My Annual Waste of Time Compilation

[MHSL82]

Someone posted the Top 100 players for 2022–23 season from CBS and I was interested in what type of team ranking that would be based upon how many players they have in the top 100 and how high. I also compared it to ESPN’s rankings.

So what I did, in addition to wasting time, was list the players in reverse order value. So Top Player got 100 and 100th player got 1 point. I figured that the number of Top 100 players a team had was worth something, too, to I multiplied that number by 10, so Boston Celtics had 7 players on ESPNs list, worth 70
points.

Barring big injuries or trades, I wonder how different the results will be at the end of the season. Sounds obvious, that the teams with the most top players are going to do well, but San Antonio spurs overachieve. They were in the play-in, despite having no players. I don’t know how much the roster is changed, but I think Popovich coaching still got them there. Lakers underachieved and had injuries.

 

[shopson67]

This would be more appropriate if they ranked all the players in the NBA. 100 players fills less than 7 rosters. I don't think your additional multiplier is really necessary?

 

[logic]

This would be more appropriate if they ranked all the players in the NBA. 100 players fills less than 7 rosters. I don't think your additional multiplier is really necessary?

I think that the point was to look at the impact of star players. No one outside the top 100 is going to count as a star player, and the numbers would be huge using all the players. 100 makes it nice and round.
If he didn't use the multiplier the impact of the number of top 100 players on a team would have been insignificant relative to their ranking in his final score.
That said, I think that my Pistons should outperform this ranking simply because their talented players are so young that they have not made it on to these ranking yet. I think if this was done each year that you would see them moving up the list very soon.

 

[MHSL82]

This would be more appropriate if they ranked all the players in the NBA. 100 players fills less than 7 rosters. I don't think your additional multiplier is really necessary?

I was thinking about the hypothetical of a really great player who has no one around them. Their ranking may be high, but their team wouldn’t be expected to do anything whereas if you have a bunch of other players play that are on the top 100 list playing with you, that team should be stronger even if the seventh best player from the team is the 99th ranked. I didn’t show the details here, but there could be a team that have two in the top 15 (for example) but then no one else. Would three in the top 20-30 be better even if the initial points weren’t more?

But you did give me the idea that I could use the ranking of every player that they come out with at some point. I don’t know if that’s available yet. I would use this in addition, as opposed to instead of, because then they would be weighted differently.

 

[shopson67]

I think that the point was to look at the impact of star players. No one outside the top 100 is going to count as a star player, and the numbers would be huge using all the players. 100 makes it nice and round.
If he didn't use the multiplier the impact of the number of top 100 players on a team would have been insignificant relative to their ranking in his final score.
That said, I think that my Pistons should outperform this ranking simply because their talented players are so young that they have not made it on to these ranking yet. I think if this was done each year that you would see them moving up the list very soon.

The latter part of your post is why this ranking should be cut off after probably the top 10 or so teams (or teams with a certain amount of top 100 players).