Welcome to Our Website

Hack reason record 1.5 crack

  • Help! "Please insert the Reason 5 DVD"... Didn't need to
  • PROPELLERHEAD REASON 5 And RECORD 1.5 Serial Keygen
  • Free reason record 1.5 mac download software, best reason
  • Reason 5 and Record 1.5 Revealed By Propellerhead
  • PROPELLERHEAD RECORD 1.5 Serial Keygen.torrent
  • Reason 5 Record 1.5 Download Free Full
  • Record 1.5.1 - Download for PC Free
  • The troubling reason why Biden is so soft on China
  • Authorizer Installer Download – Reason Studios
  • Propellarhead Reason Record 1.5 Crack Serial Keygen
How to find your Reason 5 license key with the Record 1.5
1 Reason 5 / Record 1.5 Overview – Reason101 94%
2 Propellerheads REASON 5 and RECORD 1.5 89%
3 PropellerHead Reason 5 and Record 1.5 Beta Test 86%
4 Propellerhead Record 1.5 + Reason 5 Now Available; What 23%
5 Fix email delivery issues for error code 550 5.7.1 in 89%
6 Cracked sonic record now for windows 7 compatibility 61%
7 FileviewPro 2020 4.0 Crack License Key Full keygen 23%

What's New in Reason 5, Record 1.5, in a Nutshell

Biden helped recruit an American consulting firm as well as former Deputy Attorney General. Greetings reasonable people. If this is the case it is usually included in the full crack download archive itself. Reason 5 ships with a sound bank with a generous supply of kits for Kong across a wide variety of styles. Oct 19 @ 8: 21am Irony, Just had to restart my game for the Pending turn. Multimedia tools downloads - Steinberg Cubase Studio by Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH and many more programs are available for instant and free download.

Key trying to install Reason 5 and Record 1.5

And also can use it with other extensions software for live performances. This place contains documentation about Litchi for DJI Mavic / Phantom / Inspire / Spark. Results 1 - 10 of 11 Insert the generated reason 7 keygen reason 7 software reason 5 dvd wating for disc torrent full free download with crack. How long will nearly 1.5 billion people in. That is used to produce and rearrange the music and audio. Then Sean Michael Paddison, a music producer and home recording expert, moves on to an in-depth exploration of Reason 5.0 that will give new users the solid foundation they need to utilize the software.

  • Propellerhead Reason 5 CRACKED Just for you
  • Propellerhead Reason 5 and Record 1.5 revealed
  • Reason Record 1.5 (7 Downloads)
  • PROPELLERHEAD'S RECORD 1.5 AND REASON 5 SOFTWARE AVAILABLE
  • Chapter 11: The Health Record - Kinn's 13th Edition
  • Propellerhead Record 1.5.1 for Windows 7/Vista/XP

Propellerheads record crack keygen serial patch

[SOLVED] 550 Message rejected because SPF check failed. Many downloads like Reason Record 1.5 may also include a crack, serial number, unlock code or keygen (key generator). If you search for "reason record crack", you will often see the word crack amongst the results, which implies it is the full version of the product. Mac OSX and reason 6, cracked propellerhead recycle, propellerhead reason crack, propellerhead record crack yet. Each element in Reason can be configured. Topics 2484 Posts Last post by ajmas Wed Nov 18, 2020 10: 17 pm; VLC media player.

Downloads - Reason 5.0.1 and Record 1.5.1 Release

Propellerhead Record 1.5 and Reason 5 Software Now. Whether you're new to Propellerhead's virtual music studio application, Reason, or their newer DAW app, Record, you're sure to find much to take away from this brief video software tutorial. Reason emulates a rack of hardware synthesizers, samplers, signal processors, sequencers, and mixers, all of which can be freely interconnected in an arbitrary manner. Reason 5 & Record [Sean Paddison] on [HOST] *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Over the last couple of months, the company have leaked info and posted tutorial teasers about the new features, functions, and devices that will be included in the next major revisions of Reason and Record. In Reason 5 there are tons of changes to bring Reason up to speed with Record.

