The Rufus Rating

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 12:06 PM EDT

Everyone has a little rant blog that they put out every once in a while, and this is mine. What I'm ranting about this time? JOHN HOLLINGER!!! Any one who has come into contact with me on this site know that I can't stand the man. He presses my buttons with almost everything he writes. Even if it's about a team other than the Bobcats. His way of thinking just pisses me off. He gathers all these statistics and really tries to predict the future with them. But his system is severely flawed. It removes all of the "common sense" out of basketball. Sometimes, he'll make a case for why a player is terrible based on their shooting percentages, but then portray volume shooters like Kobe and Durant like they are kings. I mean, I know they are great, but the way that he comes to the conclusion is just weird because it doesn't take everything into account. I was reading an article on ESPN this morning that talked about how his system was the most ~~accurate~~ popular in the world when predicting NBA basketball.

Well, I'm about to try to fix all of that. I'm really going to try to come up with a system that should accurately predict how good a team will be. I know that people have done this before, coming up with their own systems and such, but I'm really going to dig into it to try to figure out how to really make this work. So, how would I go about this? I'm making this up on the fly, so don't try to point to all the FLAWS in it because the idea is to gather all of your opinions on how to to improve the system and what all should be taken into account. After all of that info has been gathered, we'll use last season's statistics to make a prediction on where teams will end up this year, and periodically check how the system's predictions are holding up. So, let's get to it. THE RUFUS RATING!!!

It's going go look like a terrible mess at first, but trust me, I'll get it worked out after I have all the suggestions in.

1. Like all rating systems, we'll need to use numbers, and I just think it makes more since for a players with higher ratings to be valued more than lower ratings. So, lets get that out the way.

2. I think a team's RR should be a combination of player RR and the coaches RR. Naturally, Phil Jackson and Greg Popovich would have the highest RR coaching ratings and unproven coaches like Monty Williams and Keith Smart would have low RR until they have some success in the league.

3. Looking back over the years, teams need super stars to win championships for the most part. So, a players RR rating should be given an extra boost for superstar points, if they are, well, a superstar. (Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Durant, Paul, Howard and so forth).

4. A team's RR should take a hit if they aren't classified as a well put together team. This will give false hope to some garbage teams that fit together well, but don't play well, but I think it should be taken into account. Team's that are built the "right way" should get a small extra rating. By "built the right way", I mean the PG is a pass first PG, the SG is a good shooter, inside and out, the SF's biggest strength should be defense, the PF's biggest skill being rebounding, and the C's biggest skill being defending the paint. Not many team's meet this criteria across the board, so, points would be taken away if a team is lacking.

5. A team's success from previous years should play a part in not the team's rating, but the player's individual rating. For example, someone putting up big numbers on a 12 win team shouldn't be treated the same as someone putting up big numbers on a championship team.

6. There needs to be a way to discredit fluke years. So, to me, if a person has been in the league for 7 or more years and all of the sudden had a huge boost from what they've been doing, then that year should be excluded when predicting their future.

7. Injuries should take part in a rating, and players that have missed games throughout their career should be counted on to miss games and that should effect a team's rating.

8. Chemistry should be taken into account as well. A group of guys playing together for over 2 years should have a higher chemistry rating then one put together.

9. Now I need all of your suggestions.

My idea is to reverse all of the data to include all of the common sense stuff. Like, this year, the Heat, Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Thunder, and Mavericks should end up all being top 10 in RR which would make the analysis credible. Like I say, I know it sounds dumb and like a huge mess, but I just feel like there has to be something out there better than Hollinger's B.S. And damnit, if ain't nobody else gonna come up with it, I'll do it myself. Plus, we could do Team by Team previews using the Rufus Rating and hopefully get the rest of Sports Nation to start using the term and increase traffic even more on the site (which is pretty much my aim with everything I post anyway). Don't worry about the scoring, shooting percentages, rebound rates per 40 and all of that, those stats will work their way into the player and team ratings naturally. But, what else should be included when predicting what teams will REALLY be successful this year and which ones will be terrible?

