ESPN’s player rankings are trash

[footey]

Zinger was 62. No other Celtics in the list.  So they obviously have Jrue in the top 50 along with Brown and Tatum.

I suspect his ranking will go much higher if he has another solid year like last year, only on a more successful team. 

[No Nickname]

ESPN is releasing its top 100.  They’ve released 51-100 today, and also said Derrick White is outside the top 100.  Grant Williams made the top 100.  Jordan Poole was 72.  But White is 101 or lower?  I’m just going to declare ESPN the least credible player ranking out there, doesn’t matter who else they rank where.

That’s all.

But you did click on it.

Indeed, but if ESPN+ weren’t bundled with the Disney+ that my elementary school daughter demands, this article might have made me cancel.

Total trash.

There are Disney Bundle options that don't include ESPN+ that are cheaper.

I get the one with Hulu w/ ads and Disney+.  It's basically like getting one of those two streamers for only $1.99/month, the other full price.

[Celtics2021]

ESPN is releasing its top 100.  They’ve released 51-100 today, and also said Derrick White is outside the top 100.  Grant Williams made the top 100.  Jordan Poole was 72.  But White is 101 or lower?  I’m just going to declare ESPN the least credible player ranking out there, doesn’t matter who else they rank where.

That’s all.

But you did click on it.

Indeed, but if ESPN+ weren’t bundled with the Disney+ that my elementary school daughter demands, this article might have made me cancel.

Total trash.

There are Disney Bundle options that don't include ESPN+ that are cheaper.

I get the one with Hulu w/ ads and Disney+.  It's basically like getting one of those two streamers for only $1.99/month, the other full price.

I’ll check it out.  I’m grandfathered on an old plan, but they’re getting rid of it after this billing cycle, so Pelton may have just inspired me to drop ESPN+.  In a blurb about White Pelton even said that White has a stronger case for top 50 than he does outside of the top 100 — in which case, maybe fix the ranking system?  A little quality control goes a long way.

[tazzmaniac]

Ranking players sequentially is stupid.  I much prefer tier ranking like the Athletic does.  That being said there are 30 teams.  If you did a round robin draft, 101 would put White in the upper middle of the 4th round.  He probably should be a bit higher but he is not closer to the top 50 which would put him late 2nd round.  This is especially true since he's going to be 5th best on the Celts. 

Now they clearly aren't discounting defense when they have Smart at #59.  No way I'm taking Smart late 2nd round.  They have him ahead of Bane and Porzingis which is ridiculous. 

[Roy H.]

[Kevin] Pelton, writing in an article on the omissions from the list, said the Colorado native’s exclusion was the “most glaring omission from the top 100” and that “White had a case as the most important player on last season’s Celtics outside of stars Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum.”

“With White on the court, Boston outscored opponents by 11 points per 100 possessions according to NBA Advanced Stats, which dropped to 1.3 without him,” added the author.

“While White did benefit from weaker opponent shooting on 3s in his minutes, he also played a key role in that differential with his career-high 38% 3-point shooting and secondary playmaking on a team badly in need of it.”

“There’s a better case for White as one of the NBA’s top 50 players than outside the top 100,” suggested Pelton.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/kevin-pelton-espn-exclusion-boston-183230712.html

[Vermont Green]

Ranking players sequentially is stupid.  I much prefer tier ranking like the Athletic does.  That being said there are 30 teams.  If you did a round robin draft, 101 would put White in the upper middle of the 4th round.  He probably should be a bit higher but he is not closer to the top 50 which would put him late 2nd round.  This is especially true since he's going to be 5th best on the Celts. 

Now they clearly aren't discounting defense when they have Smart at #59.  No way I'm taking Smart late 2nd round.  They have him ahead of Bane and Porzingis which is ridiculous.

This is important perspective.  There are 150 starters in the NBA.  Being top 100 means on average, you are one of the top 3 players on an average NBA team.  I don't know where White should be exactly, but would he be a top 3 player on the 15th best NBA team?  Maybe.

There was debate on here about who was more valuable, Smart or White or Brogdon.  I think they are all pretty close, but I still have Smart a little ahead of White and both ahead of Brogdon.  It appears that LAC wanted Brogdon.  MEM apparently wanted Smart (they gave up Tyus Jones and 2 firsts for him).  Not sure if either LAC or MEM preferred White.  Maybe BOS didn't make White available to either team, maybe these other teams preferred Smart/Brogdon.  But taken at face value, the valuation of these players could vary based on apparent interest from other teams.