Propellerhead Reason 5 Upgrade and Record 1.5 - Record For

Both programs share a very similar design and layout, and if you have both installed they seamlessly integrate, with. Reason Record 1.5 Crack, Serial & Keygen best site. Reason 5 Review - Propellerheads Record 1.5 Review. How to Find/Record with BIAS Amp in REAPER. Reason record 1.5 crack. Native Instruments is a leading manufacturer of software and hardware for computer-based audio production and DJing.

Reason 5 & Record 1.5 Tutorials

Propellerhead Reason 5 & Record 1.5 look at here now. Adapted for Leeds citywide use April 2020 (Leeds. This page shows all backlinks, Google rankings and Google AdWords ads of [HOST] May 20, Keywords associated with this release: Propellerhead Reason Record record cracked free download. A pacemaker is an electrical device implanted under your skin to help manage irregular heartbeats. These changes include advanced multi core support, improved cable management in the rack, faster sample loading, on-screen piano keyboard, sequencer usability improvements and much much more. No massive surprise there.

  • Hi y'all I'm using Reason 5 on windows 10. I'm getting
  • Propellerhead Record 15 Crack For Pc And Mac By Team Air
  • Propellerhead Record 1.5 Crack Keygen Serial Patch by
  • "PROPELLERHEAD REASON 5 And RECORD 1.5 Serial Keygen
  • My Propellerhead Reason 5 wont work! Please help

Problem with Record 1.5 for Reason Owners + Behringer U-CONTROL UCA202 + new MacBook Pro

So, I got this Macbook on Monday. I had previously been running Windows 7, and had to buy this Behringer device in order to input audio into Record. I now have the same problem, but with the Macbook, due to there is no audio input jack on a macbook. But here's the thing: Record (as well as the computer) recognizes the UCA202, but says there are 0 inputs on it (there are 2, I can see them). However, when I run Garageband using the UCA202 as an in/out device it works just fine. And the computer itself recognizes that there is sound coming in from the UCA202. So is this a Record problem? Why didn't this happen before? I don't know where else to turn at this point. If there's a better subreddit for this question, please direct me to it.
submitted by mutehouse to reasoners

[OC] Introducing Playoff Success Shares : quantifying contextualised playoff success (the end of the Rings Erneh argument ?)

The concept :

SKIP TO PSS RESULTS IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT HOW THE NUMBERS ARE CALCULATED
A couple of you might remember this stat from the first post about it, back in the distant year of 2017, but for the rest :
As far as resumes go, there aren’t many objective ways of ranking individually attributable playoff success. We all agree “best player on a championship team” is the best, but what about comparing different guys who achieved that ? This guy had better teammates, but that guy played in an easier conference. How about being the best player on a conference finalist ? Is that better than being no2 on a title team ? Well, it depends on a player’s individual performance, it depends on how good the player’s teammates are, and it depends on how tough the competition was.
So I looked for a way of quantifying the amount of team playoff success a player is individually responsible for, contextualised for teammate level, strength of competition and team performance.
The essential idea is this : first, we figure out how much contextualised success every playoff team in NBA history has had.
Second, we figure out, for each playoff team, how much (percentage wise) each individual player on that team was individually responsible for.
Finally, we multiply the two to come up with the player’s individual number, called Playoff Success Shares, or PSS. So, we can calculate this for every season, every playoff team, every player. Here’s how it works :

The method :

So, how do we come up with a single number to define a team’s playoff success ? Here are the problems :
First off, it seems completely subjective to decide how much PSS a team would get based solely on which round of the playoffs they reached.
Secondly, it seems somewhat unfair, since a team doesn’t necessarily deserve more credit just going further. For example the Kings in 2002 pushed the Lakers to 7 in the WCF compared to the clearly weaker 2002 Nets who got swept by those same Lakers. It just didn’t sit right with me that the Nets would get to split more Shares between them just because they happened to be in the weaker conference and thus reached the Finals instead of “only” making the WCF.