The first rough draft of the new ranking system has panned out like this so far

Among starting PG's in the NBA, their RR's are

Derron Williams (Utah) 68

Steve Nash (Phoenix) 55

Russell Westbrook (Oklahoma City) 51

Derek Rose (Chicago) 49

Rajon Rondo (Boston) 45

Chris Paul (New Orleans) 44

Maurice Williams (Cleveland) 43 (To fix this, I'm thinking about using the "Superstar Effect". The fact the he was on a team with LeBron and no longer is should have his rating go down by 5).

Stephen Curry (Golden State) 41

Chauncey Billups (Denver) 36

Tony Parker (San Antonio) 29

Devin Harris (New Jersey) 28

Jason Kidd (Dallas) 28

Jose Calderon (Toronto) 21

Derek Fisher (Lakers) 21

Beno Udrih (Sacramento) 20

D.J. Augstin (Charlotte) 14

Now, although the system is terribly flawed (see who Mo Williams is better than), it's not as flawed as I thought it would be initially as most everybody else is in their true position of rank among competitors. I've never thought as D Williams as being the best PG in the NBA and I never thought Rondo was better than CP3, but they are at least debatable. I feel like the more data added to the ratings would give a better idea of who is who, but that'll come in time. Right now, I see I have to try to eliminate the fluke that is Mo Williams before it can be taken seriously.

TEAM RATINGS=(Sum of player ratings+chemistry rating+coach rating+cohesiveness rating+?+?+?)

PLAYER RATINGS=(Positional Statistics(i.e. PG's assist, PF's rebounds)+Team Success+Superstar Rating+?+?+?)

Poll

Do you like Hollinger's system?

Yes, the numbers speak for themselves

3 votes

No, it's the biggest load of B.S. ever put into words

7 votes

10 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 38 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Speaking as a statistics minor who is considering a graduate degree in stats

This is no easy task. The problem is the amount of quantifiable data available. Do coaches matter? Of course they do. Can you quantitatively value them? I’m not so sure. You would have to project a team’s performance when a coach is removed from the equation, then determine the positive or negative effect a coach has on that projection. But you can’t determine a team or individual’s value without a coach because there’s no situation where they don’t have one. You could look at what a team or player does over time as coaches come and go, but then you’re singling out one factor when there are myriads of other factors in the equation.

There are just too many lurking variables. Injuries, scheduling, coaching, exterior influences (team turmoil/cohesion, potential team sales)… And there are too many non-quantifiable variables. How do you determine what a superstar is if you’re trying to do it before looking at the numbers? Half the people think Melo is a superstar, half think he’s a really good player.

I think we can all agree that Hollinger is an ass. I don’t like how he presents his findings a lot of the time. But his statistical methods are relatively sound considering how difficult it is to measure these things. He makes a lot of arbitrary decisions (Like his pure point rating where an assist is worth 2/3 of a point because a turnover is worse than an assist), but this can’t be avoided. I’m all for improved metrics, but the ability to quantify all these variables is very limited.

by drapht00 on Oct 14, 2010 1:26 PM EDT reply actions

Lol, I agree.

It’s a very difficult task. I see that now from all the number crunching I’ve had to do and I’ve just gotten started. However, on the other hand, I think once all of the really important factors are thrown in and all of the other crap is thrown out, then we can get a better system than what Mr. Hollinger uses. The NBA is the most predicatable league out there. There is no parity at all with it really. It’s the one league, where you can look at a team on paper, and be like “oh yeah, they’re going to be super garbage this year” and 95% of the time it turns out true. That’s why I think looking at this from the reverse angle is going to be the best way to do it. Which is why I go against Hollinger. He approaches everything with a fresh view every year and it all revolves around the statistics. I’m trying to downplay that logic because stats may say otherwise now, but we pretty much already know 90% of the teams that will qualify for the playoffs next year, and 100% of the teams that will be in the conference semi-finals (barring injury of course). What’s always hard in the NBA is figuring out who is going to be the fringe playoff team and who is just going to be plain awful. So, hopefully, in the end of all of the statistical gathering, the Lakers, Heat, Magic, and Celtics end up on top with no bias and then just go from there as long as things don’t turn out outrageous (Nets finishing with a better rating than Blazers or something).

