“When you start a response with “Ugh.  Here goes”, the reader can read a bruised ego squealing.”

When you start a comment with, “As a teacher, …” a writer can feel the condescension about to spew forth. So we’re both egotistical know-it-alls. Let’s proceed.

“A clear statement up front that this is your criteria would help you both to appear more reasonable.”

Fair enough. Noted for next time. But seriously, if you read the post and the comments about each player, I think it was pretty clear that each player was being evaluated based on how they met the expectations we had for them. I don’t know how, reading those comments, anyone could come away with a different impression. If I was writing, “Greg Monroe gets an A because he’s basically Blake Griffin,” then that’s a problem. Greg Monroe got an A because, as I wrote, he was much better than I reasonably thought he’d be.

“However, you have chosen to use the classroom grading-style as your mode of evaluation, an “A” should suggest something approximating excellence.”

I’ll say this: using letter grades in these types of columns is a little stupid. But the reason we use them, and virtually every other outlet uses them, is because they’re familiar because everyone has a general understanding that A=good, F=bad. But again, the definitions of what exactly “good” and “bad” means are wildly different.

“If you don’t want to be held to that standard, skip the letter grades and just write the comments, or come up with your own grading scale.”

Noted. Next time the grading scale for these totally arbitrary and made up grades will be visible on our course syllabus.

“I find it hard to reconcile a substantial number of As and Bs with a team in the bottom quarter of the NBA’

Grading players individually is much different than grading them as a team. As you can see reading the post, the team grades we gave are bad.

As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t grade individual players or the coach based on wins and losses. I expected them to lose a lot. So in that respect, the team grade gave them the sufficient bad evaluation for being a shitty team.

Individually, though, there are players who are exceeding expecations, who are values because they’ve out-produced what they’re paid or they’ve successfully bounced back from injuries.

“I guess one other point that I would make is that McGrady’s stats aren’t “meaningless” as you argue, and I’d think that should be part of the consideration of his overall value and performance.”

I don’t put much stock in stats like PPG, APG, etc. I wasn’t saying that I don’t look at stats in evaluations. But I look at more valuable stats — assist percentage, rebound percentage, turnover percentage, offensive and defensive rating, etc. Those are far more telling.

There are several reasons that seasona averages are of little value when it comes to the Pistons. First of all, the rotation has never been set. Gordon went from starting and playing huge minutes the first week to barely playing, to kinda playing some to starting again, to not starting again. Daye played as a rotation piece early, but it was not at his traditional position and he had some terrible games as he tried to be a power forward. McGrady was terrible at the beginning of the season. Monroe was terrible at the beginning of the season.

In all of those cases, I don’t think it gives a realistic evaluation to use those simple stats much. Midpoint grades are just that: “Where are these players at right now?” To look at McGrady’s stats, which are impacted by him not being full healthy and playing a different position and role three months ago are not all that instructive to how valuable he’s become over the last six or eight weeks.

Ugh. Here goes:

“As a teacher, I have many of the same general problems with these grades as others seem to.”

Not that this needs pointing out, but PistonPowered is not a classroom. Big secret here: there is no universal grading scale for these totally made up and arbitrary grades columns. So yeah, your grading scale for your students is great and all, but just because we use the same letter grades as a school would doesn’t mean they necessarily mean the exact same thing or are applied in the exact same way a teacher would use them.

“If these grades are based on expectation vs. reality of play, they make some sense.”

I think it’s very clear from many of the comments written next to each player’s grade that this was the philosophy Dan and I used.

Let’s take McGrady for example. Yes, McGrady is far from an All-Star level player at this point. But as you know, many factors go into determining the value of a NBA player. And your use of meaningless counting stats isn’t a consideration in my evaluation of McGrady. He’s clearly been their best (only, really) player capable of making plays for others on a consistent basis. The offense clearly runs better when he’s in the game. He’s very clearly improved immensley as the season has progressed. And most importantly, he’s given a solid and unexpected level of production and been an incredible value considering he makes the league minimum. So yeah, McGrady has been an A based on what was expected of him. He’s far exceeded that.

“Greg Monroe is still learning to play defense and averaging six points a game.  That’s not excellent.”

Again, you use dumb counting stats as the basis of your evaluation. What value does that bring? Look at Monroe now vs. Monroe three months ago. He’s clearly a superior player right now. He’s more confident, he’s improved defensively, he’s improved as a finisher and the Pistons have clearly been a better team since his role expanded. Compare that to the timid rookie who looked terrfied to step on the court early in the season and yeah, that’s sufficient progress considering he’s arguably been their best player over the last three weeks.

“I love Ben Wallace.  But he is not the dominant defense and rebounding presence that he once was”

Again, who said that? Is this a list of the most dominant centers in the game, and we plugged Ben Wallace into it? Absolutely not. His production, relative to his age and his contract, has exceeded expectations. If you or anyone expected Wallace to be dominant, then yeah, give him a D because he certainly hasn’t been.

My grade for Wallace was based on the fact that he’s still good enough defensively and as a rebounder to far exceed what he’s being paid. He still represents really good value.

“And while I fully agree that Kuester has been in a tough position, a B grade suggests an above average job for an NBA coach.”

No it doesn’t suggest that at all. Where in here did we say we were grading the entire league, or basing these Pistons grades on comparisons to the rest of the league? That’s a different matter. These grades are based on our preseason expectations of each individual. Frankly, Kuester was terrible for a good portion of this season. I thought he improved over the last six weeks or so by making tough decisions with the rotation and I credit him for giving Monroe a huge role that has allowed him to flourish and finding a way to get Daye about 20 minutes a game since the end of December. I’ve thought this was a lottery team from the start, so I’m not really using wins and losses as an evaluation tool with Kuester. I expect them to lose a lot whether he does a good job or a bad job. But as of late, he’s done a pretty good job playing not only the young guys, but the guys who have earned minutes. And his coaching staff does get credit for Monroe’s development, although others have certainly helped in that respect.

I think it’s a major mistake to read anyone’s grades column with the expectation that writers apply them exactly as a teacher would, particularly with the Pistons. If the sole basis for grading this team was “Did they win?” or “How do they compare to other teams in the league?” then yeah, everyone fails. They’re clearly a bad team.

But how interesting is that to read? It’s certainly not interesting to write. There are several players on the team who have improved based on their past performances. There are a couple who have far exceeded expectations. I don’t get how anyone can argue this, unless they were expecting McGrady to average 35 a game again and Monroe to be Blake Griffin or something.

1. If you think the Pistons haven’t acted out against their coach like this before, you haven’t been paying attention.

2. For the most part, Kuester does keep his rotations consistent. Why is that bad? He does play to the matchup at times, but I think it would be a problem if he willy- nilly shuffled players on and off the court. He doesn’t do that.

3. Actually, Phil Jackson rarely calls timeouts to stop runs. He doesn’t believe in doing it.

4. Let’s you’re right about everyone helping Greg Monroe develop his skills but Kuester. Do you honestly believe Kuester sitting Monroe for the first two games of the season didn’t motivate him?