So here’s what I came up with :

At the end of the regular season, all playoff teams are assigned a value (Regular Season Value), meant to represent how good they were, based on win percentage and simple-rating-system. SRS allows to account for strength of competition (showing that just because the ’16 Raptors won more games than the ’16 Thunder, they weren’t a better team), and win percentage is a good equalizer to avoid things like one team having negative value or one team having a value 4000 times greater than another.
The average team ( .500 record, 0 SRS) would have a Regular Season Value of 50.
The very best regular season teams ever have a value approaching 200 (206 for the ’96 Bulls, 201 for the ’72 Lakers and 200 for the ’71 Bucks are the only teams to pass 200).
Teams then accumulate Playoff Value (PV), based on their opponents and their performance.
For the first round, the losing team accumulates more Playoff Value the closer the series was (pushing it to 7 gains more Playoff Value than getting swept), and the exact amount of Playoff Value they gain is proportional to the Regular Season Value of the team they lost to, assuming they won games.
To give you a bit of an idea of the numbers, here’s how much Playoff Value (PV) a team would add in a first round loss against the ’16 Warriors or ’07 Nets :
Result ’16 GSW ’07 NJN
Loss in 4 50.0 PV 50.0 PV
Loss in 5 69.3 PV 54.0 PV
Loss in 6 88.6 PV 58.0 PV
Loss in 7 107.8 PV 62.0 PV
For the winning team, it’s the opposite. The fewer games they drop, the more value they gain.
From the 2nd round onwards, the calculations remain the same except instead of using only the opponents’ Regular Season Value, the already accumulated Playoff Value is taken into account as well. The idea being that some teams play better in the playoffs, and therefore teams “inherit” a part of the value of their opponents as the rounds go on.
The ’16 Thunder were tough to beat not just because they were the 55-win Thunder, but also because they were the team that beat the 67-win Spurs.
For example, eliminating the ’07 Warriors gained the Jazz a decent amount of Playoff Value that round because they weren’t just the ’07 Warriors, they were also the team that beat the ’07 Mavs. For this exact example, the ’07 Jazz added 115.4 Playoff Value in the 2nd round by beating the Warriors in 5, but if just the Regular Season Value was taken into account, they would only have added 53.6 Playoff Value in that second round. This is of course one of the most extreme examples.
The Playoff Value gained during each round is then added together for a total Playoff Value, meant to represent how much a team’s playoff run was worth, once strength of competition, and performance against said competition, are accounted for.
Although not statistically an obligation in this model, the winning team has always had the most Playoff Value every year by a big stretch (due to more Playoff Value being up for grabs the further the round).

Playoff Value results :

Since 2000, the highest Playoff Values are the ’01 Lakers (15-1 record, 4 straight 50-win teams) at 866.7 (the highest ever), the ’11 Mavs (pretty good playoff record, really tough competition) at 833.1 and the ’16 Cavs (for having beaten the super-Warriors) at 826.3 (464.0 of which was accumulated in the Finals alone).
However, this model is unfair to teams that are better in the regular season.
For example, in 2016, the Spurs swept the first round and lost the 2nd round in 6. The Blazers won the 1st round in 6, and then lost in 5. Yet the Blazers accumulated more Playoff Value simply by virtue of playing tougher competition.
This seems unfair as the Blazers didn’t play tougher competition because they played in a more competitive era or conference, it was merely because they weren’t good enough to secure a high seed in the regular season.
Thus, the Regular Season Value is added to the Playoff Value. Important to stress, this is NOT because this metric aims to take into account regular season performance directly, but simply for recognising the importance of the regular season in making the playoffs and securing a high seed (thus making the road to the title easier).
That being said, this is still a playoff stat, so the Regular Season Value isn’t a huge difference (on most title teams, the Regular Season Value is about 135, while the Playoff Value is over 700), and mostly impacts teams that lose in early rounds.
The exact calculations are adjusted so as not to penalise teams that played when the 1st round was best-of-5, or when the first round was a bye for the top seeds, etc ...