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions

A flaw to the logic

I agree with everything you said. The NBA is predictable for several reasons: length of season and best of 7 series, disparity of talent… With 82 games, the best teams come out on top and short lived winning or losing streaks balance out, leaving you with the best teams. Then in the playoffs, the best team almost always wins a best of 7 series because it’s so long. The only anomalies to this are most often bizarre mismatches (see: Mavs-Warriros). So I agree, the interesting portion of the debate is the fringe teams. That being said, fringe teams tend to be the most temperamental. The difference between a 7 or 8 seed and ending up 9th or 10th is often determined by injuries, unpredictable performances (Raymond Felton, Brandon Jennings, the whole Thunder team), trades, suspensions… You make a big deal about coaches, which I agree with. But it’s unpredictable again because they come on go so often. Who knew Scott Brooks was going to be perfect for that team? How do we know Thibbadeau is actually going to work out? Who knew LB was going to be so awful for the Knicks but perfect for the Bobcats? There is no metric for coaching and I believe coaching is a HUGE part of fringe teams.

So basically you have the top that will always be good, the bottom that will definitely suck, and the middle that is subject to randomness. If we can all put our heads together and figure it out I think that’s great. But it’s not an easy task.

by drapht00 on Oct 14, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't feel as though I made that big a deal about coaches,

I just said that naturally, Phil and Pop would have the highest rating because they have what very few coaches have, multiple rings. I’m not even sure there is another coach in there right now with multiple rings. And I chose Keith Smart and Monty Williams to say would be last because to my knowledge, they both have a combined record of 0-0. But, I definitely get your point on that. There are always big surprises, and big failures. But just think, you could be creator of the greatest prediction logic ever, and finally put that clown Hollinger out of business (my primary goal).

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions

You did just mention it

I put words in your mouth, mostly because I think coaches are a huge part that just can’t be factored in in any calculable way. I wish there was a mathematical way to show that Felton would have been best off continuing to learn under LB or that the Suns were about Nash’s ability to run D’Antoni’s offense more than it was about the system itself.

To help contribute, I’ll throw some thoughts in. I’m sitting at work, so this isn’t super thought out, but if you could determine how many points are scored by a player off double teams you could count those points (or possibly points scored off direct assists) slightly less. If Mo’ Williams got all his points off double teams they’re obviously valuable in the team sense, they can be misleading in an individual performance. Most players in the NBA can hit a wide open shot/layup making them replaceable in a sense. Thoughts?

by drapht00 on Oct 14, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Ahh. I get you. That's kinda the direction I was trying to go with the "Superstar" effect.

Like, everybody in Cleveland’s rating was higher for playing with LeBron (Mo’s all-star appearance) but will disappear now that he’s away (he’ll never be one again). The same with anyone who shoots three’s and plays with Dwight Howard. If you’ve got a player that commands constant double-teams, then that does free up a lot of rooom for people to look better than they really are. I’ma go look at this stat web site to see if I can find anything like that. I think I remember seeing a stat about double teams somewhere a few weeks ago.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Have to think about the Nash effect too

How many easy transition dunks come from Nash’s brilliant passing? When is an assist worth more than the shot itself? Would it be “no dribble assists”?

With double-teams, you can’t forget about hockey assists. If Dwight posts up, gets doubled, passes out to Nelson, the defense rotates, Jameer kicks it to Reddik for the wide open 3. Howard deserves some of the credit for drawing the double team. NFL does half-sacks. Something similar for the hockey assist? Or like hockey is it a whole new stat with it’s own weighted value when combining it with other statistics?

What other ways can we numerically calculate a player’s “superstar” rating?

Can we rate poor decision making beyond turnovers? For example, there’s a missed shot at the end of the shot clock, or there’s a step-back 3 with 15 seconds left on the shot clock. Same outcome, different decision value. I’m convinced this would hurt LeBron’s value. Not that he’s not one of the top 3 players in the NBA, but his decision making is questionable a lot of the time and he gets called on in broadcasts but it’s not recorded in any way. But again, that might not be a numerically calculable value…

by drapht00 on Oct 14, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Lol, that might be a little bit too deep.

