when I did it I did include IQ, I used the freethrow scale, so F = approx 52%, a+ approx 88%, but you really can use anything

okay colonel, taking into account what has been said - subject to my discretion since I'm posting this chart - and invite others to post their versions

	FT	ATH	SPD	REB	DEF	BLK	LP	PER	BH	P	WE	ST	DU
PG	.05	.09	.16	.05	.10	.02	-	.15	.16	.16	-	.05	.01
SG	.05	.09	.16	.05	.10	.03	.01	.16	.14	.15	-	.05	.01
SF	.07	.09	.09	.11	.10	.04	.13	.13	.09	.09	-	.05	.01
PF	.08	.11	.05	.20	.10	.06	.20	.04	.04	.06	-	.05	.01

C

.08

.11

. 04

. 21

. 10

. 06

.22

.02

.04

.06 - .05 .01 <

you broke it

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

but good stuff here

I think Ath might be more imp

Wow, great stuff guys, if for nothing else its a good conversation piece...I need to look at it a little closer, but I would like to thank everyone for their effort here :)

Ages ago in GD someone did a 'wisdom of crowds' version of this where coaches submitted their weights for ratings by position, and the whole thing was aggregated and averaged... it seemed to work out pretty well.

keeping mind there is NOTHING scientific about the chart - just kinda made it up and then adjusted a bit and I personally have severe doubts about its usefullness for the intended purpose....and it ignores the stuff I mentioned.......past performance is not indicative of future results.....objects in the mirror are closer than they appear......professional driver on a closed course.....kids dont try this at home

the chart does NOT include a column for IQ - putting aside how one measures it, how much weight should it have? I think it matters a lot - consider how strong those superclasses were....pork, you around?

Note one thing: Soon enough this whole rating value might be upended, at least based on possibilities such as LP being made to matter for guards in the next iteration. For example.

Bump for TKimble

I'm trying to do what fdny did. My weights are a lot different tho. I'd love to hear how others weight ratings. Sitemail me or put here if you want to help. I'd be willing to share any results with people.

interesting. i think speed is significantly undervalued for guards, relative to per, bh, pass.

i also tried to do this myself, and what i ended up realizing is, it just didn't work. it can be a decent approximation, but to really use stats to rate players, i had to dig deeper. for a while, i spent a lot of time tweaking my ranking forumlas to correctly rank incoming players... i found i had to use cross products, like spd*per in a sg, to avoid over-rating players with say high per and low spd, which isn't very useful from an offensive standpoint.

also, eventually i got frustrated trying to calibrate a whole player at a time, so i broke it down. for guards, i used offense, defense, running the point so to speak, and other. for bigs, offense, defense, rebounding, and other.

finally, instead of 5 sets of numbers by position, i used maybe 10 sets of numbers by type of player. in the numbers in this thread, for example, the pg ratings will poorly rank a pg who has poor per but is otherwise incredible. it will put him below a lot of inferior pgs with better per. so, i made ratings on a type basis, instead of position. i wasn't even sure where to start at SF without first categorizing them as a particular type of sf :)

FT rating needs to be included, but how does one measure it? Certain players will be more likely to attempt free throws than others depending upon +/- 3 pt settings, offensive set, etc...