Total Value results

Since 2000, the highest Total Values are still the ’01 Lakers (972.2), however the ’16 Cavs (953.4) leapfrog the ’11 Mavs (946.4) because they were better in the regular season (remember, it’s not about rewarding good play in the regular season as much as it is not punishing teams that avoided tough competition in the playoffs by being great in the regular season), and the ’17 Warriors join the mix in 3rd place with a 952.1.
The lowest Total Values by title teams since 2000 are the ’13 Heat (784.7), ’04 Pistons (785.1) and ’20 Lakers (786.2).
The highest Total Values by Finals losing teams since 2000 are the ’08 Lakers (766.5, highest mark ever, almost as much as some title teams), the ’13 Spurs (701.8) and the ’16 Warriors (681.1).
The model also confirms what common sense indicated : the 2002 Kings had a 491.5 Total Value (2nd highest for a team that lost in the conference Finals ever) while the ’02 Nets had a 429.8 Total Value (lowest for a Finals loser so far this century).
The model also roughly confirms what many experts believe : basketball got a lot better really quickly from the 60s to the 90s, and has roughly stagnated since (maybe a better way to word this would be that great teams had easier paths to the title in the 60s. It's not a measure of the actual level of play on the court).
Average Total Value for the title team by decade, as well the highest Total Value for a team that decade :
2010s : 889.6 (so far) , ’16 Cavs (953.4)
2000s : 876.9, ’01 Lakers (972.2)
1990s : 916.7, ’97 Bulls (1057.3, all-time best mark)
1980s : 785.4, ’89 Pistons (951.7)
1970s : 692.7, ’72 Lakers (877.8)
1960s : 570.4, ’69 Celtics (701.6)
1950s (’50 and ’51 not included) : 440.4, ’53 Lakers (544.6)
Each playoff team’s total value is then divided by the same number, calculated so that the average number of PSS a title team receives is 5.00, which is seems arbitrary but means the average starter on an average title team with no bench should receive 1.00 PSS for 1 ring.
The highest (’97 Bulls) received 6.91 PSS as a team, the lowest title team (’57 Celtics) received 2.42 PSS.
If enough people are interested, I’ll make a post just about team Value and which were the best playoff runs ever ranked by this metric, where I go more into detail on the adjustments for the different playoff formats that have existed over the course of the NBA since ’52 (10 different formats in that timeframe).
Here are the top 15 ever Total Value playoff runs :
Team Total Value Playoff Value Regular Season Value
’97 Bulls 1057.3 866.2 191.1
’96 Bulls 1032.9 827.1 205.8
’01 Lakers 972.2 866.5 105.7
’16 Cavaliers 953.4 829.4 124.0
’17 Warriors 952.1 756.9 195.0
’89 Pistons 951.7 812.4 139.2
’11 Mavericks 946.4 832.8 113.6
’98 Bulls 944.5 796.5 148.0
’09 Lakers 928.8 778.5 150.4
’02 Lakers 921.6 779.4 142.2
’91 Bulls 913.0 753.0 160.1
’95 Rockets 911.4 830.8 80.5
’93 Bulls 909.6 778.2 131.4
’14 Spurs 907.3 751.7 155.6
’15 Warriors 904.5 722.7 181.8
Notes on Total Value :
  • A few obvious flaws : there is still some subjectivity to the model (deciding the factor in front of the formula that adjusts for competition level and length of series, which increases each round) and the model assumes an opponent is as good during a series as it was before the series, which is wrong if a team chokes or, more likely, suffers from injuries to one/some of its best player(s) and finally the model benefits teams from the 50s/60s by considering a loss in the 1st round (which was also the conference semis at the time) equivalent to losing in the conference semis nowadays, instead of considering it the equivalent of losing in the 1st round (not that impactful of a decision considering the teams from those decades still accumulated very low numbers of Total Value).
  • Even incorporating the “inheriting value” factor, teams with mediocre regular seasons than massively overperform in the playoffs still aren’t considered amazing opponents to beat. Most glaring example is the 2017 Warriors “only” accumulating 294.9 PV in the Finals because as amazing as the Cavs were in the playoffs, they were still just a 51-win team with a meh 2.87 SRS.
  • The ’73 Knicks (869.4) and ’72 Lakers (877.8) are the complete outliers of the pre-merger era, with more than 160 Total Value more than any other team of that era (’52-’76). There was only one other team before the ’76 merger that even cracked 700 (’69 Celtics at 701.6).
  • 1989 was a true tipping point. The ’89 Pistons were the first team to crack 900. Before them, only 5 teams had reached 800 (’72 Lakers, ’73 Knicks, ’80 Lakers, ’83 Sixers and ’86 Celtics, which is 5/37 champs from ’52 to ’88), but since ’89, every title team has cracked 800 except the ’04 Pistons, ’20 Lakers and ’13 Heat (which is 29/32 champs from ’89 to ’16) and almost half have reached 900+ (15/32).
  • Unsurprisingly, since 2000, the losing WCF team had a higher Total Value than the losing ECF team all but three years (’09, ’19 and ’20).
  • No losing Finals team has ever had more Total Value than the champions.
  • Rarely has a Conference Finals losing team had more Total Value than the Finals losing team, but it has happened a few times (’02 Kings (491.5) over Nets (429.8), ’81 Sixers (467.9) over Rockets (424.5) and ’72 Bucks (396.4) over Knicks (387.5))
  • Top 5 Highest Total Value for teams that didn’t win the title : ’08 Lakers (766.5), '13 Spurs (701.8), ’98 Jazz (694.0), ’91 Lakers (689.8) and ’16 Warriors (681.1).