Have my head exploding trying to crunch those numbers. But the Nash effect should definitely be taken into account. I think if there isn’t a statistical database talking about the double team’s, we may have to end up going with people who we just figure command double teams by reputation. Of course, it may not be 100% accurate, but I think it’ll still lead to the same results that will probably have the contenders in the elite. And the Nash effect has to be included somehow. Year after year, I’ve watched players leave Phoniex and go from halfway decent to downright mediocre. And that can all be attributed to playing with him. Hakim Warrick and Turkoglu get a higher rating for being on the team with him now.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

We need a team of stasticians watching every minute of every game taking notes

by drapht00 on Oct 14, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Hell yeah. :-(

Although I think we could get around it. I’m sure Hollinger has never watched more than 2 Bobcat games in his life.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

I'll think about it some more

by drapht00 on Oct 14, 2010 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Aiight.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions

There are plenty of ways to quantify coaches.

Career winning %. Winning % over past X number of games. Change in winning % over past X number of games compared to previous X number of games. Record of team(s) coached during X number of games before coach arrived compared to record of team(s) X number of games after coach arrived; Years of experience (a plus); Old age (a minus),

A good regression analysis program will help determine which factors would predict a winning season. Of course there are many factors and a slew of other data that would need to be entered and analyzed. Maybe the Freakanomics team can tackle this in their next book.

by Ft.Mill Bobcat on Oct 15, 2010 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions

This ish is about to get complicated.

Lol

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 16, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Someone else may have pointed it out by now:

but you have Team Ratings being dependent upon Player Ratings. However, you have Player Ratings being dependent upon Team Success, which is of course dependent upon Team Ratings… it’s an infinite loop.

I can see an easy way to fix it (remove it) but I also understand why you have it there. I’m thinking there has to be a more elegant way of going about this.

Also, how exactly did you decide on the numbers you assigned to the point guards?

by Tim Rudisill on Oct 14, 2010 5:18 PM EDT reply actions

That's the problem I run into

It’s all cyclic. If you want to project a team’s success after some roster changes (e.g. How valuable will Devin Harris be to our team if we trade for him), you have to rely on some type of individual metrics. But that doesn’t necessarily gauge their value in a new system with new teammates. It’s incredibly unpredictable.

by drapht00 on Oct 14, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions

That's true.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, I know it sounded kind of funny,

but, my logic would be to take a player’s success from last year and integrate that with the team’s success to get like a middle ground. That middle ground would be then used to rank the players this year, and then, the next year, we would then look at the player’s stats measured against the team’s success, and find that middle ground to use with the next season. I’m trying to come up with a mathematical formula that finds that number that can be consistent with actual results. But you’re right, lol, there definitely has to be a more elegant way of going about it. As long as you know what I’m trying to get to.

And to rank the PG’s, I came up with a formula that only took a few stats from the players and added in a couple other factors. It’s really weird, flawed, and unreliable right now in it’s current form, but it had to do with points per game, assists per game, steals per game, turnovers per game, All-Star appearances, and whether their teams went to the playoffs or not. Which is why, as you can probably tell, Mo Williams got a much higher rating than he deserved.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Replace All-Star appearances with All-NBA teams

Still a popularity contest to a degree, but not as bad as the All-Star team.

Also, sounds like you’re trying to use formula based on Newton’s method for approximation. I should break out my old text books…

by drapht00 on Oct 14, 2010 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions

I forgot those idiot fans did mess around and vote A.I. in the All-Star game last year.

And I’m not familiar with Newton’s method. I would ask you to explain, but I guess that’s what the internet is for.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 14, 2010 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Good luck with your system. Here are a few links that could be useful.

You may find something you like in one of them.

http://www.82games.com/index.htm
http://www.basketball-reference.com/
http://basketballvalue.com/index.php
http://boxscorebasketball.com/
http://hoopdata.com/default.aspx
http://www.dougstats.com/
http://www.permanent-sketch.com/WinsProduced/Main.html#/Season

"Teams are making adjustments to us, it’s not the other way around," Smith said. "Right after (the Heat) signed LeBron and Bosh, they went out and signed eight centers. So I’m not overly concerned."

