ago but given the drop-off in his defense last season I do not see Crowder on that level anymore.

More somewhere in the 60-75 range.

[Moranis]

ESPN's top 10 is out

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank110/nbarank-players-1-10

James
Durant
Leonard
Curry
Westbrook
Davis
Paul
Harden
Antetokounmpo
Green

Pretty similar to SI

James
Durant
Curry
Leonard
Harden
Westbrook
Paul
Davis
Antetokounmpo
Green

Identical set of players (still am surprised both have Draymond Green as the 10th best player) with some pretty clear lines of delineation between them both

James
Durant
Curry/Leonard
Westbrook/Harden/Davis/Paul
Antetokounmpo
Green


Sirius XM NBA radio also put together a list

http://blog.siriusxm.com/2017/09/11/carmelo-anthony-dwyane-wade-snubbed-from-siriusxm-nba-radios-top-25-players/

Their top 10 in order
James
Durant
Leonard
Curry
Westbrook
Harden
Davis
Antetokounmpo
Wall
Paul

They have Draymond at 13 and obviously added Wall at 9.  Butler and George were 11 and 12 on their list.  Irving came in at 16 and Hayward at 24.  They still had Isaiah pretty high, comparatively, at 19.