PSS

The team PSS is then split between the players on a team using various advanced stats.
4 Advanced stats are used to determine credit :
  • Playoff VORP : VORP is good because it’s already cumulative, and because it’s a box-score derived metric. This makes it less accurate but also calculable going as far back as 1974. More accurate stats like RPM or RPM wins don’t go nearly as far back, so are useless for historic comparisons.
  • Playoff Win Shares : same advantages, already cumulative and calculable going all the way back to 1955.
  • Cumulative Playoff PER : PER is the most flawed of these but presents the advantage of being a good equalizer. VORP and WS can be negative or close to 0 so using only those would give a huge boost to the superstar level players and the role players would get very little credit (and by that I mean basically none), so the metric would lose all purpose as it would become synonymous with the “Finals MVPs” approach discussed earlier. PER is multiplied by minutes played to get “cumulative PER” since a player posting a 43 PER who played 5 minutes over the entire playoffs should not be getting too much credit for a title. The assumption is made that a team's pace doesn't vary much from lineup to lineup (less than 10 possessions per 48 minutes difference)
  • Cumulative last series GameScore : Now I know I said the whole point of this was to stop players being judged only by rings or Finals MVPs, but I do believe that the players that stepped up in the last round a team reached should get a bigger chunk of the credit than a teammate that contributed just as much overall but mostly contributed in the first 3 rounds. The formula is simply the sum of the player’s GameScore for each game they played in the Finals. (for example, without this factor, Kobe gets more credit for 2001 than Shaq).
Finally all are added up with weights designed to give equal importance to each metric.
The weights are 1 for PER x MP, 5 000 for WS, 12 000 for VORP and a variable weight for series GameScore that varies from 150 for a 7 game Finals to 263 for a Finals sweep (the point being that just because a Finals was shorter shouldn’t mean that the Finals GameScore factor should count less)
These weights were chosen so that the team totals in each category would be roughly equal.
Example for the 2016 Cavs :
sum of players’ PER x MP : 88472
sum of players’ WS x 5000 : 86000
sum of players’ VORP x 12000 : 87600
sum of players’ Cumulative Finals GmSc x 150 : 80820
Finally each player’s total “score” is divided by the team’s total “score”, given a number that can be interpreted as the % of the credit that player deserves for that title run. This percentage is multiplied by the total PSS the team received to give
An example of what this means :
All the 2014 Spurs got a ring, and Kawhi got a Finals MVP. Nobody else got anything.
On paper :
Kawhi : 1 ring, 1 Finals MVP
Duncan : 1 ring, 0 Finals MVP
Austin Daye : 1 ring, 0 Finals MVP
LeBron : 0 rings, 0 Finals MVP
DeMarcus Cousins : 0 rings, 0 Finals MVP
So resume-wise, LeBron adds no more than Boogie (who missed the playoffs) and Duncan adds no more than Austin Daye.
But by PSS :
Kawhi : 0.96 PSS
Duncan : 0.90 PSS
Austin Daye : 0.002 PSS
LeBron : 1.13 PSS
Boogie : 0.00 PSS

