His assist % is lowest in 03-04, when he is 100%

I don't see it.

Dwight Howard is a joke also, he fluctuates between 100% at PF in certain seasons. Again what changed?

Wade had higher rebounds per minute those two seasons, which might explain it.

Howard is 100% at PF except for this past season, when he had his highest reb/min and blk/min and 2nd lowest ast/min.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/27/2008Wade had higher rebounds per minute those two seasons, which might explain it.

Howard is 100% at PF except for this past season, when he had his highest reb/min and blk/min and 2nd lowest ast/min

What made Howard incapable of playing PF at 100% this past season?

apparently centers dont create opportunities for others

I don't know how else to explain the process. It's not based on one number. It's a statistical profile of each position. I'm just pointing out the stats that might differentiate otherwise similar seasons from a single player.

We could easily go back to the old system where every player is treated the same. So every SG can play PG and SF at 100%, and every C can play PF at 100%. Personally, I don't think that makes the game better, but if there's some widespread support for it we'll consider it.

and apparently your subjective decision in weighting the factors in the profile equation was that centers dont create opportunities for others but PFs do?

any effective post presence creates opportunities on the perimeter and on the weakside and many centers are/were quite good at distributing from the post

We do not create the weights. All the data is subjected to a cluster analysis that determines each positions statistical profile. Then players are compare to that profile to determine the how they fit. We do not create the weights or even determine which stats are most relevant.

Here's my solution to the problem, why not just make every player at least 100% at 2 positions...yes including your Bols and Bogues', and make exceptions for those that you believe can play 3 positions guys like Oscar, Magic, Paul Arizin, MJ (should be).

It opens the game up a bit and it probably takes some heat off of you. I don't know about others, but I don't play players at any position unless they're 100%...the 99s, 98s, 96s, etc are quirky at best, its like, why not just make them 100.

I'm for a more open game, and I believe it can be accomplished by doing something like this, without getting too ridiculous.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/27/2008We could easily go back to the old system where every player is treated the same. So every SG can play PG and SF at 100%, and every C can play PF at 100%. Personally, I don't think that makes the game better, but if there's some widespread support for it we'll consider it

I don't ever remember that being the case...I remember each guy being listed as a 2 position guy back in 2003...PG-SG...SG-SF...SF-PF...PF-C...not 3 positions. Also, we've seen what you've done personally to "better the game"...not thrilled.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/27/2008We do not create the weights. All the data is subjected to a cluster analysis that determines each positions statistical profile. Then players are compare to that profile to determine the how they fit. We do not create the weights or even determine which stats are most relevant

you mean they just fell out of the sky?

seriously stop being such a dope - you made decisions about what to consider, how to analyze, how to evaluate, what was important, what was not - you may not realize it but you did - statistics without context are meaningless

Not listed at multiple positions, just able to play those positions. Before position effectiveness, there was no player-specific penalty for being out of position. It was simply based on listed position and how far away from that you were playing him.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/27/2008Not listed at multiple positions, just able to play those positions. Before position effectiveness, there was no player-specific penalty for being out of position. It was simply based on listed position and how far away from that you were playing him

But I never remember guys being able to play 3 positions without penalty...I think you're wrong.

Also, tell me how adding more combinations (i.e. 100% PE at 2 positions at least for every player), within reason, is detrimental to the game