I'll tell ya about the Magic It'll free your soul but it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock n roll

by NC Magic Fan on Oct 15, 2010 10:54 AM EDT reply actions

Thanks bud. 82games.com was the only one I was already familiar with.

These will defintely come in handy.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 15, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions

They all are a little different.

DougStats is good for downloading basic stats (cut and paste into a worksheet), Basketball Reference has a lot of good advanced stats, per 36 stats as well as per game.

I missed one that you may not like:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2fhollinger%2fstatistics

I'll tell ya about the Magic It'll free your soul but it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock n roll

by NC Magic Fan on Oct 15, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Lol, smfh.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 15, 2010 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't forget David's post on the Google Chrome extension

http://hoopdata.com/blogengine/post/2010/09/22/Player-Search-Extension-for-Google-Chrome.aspx

I'll tell ya about the Magic It'll free your soul but it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock n roll

by NC Magic Fan on Oct 15, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions

This makes my head hurt

I like to judge teams on a very complex rating system called their record. I judge a team that is 30-10 as better than a team that is 20-20. In the end, nothing else really matters. As the great philosopher Bill Parcells once said when asked if his team was better than their record: “You are what your record says you are.”

(By the way, I’m not trying to be sarcastic here. I just don’t have the time to even think about this stuff and when I do, my head hurts. This number crunching crap is just a way for Hollinger and his other bumbling bunch of morons to keep gainful employment and put on the disguise that they’re actually providing something useful)

by Bring Back Primoz on Oct 15, 2010 1:35 PM EDT reply actions

I hear where you're coming from.

But, hell, I have a few hours to kill in between taking calls all day. This should kill a lot of it. And I’m still on my F**K Hollinger campaign so any bad words you have for him are well appreciated.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 15, 2010 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm all up for a F**K Hollinger campaign

He invents statistics that don’t mean anything and then conveys them with a prickish cocky attitude. I could do without him too.

by Bring Back Primoz on Oct 15, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Lol. I know right.

I don’t even have that much of a problem with his statisical system. I think it’s great in some ways. But he just puts all faith into them like they are the sure thing and he starts believing what the numbers say despite common sense. I guess I’m still upset at him for ranking the Bobcats last in the league in his “Future Projections” and that we were about half as good (future wise) as the team one spot in front of us, Minnesota. How can anyone sit there and predict a team would be twice as bad as Minnesota was last year. That’s damn near impossible. But, his damn numbers have him convinced is the truth. And that is just blasphemy to me. I’d feel disrespected if I was a fan of the Raptors and he made a comment like that. No matter how bad ish is supposed to get, it can’t be that bad.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 15, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions

John Hollinger

burned my crops & stole my horses

by bobcatRedemption on Oct 16, 2010 4:02 AM EDT reply actions

That bastard killed my sheep.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 16, 2010 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Worse than that! I drank my Mooshine!!

I'll tell ya about the Magic It'll free your soul but it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock n roll

by NC Magic Fan on Oct 16, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions

He's climbing in your windows. He is snatching your people up.

Hide you kids, Hide your wife
http://www.youtube.com/user/schmoyoho#p/a/736C3116AD309B58/0/hMtZfW2z9dw

by Ft.Mill Bobcat on Oct 16, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions

And hide your husband CAUSE THEY RAPIN' EVERYBODY OUT HURRRRR!!!!

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 16, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions

just sickening

Please get the Rufus Rating out pronto to rival Hollinger’s Dumb-ass meter or whatever he calls it. If not for the Bobcat Nation, then for the wives & sheep

by bobcatRedemption on Oct 16, 2010 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Lol, I'm working on it.

by Charlotte Bobcat on Oct 18, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions

I'll tell ya about the Magic It'll free your soul but it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock n roll

by NC Magic Fan on Oct 19, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

He terk er jerbs!

10 in the box, man to man coverage? Well, what are you waiting for?! Motion our only wide out back towards the line, and let's PUNCH THEM IN THE MOUTH with a RB dive right up the gut for a big 1st down gain! OK, "Dead Horse" on 1...

by Newsinz on Oct 18, 2010 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions