Two of the top 7 Big Men in the League

I just think it is crazy the way it has them ranked. I still don't understand how it can have Davis ranked at all when he has not played a single minute in the nba. Obviously I think he will be a really good player but as of now there is no data at all to justify anything when it comes to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sipclip

I just think it is crazy the way it has them ranked. I still don't understand how it can have Davis ranked at all when he has not played a single minute in the nba. Obviously I think he will be a really good player but as of now there is no data at all to justify anything when it comes to him.

---

I don't understand it either but then again I was never good at math formulas so.... there goes that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sipclip

There is no way that Anderson is a top 10 big let alone top 3. Just to name a few bigs that are clearly better Anderson.

Dwight (Yes)
Aldridge (A wash)
Duncan (Used to be)
Bynum (Yes)
Garnett
Dirk
Bosh
Love
Chandler

---

Just corrected your list.

I guess there was no way of avoiding this becoming a which big is better thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunnyB

I guess there was no way of avoiding this becoming a which big is better thread.

---

I mean, the OP encouraged discussion on that front compared to the stat system that was presented, so hey...

I'll just insert my $0.02 in that WARP may not necessarily be reflective of an overall, all-around skill set, but seems to be a reflection of actual productivity and efficiency. Regardless of a player's flash and skill, shouldn't productivity matter in terms of whether a player is ultimately better? It's probably not the end all be all, but it seems a good stat to add perspective of a player's value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djpaul89

I mean, the OP encouraged discussion on that front compared to the stat system that was presented, so hey...

I'll just insert my $0.02 in that WARP may not necessarily be reflective of an overall, all-around skill set, but seems to be a reflection of actual productivity and efficiency. Regardless of a player's flash and skill, shouldn't productivity matter in terms of whether a player is ultimately better? It's probably not the end all be all, but it seems a good stat to add perspective of a player's value.

---

No because efficiency is often based on what a player is asked to do. If you are asked to rebound then you're much more likely to be efficient than a guy asked to rebound, score, distribute, lock up on defense etc.

That's where the human element plays it part. You can't factor that into any equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

No because efficiency is often based on what a player is asked to do. If you are asked to rebound then you're much more likely to be efficient than a guy asked to rebound, score, distribute, lock up on defense etc.

That's where the human element plays it part. You can't factor that into any equation.

---

Wow. So efficiency doesn't play a factor at all. Okay.

Okay, so he is not the third best big in the NBA. But where does he rank and according to what?

My list:

1. Kevin Love
2. Dwight
3. Josh Smith

After that, there is no big I would definitely take over Anderson. Bynum never plays, Aldridge takes some of the least efficient shots in the game, Blake is putrid on defense and you have to take him off the court at the end of games because of FT shooting.

I see all these posts about what Anderson can't do, but that can be said about any player. I mean, the Clippers went with Reggie Evans over Blake in Game 7 of a playoff series!

There is a lot to be said for a guy who does two things at an elite level and doesn't ever do things that hurt your team.