PSS Results

For those who skipped to here : PSS is a measure of a player's contribution to a playoff team, with context of team performance, teammate level and strength of competition taken into account. How well a team does (and who they do it against) gives the team a total PSS, which is then split between the players on said team using advanced stats to determine who deserves how much of the team PSS.
For each decade, the first table represents how many PSS each notable player accumulated each year. Cells in green are for players that won a ring that year, in orange are those that lost in the Finals. All runs over 1PSS are bolded.
The second represents each player’s career accumulated PSS year-by-year, color-scaled to highlight the best players (green) and the least productive among these examples (red). The players deemed “notable” enough to include in these tables are the big names of the decade/era in question, as well as a few key roles players (and every All-NBA 1st Team member, explaining DeAndre’s inclusion).
For all players with at least 5 or more career PSS, here’s a graph of how they stack up :
graph
Here are the tables for each decade, as well as a “recap” for all players with 5+ career PSS :
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000/10/20s
RECAP for top players
Here are the players with 5+ PSS for those who don't can’t use the links or whatever :
Player Career PSS
James 17.29
Jordan 15.47
Duncan 13.64
Abdul-Jabbar 12.41
S. O'Neal 12.25
M. Johnson 11.91
Bryant 11.66
Pippen 10.55
Russell 9.55
K. Malone 9.08
Bird 9.04
Chamberlain 8.99
Olajuwon 8.02
Durant 7.55
Wade 7.23
Nowitzki 7.16
Ginobili 7.05
Horry 7.01
Drexler 6.96
Stockton 6.94
Robinson 6.81
Havlicek 6.72
Curry 6.54
Grant 6.25
West 6.17
Erving 6.09
Gasol 5.92
Garnett 5.89
McHale 5.67
Barkley 5.65
Parker 5.61
Kidd 5.60
Harden 5.59
Leonard 5.58
S. Jones 5,53
Worthy 5,34
Thomas 5,23
Miller 5,10
M. Malone 5,04
Parish 5,03
If we consider the leader in PSS each season to be that year’s theoretical “Playoff MVP”, we’d get this :
Year Playoff MVP
1952 Mikan
1953 Mikan
1954 Mikan
1955 Schayes
1956 Arizin
1957 Cousy
1958 Hagan
1959 Russell
1960 Russell
1961 Russell
1962 Russell
1963 Russell
1964 Russell
1965 Russell
1966 Russell
1967 Chamberlain
1968 Havlicek
1969 Havlicek
1970 Frazier
1971 Abdul Jabbar
1972 Chamberlain
1973 Frazier
1974 Abdul Jabbar
1975 Barry
1976 Cowens
1977 Walton
1978 Hayes
1979 Williams
1980 Abdul Jabbar
1981 Bird
1982 M. Johnson
1983 M. Malone
1984 Bird
1985 M. Johnson
1986 Bird
1987 M. Johnson
1988 M. Johnson
1989 Jordan
1990 Thomas
1991 Jordan
1992 Jordan
1993 Jordan
1994 Olajuwon
1995 Olajuwon
1996 Jordan
1997 Jordan
1998 Jordan
1999 Duncan
2000 O'Neal
2001 O'Neal
2002 O'Neal
2003 Duncan
2004 O'Neal
2005 Ginobili
2006 Wade
2007 Duncan
2008 Bryant
2009 Bryant
2010 P. Gasol
2011 Nowitzki
2012 James
2013 James
2014 James
2015 Curry
2016 James
2017 Curry
2018 James
2019 Leonard
2020 James
A whole bunch of notes and records and stuff :
  • THIS IS NOT A GOAT RANKING These numbers are merely meant to replace the “Finals MVP” and “rings” lines in a players’ CV, not be a single metric that encapsulates a player’s entire resume.
  • The players with multiple “Playoff MVPs” are : Russell (8), Jordan (7), LeBron (6), Shaq and Magic (4), Mikan, Kareem, Bird and Duncan (3), Wilt, Havlicek, Walt Frazier, Hakeem, Kobe and Curry (2).
  • A good barometer seems to be 1 PSS = 1 good performance on a title team or 1 great performance on a non-title team, 1.5 PSS = 1 great performance on a title team and 2 PSS = 1 all-time great performance on a title team.
