Fast Break: The McDyess Fiasco: Problem Personalities Need Not Apply in Denver

Cruising the internet, I have found a large number of Colorado “basketball fans” who are happy that Antonio McDyess wants to embarrass the Nuggets franchise by refusing to play for them after he was traded from the Pistons, along with Chauncey Billups, for Allen Iverson. The Nuggets have been trading for and then spitting out very solid but not superstar players for years and years, and McDyess was spit out of the Mile High City in June 2002.

McDyess is at least a quality 6th man power forward with a lot more heavy duty pressure playoff experience than that young whippersnapper Linas Kleiza, or than Kenyon Martin for that matter. That the Nuggets need him is obvious, though no one least of all me is going to say that the Nuggets are going to be able to get the other pieces to build a playoff winning team any time soon. But you have to start somewhere.

And it seems that the Nuggets can not even start somewhere let alone see the light at the end of the tunnel for their quest to build a team that could win a playoff. Not only does the player himself not want to play for them, because he perceived he was run out of town on a rail in the middle of the night, but many of the “fans” are glad that McDyess does not want to play for the Nuggets.

The Colorado fans are commonly posting that McDyess has this or that personality defect, and so they are glad that he will not play for the Nuggets. Coach George Karl is notorious for thinking that personalities determine the fate of basketball teams. Coaches, especially ones who would already have been fired if they were coaching for another franchise, generally reflect the opinions and outlooks of the higher ups in the organization.

Meanwhile back in Detroit, many ironically like McDyess’ personality. Some even see “the perfect gentleman” type personality in the native of Mississippi and the University of Alabama. They desperately want McDyess back on their squad for what he has proven he can do for a deep playoff team, regardless of his personality. They’re loyal like that in Detroit.

But in Denver the wheels turn round and round the center points of the personality and the style things. “If we could only get the right personalities on our team, we could finally match up with the great teams of the West” they intone. They are looking around all the time and everywhere for personalities and styles, not so much for capabilities and strategic fits. They look at the waiver wire and see a player who they think has a “good personality” and they say “Man, if we get him, his personality will do our team a lot of good.” They look around at prospective free agents and rule out ones with bad personalities. There was never a chance in hell that Ron Artest would ever be allowed to become a Denver Nugget last year.

But Chauncey Billups? What are many in Colorado saying about him? “Oh, he’s such a nice man. So he must be just the man we want on our basketball team. Yes, he will get us a playoff win or two, I’m sure of it. He’s so nice and all, and his style is nice too. His style is pure; he’s a pure point guard. That’s what everyone is saying in the Denver newspapers.”

Laugh out loud, Denver.

The impulsive and immature personality of J.R. Smith on the Nuggets? Let’s listen in to Colorado “fans” as they discuss the New Jersey native known as “The Chosen One”:

“He’s really a good boy; just someone who needed some direction and a lot of bench time and some good talking to. By refusing to start him, we are putting the fear of God in him by God, and we are molding him into being a starter in the future, maybe 6 years from now or so”

Laugh out loud, Denver.

When, if ever, are the majority of Colorado fans going to learn that nice personalities are nice and nice styles are nice and cream puffs are nice, but basketball players can still be great with fairly rotten personalities and with fairly strange styles and with immature styles?

How many years is it going to take them to learn that? How many decades? Or should it be: how many centuries? How many losing seasons will they have before they come down from this obsession with personalities and styles? Will Carmelo Anthony stay when his contract is over and continue to have his personality and style raked over the coals? Will he ever do cornrows again?
___________________________________________
Editorial Notes: A "Fast Break" is a short and quick preview of some of the topics that will be explored and proved in more detail in upcoming regular reports. Fast Breaks will often reappear in full reports with only minor reediting, but there will be more important details, more evidence, and more implications and explanations in the full reports. Moreover, there will be topics that never appear in any Fast Break in a full Report.

Fast Breaks are especially useful for the first few days after major news breaks. They are also very useful for people who will seldom or never have enough time to read a full Game/Team/League Report. Fast Breaks are the type of article that more typical web logs feature almost all or all of the time.

Ultimate Game Breakdown: Players For Nets 103 Pistons 96 in New Jersey Nov. 7

REAL PLAYER RATINGS (QUALITY) FOR THIS GAME
DETROIT QUALITY
Arron Afflalo, SG 0.971
Rodney Stuckey, PG 0.709
Allen Iverson, PG 0.700
Rasheed Wallace, C 0.668
Tayshaun Prince, SF 0.649
Richard Hamilton, SG 0.563
Amir Johnson, PF 0.536
Walter Herrmann, PF 0.306
Jason Maxiell, PF 0.217
Kwame Brown, C 0.082


NETS QUALITY
Josh Boone, C 1.061
Devin Harris, PG 1.032
Yi Jianlian, PF 0.833
Vince Carter, SG 0.706
Eduardo Najera, PF 0.403
Keyon Dooling, PG 0.403
Bobby Simmons, SF 0.292
Brook Lopez, C 0.088
Jarvis Hayes, SF 0.020

SCALE FOR RPR (QUALITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
Historic Superstar for this game 1.400 and more
Superstar 1.050 to 1.399
Star/Outstanding 0.800 to 1.050
Very Good 0.650 to 0.799
Major Role Player 0.525 to 0.649
Role Player 0.450 to 0.524
Minor Role Player 0.400 to 0.449
Very Minor Role Player or Very Important Defender 0.350 to 0.399
Poor Game or Extremely Importand Defender 0.275 to 0.349
Very Poor Game Regardless of Defending 0.200 to 0.274
Disaster Game Regardless of Defending minus infinity to 0.199

****************************************************
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION (QUANTITY) IN THIS GAME
DETROIT QUANTITY
Allen Iverson, PG 25.90
Rasheed Wallace, C 24.70
Tayshaun Prince, SF 23.35
Richard Hamilton, SG 20.25
Rodney Stuckey, PG 16.30
Amir Johnson, PF 9.65
Arron Afflalo, SG 6.80
Walter Herrmann, PF 4.90
Jason Maxiell, PF 3.25
Kwame Brown, C 1.15

NETS QUANTITY
Devin Harris, PG 40.25
Josh Boone, C 37.15
Vince Carter, SG 25.40
Yi Jianlian, PF 20.00
Bobby Simmons, SF 9.35
Eduardo Najera, PF 8.05
Keyon Dooling, PG 6.45
Brook Lopez, C 1.15
Jarvis Hayes, SF 0.45


SCALE FOR RPP (QUANTITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
FOR STARTING PLAYERS
Only Some Players Can Ever Fly This High, but Not Very Often! 40.0 and more
Massive and Memorable Game 36.0 to 39.9
Huge Game 32.0 to 35.9
Very Big Game 28.0 to 31.9
Big Game 24.0 to 27.9
Typical Average Game 20.0 to 23.9
Somewhat Below Average Game 16.0 to 19.9
Way Below Average Game 12.0 to 15.9
Bad Game 9.0 to 11.9
Really Bad Game 5.0 to 8.9
Total Disaster minus infinity to 4.9

SCALE FOR RPP (QUANTITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
FOR NON-STARTING PLAYERS
Only Some Non-Starters Can Ever Fly This High, but Not Very Often! 33.0 and more
Massive and Memorable Game 29.0 to 32.9
Huge Game 25.0 to 28.9
Very Big Game 21.0 to 24.9
Big Game 17.0 to 20.9
Typical Non-Starter Game 12.0 to 16.9
Below Average Even For a Non-Starter 9.0 to 11.9
Way Below Average Even For a Non-Starter or Limited Minutes 6.0 to 8.9
Bad Game Even for a Non-Starter or Very Limited Minutes 3.0 to 5.9
Disaster: Nothing Much to Report minus infinity to 1.9

THE HIGHEST QUALITY PLAYERS IN THIS GAME







NETS OUTSTANDING QUALITY GAMES
Superstar during minutes on the Court: Josh Boone
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Devin Harris
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Yi Jianlian
Very Good during minutes on the court: Vince Carter








PISTONS OUTSTANDING QUALITY GAMES
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Arron Afflalo
Very Good during minutes on the court: Rasheed Wallace
Very Good during minutes on the court: Tayshaun Prince
Very Good during minutes on the court: Rodney Stuckey
Very Good during minutes on the court: Allen Iverson

THE GREATEST POWER PERFORMERS OF THIS GAME








NETS POWER PERFORMERS
Massive and Memorable Game: Devin Harris
Massive and Memorable Game: Josh Boone
Big Game: Vince Carter








PISTONS POWER PERFORMERS
Big Game: Rasheed Wallace
Big Game: Tayshaun Prince
Big Game: Allen Iverson

USER GUIDE FOR THIS TYPE OF REPORT (Last updated Nov. 8)
EDITING AND PUBLISHING PLAN-MAIN DETAILS
This is a "just the important facts please, and give them to me quick" type of report. I will in some cases do a very limited amount of commentary at the bottom of this type of report, but it will really be just notes for commentary that will be elsewhere in the near future. In some cases there will be no comments at all.

Most of the commentaries I do are in "Game/Team/League Reports" and in Fast Breaks". Game/Team/League reports are, with any luck, going to be produced for 26 Nuggets and for 23 games of other teams this season. Originally I was planning to cover the Raptors but now the thinking is that I should concentrate on the Pistons, so those 23 will be mostly or only on the Pistons. Ultimate Game Breakdowns: Players, such as the one here, will be done for the 26 key Nuggets games, for 8 other Nuggets games, for the 23 key Pistons games, and for 17 other games which could be Pistons games or any other NBA games.

So in total, 74 of these relatively easy to produce but very informative Ultimate Game Breakdown-Players reports are scheduled for the regular season. 49 Game/Team/League Reports are planned.

Ultimate Game Breakdown-Coaching reports are done for every game that has a Game/Team/League Report (for 26 Nuggets and 23 Pistons games).

More of every type of report will come out during playoffs season; I won't bore you with those details.

The games that get the full treatment have been very carefully chosen to be the most important games, which are generally the games against the best teams. Full treatment including the kitchen sink report games have been chosen from among only games where neither team is at a disadvantage due to playing on back to back nights. Other internet basketball "experts" are really wasting their time to some extent when they report on a game where one team was playing on back to back nights and the other team was not, because the great majority of those games are almost automatically won by the team that has more rest. I used to do those stupid games, but I'm not doing them anymore, because I keep trying to get better and better at understanding and teaching basketball, so I make changes such as this.

ULTIMATE GAME BREAKDOWN--PLAYERS REPORT EXPLAINED
With an Ultimate Game Breakdown-Players report, you can see very rapidly who was most responsible for the winning or the losing of the game. Then someone like me can easily write a separate game report which explains how things might have worked out better for a team, or why things worked out just about as well as possible, as the case may be.

The Real Player Ratings formula has been very carefully and accurately tweaked again and is currently as follows:

POSITIVE FACTORS
Points 1.00 (at par)
Number of 3-Pt FGs Made 1.00
Number of 2-Pt FGs Made 0.60
Number of FTs Made 0.00

Assists 1.75

Offensive Rebounds 1.15
Defensive Rebounds 1.25
Blocks 1.60
Steals 2.15

NEGATIVE FACTORS
3-Pt FGs Missed -1.00
2-Pt FGs Missed -0.85
FTs Missed -0.85

Turnovers -2.00
Personal Fouls -0.80

ACTUAL COMBINED AWARD OR PENALTY BY TYPE OF SHOT
3-Pointer Made 4.00
2-Pointer Made 2.60
Free Throw Made 1.00
3-Pointer Missed -1.00
2-Pointer Missed -0.85
Free Throw Missed -0.85

ZERO POINTS: PERCENTAGES BELOW WHICH THERE IS A NEGATIVE NET RESULT
3-Pointer 0 score % 0.200
2-Pointer 0 score % 0.246
1-Pointer 0 score % 0.459

ASSISTS VERSUS TURNOVERS ZERO POINT
Assist/Turnover Ratio That Yields 0 Net Points: 1.143

QUALITY (RPR) AND QUANTITY (RPP)-AN EXPLANATION
RPR game reports show for each player the RPR (Real Player Rating) which tells you how good a player did (all the good things minus all the bad things) out on the court per unit of time. The RPP (Real Player Production) report tells you how much in total (the sum of the of the good things minus the sum of the bad things) a player did out on the court.

Many and maybe most sports watchers and an unknown but probably disturbingly large number of sports managers make the mistakes of exaggerating the importance of quantity and overlooking to some extent quality. These reports allow you to expand your horizons. These reports put quantity and quality side by side, which is extremely valuable, because both are roughly equally important in explaining accurately why and how the game turned out the way it did.

Players who over many games consistently have higher RPR (quality) but lower RPP (quantity) results are in many cases not getting enough playing time. Players that over many games consistently have lower RPR (quality) but higher RPP (quantity) results are in many cases getting too much playing time.

The exceptional cases are very often going to be players who are either truly outstanding defenders or truly bad defenders. This is because the one and only thing that is not counted, because it is impossible to calculate it, is the number of shots that a player prevents from being scores. Investigation has to date revealed that, apparently, no one has even attempted, for the NBA, rough estimates of the actual value of each player's defending, in terms of number or percentage of scores prevented, or in terms of number or percentage of possessions made worthless.

Over the coming year, I am going to be working to see if it is possible to use some combination of advanced statistics that are tracked on certain internet sites as an accurate proxy for the number of shots and/or for the number of possessions ruined by a defender.

Another exception. where it is really alright when it looks like a player is playing too much, will be if a team has a point guard who has many more turnovers than the average point guard has. Because the point guard is so important, a good coach has to play his best guard who can make plays at the position for a full set of minutes every game, pretty much regardless of how many turnovers that player makes. If you take out your designated point guard due to "too many turnovers," it's most often going to be sort of like cutting your foot off because you have a bad case of athletes foot!

Ultimate Game Breakdown: Players: Nuggets 108 Mavericks 105 in Denver, Nov. 7

REAL PLAYER RATINGS (QUALITY) FOR THIS GAME
DENVER QUALITY
Carmelo Anthony, SF 1.018
Nene, C 0.983
Linas Kleiza, SF 0.900
Chauncey Billups, PG 0.637
J.R. Smith, SG 0.598
Kenyon Martin, PF 0.596
Chris Andersen, PF 0.469
Anthony Carter, PG 0.460
Dahntay Jones, SG 0.168

MAVERICKS QUALITY
Jason Kidd, PG 1.046
Dirk Nowitzki, PF 0.918
Jason Terry, PG 0.874
Gerald Green, SG 0.793
Brandon Bass, PF 0.728
DeSagana Diop, C 0.317
Josh Howard, SF 0.187
Jerry Stackhouse, SG 0.104
Erick Dampier, C -0.110
Antoine Wright, SG -0.183


SCALE FOR RPR (QUALITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
Historic Superstar for this game 1.400 and more
Superstar 1.050 to 1.399
Star/Outstanding 0.800 to 1.050
Very Good 0.650 to 0.799
Major Role Player 0.525 to 0.649
Role Player 0.450 to 0.524
Minor Role Player 0.400 to 0.449
Very Minor Role Player or Very Important Defender 0.350 to 0.399
Poor Game or Extremely Importand Defender 0.275 to 0.349
Very Poor Game Regardless of Defending 0.200 to 0.274
Disaster Game Regardless of Defending minus infinity to 0.199

****************************************************
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION (QUANTITY) IN THIS GAME
DENVER QUANTITY
Nene, C 35.40
Carmelo Anthony, SF 33.60
Kenyon Martin, PF 20.85
Chauncey Billups, PG 19.10
J.R. Smith, SG 16.15
Linas Kleiza, SF 13.50
Anthony Carter, PG 11.05
Chris Andersen, PF 8.45
Dahntay Jones, SG 3.70


MAVERICKS QUANTITY
Jason Kidd, PG 41.85
Dirk Nowitzki, PF 35.80
Jason Terry, PG 34.10
Brandon Bass, PF 18.20
Gerald Green, SG 11.90
DeSagana Diop, C 6.65
Josh Howard, SF 5.05
Jerry Stackhouse, SG 1.45
Erick Dampier, C -1.10
Antoine Wright, SG -1.65


SCALE FOR RPP (QUANTITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
FOR STARTING PLAYERS
Only Some Players Can Ever Fly This High, but Not Very Often! 40.0 and more
Massive and Memorable Game 36.0 to 39.9
Huge Game 32.0 to 35.9
Very Big Game 28.0 to 31.9
Big Game 24.0 to 27.9
Typical Average Game 20.0 to 23.9
Somewhat Below Average Game 16.0 to 19.9
Way Below Average Game 12.0 to 15.9
Bad Game 9.0 to 11.9
Really Bad Game 5.0 to 8.9
Total Disaster minus infinity to 4.9

SCALE FOR RPP (QUANTITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
FOR NON-STARTING PLAYERS
Only Some Non-Starters Can Ever Fly This High, but Not Very Often! 33.0 and more
Massive and Memorable Game 29.0 to 32.9
Huge Game 25.0 to 28.9
Very Big Game 21.0 to 24.9
Big Game 17.0 to 20.9
Typical Non-Starter Game 12.0 to 16.9
Below Average Even For a Non-Starter 9.0 to 11.9
Way Below Average Even For a Non-Starter or Limited Minutes 6.0 to 8.9
Bad Game Even for a Non-Starter or Very Limited Minutes 3.0 to 5.9
Disaster: Nothing Much to Report minus infinity to 1.9

THE HIGHEST QUALITY PLAYERS IN THIS GAME












MAVERICKS OUTSTANDING QUALITY GAMES
Superstar during minutes on the Court: Jason Kidd
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Dirk Nowitzki
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Jason Terry
Very Good during minutes on the court: Gerald Green
Very Good during minutes on the court: Brandon Bass









NUGGETS OUTSTANDING QUALITY GAMES
Superstar during minutes on the Court: Nene
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Carmelo Anthony
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Linas Kleiza
Very Good during minutes on the court: Chauncey Billups
Very Good during minutes on the court: Kenyon Martin

THE GREATEST POWER PERFORMERS OF THIS GAME












MAVERICKS POWER PERFORMERS
Only Some Non-Starters Can Ever Fly This High, and Not Very Often!: Jason Kidd
Massive and Memorable Game: Dirk Nowitzki
Huge Game: Jason Terry
Big Game: Brandon Bass









NUGGETS POWER PERFORMERS
Massive and Memorable Game: Nene
Huge Game: Carmelo Anthony

USER GUIDE FOR THIS TYPE OF REPORT (Last updated Nov. 8)
EDITING AND PUBLISHING PLAN-MAIN DETAILS
This is a "just the important facts please, and give them to me quick" type of report. I will in some cases do a very limited amount of commentary at the bottom of this type of report, but it will really be just notes for commentary that will be elsewhere in the near future. In some cases there will be no comments at all.

Most of the commentaries I do are in "Game/Team/League Reports" and in Fast Breaks". Game/Team/League reports are, with any luck, going to be produced for 26 Nuggets and for 23 games of other teams this season. Originally I was planning to cover the Raptors but now the thinking is that I should concentrate on the Pistons, so those 23 will be mostly or only on the Pistons. Ultimate Game Breakdowns: Players, such as the one here, will be done for the 26 key Nuggets games, for 8 other Nuggets games, for the 23 key Pistons games, and for 17 other games which could be Pistons games or any other NBA games.

So in total, 74 of these relatively easy to produce but very informative Ultimate Game Breakdown-Players reports are scheduled for the regular season. 49 Game/Team/League Reports are planned.

Ultimate Game Breakdown-Coaching reports are done for every game that has a Game/Team/League Report (for 26 Nuggets and 23 Pistons games).

More of every type of report will come out during playoffs season; I won't bore you with those details.

The games that get the full treatment have been very carefully chosen to be the most important games, which are generally the games against the best teams. Full treatment including the kitchen sink report games have been chosen from among only games where neither team is at a disadvantage due to playing on back to back nights. Other internet basketball "experts" are really wasting their time to some extent when they report on a game where one team was playing on back to back nights and the other team was not, because the great majority of those games are almost automatically won by the team that has more rest. I used to do those stupid games, but I'm not doing them anymore, because I keep trying to get better and better at understanding and teaching basketball, so I make changes such as this.

ULTIMATE GAME BREAKDOWN--PLAYERS REPORT EXPLAINED
With an Ultimate Game Breakdown-Players report, you can see very rapidly who was most responsible for the winning or the losing of the game. Then someone like me can easily write a separate game report which explains how things might have worked out better for a team, or why things worked out just about as well as possible, as the case may be.

The Real Player Ratings formula has been very carefully and accurately tweaked again and is currently as follows:

POSITIVE FACTORS
Points 1.00 (at par)
Number of 3-Pt FGs Made 1.00
Number of 2-Pt FGs Made 0.60
Number of FTs Made 0.00

Assists 1.75

Offensive Rebounds 1.15
Defensive Rebounds 1.25
Blocks 1.60
Steals 2.15

NEGATIVE FACTORS
3-Pt FGs Missed -1.00
2-Pt FGs Missed -0.85
FTs Missed -0.85

Turnovers -2.00
Personal Fouls -0.80

ACTUAL COMBINED AWARD OR PENALTY BY TYPE OF SHOT
3-Pointer Made 4.00
2-Pointer Made 2.60
Free Throw Made 1.00
3-Pointer Missed -1.00
2-Pointer Missed -0.85
Free Throw Missed -0.85

ZERO POINTS: PERCENTAGES BELOW WHICH THERE IS A NEGATIVE NET RESULT
3-Pointer 0 score % 0.200
2-Pointer 0 score % 0.246
1-Pointer 0 score % 0.459

ASSISTS VERSUS TURNOVERS ZERO POINT
Assist/Turnover Ratio That Yields 0 Net Points: 1.143

QUALITY (RPR) AND QUANTITY (RPP)-AN EXPLANATION
RPR game reports show for each player the RPR (Real Player Rating) which tells you how good a player did (all the good things minus all the bad things) out on the court per unit of time. The RPP (Real Player Production) report tells you how much in total (the sum of the of the good things minus the sum of the bad things) a player did out on the court.

Many and maybe most sports watchers and an unknown but probably disturbingly large number of sports managers make the mistakes of exaggerating the importance of quantity and overlooking to some extent quality. These reports allow you to expand your horizons. These reports put quantity and quality side by side, which is extremely valuable, because both are roughly equally important in explaining accurately why and how the game turned out the way it did.

Players who over many games consistently have higher RPR (quality) but lower RPP (quantity) results are in many cases not getting enough playing time. Players that over many games consistently have lower RPR (quality) but higher RPP (quantity) results are in many cases getting too much playing time.

The exceptional cases are very often going to be players who are either truly outstanding defenders or truly bad defenders. This is because the one and only thing that is not counted, because it is impossible to calculate it, is the number of shots that a player prevents from being scores. Investigation has to date revealed that, apparently, no one has even attempted, for the NBA, rough estimates of the actual value of each player's defending, in terms of number or percentage of scores prevented, or in terms of number or percentage of possessions made worthless.

Over the coming year, I am going to be working to see if it is possible to use some combination of advanced statistics that are tracked on certain internet sites as an accurate proxy for the number of shots and/or for the number of possessions ruined by a defender.

Another exception. where it is really alright when it looks like a player is playing too much, will be if a team has a point guard who has many more turnovers than the average point guard has. Because the point guard is so important, a good coach has to play his best guard who can make plays at the position for a full set of minutes every game, pretty much regardless of how many turnovers that player makes. If you take out your designated point guard due to "too many turnovers," it's most often going to be sort of like cutting your foot off because you have a bad case of athletes foot!

Ultimate Game Breakdown: Players: Warriors 111 Nuggets 101 in Oakland Nov. 5

REAL PLAYER RATINGS (QUALITY) FOR THIS GAME
DENVER QUALITY
Nene, C 1.049
Chris Andersen, PF 0.850
Carmelo Anthony, SF 0.779
Anthony Carter, PG 0.650
Linas Kleiza, SF 0.645
Kenyon Martin, PF 0.563
Dahntay Jones, SG 0.412
J.R. Smith, SG 0.110

WARRIORS QUALITY
Brandan Wright, SF 1.063
Kelenna Azubuike, SG 0.884
Ronny Turiaf, PF 0.855
Andris Biedrins, C 0.694
C.J. Watson, PG 0.600
Stephen Jackson, SG 0.570
Al Harrington, PF 0.228

SCALE FOR RPR (QUALITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
Historic Superstar for this game 1.400 and more
Superstar 1.050 to 1.399
Star/Outstanding 0.800 to 1.050
Very Good 0.650 to 0.799
Major Role Player 0.525 to 0.649
Role Player 0.450 to 0.524
Minor Role Player 0.400 to 0.449
Very Minor Role Player or Very Important Defender 0.350 to 0.399
Poor Game or Extremely Importand Defender 0.275 to 0.349
Very Poor Game Regardless of Defending 0.200 to 0.274
Disaster Game Regardless of Defending minus infinity to 0.199

****************************************************
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION (QUANTITY) IN THIS GAME
DENVER QUANTITY
Nene, C 35.65
Carmelo Anthony, SF 31.95
Anthony Carter, PG 24.70
Kenyon Martin, PF 19.15
Chris Andersen, PF 15.30
Linas Kleiza, SF 12.25
Dahntay Jones, SG 8.65
J.R. Smith, SG 3.20

WARRIORS QUANTITY
Kelenna Azubuike, SG 38.90
Brandan Wright, SF 34.00
C.J. Watson, PG 25.20
Stephen Jackson, SG 25.10
Andris Biedrins, C 22.20
Ronny Turiaf, PF 17.10
Al Harrington, PF 3.65

SCALE FOR RPP (QUANTITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
FOR STARTING PLAYERS
Only Some Players Can Ever Fly This High, but Not Very Often! 40.0 and more
Massive and Memorable Game 36.0 to 39.9
Huge Game 32.0 to 35.9
Very Big Game 28.0 to 31.9
Big Game 24.0 to 27.9
Typical Average Game 20.0 to 23.9
Somewhat Below Average Game 16.0 to 19.9
Way Below Average Game 12.0 to 15.9
Bad Game 9.0 to 11.9
Really Bad Game 5.0 to 8.9
Total Disaster minus infinity to 4.9

SCALE FOR RPP (QUANTITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
FOR NON-STARTING PLAYERS
Only Some Non-Starters Can Ever Fly This High, but Not Very Often! 33.0 and more
Massive and Memorable Game 29.0 to 32.9
Huge Game 25.0 to 28.9
Very Big Game 21.0 to 24.9
Big Game 17.0 to 20.9
Typical Non-Starter Game 12.0 to 16.9
Below Average Even For a Non-Starter 9.0 to 11.9
Way Below Average Even For a Non-Starter or Limited Minutes 6.0 to 8.9
Bad Game Even for a Non-Starter or Very Limited Minutes 3.0 to 5.9
Disaster: Nothing Much to Report minus infinity to 1.9

THE HIGHEST QUALITY PLAYERS IN THIS GAME











WARRIORS OUTSTANDING QUALITY GAMES
Superstar during minutes on the Court: Brandan Wright
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Kelenna Azubuike
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Ronny Turiaf
Very Good during minutes on the court: Andris Biedrins









NUGGETS OUTSTANDING QUALITY GAMES
Superstar during minutes on the Court: Nene
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Chris Andersen
Very Good during minutes on the court: Carmelo Anthony

THE GREATEST POWER PERFORMERS OF THIS GAME











WARRIORS POWER PERFORMERS
Only Some Non-Starters Can Ever Fly This High, and Not Very Often!: Kelenna Azubuike
Only Some Non-Starters Can Ever Fly This High, and Not Very Often!: Brandan Wright
Very Big Game: C.J. Watson
Big Game: Stephen Jackson
Big Game: Andris Biedrins









NUGGETS POWER PERFORMERS
Massive and Memorable Game: Nene
Huge Game: Carmelo Anthony

USER GUIDE FOR THIS TYPE OF REPORT (Last updated Nov. 8)
EDITING AND PUBLISHING PLAN-MAIN DETAILS
This is a "just the important facts please, and give them to me quick" type of report. I will in some cases do a very limited amount of commentary at the bottom of this type of report, but it will really be just notes for commentary that will be elsewhere in the near future. In some cases there will be no comments at all.

Most of the commentaries I do are in "Game/Team/League Reports" and in Fast Breaks". Game/Team/League reports are, with any luck, going to be produced for 26 Nuggets and for 23 games of other teams this season. Originally I was planning to cover the Raptors but now the thinking is that I should concentrate on the Pistons, so those 23 will be mostly or only on the Pistons. Ultimate Game Breakdowns: Players, such as the one here, will be done for the 26 key Nuggets games, for 8 other Nuggets games, for the 23 key Pistons games, and for 17 other games which could be Pistons games or any other NBA games.

So in total, 74 of these relatively easy to produce but very informative Ultimate Game Breakdown-Players reports are scheduled for the regular season. 49 Game/Team/League Reports are planned.

Ultimate Game Breakdown-Coaching reports are done for every game that has a Game/Team/League Report (for 26 Nuggets and 23 Pistons games).

More of every type of report will come out during playoffs season; I won't bore you with those details.

The games that get the full treatment have been very carefully chosen to be the most important games, which are generally the games against the best teams. Full treatment including the kitchen sink report games have been chosen from among only games where neither team is at a disadvantage due to playing on back to back nights. Other internet basketball "experts" are really wasting their time to some extent when they report on a game where one team was playing on back to back nights and the other team was not, because the great majority of those games are almost automatically won by the team that has more rest. I used to do those stupid games, but I'm not doing them anymore, because I keep trying to get better and better at understanding and teaching basketball, so I make changes such as this.

ULTIMATE GAME BREAKDOWN--PLAYERS REPORT EXPLAINED
With an Ultimate Game Breakdown-Players report, you can see very rapidly who was most responsible for the winning or the losing of the game. Then someone like me can easily write a separate game report which explains how things might have worked out better for a team, or why things worked out just about as well as possible, as the case may be.