Top 60 means the player is top 2 on a lower end NBA team.  I think 59 is too high for Smart.  He is probably more in the 100 range like White and Brogdon.  The difference between 90 and 110 is pretty small.  And if Grant Williams is the 3rd best player on your team, I don't think your team is going to be very good, even if your best player is Doncic.

[Roy H.]

If people care:

62.  Porzingis
(59. Smart)
26.  Holiday
19. Brown
6. Tatum

[Moranis]

I thought it was very interesting they had Giannis ahead of Jokic.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

If people care:

62.  Porzingis
(59. Smart)
26.  Holiday
19. Brown
6. Tatum

Obviously still disagree on the omission of Derrick White. We know his value though.

Zinger and Smart being close makes sense to me, but it is funny that Smart was worth much more as a trade asset than Zinger.

Holiday being close to Brown is fascinating. Hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense.

[bdm860]

In their snubs and surprises article, wondering if Botempts and Pelton were just outvoted on White, they both seem high on him, and there was Pelton's “there’s a better case for White as one of the NBA’s top 50 players than outside the top 100” line.

Also everybody seem's high on Tatum, which is good.  Four of the 5 who weighed in have him top 5 for next year, and it seems like a couple have him #4 (over Doncic).

Surprised 4 of the 5 still think LeBron will continue to be top 10 after this year and as long as he's in the NBA, only Botemps is going with Father Time.

[Surferdad]

I thought it was very interesting they had Giannis ahead of Jokic.

Aw c'mon Moranis, don't be so diplomatic! Let's be blunt: It makes no sense whatsoever. Jokic is far better individually and more valuable to his team than Giannis is today.

[Donoghus]

I despise the man but I finally found something I agree with him on.

ClutchPoints
@ClutchPoints
Kyrie Irving reacts to ESPN ranking him the 34th best player in the NBA on IG 👀

"Who. TF. cares. I Never will. Rankings don't mean a [dang] thing in the league, especially not from ESPN or any of these other media platforms. Majority of the analysts are not credible sources in my eyes and I don't respect them or their opinions."

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I despise the man but I finally found something I agree with him on.

ClutchPoints
@ClutchPoints
Kyrie Irving reacts to ESPN ranking him the 34th best player in the NBA on IG 👀

"Who. TF. cares. I Never will. Rankings don't mean a [dang] thing in the league, especially not from ESPN or any of these other media platforms. Majority of the analysts are not credible sources in my eyes and I don't respect them or their opinions."

He's probably right. They have him ranked too high.

[boscel33]

Generally speaking, rankings are trash because there are no consistent methods in which people rank.  For instance, some people talk titles as for greatness, but then put Jordan ahead of Bill.  How can you do that?  Others look at stats.  That's great, but when a player plays longer, they're going to inflate their stats generally.

Here's my top five.  It's purely based on, if I were going to start a team now, who do I want.

5:  Embid
4:  Giannis
3:  Luka Doncic
2:  Jayson Tatum
1:  Nikola Jokic

There are up and comers that may the top real soon;  Shai, Edwards, Booker, Murray, Fox, just to name a few.

[Who]

Ranking players sequentially is stupid.  I much prefer tier ranking like the Athletic does.  That being said there are 30 teams.  If you did a round robin draft, 101 would put White in the upper middle of the 4th round.  He probably should be a bit higher but he is not closer to the top 50 which would put him late 2nd round.  This is especially true since he's going to be 5th best on the Celts. 

Now they clearly aren't discounting defense when they have Smart at #59.  No way I'm taking Smart late 2nd round.  They have him ahead of Bane and Porzingis which is ridiculous.

This is important perspective.  There are 150 starters in the NBA.  Being top 100 means on average, you are one of the top 3 players on an average NBA team.  I don't know where White should be exactly, but would he be a top 3 player on the 15th best NBA team?  Maybe.

Another way to look at it is:

There are 5 positions in the NBA. So a top 100 divided by 5 means you are a top 20 player at your position.

I find that a more useful marker for who I expect to be "in or out" of top 100 lists.