  • LeBron is the all-time leader at 17.29 PSS, over Jordan (15.47).
  • Dolph Schayes had the most PSS over the ’50s decade (2.81), Russell over the ‘60s (8.19), Kareem over the ‘70s (5.62), Magic over the ’80s (9.80), Jordan over the ‘90s (12.91), Kobe over the ’00s (8.88) and LeBron over the ’10s (12.57) and ’20s so far (1.60).
  • Kareem is also 3rd over the ‘80s, and is the only player to be top 3 in two different decades (not counting the ’20s yet). Ironically, he’s 1st of the ‘70s and 3rd of the ’80s despite accumulating more PSS in the ’80s than ’70s.
  • LeBron has the most runs of 1 or more PSS at 10, followed by Jordan (8), Kobe and Magic (6), Pippen (5), Shaq, Bird, Kareem and Duncan (4). LeBron holds the record for most consecutive years of 1+ PSS at 8 straight (his 8 straight Finals streak).
  • Russell was the first player to reach 1PSS in a single season (’62), Kareem was the first to 1.5PSS (’80) and Jordan the first to 2PSS (’91).
  • At least one player has reached 1 or more PSS every year since ’79.
  • The only players to accumulate 1 or more PSS in a year in which their team didn’t win are Kareem, Dr. J, Bird, Magic, Drexler, Barkley, Jordan, Karl Malone, Payton, Shaq, Kobe, Dirk, Wade, Dwight, LeBron, KD, Steph and Jimmy Butler. Drexler, Jordan, Kobe and LeBron are the only ones to do so more than once. LeBron holds the record for most such playoff runs at 6 (nobody else has more than 2).
  • LeBron and Jordan are the only 2 players to ever accumulate more than 1 PSS in a season in which their team didn’t reach the Finals (’09 and ’89/’90). Jordan is the only player to do so more than once, and is also the only player to ever lead the league in PSS in a year in which he didn’t reach the Finals (’89).
  • The only players to lead the league in PSS in years in which they didn’t win the title are Kareem (’74), Jordan (’89), Shaq (’04), Kobe (’08) and LeBron (’14, ’18). LeBron’s the only one to do it twice.
  • The only runs with more than 2 PSS are ’97 Jordan (2.10), ’00 Shaq (2.09), ’91 Jordan (2.05), ’93 Jordan (2.03) and ’16 LeBron (2.01). ’03 Duncan just misses the cut (1.997). Thus Jordan has more such runs than the rest of all players in NBA history combined.
  • The next best runs are ’03 Duncan (2.00), ’06 Wade (1.94), ’12 LeBron (1.94) and ’94 Hakeem (1.93).
  • The highest PSS in a year with no ring is ’18 LeBron BY FAR (1.67), followed by ’91 Magic (1.43), ’08 Kobe (1.36) and ’06 Dirk (1.33).
  • The best duos ever are ’97 Jordan/Pippen (3.48), ’91 Jordan/Pippen (3.33) and ’01 Shaq/Kobe (3.31). The only teams to feature two players over 1.5 PSS are the ’01 Lakers (Shaq and Kobe) and ’10 Lakers (Pau and Kobe). ’20 Lakers only just miss the cut (LeBron 1.60, AD 1.49).
  • The ’92 Bulls are the only team to feature 3 players over 1PSS (Jordan, Pippen and Grant).
  • 2009 is the only year that 4 different players had over 1PSS (Kobe, Pau, Dwight and LeBron).
  • LeBron is the only player to have accumulated 5+ PSS for two different franchises.
  • Kobe and Magic have every “most PSS through age X” record from age 18 to 29 (Magic has 7 of them, Kobe has the other 5). LeBron has the record for most PSS through age 30 and above.
  • Magic, Bird and Duncan have every “most PSS through X years in the league” record from rookie year to 8th season. Jordan and Magic are neck and neck through 9 and 10 seasons, and Jordan has the record for most PSS through 11, 12, 13 and 14 years. LeBron has the most through the first 15 seasons, and onwards.