The Real Player Ratings formula has been very carefully and accurately tweaked again and is currently as follows:

POSITIVE FACTORS
Points 1.00 (at par)
Number of 3-Pt FGs Made 1.00
Number of 2-Pt FGs Made 0.60
Number of FTs Made 0.00

Assists 1.75

Offensive Rebounds 1.15
Defensive Rebounds 1.25
Blocks 1.60
Steals 2.15

NEGATIVE FACTORS
3-Pt FGs Missed -1.00
2-Pt FGs Missed -0.85
FTs Missed -0.85

Turnovers -2.00
Personal Fouls -0.80

ACTUAL COMBINED AWARD OR PENALTY BY TYPE OF SHOT
3-Pointer Made 4.00
2-Pointer Made 2.60
Free Throw Made 1.00
3-Pointer Missed -1.00
2-Pointer Missed -0.85
Free Throw Missed -0.85

ZERO POINTS: PERCENTAGES BELOW WHICH THERE IS A NEGATIVE NET RESULT
3-Pointer 0 score % 0.200
2-Pointer 0 score % 0.246
1-Pointer 0 score % 0.459

ASSISTS VERSUS TURNOVERS ZERO POINT
Assist/Turnover Ratio That Yields 0 Net Points: 1.143

QUALITY (RPR) AND QUANTITY (RPP)-AN EXPLANATION
RPR game reports show for each player the RPR (Real Player Rating) which tells you how good a player did (all the good things minus all the bad things) out on the court per unit of time. The RPP (Real Player Production) report tells you how much in total (the sum of the of the good things minus the sum of the bad things) a player did out on the court.

Many and maybe most sports watchers and an unknown but probably disturbingly large number of sports managers make the mistakes of exaggerating the importance of quantity and overlooking to some extent quality. These reports allow you to expand your horizons. These reports put quantity and quality side by side, which is extremely valuable, because both are roughly equally important in explaining accurately why and how the game turned out the way it did.

Players who over many games consistently have higher RPR (quality) but lower RPP (quantity) results are in many cases not getting enough playing time. Players that over many games consistently have lower RPR (quality) but higher RPP (quantity) results are in many cases getting too much playing time.

The exceptional cases are very often going to be players who are either truly outstanding defenders or truly bad defenders. This is because the one and only thing that is not counted, because it is impossible to calculate it, is the number of shots that a player prevents from being scores. Investigation has to date revealed that, apparently, no one has even attempted, for the NBA, rough estimates of the actual value of each player's defending, in terms of number or percentage of scores prevented, or in terms of number or percentage of possessions made worthless.

Over the coming year, I am going to be working to see if it is possible to use some combination of advanced statistics that are tracked on certain internet sites as an accurate proxy for the number of shots and/or for the number of possessions ruined by a defender.

Another exception. where it is really alright when it looks like a player is playing too much, will be if a team has a point guard who has many more turnovers than the average point guard has. Because the point guard is so important, a good coach has to play his best guard who can make plays at the position for a full set of minutes every game, pretty much regardless of how many turnovers that player makes. If you take out your designated point guard due to "too many turnovers," it's most often going to be sort of like cutting your foot off because you have a bad case of athletes foot!

Fast Break: Will the Nuggets Make the Playoffs After Billups for Iverson?

The more common things you hear about the trade, what you might call "the party line," are:

1. The Nuggets benefit more than the Pistons do in the short term.
2. The Pistons benefit more than the Nuggets do in the long term.

When you go beneath those headlines, what you find is that the majority of the majority saying those two things are people who think that Allen Iverson's alleged "score first mentality" is (a) generally bad for his team and (b) disqualifies him from being the designated point guard.

I don't even fully concede the premise, which is that he has a "score first mentality." I think that used to be true, but I just discovered more proof just today, to go along with his 2008 news conferences, that shows that the 2008 Iverson mentality is more of a "win first mentality" than a "score first mentality".

But even if I conceded the premise, I would not agree with the conclusions: (a) and (b) above. A score first mentality guard who is a point guard and a shooting guard at the same time no matter what you do can still be made to work as long as you do not hose up the point guard position by disrespecting it, as the Nuggets completely and hopelessly did.

With respect to Iverson's score first mentality being generally bad for his team, I have written extensively for more than a year now about what the Nuggets (or any decent or good team) needed to do to solve the dilemma and to allow for Iverson to work out on their team. They didn't do any of the things I knew they needed to do. So they flunked out and, realizing they were going nowhere, they got rid of Iverson.

With regard to (b) that Iverson is disqualified from being a designated point guard: here we are living in an age when one of the highest scoring point guards in history brought his team to within 1 game of the Western Finals, yet people are still saying that over and over and over again like zombies. For the umpteenth time, it is not true that a guard who can score a lot of points is a guard who is disqualified from being the point guard. You just have to use your brain to set up your offense in particular and the role of the point guard in particular in such a way that works out with a high scoring point guard. This is something that the Pistons managers seem to know how to do, though it is too early to assume they will completely succeed.

So most of the people who are bowing down to the Nuggets and saying they will now make the playoffs are saying it only because of those false beliefs regarding high scoring point guards in general and an older Allen Iverson in particular. So does that mean that they are wrong, and the Nuggets will not actually make the playoffs even after the trade?

Yes, they are most likely wrong. There are 7 teams that are locks or virtual locks for the playoffs in the West:

1. Lakers
2. Rockets
3. Jazz
4. Hornets
5. Spurs
6. Mavericks
7. Suns

None of those teams have perfect point guards, perfect centers, or perfect anything else, but I would do 100 back flips on the lawn at midnight if I caught any of them disrespecting and hosing up the point guard or the center position.

The following teams will be scrambling for the 8th and final playoff spot:

1. Blazers
2. Clippers
3. Warriors
4. Nuggets

Other West Teams
1. Timberwolves
Thunder
Grizzlies
Kings

There is a slight possibility that the Suns will collapse and fall out of the playoffs, but I would not spend any time on that slight possibility right now. Even if the Spurs or Mavericks tank, they are still virtual locks for the playoffs. So most likely the Nuggets are just 1 of 4 teams battling for the 8th and final playoff spot in the West this year. (Wow, for how many years now has that been about true or exactly true?)

My prediction right now is that the Blazers will get the last spot, but that all depends on how many games Greg Oden plays. If he's out half the year or more, all bets are off.

The Clippers are off to a bad start but don't let that fool you. They are going to finish at least a game ahead of the Nuggets in my view. I even see the Warriors finishing ahead of the Nuggets.

Since this is just a fast break, I'm not going to describe how I think the Billups offense will pan out here; this is too long for a fast break already.

So why is it that I have the Nuggets 11th in the West and many others have them 8th?

1. As explained in some detail already, there is a lot about Iverson and how Iverson on the Nuggets was botched that those who are saying 8th and a playoff do not understand.
2. A good chunk of those same people are also saying that the removal of Marcus Camby from the Nuggets does not make the Nuggets any worse defensively, and may even make them better, especially if the Nuggets practice hard on defense, as they are. I shot this hope down in the game 1 (Jazz) game report. It's just wishful thinking.
3. Most of them are assuming that J.R. Smith will start and play at least 30 minutes per game, when neither is all that likely. Plus even if he does get that, no one disputes that his court thinking is still going to be kind of immature this year. Leave Smith in at the end of close games and you are cruising for a bruising.
4. The Nuggets are getting a sympathy vote. Some of them quite frankly are probably secretly feeling sorry for the bumbling Nuggets, who spent tens of millions of dollars to try to get a World Class team and now find themselves heading who knows how far south in the standings. So they are saying that the Nuggets will make the playoffs, but they don't really and truly think they will.

So I feel confident right at this time saying that the Nuggets will not make the playoffs. The Nuggets need some key injuries on several teams to be able to slip in.

Editorial Note: Please be aware that a "Fast Break" is a short and quick preview of some of the topics that will be explored and proved in more detail in upcoming regular reports. Fast Breaks will often reappear in full reports with only minor reediting, but there will be more important details, more evidence, and more implications and explanations in the full reports. Moreover, there will be topics that never appear in any Fast Break in a full Report.

Fast Breaks are especially useful for the first few days after major news breaks. They are also very useful for people who will seldom or never have enough time to read a full Game/Team/League Report. Fast Breaks are the type of article that more typical web logs feature almost all or all of the time.

Fast Break: I Want to Bury the Iverson Can't... Crowd Once and For All

You know what, though? If you are a really, really serious basketball person, you need to look at the cousin of points per assist, which is shots per assist. Since Iverson was much more controlled and accurate by the time he was in his 11th and 12th years in the League, his shooting percentage went up:

IVERSON SHOOTING %
96-97 0.416
97-98 0.461
98-99 0.412
99-00 0.421
00-01 0.420
01-02 0.398
02-03 0.414
03-04 0.387
04-05 0.424
05-06 0.447
06-07 0.413 Sixers
06-07 0.454 Nuggets
07-08 0.458

Now go on to:

IVERSON SHOTS PER ASSIST
96-97 2.65
97-98 2.85
98-99 4.74
99-00 5.28
00-01 5.58
01-02 5.04
02-03 4.27
03-04 3.47
04-05 3.05
05-06 3.42
06-07 3.36 Sixers
06-07 2.64 Nuggets
07-08 2.66

Now the plot has thickened and yours truly has to think things out yet again and make a modification or two.

What happened when Iverson went to Denver is that although the Nuggets did not tell Iverson to change anything, he did in fact change some things:

1 He was a much more accurate shooter than he was in Philadelphia. Whether he was a more what's best for the team as a whole shooter, though, is a separate question and is what is really the issue behind the Nuggets mess.
2. He did in fact return all the way back to his rookie year when he was still a point guard, in terms of shots per assist. He reduced his shots per assist very substantially as soon as he arrived in Denver, and by a greater amount than can be explained only by the Carmelo Anthony factor. The only reason points per assist, from the previous post, were still higher than they were when he was a point guard in Philadelphia in 1996-97, was that he was making more shots in Denver!
3. Although Iverson was not told to reduce shooting in favor of assisting, he did so anyway, but only to a limited extent, once the fact that the Sixers had no one remotely like Carmelo Anthony on their team is taken into account. So he did it voluntarily, and only when he was in the mood. Apparently he thought it might be the right thing to do, but since no one told him to do it, he only did it when he was in the mood to do it, which was not all the time.

In my own reports I have for some games described Iverson as modifying his game some from Philadelphia, but only when he was in the mood. Now I know exactly why I was saying that all those times, laugh out loud.

So getting back to the Pistons, what does the Pistons' objective have to be?

I'd say they need to set the objective at 2.35 shots per assist or lower, because:

1. This is the Pistons we are talking about, not some scrub team.
2. This is a much older Allen Iverson we are talking about, not some 21 year old who has been scoring most of the points on his teams lately.
3. Denver did not get their offensive efficiency up to as high as they needed to get it with Iverson's shots per assist at 2.65, so you need to be 10-15% or more less than that or you will be too much like Denver and, trust me, you do not want to ever be too much like Denver.

And, as already stated, you set the points per assist objective at 3.00 or lower.

You need to achieve both. If Iverson's shooting percentage goes down again, you can allow the shots per assist target to go up again; I would not under any circumstances raise it above 2.60.

The Bottom Line:

1. Pistons want an Iverson shots per assist number of 2.35 or less, unless his shooting percentage goes way down, for example, from .455, to about .415, in which case they might get away with, at most, 2.60.
2. Pistons want an Iverson points per assist number of 3.00 or less. If his shooting percentage goes way down, for example, from .455 to about .415, you would reduce that to as low as 2.50.

We will be watching and seeing, from how the Pistons work Iverson on to their team, if the "Iverson can't..." crowd can be proven wrong once and for all.

Actually the "Iverson can't..." crowd has already been proven wrong to a limited extent, and by sheer accident. I just discovered that Iverson already reduced his shots per assist for the Nuggets, even though management didn't tell him to do that no less. Kind of goes against all the raving and ranting about "Iverson has to get his," or "Iverson is a shooter and scorer and not much else," and "Iverson does not have the mentality of a point guard," don't you think? I ask the "Iverson can't..." crowd, why would a maniac like that cut back on his shooting when he was not even asked?

But that's small potatoes compared with the proof that will be coming my way from the Pistons, with any luck at all. I want to bury the Iverson haters for good.

Fast Break: Part 3 of Iverson Out of Shooting Guard Prison

Here's a statistic made just for Iverson and any other PG/SGs: Points per assists.

If you have a combo guide where you have no choice but to designate him point guard, you need to monitor and manage the PPA or Points per assist. Because you don't want him to cheat the point guard position just to be able to score more. Consider the Iverson points per assists over the years:

ALLEN IVERSON
POINTS PER ASSIST
96-97 3.13
97-98 3.55
98-99 5.83
99-00 6.04
00-01 6.76
01-02 5.71
02-03 5.02
03-04 3.88
04-05 3.89
05-06 4.46
06-07 4.27 Sixers
06-07 3.44 Nuggets
07-08 3.72

One of many important things you can conclude from this is that a natural combo guard (like Dwyane Wade) or a point guard who became a combo guard because of some bonehead coach, who is returned to the point guard position (that would be Allen Iverson, Holmes) should be asked to get enough assists so that his points per assists ratio is 3.00. or less. The speed limit for Allen Iverson on the Pistons should be 3 points per assist.

The real dream among the small but totally on point supporters of Iverson at point guard group is to get it down to 2.00, such as 20 points per game and 10 assists per game. All I am saying right at this moment is that whether you can or want to get it down to 2.00, you definitely need to get it down to 3.00 or less. Just getting it to 3.00 is something that the anti-Iverson crowd thinks can not be achieved.

Notice that after Larry Brown moved him away from point guard, his points per assist went sky high. After Brown left, his points per assist went down sharply, but it never went down to what it was in his rookie of the year at point guard season, which was 3.13, just about at the 3.00 I am talking about.

Notice that Iverson's points per assist went down more after he moved from the Sixers to the Nuggets. But most and maybe all of that is due to Carmelo Anthony being such a volume scorer for the Nuggets. Iverson passing a lot more and shooting a lot less was not a big reason that that happened. Iverson did modify in that direction, but he was pulled in the other, wrong direction by George Karl. Karl ordered him to continue to try to score as much as he did in Philadelphia.

Now in the case of the Pistons, you have a team that has several great scorers, but no super high volume scorers. So since the three high scoring Pistons roughly equal Carmelo Anthony in "scoring tendency," if Iverson were told to not change anything, you could expect his points per assists to remain in the 3.50 to 3.75 range, as it was at Denver.

Now we know from Denver that 3.50 to 3.75, although much lower than the far out Brown years, is still not low enough as long as you are not a 20-62 team which needs Iverson to get the bulk of your points. You want a reduction in that. A reduction to 3.00 (and preferably even a little lower) is what everyone involved (except for the "Iverson can't..." crowd, and the Nuggets) should be looking for in the weeks ahead here.

I will of course keep you posted. I'll be posting Iverson's points per assist as his most important statistic.

Fast Break: Part 2 of Iverson Out of Shooting Guard Prison

Editorial Note: A Fast Break is a short and quick preview of upcoming topics that will be explored and proved in full in regular reports. Fast Breaks are especially useful when major news breaks.

Plus Karl has been forced by management to start J.R. Smith, something he fiercely hoped he would never have to do. He may have thought that Smith would eventually start, but he sure as hell wanted to prevent that from happening until after he retires, which could easily be next Spring.

Karl's two favorite players, Iverson and Camby, are gone, which obviously strongly suggests that management has realized that Karl apparently doesn't know what he is doing.

Plus we get to see if the classic Carmelo Anthony comes back to some extent, the one we had before Karl and the Iverson botch up had any influence.

All of this is almost too much good news to take at one time.

This Iverson thing was a classic logical trap that the Nuggets fell into and hurt themselves with. If you have a player who clearly plays both guard positions at once at all times, due to starting out for years as a 1 and then having the PG designation taken away, where do you place such a person in your lineup?

If and only if you have a playoff caliber PG on your team is it safe to keep him at 2-guard. Otherwise, it's far more logical to put him back at 1-guard because (and these are just the main reasons; there are other, smaller reasons):

1. You absolutely must have the best guard on your team who can make plays be the point guard; and do not get hung up on style or personality or things like that. Don't even get hung up on turnovers. Get hung up on assists and passing, but don't worry much about a 18-20 ppg combo guard. More than 18-20 ppg? Start to worry and get him to change.
2. You must avoid having two guards being point guards out there at the same time. You want 4 players who are not the point guard out there most or all of the time.
3. You absolutely must avoid having a stupidly short back court, which will hose up your defense.

The Nuggets did all three of the "absolutely must avoids".

And now we await the verdict on their franchise: how far are they going to drop and how fast?

They are continuing to refuse to start J.R. Smith even now! And who knows, you get what you are worrying about in life sometimes. J.R. Smith may be doubting himself just enough now that he no longer would be such a great starter.

Honestly, I am starting to seriously think that the Nuggets might only win 30-35 games this year.

The first step in getting Iverson to pass more and dominate the ball less is for him to say he will do so if asked. Step one is accomplished:

Quote:
"I have done so many things in this league, as far a being an All-Star, a scoring champion, All-NBA first team, but I haven't accomplished my number one goal, and that's to win a championship."

"Like I was telling Joe (Dumars) earlier today, I'm willing to sacrifice whatever I have to sacrifice to get it done. I've tried it my way plenty of my times. I've tried it different ways and it hasn't been done. Once again, I have to look at myself, I have to look in the mirror at myself and think of things I can do to help us to win a championship. Maybe there are some things I have to change.

One thing is for sure, two things for certain, I'm going to do whatever the coach wants me to do on the basketball court. If he gives me an assignment, I'll just try to carry it out to the fullest."
Source

Does the "Iverson can't do this" and "Iverson can't do that" and "Iverson hurts the team either way, but especially at PG" crowd (which is really big on this website) think that Iverson can actually really make changes? Of course not, that is really their point when all is said is done.

Whether Karl / Nuggets management were in the Iverson will not change crowd is unclear, since it is plausible that they thought that although Iverson would change if asked, Karl insisted that it would not help the Nuggets if he did go for the open man more often. What we do know is that Karl directly ordered Iverson to shoot about as much as he wanted from the day Iverson arrived, which must rank as one of the most boneheaded instructions a coach has made to a star player in the NBA in years.

Step two is for the Pistons to NOT to be in the "Iverson can't play PG crowd" so that they have Stuckey and Iverson out there a lot. That is all but accomplished already as well.

We will be watching for steps 3, 4 and so forth.

Fast Break: Iverson Sprung From Shooting Guard Prison

Editorial Note: A Fast Break is a short and quick preview of upcoming topics that will be explored and proved in full in regular reports. Fast Breaks are especially useful when major news breaks.

I'm not sure about the rest of my side of the never ending Iverson debate, which is the side that does not make sweeping declarations that "Iverson can not play point guard" or "Iverson hurts his team at shooting guard" or "Iverson hurts his team regardless of position." But all I, as someone who goes wherever the evidence leads but who avoids getting carried away, ever wanted was for the Nuggets to try to see if they would have a more efficient offense if they stopped thinking of him as a 2-guard and started to think of him as a point guard.

It always seemed very, very likely to me that the Nuggets would become a much more efficient offense if they did that, provided, of course, that Iverson passed a little more and shot a little less after being designated the point guard.

Because regardless of what he is or isn't, the Nuggets were being held back by a virtual abandonment of the point guard concept with the lineup they were actually running for the bulk of the time: Carter at point guard and Iverson at shooting guard. I say "abandonment" because their strategy was so poor and inexplicable that it was an abandonment of the point guard concept itself for all practical purposes.

In other words, all I and most of my side wanted really was a big reduction in what I called the two point guard offense (Iverson and Carter). Others called that the "midget offense" because of it's really bad effect on perimeter defending. Even George Karl agreed that that lineup was not very useful in the playoffs. Does it sound very sensible to you to have a two point guard offense? I hope not, yet that's what the supposedly professional George Karl and the Denver Nuggets were running, because Iverson is obviously not a pure 2-guard, and was always playing both guard positions at once to one extent or another.

To be very clear in case someone tries to confuse or twist things: my side wanted a lot fewer minutes with Iverson and a point guard (specifically and especially Carter) out there at the same time.

And we never got it. Karl and the Nuggets refused to ever even try it let alone fully adopt it. Which was definitely asinine and a huge waste of money and even a big hit on the Nuggets franchise over the next 3-5 years or so.

Well guess what folks. Our side finally gets what it wanted. We had to see Iverson removed from the overly conservative, stubborn and cynical (or do they just not think very well) Nuggets to get it, but it looks like we finally have what we wanted now. We are going to see Iverson for more minutes without a traditional point guard at the same time than with one.

So now we get to see if Iverson is worse for his team while being designated as the point guard compared to while being designated shooting guard, as a surprisingly large and fierce minority have claimed will be true. We get to find out. We get a hearing so to speak.

So I, for one, am going into my 2nd straight day of celebration.

We have Iverson at the one:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/depth

Fast Break: How Sweet It Is

Editorial Note: A Fast Break is a short and quick preview of upcoming topics that will be explored and proved in full in regular reports. Fast Breaks are especially useful when major news breaks.

This is so sweet for me that I'm drowning in sweetness. I win almost any possible way it plays out. Here are many of the possibilities and how much of a "victory" for me each one would be:

Pistons leave Iverson at SG but play him for less minutes in back of Hamilton and get him to shoot a little less and pass a little more while he's out there:
>>>
A small 6 point win for yours truly over the Iverson can't play the point haters.

Pistons officially call Iverson a 2-guard but often leave him out there with Hamilton and with no point guard (unlike the Nuggets, who felt it was their religious duty to keep a scrub point guard out there with Iverson most of the time).
>>>
A 13 point win for me over the Iverson can't play the point haters.

Pistons call Iverson a point guard but really use him at both positions; he shares with Stuckey about 50/50. When he is in there though, he passes more and shoots less.
>>>
A 20 point win

Pistons call Iverson a point guard, he starts at PG, plays full time, he passes more and shoots less. but the Pistons get bounced in the semifinals.
>>>
A 27 point win

Pistons call Iverson a point guard, he starts at PG, plays full time, Iverson passes more and shoots less, and the Pistons don't get bounced until the East Championship
>>>
A 33 point win

Pistons call Iverson a point guard, he starts at PG, plays full time, passes more, shoots less, and the Pistons make it to the NBA Championship
>>>
A 40 point win for me over the Iverson can't play the point haters.

The only way I don't win by something is if the Pistons continue to use Iverson in the same old way that Larry "I'm the only Coach who could not win the Olympics" Brown and George "I will never know how to win in the playoffs" Karl used him: as a "pure 2-guard," laugh out loud. Don't see much of a chance of that happening right now.

Fast Break: Allen Iverson to Detroit; Chauncey Billups to Denver

Editorial Note: A Fast Break is a short and quick preview of upcoming topics that will be explored and proved in full in regular reports. Fast Breaks are especially useful when major news breaks.

Will the Pistons, a Top Tier Franchise, finally return Iverson to his original (high school, college, rookie of the year) position, and prove all the Iverson at PG haters wrong? The hordes of them?

God I hope so. And how sweet the victory will be for the Pistons, for Iverson, and for yours truly.

Assuming Iverson to Pistons, I'm postponing indefinitely my plans to cover the Raptors along with the Nuggets. This is so I have plenty of time to cover the whys and the aftermaths, for both Detroit and Denver, of this historic trade, if it is true.

First reaction to the Nuggets maneuverings: I credit them for a massive attempt to climb out of a very deep hole that Karl and an over reliance on expensive veterans got them in. But I discredit them for having failed to make any truly effective use of Iverson while he was on the team. What was the point of paying mega bucks to Iverson, but then allowing their Karl worship to blind them to Karl's failure to change even one slight thing in Iverson's games compared with Philadelphia? And then only to announce less than 2 years later that it was all a stupid mistake.

Why do the second tier franchises have to play the fool all the time?

Much, much more later, peace.

Ultimate Game Breakdown: Coaching: Lakers 104 Nuggets 97 in Denver Nov. 1

This report will always lead off with “Total Production,” and with “Real Efficiency,” simply because these are probably the long hoped for development of a single measurement that can be used to compare the quality of coaching as shown by a particular game! If your time is limited, read these two sections at the least!

TOTAL PRODUCTION (See any of the Ultimate Game Breakdown-Players reports for how this is calculated)
Nuggets Total Real Player Production: 144.65
Lakers Total Real Player Production: 139.95

IF THE TEAM THAT PRODUCED THE MOST DID NOT WIN THE GAME, AS HAPPENED HERE, THE COACHING IS ALMOST CERTAINLY TO BLAME
In this game the team that produced more did not win the game. The players of the higher producing team did more but they still lost the game! In most or all such cases, this will be because the coaching is inferior. The combination of the strategies and tactics used by the lesser coaching staff is not as good at producing points as are the strategies and tactics used by the better coaching staff. Or in unusual cases, the players may be out of control and so they may be defying what the coaches have told them to do.
.
REAL EFFICIENCY
Nuggets Real Efficiency: Points / Production 0.671
Lakers Real Efficiency: Points / Production: 0.765
Difference: Lakers were .094 better in converting production to points. This is a very, very large advantage thanks mostly to the Lakers’ coaches. A substantial difference is .020 or more.

Real Efficiency is points / production. It is telling you how good the team was in translating it’s production into the one and only thing that counts toward winning: scoring. Although all the specific ways that differences in the quality of coaching produce different efficiency in scoring will in all honesty most likely never be known, it is a total certainty that the team with a substantially higher Real Efficiency had higher quality coaching, probably including better strategies and/or better tactics and plays, for the game. I want to make very clear that there is no other known reason other than differences in the quality of coaching to account for substantial differences in efficiency.

The number of shots changed from scores to misses by great defending is NOT among the possible reasons. Although that can not be calculated for individual players, forced misses are included in the production numbers at the team level. Every time a player defends well and forces a miss, the other team gets a reduction of it’s production count, which is the same statistically as if you knew who forced the misses and gave them the agreed upon reward for each miss they forced.

Moreover, although at this time it is too early to say for certain, it is considered very likely that the Real Efficiency for various coaching staffs will be relatively consistent from game to game. If this proves to be the case, then Real Efficiency will be a huge breakthrough in comparing one set of coaches with another.

COACHES USE OF RESERVES--NUMBER OF PLAYERS USED
In most cases, the coach who uses more players is the better coach. Reserves would not be professional basketball players at all unless they at least on occasion play as well as starters more often do. So having one or two more reserve players play in a game than the other team has playing gives your team that many more opportunities to discover a reserve player who is “on fire” for the particular game, and who can be a surprise factor toward winning it. Of course, the quality coaches need to and usually do recognize a reserve who is on fire and then leave him in the game more than usual in order to pocket the full amount of the advantage from this.

Moreover, it has been observed that the coaches with the best overall records and especially the ones with the best playoff records play non-starters for substantially more minutes than the lesser coaches. Yes they have their mega stars, but one way they try to get the extra edge over the other guy is to come up with a great package of non-starter playing times for each game.

And the coaches who consistently play that extra non-starter or two are almost by definition the ones who are better at developing the non-starters and who are better at integrating the non-starters into the offensive and defensive game plans, which are of course built around what the starters can do.

NUMBER OF NON-STARTERS IN THIS GAME
Number of Players Who Played at Least 6 Minutes: Nuggets 9 Lakers 10
Number of Players Who Played at Least 10 Minutes: Nuggets 8 Lakers 9
The Lakers’ coaches provided 1 extra possibility than did the Nuggets’ coaches for a reserve to provide an unexpected major spark to propel their team to victory.

PLAYING TIME OF NON-STARTERS EXPLAINED
Now let’s look at minutes. Since the gap between how good the starters are and how good the non-starters are on average is bigger for some teams than for others, you can not simply say that the more minutes the reserves play, the better the coaching is. However, if during the course of the season you see that a Coach consistently uses reserves for 6-14 minutes less and especially for 15 or more minutes less than most other coaches do, than this would be a likely sign that the Coach is excessively stingy with his reserves, or overly reliant on his starters if you prefer.

If a coach is stingy, this frequently will mean that he is unable or unwilling to one extent or another to develop his non-starters into being better players and possible starters. Also, stingy coaches will be ones who often are unable or unwilling to integrate the non-starters better into the dominant offense and defense of the team. Specifically, for example, the stingy coaches are not going to be very interested in making sure that each non-starter has an offensive play or two called while he is on court, where he is one of the key players on the play.

Whether the non-starters are getting enough playing time is something that you have to be sort of a detective about. You decide whether the reserves are getting enough playing time by considering all of the following:

1. How often does this coach play one or two or even three fewer reserves than the other coach?

2. How often does this coach play his reserves for fewer total minutes than the other coach plays his reserves?

3. How many minutes in total this season (or in prior years, for that matter) have reserves gotten on this team compared with what reserves of other teams have gotten? Although this has apparently never been reported anywhere, look for a special report on this subject by yours truly.

4. Possible Mitigating Factors… How good are the reserves compared with the starters? And just as importantly, how big is the gap compared with the gap for other teams? The bigger the gap to begin with between how good the starters are and how good the non-starters are, and the bigger the differences in the gaps between this team and other teams, the more the coach is justified in violating (1), (2), and (3).

But keep in mind that no matter how great the starters are and how supposedly bad the non-starters are, a Coach never has a total blank check to be as stingy as he wants. A coach who is excessively stingy toward reserves due to his incorrect beliefs or philosophy is cheating not only the reserves but also the team as a whole. The stingiest six head coaches out of the 30 NBA coaches are ones who you can safely assume are cheating not only their reserves but their team as a whole. Since stingy coaches seem to be relatively common, you definitely do not want the coach of your team to be among the most stingy of all.

By the way, these six culprits will be identified in the not too distant future. Other stingy coaches can and will be identified on a case by case basis.

5 How often are the veteran starters being overplayed to the point where they “run out of gas” at the worst possible time, late in games? Beyond a certain point, which varies a little from veteran to veteran, any veteran starter loses some effectiveness after he is out on the court too long.

Is it possible for a coach to be too generous to non-starters? Yes, of course it is possible. But in the real world, it seems from all available evidence that this would be a rare problem.

PLAYING TIME OF NON-STARTERS FOR THIS GAME
Note: starters are considered to be the five players who played the most minutes; whether they actually started is not really important here.

Nuggets Non-Starters Minutes: 71
Lakers Non-Starters Minutes: 76
The 5 more minutes that Lakers non-starters played is just small enough to be considered of little significance.

REAL PRODUCTION OF PLAYERS BROKEN DOWN
Now by looking at what the reserves did while out there, you can get some important evidence about how well the reserves are integrated into the overall offense and defense of the team. What you do is look at the production of the non-starters as a percentage of the production of the starters. The higher the percentage, the better the non-starters are integrated into the team’s overall offense and defense.

Real Player Production of Nuggets Non-Starters: 40.40
Real Player Production of Lakers Non-Starters: 32.60
Real Player Production of Nuggets Starters: 104.25
Real Player Production of Lakers Starters: 107.35

EVALUATION OF REAL PRODUCTION OF NON-STARTERS
In this game the Nuggets' non-starters, led by J.R. Smith, were apparently more integrated into their teams' offense and defense than were the Lakers' non-starters.

Be cautioned that evidence from a single game is of limited value because all players have games where they are much above and other games where they are much below normal. So in order to make conclusions about how well a coaching staff has integrated their reserves into the team as a whole, you have to look for persistent patterns across many games, which is of course something we do!

NUGGETS COACHING ERRORS
EXTREME PLAYING TIME DECISIONS CONSTITUTING COACHING ERROR
At any given time, Karl may be doing one or more of the following:

1. He may be imposing a draconian penalty by completely benching a player who should not be benched unless the Nuggets want to shoot themselves in the foot or in the head.
2. He may be severely under playing a player, either due to an excessive penalty for some mistake the player has made, a miscalculation of the benefits and costs of that player, or due to subjective factors up to and including extreme dislike of a player and a desire to make sure that the player is removed from the team in the off-season.
3. He may be over playing and over relying on one or more very experienced and talented veterans. Although a formal study has not been completed, there is plenty of evidence that Karl is one of the stingiest coaches in the League with respect to playing time he gives out to non-starters.

The system we use employs the ranges of playing time minutes that are reasonable for the Nuggets. The ranges take into account all known factors, including not only how good the players are, but also how well they fit into what is strongly believed to be the best possible offensive and defensive strategies that the Nuggets could use. These ranges are plenty large enough to allow for complete coaching discretion, within reason. But the ranges are not large enough for a Coach who is making a clear and basic error regarding how and how much his players should be used.

To be absolutely clear, if the actual playing time is outside of these ranges, it is clearly a coaching error. Playing times lower than the minimum or higher than the maximum are obvious and significant coaching errors.

Certain modifications are needed sometimes. If a player has to leave the game due to an injury, then the minimum rule does not apply for that player. Also, this is subject to appropriate modifications in games in which there is garbage time. How the rule is applied in the case of garbage time games depends substantially on whether the game is a win or a loss. The details on how extreme playing times are calculated in garbage time games will be added to this report in the near future.

CURRENT REASONABLE PLAYING TIME RANGES FOR THE NUGGETS
Carmelo Anthony: 32-42
Allen Iverson: 30-40
Nene: 30-40
Kenyon Martin: 30-40
J.R. Smith: 26-36
Linas Kleiza: 18-28
Chris Andersen 16-26
Anthony Carter: 14-24
Renaldo Balkman 0-16
Dahntay Jones: 0-14
Juwan Howard: 0-8
Chucky Atkins: Unavailable
Steven Hunter: Unavailable
Sunny Weems: Unavailable

EXTREME PLAYING TIMES CONSTITUTING COACHING ERROR FOR THIS GAME:
Anthony Carter: Overplayed, 7 minutes
Kenyon Martin: Underplayed: 1 minute
Total Minutes of Extreme Playing Time Error: 8 minutes
NOTE: The high quality coaches have 0 minutes of error in almost all games.

SEVERE AND CONTINUING SLUMPS
If there are any players who are obviously performing far below what they are capable of, some part of the blame must lie with the failure of the coaches to establish offensive and/or defensive strategies and tactics that will guarantee that the player does not fall to the level he has fallen to. You never to my knowledge see good players on the teams with the high quality coaches have “major and continuing slumps.” There are two ways a player can be declared to be in a major and continuing slump:

1. His production drops by 1/3 or more for each of 3 straight games or more.
2. His average production drops by 1/4 or more over any stretch of 6 games or more.

NUGGETS IN SEVERE AND CONTINUING SLUMPS PARTLY OR ENTIRELY CAUSED BY BAD COACHING
1. No one yet because we don’t have enough games, but obviously I’m keeping a close eye on Carmelo Anthony and even on Iverson to a lesser extent.

UNAVAILABLE PLAYERS
Are coaches as responsible for results when key players can not play as when they can? No they are not; they are less responsible. For how much less, see the impact of the players unavailable on the team’s prospects as shown in the “Manpower Alert Status” system. So the first thing we present in the coaching breakdown is complete information about players who could not play, and about players who might have been playing with minor injuries.

WORLD’S MOST COMPLETE DATA SOURCE FOR NUGGETS PLAYER AVAILABILITY: NUGGETS PLAYERS WHO COULD NOT PLAY IN THE GAME AND WHO WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE NUGGETS COACHES
:
NUGGETS PLAYER CHUCKY ATKINS
CBS SPORTSLINE Knee, Questionable for Nov. 5 at Golden State
ESPN Atkins (knee) is doing limited shooting and movement drills on his surgically repaired right knee but hasn't gone through any hard workouts yet, the Denver Post reports
MSNBC Knee, Out 2-3 Weeks
NUGGETS OFFICIAL SITE underwent successful surgery on his right knee on 9/24 and is expected to miss six weeks …


NUGGETS PLAYER SUNNY WEEMS
SPORTSLINE Groin, Questionable for Nov. 5 at Golden State
ESPN
MSNBC Hernia, Day to Day
NUGGETS OFFICIAL SITE did not play in any preseason games and has yet to see
action in the regular season due to a left groin strain. He remains out for tonight’s game …


NUGGETS PLAYER STEVEN HUNTER
SPORTSLINE Knee, Out until at least mid-November
ESPN
MSNBC Knee, Day to Day
NUGGETS OFFICIAL SITE right knee inflammation.


LAKERS PLAYERS WHO COULD NOT PLAY IN THE GAME AND WHO WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LAKERS COACHES
No one was unavailable; no injuries reported

PLAYERS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN PLAYING IN THIS GAME WITH MINOR INJURIES
NUGGETS
Nene
LAKERS
Sasha Vujacic
Josh Powell
Kobe Bryant

MANPOWER ALERT
As of November 1, 2008

This gives you the total impact on each team due to unavailable players.

To calculate the impact, I start with the ESPN player ratings of the unavailable players. The ESPN player rating, while not as good as the Real Player Ratings, are still a very good player rating system. Since there is no full scale live database yet for tracking Real Player Ratings on a real time basis, I have to use the ESPN ratings right now.

Added to these player ratings is one half of the number of minutes per game that a player has been or is supposed to be playing in excess of 20 minutes per game. This is to reflect the extra importance of the players who the team most heavily relies on. Also added is 8 points for the player who is subjectively considered to be the most important player on the team in terms of leadership, and 4 points for the 2nd most important such player.

As an example of how all of this works, consider what the impact on the Cleveland Cavaliers would be if LeBron James were injured. The impact on the Cavaliers would be his ESPN rating plus one half of the number of minutes per game he plays in excess of 20 plus 8 more points, since he is the team leader.

There are numerous instances where the ESPN rating has to be adjusted to get the player’s real value correct. Until late December, the ESPN numbers are modified slightly as necessary to factor in how good the player was during last season as a whole. In cases where due to coaching error a player’s minutes are grossly less than what they should be, that player’s rating is adjusted upward to reflect what it would be if he was playing the minimum reasonable number of minutes. Rookies and other players who were unable to play more than a small fraction of how much they were expected to play have what their ratings would have been estimated from the ground up.

The minimum alert points for any unavailable player are 5. In practice all little used reserves, which generally are the ones who do not play in the majority of games, will be rated 5 points. This minimum is set regardless of player ratings for these low minute players, since the unavailability of even players who have seldom played in recent times reduces crucial flexibility for the coaches, reduces opportunities for wild card “on fire” games, and increases the need for the best players to play even when they should not be playing, such as during garbage time and during when they have certain minor injuries.

NUGGETS INJURIES, ILLNESSES, SUSPENSIONS, AND PERSONAL LEAVES
1. Chucky Atkins 24 points
2. Steven Hunter 5 points
3. Sunny Weems 5 points

Nuggets Unavailable Players Total Alert Points: 34

HOW TO INTERPRET THE MANPOWER ALERT POINT TOTAL
NOTICE: The following interpretation chart assumes that the coach is fully competent and that he makes an appropriate rearranging of his lineups and playing times. If a coach makes seriously incorrect adjustments to lineups and playing times when one or more players become unavailable, the impact on the team will of course be much more severe than what is described here. A totally incompetent coach could in effect increase the true Manpower Alert against his team by as much as 100%,. In other words, he could as much as double the negative impact on his team if when he loses one or more players he makes bad decisions on how to change his lineups and playing times.

0 to 12 No problem at all in either the regular season or in the playoffs
13 to 24 Virtually always, this level is no problem in either the regular season or in the playoffs.
25 to 36 Generally, an extremely small problem in either the regular season or in the playoffs.
37 to 48 Should be a very small problem. This level can affect winning and losing in the regular season or in the playoffs only if the other team is completely healthy or almost completely healthy.
49 to 60 A small problem in the regular season unless it lasts for more than about 6 weeks; in which case the season as a whole is under some threat. For the playoffs, it will often be a major problem, but exactly how much of a problem it is will depend largely on the alert level of the other team.
61 to 72 A substantial problem in the regular season that will definitely cost the team a win here and there. If this level lasts more than 6 weeks, the season as a whole becomes threatened to one extent or another. The impact on marginal playoff teams is more severe, because this level can cost such teams a playoff berth. In the playoffs, this level will generally mean a quick elimination, except of course if the other team has substantial availability problems as well.
73 to 84 A serious problem; the entire season is under a serious threat. Games are lost that would have been won on a regular basis. If the team makes the playoffs regardless of this problem, it will generally be immediately eliminated.
85 to 96 A very serious problem; the entire season is under a very serious threat. Many games that would have been won are now lost. If the team somehow makes the playoffs regardless of this huge problem, it will almost always be immediately eliminated.
97 to 108 An extremely serious problem; season is most likely lost unless the alert level is much improved within a 2-4 weeks. If the team at this alert level somehow makes the playoffs, it will be eliminated immediately.
109 to 120 In many cases, the season is lost if this level is reached for more than a week or two. Making the playoffs is out of the question if a team remains at this level for more than 6 weeks or so. If a team is suddenly at this level while in the playoffs, it will be immediately eliminated.
121 and more: It’s over; come back next season.

MANPOWER ALERTS FOR THIS GAME
Nuggets Unavailable Players Total Alert Points: 34
Lakers Unavailable Players Total Alert Points: 0
Result: The Lakers had a manpower advantage that led to a 1.4 point advantage in the final score
Current Estimate of the Current Average Manpower Alert for the 30 NBA Teams: 60

As a rough but useful estimate, to determine the theoretical impact on a game due to unavailability of players, start with the difference in alert points, and subtract 20 from it since the first 20 points should be completely offset by correct substitutions, and then divide the remainder by 10. The result is a rough but useful estimate of the advantage a team had in points due to the difference in unavailable players.

SUMMARY OF OUTSIDE FACTORS THAT THE COACHES HAD NO CONTROL OVER
Home Court Advantage: Nuggets 4 Points
Extra Rest Advantage, if any: Lakers 5 Points
Manpower Advantage: Lakers 1.4 Points
Net of all Outside Factors: The Lakers had an advantage of 2.4 Points. The Lakers would still have most likely won the game even if there were no outside factors at all.

Ultimate Game Breakdown: Players: Lakers 104 Nuggets 97 in Denver Nov. 1

REAL PLAYER RATINGS (QUALITY) FOR THIS GAME
DENVER QUALITY
Anthony Carter, PG 1.082
Chris Andersen, PF 0.928
Juwan Howard, PF 0.881
Kenyon Martin, PF 0.753
J.R. Smith, SG 0.604
Allen Iverson, SG 0.558
Nene, C 0.534
Carmelo Anthony, SF 0.264
Linas Kleiza, SF 0.110

LAKERS QUALITY
Josh Powell, PF 1.207
Kobe Bryant, SG 1.092
Trevor Ariza, SF 1.084
Pau Gasol, PF 0.930
Lamar Odom, PF 0.574
Derek Fisher, PG 0.455
Andrew Bynum, C 0.414
Vladimir Radmanovic, SF 0.276
Sasha Vujacic, SG -0.110
Jordan Farmar, PG -0.393

SCALE FOR RPR (QUALITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
Historic Superstar for this game 1.400 and more
Superstar 1.050 to 1.399
Star/Outstanding 0.800 to 1.050
Very Good 0.650 to 0.799
Major Role Player 0.525 to 0.649
Role Player 0.450 to 0.524
Minor Role Player 0.400 to 0.449
Very Minor Role Player or Very Important Defender 0.350 to 0.399
Poor Game or Extremely Importand Defender 0.275 to 0.349
Very Poor Game Regardless of Defending 0.200 to 0.274
Disaster Game Regardless of Defending minus infinity to 0.199

****************************************************
REAL PLAYER PRODUCTION (QUANTITY) IN THIS GAME
DENVER QUANTITY
Anthony Carter, PG 33.55
Kenyon Martin, PF 21.85
Allen Iverson, SG 20.65
Nene, C 18.15
J.R. Smith, SG 16.30
Chris Andersen, PF 14.85
Carmelo Anthony, SF 10.05
Juwan Howard, PF 7.05
Linas Kleiza, SF 2.20

LAKERS QUANTITY
Pau Gasol, PF 39.05
Kobe Bryant, SG 36.05
Trevor Ariza, SF 17.35
Derek Fisher, PG 15.00
Lamar Odom, PF 14.35
Andrew Bynum, C 8.70
Vladimir Radmanovic, SF 8.55
Josh Powell, PF 8.45
Sasha Vujacic, SG -1.65
Jordan Farmar, PG -5.90

SCALE FOR RPP (QUANTITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
FOR STARTING PLAYERS
Happens only a few times a year in the NBA 40.0 and more
Massive and Memorable Game 36.0 to 39.9
Huge Game 32.0 to 35.9
Very Big Game 28.0 to 31.9
Big Game 24.0 to 27.9
Typical Average Game 20.0 to 23.9
Somewhat Below Average Game 16.0 to 19.9
Way Below Average Game 12.0 to 15.9
Bad Game 9.0 to 11.9
Really Bad Game 5.0 to 8.9
Total Disaster minus infinity to 4.9

SCALE FOR RPP (QUANTITY) RATINGS FOR A SINGLE GAME
FOR NON-STARTING PLAYERS
Massive and Memorable Game 30.0 and more
Huge Game 26.0 to 29.9
Very Big Game 22.0 to 25.9
Big Game 18.0 to 21.9
Typical Non-Starter Game 12.0 to 17.9
Below Average Even For a Non-Starter 9.0 to 11.9
Way Below Average Even For a Non-Starter or Limited Minutes 6.0 to 8.9
Bad Game Even for a Non-Starter or Very Limited Minutes 3.0 to 5.9
Disaster: Nothing Much to Report minus infinity to 1.9


THE HIGHEST QUALITY PLAYERS IN THIS GAME









LAKERS OUTSTANDING QUALITY GAMES
Superstar during minutes on the court: Josh Powell
Superstar during minutes on the court: Kobe Bryant
Superstar during minutes on the court: Trevor Aziza
Star/outstanding during minutes on the court: Pau Gasol










NUGGETS OUTSTANDING QUALITY GAMES
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Anthony Carter
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Chris Andersen
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Juwan Howard
Star/Outstanding during minutes on the court: Kenyon Martin


THE GREATEST POWER PLAYERS OF THIS GAME








LAKERS POWER PLAYERS
Massive and Memorable Game: Pau Gasol
Massive and Memorable Game: Kobe Bryant
Big Game: Trevor Aziza









NUGGETS POWER PLAYERS
Huge Game: Anthony Carter
Big Game: Kenyon Martin

USER GUIDE FOR THE ULTIMATE GAME BREAKDOWNS: PLAYERS (Last updated Oct. 25)
You are viewing RPR2.0! This is a "just the important facts please, and give them to me quick" type of report.

I will in many cases do a little commentary at the bottom of the UGB:Ps, but most of the game and team commentary will be in the separate "Game and Team Reports." Game and Team articles are, with any luck, going to be produced for 26 Nuggets and for 26 Raptors games this season. Ultimate Game Breakdowns: Players, such s the one here, will be done for the 26 key games, and for other games as well, but not necessarily for all 82 games. I don't really know how all this new editing is going to play out time wise yet!

The games that get the full treatment have been very carefully chosen to be the most important games, which are generally the games against the best teams. Full treatment including the kitchen sink report games have been chosen from among only games where neither team is at a disadvantage due to playing on back to back nights. Other internet basketball "experts" are really wasting their time to some extent when they report on a Kegame where one team was playing on back to back nights and the other team was not, because the great majority of those games are almost automatically won by the team that has more rest. I used to do those stupid games, but I'm not doing them anymore, because I keep trying to get better and better at understanding and teaching basketball, so I make changes such as this.

With an Ultimate Game Breakdown-Players report, you can see very rapidly who was most responsible for the winning or the losing of the game. Then someone like me can easily write a separate game report which explains how things might have worked out better for a team, or why things worked out just about as well as possible, as the case may be.

The Real Player Ratings formula has been very carefully and accurately tweaked again and is currently as follows:

POSITIVE FACTORS
Points 1.00 (at par)
Number of 3-Pt FGs Made 1.00
Number of 2-Pt FGs Made 0.60
Number of FTs Made 0.00

Assists 1.75

Offensive Rebounds 1.15
Defensive Rebounds 1.25
Blocks 1.60
Steals 2.10

NEGATIVE FACTORS
3-Pt FGs Missed -1.00
2-Pt FGs Missed -0.85
FTs Missed -0.85

Turnovers -2.00
Personal Fouls -0.80

ACTUAL COMBINED AWARD OR PENALTY BY TYPE OF SHOT
3-Pointer Made 4.00
2-Pointer Made 2.60
Free Throw Made 1.00
3-Pointer Missed -1.00
2-Pointer Missed -0.85
Free Throw Missed -0.85

ZERO POINTS: PERCENTAGES BELOW WHICH THERE IS A NEGATIVE NET RESULT
3-Pointer 0 score % 0.200
2-Pointer 0 score % 0.246
1-Pointer 0 score % 0.459

ASSISTS VERSUS TURNOVERS ZERO POINT
Assist/Turnover Ratio That Yields 0 Net Points: 1.143

QUALITY (RPR) AND QUANTITY (RPP) EXPLANATION
RPR game reports show for each player the RPR (Real Player Rating) which tells you how good a player did (all the good things minus all the bad things) out on the court per unit of time. The RPP (Real Player Production) report tells you how much in total (the sum of the of the good things minus the sum of the bad things) a player did out on the court.

Many and maybe most sports watchers and an unknown but probably disturbingly large number of sports managers make the mistakes of exaggerating the importance of quantity and overlooking to some extent quality. These reports allow you to expand your horizons. These reports put quantity and quality side by side, which is extremely valuable, because both are roughly equally important in explaining accurately why and how the game turned out the way it did.

Players who over many games consistently have higher RPR (quality) but lower RPP (quantity) results are in many cases not getting enough playing time. Players that over many games consistently have lower RPR (quality) but higher RPP (quantity) results are in many cases getting too much playing time.

The exceptional cases are very often going to be players who are either truly outstanding defenders or truly bad defenders. This is because the one and only thing that is not counted, because it is impossible to calculate it, is the number of shots that a player prevents from being scores. Investigation has to date revealed that, apparently, no one has even attempted, for the NBA, rough estimates of the actual value of each player's defending, in terms of number or percentage of scores prevented, or in terms of number or percentage of possessions made worthless.

Over the coming year, I am going to be working to see if it is possible to use some combination of advanced statistics that are tracked on certain internet sites as an accurate proxy for the number of shots and/or for the number of possessions ruined by a defender.

Another exception. where it is really alright when it looks like a player is playing too much, will be if a team has a point guard who has many more turnovers than the average point guard has. Because the point guard is so important, a good coach has to play his best guard who can make plays at the position for a full set of minutes every game, pretty much regardless of how many turnovers that player makes. If you take out your designated point guard due to "too many turnovers," it's most often going to be sort of like cutting your foot off because you have a bad case of athletes foot!