  • The timeline of “most PSS ever” record looks like this : ’50-’58 Mikan, ’58-’61 Schayes, ’62-’83 Russell, ’84-’96 Kareem, ’97-’17 Jordan, ’18-now LeBron.
  • 17 of the 39 players with 5 or more career PSS played for the Lakers or Celtics at some point in their career. The Celtics have 5 players to make the list who played exclusively for their franchise (Russell, Bird, Havlicek, McHale and Sam Jones) , the Spurs have 4 (Duncan, Robinson, Parker and Ginobili) and the Lakers “only” have 3 (Kobe, Magic and Jerry West) but two of them are in the top 7.
  • Being based on box-score derived metrics, high-impact players who don’t show up much on the boxscore aren’t well represented (Rodman is the ultimate example of this).
  • For the same reasons, high-volume low-efficiency scorers are also screwed by the model (Iverson gets only 0.84 PSS for ’01, and 2.70 for his career).
  • Some players are higher than expected (Grant, Pippen, K. Malone, …), but it’s important to remember this metric doesn’t aim to represent the best playoff performers, but simply the ones with the most individually attributable playoff success, so it’s not insane that players with crazy longevity or that played on many great teams would show up high on these rankings.
  • Since context is taken into account, the numbers are comparable directly to one another. It doesn’t make sense to say something like “Wilt had 8.99 PSS despite only winning twice” or “Russell has 9.55 PSS despite playing in a weak era”. The entire point is that that’s already taken into account. If Wilt had more help, he would have gotten further and his team would have accumulated more value, but he also would have gotten a smaller chunk of it. If Russell had played in a stronger era, he would have gotten more PSS for getting each ring, but he would have won fewer rings. The only context that could make sense to add is time (“Bird got 9.04 PSS despite only playing 9 full healthy seasons” for example is a logical observation).

Possible improvements :

  • Instead of calculating what percentage of his team’s success a player is responsible for and multiplying it by the team’s total PSS, it would be more accurate to do so for round by round. That would benefit the players that stepped up in the more valuable rounds. Right now, the Last Series GameScore factor advantages the players that step up in the last series played, but all previous rounds count equally. Problem is precise series-by-series stats aren’t available before ’73, and even after that, only GameScore is accessible for all playoff series.
  • Regular season may be more accurate if another factor was considered, maybe Elo rating ?
  • The Playoff Value calculation could be made more accurate. Some series are closer than the series score indicates, and for others it’s the opposite. I’m thinking including series point differential to the formula, but that would require going through a LOT more data.
  • The first two NBA seasons and BAA seasons cannot be used (barely any boxscore data available). However, ABA is calculable, so I might get around to doing that. Dr. J is already really high on the list off of his NBA career alone, so I wonder how high he could get if the ABA counted.
So, what do you guys think ? Do you like the logic of this model ? Do you see other flaws/ways to improve it ?
submitted by MiopTop to nba

0 thoughts on “Oracle patch set 11.2.0.3 games

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *