Redeem Team Stats
Posted by Neil Paine on July 12, 2010
Many commenters have asked for this, especially in light of the fact that 1/4 of the Redeem Team are "taking their talents to South Beach" next season, so I thought some stats from the 2008 Olympics were in order. All I have is the USA page right now, though hopefully I'll be able to add other teams from the Beijing games at some point in the near future.
2008 United States Men’s Basketball Statistics
If the Redeem Team numbers are informative about the LeBron James/Dwyane Wade dynamic, Wade will be the bigger possession user (he led James 27.7% to 23.6% in terms of possessions used on the floor in the Olympics), while James will have the ball in his hands and be a facilitator (he led Wade in touches/minute, 1.33 to 1.21, and his pass/shot breakdown on touches was 59%/28% vs. Wade's 43%/34%). This aligns with the commentators who predict James will become the 21st-century version of Magic Johnson alongside his new Heat teammates.
Of course, the Redeem Team used Wade off the bench while James started, so a portion of those stats were accumulated with only one of the two in the game. Still, the general trend could hold, since they did play at least a third of their minutes together.
July 17th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Anon, this isn't just about players I like or don't like. Hakeem is the ultimate example of a player that WS don't properly rate, but there are many more. Barkley was a player I liked, but advanced stats overrate him. David Robinson is tremendously overrated by WS, as are Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Paul and John Stockton. Meanwhile, Bird, Wade, Ewing and Kobe (who I despise) are underrated. And don't get me started on how advanced stats undervalue Isiah Thomas and other elite point guards like Kidd and Payton.
PS Bird is just as underrated as Hakeem; WS manages to overrate him as a defender while tremendously underrating him as an offensive player.
July 17th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
6.9 ppg, 4.0 Orpg, 1.6 apg, 1.2 topg, .486 TS%, 39.4 mpg
24.3 ppg, 3.6 Orpg, 2.9 apg, 3.2 topg, .541 TS%, 38.1 mpg
Which player had the better offensive season? According to OWS, player A, who recorded 2.7 OWS in 73 games (2003); Player B recorded 2.5 OWS in 82 games (1990).
Player A is Ben Wallace, Player B is Hakeem. Does the fact that I'm a Hakeem fan disprove my belief that OWS don't properly rate these two seasons?
July 19th, 2010 at 10:56 am
"Anon, this isn't just about players I like or don't like. Hakeem is the ultimate example of a player that WS don't properly rate, but there are many more."
And like I said about a million times previously in other posts, I'm not JUST using WS to back up my arguments. You are.
"Barkley was a player I liked, but advanced stats overrate him. David Robinson is tremendously overrated by WS, as are Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Paul and John Stockton."
Why? Because you say so? You need to present PROOF for your arguments. Several advanced metrics like these players, and not just WS. Maybe they're all wrong and your views of these players based on biased recollections of these players are correct, or they were perhaps better players than you give them credit for.
"And don't get me started on how advanced stats undervalue Isiah Thomas and other elite point guards like Kidd and Payton."
Thomas is overrated anyway. Haven't seen Kidd and Payton get shafted in anything.
"Player A is Ben Wallace, Player B is Hakeem. Does the fact that I'm a Hakeem fan disprove my belief that OWS don't properly rate these two seasons?"
The fact that you originally started by looking up HAKEEM'S numbers then comparing them to another player just to find an example shows at least part of your motivation for not liking the metric.
You're interested in putting the "star names" where you FEEL they should be. I'm interested in accurately representing the game of basketball. If MJ ended up in the middle of the list of the best players of all-time, I would laugh. But I can't sit there and discount the metric BECAUSE of that, I need to ask myself, "How is this metric valuing performance?" "Could it be really that stupid, or perhaps MY original views were incorrect on ________ in the first place?" etc. etc. When you investigate what is going on with the MODEL'S interpretation of the game then you will get clearer answers on these things. But the "smell test" isn't the definitive way for discounting evidence. You need to delve further into the thought process.
July 19th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Anon, I have said this a billion times, but since you seem a little thick, I will repeat myself: I base my opinion of players on objective stats (points, rebounds, blocks, FG%, etc). PER, WS, plus/minus and every other metric you care to name are not objective stats. I can admit that my own interpretation of stats is subjective, but the fact is, ANY attempt to interpret stats is subjective, including your metrics.
What is the value of a made field goal, relative to an assist? Relative to a turnover? What is the relative value of a missed field goal? If we base a player's rating in part on his team's performance, how do we know we are properly rating each player's contribution to the team? Could we be overvaluing some player's contributions, while undervaluing others? Could we be overvaluing mediocre players on good teams, while undervaluing good players on bad teams?
As for my Wallace/Olajuwon comparison, now who's making unfounded assumptions? I wasn't looking specifically at Hakeem's stats, I was looking at the DWS leaders of the 3 pt era when I stumbled across this bizarre result. You pretended to address my objection, but in truth you side-stepped actually trying to justify the obviously nonsensical results that OWS produced in this case. If you can explain how Wallace really was a better offensive player than Hakeem based on objective stats, I'll be happy to hear it; something tells me we will all be waiting a long, long time....
July 20th, 2010 at 10:46 am
"I can admit that my own interpretation of stats is subjective, but the fact is, ANY attempt to interpret stats is subjective, including your metrics."
Well you just axed your argument in one fell swoop. Your subjective argument is just that: subjective. Which makes you telling me that Hakeem was as good as you claim he is on offense and suggesting that people are wrong to think otherwise...well, silly.
"What is the value of a made field goal, relative to an assist? Relative to a turnover? What is the relative value of a missed field goal? If we base a player's rating in part on his team's performance, how do we know we are properly rating each player's contribution to the team? Could we be overvaluing some player's contributions, while undervaluing others? Could we be overvaluing mediocre players on good teams, while undervaluing good players on bad teams?"
That is precisely what these metrics are made for. To find out the answers to these things based on their unique strengths and weaknesses.
"If you can explain how Wallace really was a better offensive player than Hakeem based on objective stats, I'll be happy to hear it; something tells me we will all be waiting a long, long time...."
We will be, because I never, ever said that.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am
You asked for "PROOF" when I had just given you plenty. Here it is again, since you keep ignoring it:
"6.9 ppg, 4.0 Orpg, 1.6 apg, 1.2 topg, .486 TS%, 39.4 mpg, 2.7 OWS, 73 g
24.3 ppg, 3.6 Orpg, 2.9 apg, 3.2 topg, .541 TS%, 38.1 mpg, 2.5 OWS, 82 g"
Which one of us is dealing in facts, and which one is just spouting opinions? The OBJECTIVE stats above speak for themselves. You claim I'm being silly, but you won't address the actual stats in question; you even claim you don't think Wallace had the better offensive season. So which is it? Am I being silly, or does OWS produce a nonsensical result? You can't have it both ways
July 20th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
PS I made a mistake, Hakeem avgd 3.9 TOpg, not 3.2. Doesn't make the result OWS produce any less nonsensical. If you can't admit that in this specific instance, you aren't being intellectually honest
July 20th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
"Which one of us is dealing in facts, and which one is just spouting opinions? The OBJECTIVE stats above speak for themselves."
Two men went into two different restaurants and ate a burger for lunch. Fact.
What that statement doesn't tell you is one ate a plain hamburger, while the other ate a pineapple bacon burger with all the works. That's like what per game stats give you: just the basic information. These metrics strive for (and give you) much more than that. Which brings me to my next point...
"You claim I'm being silly, but you won't address the actual stats in question; you even claim you don't think Wallace had the better offensive season. So which is it? Am I being silly, or does OWS produce a nonsensical result?"
I would be inclined to say yes. But before you just dismiss what you see here, do you ever ask yourself WHY? Scoring points in Ben's era were alot more valuable than points in Hakeem's era (by about 5 points per 100 possessions) and were also scored at alot slower pace. WS takes these things into account in its calculation of marginal offense and marginal points per win. So while Ben's per game numbers don't look at all impressive, they become moreso within the context (or the era of the league) he produced his offense in. Hence the higher OWS (which by the way, several of Ben's teammates had over Hakeem in 1990 as well).
Does this mean at all that Ben is a more talented or gifted offensive player than Hakeem? Of course not. But these thing measure VALUE, which is a different thing altogether. You need to make this important distinction before making your comparisons.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Yeah, I know; advanced stats adjust for pace. That brings us to another assumption they take as a given, that there's a linear correlation between pace and production. But how do we know that for a fact?
July 21st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
You can see this by observing how the game works and also prove this empirically. Players who play in slower paced offenses don't have as high per game averages as players who are in faster paced offenses (of course, with all other things held constant, which is something to always keep in mind).
It's the same reason why it's easy as a casual fan to go nuts over the scoring averages of the Golden State Warriors, but when you take a step back and note that they also have the fastest paced offense in the league, you see why their numbers are "inflated".
July 21st, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Anon, give me a little credit please; I know a faster pace means more scoring; but that's on the team level; we can't assume that every individual player is affected equally by changes in pace. A fast pace may benefit the avg player, but it might hurt a player like, say, Eddie Curry (or Yao Ming, Andrew Bynum, Shaq, etc).
I'm also inclined to believe pace affects roleplayers more than elite scorers; fast-paced teams tend to be more balanced offensively, not relying on a single dominant scorer. Advanced stats assume all players benefit equally from a change in pace. Don't get me wrong, I know pace affects every player; what I don't know is that it affects them all in exactly the same way. The issue as always is separating out individual performance from team performance.
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:41 pm
"Advanced stats assume all players benefit equally from a change in pace. Don't get me wrong, I know pace affects every player; what I don't know is that it affects them all in exactly the same way."
It doesn't make that assumption at all. As a matter of fact, the methods used to measure these things seek to discover what the relationship is between pace and production so we then make a conclusion about the *average effect per player* (or lack thereof) in a particular sample, then yo go from there. It's the same thing with any study on the correlation between two variables.
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I'm not calling you a liar, but I don't believe that. How do you "adjust for pace" without penalizing players from fast-paced teams relative to players on slower teams? How do you "adjust for pace" differently for individual players on the same team?
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:07 pm
"How do you "adjust for pace" without penalizing players from fast-paced teams relative to players on slower teams?"
It's not "penalizing" the player as much as it is putting the numbers into proper context. If you don't see the point in this, then it makes no difference trying to convince you.
It just makes it hard to take the value of per game numbers on its face when Player A has more possessions per minute to score with than Player B, then erroneously conclude that Player A is a "better" offensive player because of what the per game numbers say. Scoring 20 pts/game for a team that sees alot of offensive possessions in a game isn't as valuable as scoring 20 per game on a team that paces itself and "grinds it out" on every halfcourt set (once again, with all other things held constant).
"How do you "adjust for pace" differently for individual players on the same team?"
Not really necessary since players play within the confines of team dynamics.
July 26th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Anon, let's not forget where this discussion started. Without much justification, you went off about how Drexler outplayed Hakeem in th 95 playoffs. So you are the one who first brought up Hakeem, not me. And according to your own post, SPM rated Hakeem as the better performer that year, as does PER. Win-Shares is the only metric I know of that says Drex outplayed Hakeem in 95. So I showed that WS often produces bizarre results. You responded by trying to make this about advanced stats in general, when WS is the metric in question. Btw, have you noticed Neil hasn't been using win-shares in his articles lately?
July 27th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
"Without much justification, you went off about how Drexler outplayed Hakeem in the 95 playoffs."
On the offensive end and according to the Oliver stats, yes he did.
"And according to your own post, SPM rated Hakeem as the better performer that year, as does PER. Win-Shares is the only metric I know of that says Drex outplayed Hakeem in 95. So I showed that WS often produces bizarre results."
I don't use PER at all. And not because of the result it gives, simply because it is flawed in alot of ways as a formula (at least in its derivation). And btw, WS isn't the only metric that has Drex > Hakeem on offense in the 95 playoffs, and isn't something entirely different from everything else either - it's actually based on the ORtg/Poss%/DRtg numbers you see all the time. It just puts everything into one number as the amount of wins a player contributed to his team.
OSPM has Hakeem outperforming Drex by a few points. The other perspective (per Oliver) has it the other way around. I just call it a draw. That's all.
If you want to give the edge to Hakeem, be my guest, and I have NO problem with that. What I'm simply saying is that based on the evidence, the prevailing viewpoint that Hakeem was just "sooooooo much better offensively" than anyone else on his team is false. Drexler was right there with him.
July 27th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
I'm not an expert on advanced stats, but I understand them well enough to see through your BS. I'm well aware that "ORtg/Poss%/DRtg" go into factoring win-shares. We were discussing "catch-all" type metrics; PER, WS and SPM are intended to be catch-alls, ORtg is not, unless you think Steve Kerr is the greatest offensive player in history.
As for PER, you might not like it, but it's listed on this site, so somebody thinks it's respectable. And while it might not be "scientific" enough for your tastes, it does better than OWS at evaluating individual offensive performance.
July 27th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1985&year_max=2002&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=C&qual=&c1stat=ows&c1comp=lt&c1val=3.0&c2stat=ows&c2comp=gt&c2val=2.4&c3stat=g&c3comp=gt&c3val=70&c4stat=per&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ows
Over the span of Hakeem's career, a center recorded between 3.0 to 2.4 OWS in a season of 70 or more games 38 times; going by OWS, Hakeem's 1990 season ranks 30th out of 38; and he played the full 82 games; 7 of the 8 players behind him played less than 82, which means he ranks dead last on a per game basis. Yet PER ranks his season as the best of the bunch; so which of these measures produces a more reasonable result, OWS or PER?
July 27th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
PS My bad, next to last
July 28th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I don't even know why you're even using Hakeem's 1990 season as an example. It's not like he did anything special that year - he got his points per game and shot 50% from the field, but once again these numbers are pretty devoid of any other information. Putting up a 104 ORtg rating while using 25%+ of your team's offense (in addition to doing so in a 108 ORtg league environment) is pedestrian; it would be interesting to see the OSPM take on his season. PER doesn't tell you ANY of these things (among issues that people have with the derivation of its weights in the formula). PER is a pretty popular stat among the casual fans that are looking to dabble into other stats outside of per game numbers, and its a good way of doing a quick analysis on "who's who" in the league so I understand its use. But there are better metrics out there.
BTW, as for "catch-all" stats, you continue to act as if I look at only WS for my information. There are multiple sources of information that I'm using to support my case. If several of them don't exactly have Hakeem blowing away his peers on offense, then perhaps you need to be asking yourself if your opinion is a bit biased - which is little apparent from this statement you made: "And while it might not be "scientific" enough for your tastes, it does better than OWS at evaluating individual offensive performance."
Really now, is this because it's not putting Hakeem where you feel he should be?
July 28th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
You know exactly why I'm using that example: because his OWS that season is preposterously low. Compare his real stats to the other centers with similar OWS totals. Btw, several Ben Wallace seasons aren't on the list because he is erroneously listed as a forward. Ben Wallace, a better offensive player than Hakeem in his prime!? Anyway, I don't think 24ppg/50%FG/70%FT is "nothing special"
And since ORtg (and DRtg) is a major component in factoring WS, it's disingenuous to pretend it's an entirely independent measure. ORtg assumes a player is as good (or bad) as the team he plays on. Thus a good offensive player on a bad offensive team is unfairly punished, while a bad offensive player on a good offensive team is unfairly rewarded. Adjustments for pace also unfairly reward players on slow teams, or playing in slow eras.
Since you have some special animosity towards Hakeem, let's look at Bob Cousy; through the first 5 years of his career that we have DWS for, Cooz was one of the worst defensive guards in BBall; in 55 he recorded just 1.5 DWS in 71 games. Then in 1957 he suddenly became the best defensive guard in the game, recording at least 4.6 DWS a season in each of his last 7 years. Hmmm, I wonder what changed in 1957...? Maybe WS doesn't properly measure how much a specific player contributes to his team's defensive performance in this case....
July 29th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
"Anyway, I don't think 24ppg/50%FG/70%FT is "nothing special""
For Hakeem's standards (and for the standards of star offensive players in 1990), it was just that, so-so. And for someone who keeps talking about the need for more complete stats, you're not exactly doing yourself a favor by using numbers that give you the least amount of info about player performance.
"ORtg assumes a player is as good (or bad) as the team he plays on. Thus a good offensive player on a bad offensive team is unfairly punished, while a bad offensive player on a good offensive team is unfairly rewarded."
I don't know if you ever read Basketball on Paper, but this is false.
"Adjustments for pace also unfairly reward players on slow teams, or playing in slow eras."
Unfair for what reason? You can't just make a statement without explaining your point.
"Since you have some special animosity towards Hakeem, let's look at Bob Cousy..."
I don't have any particular feeling about ANY basketball player, in terms of his on-court performance. I simply look at his production. Doesn't matter if I'm saying this about MJ or Sam Perkins.
But since you did happen to bring up DWS, you're right that it IS largely team-dependent (as well as something that is hard to get in the numbers) - it also happened to be the same season that Bill Russell entered the league and the Celtics became a better defensive team (not solely bc of Bill of course, but some of defense improvement certainly goes to his credit). But then again, it's nothing I don't even think that is anything necessarily "wrong" with the model. Defense is basketball is mostly team-dependent (in comparison to offense), and great defensive bigs and interior defenders are more valuable than perimeter defenders. Any player would become a alot better defender with a legendary defender behind him in the paint and other good defensive players around him as well.
Getting defense right statistically is still a work in progress, but this gets away a bit from what we we're discussing in the first place.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:42 am
anon, I think you enjoy playing dumb. First, I brought up Hakeem in 90 in the context of comparing his "real" stats to those of other centers with similar OWS totals for a full season. Most of the players on the list ahead of Dream are nowhere close to being "star offensive players". Hakeem (and Ewing, the only other 20 ppg scorer on the list)sticks out like a sore thumb.
On the second point, I meant OWS (not ORtg), which has the same issues that you acknowledged with regard to DWS. Just as Cooz unfairly benefitted with more DWS once Russell arrived, Hakeem's OWS was unfairly hurt by being on a bad offensive team (HOU was 21st out of 27 in ORtg in 1990). I feel like my point was pretty clear, even if I mistakenly said ORtg instead of OWS above.
As for pace-adjusted stats, I shared some of my objections earlier in post #61. Let's suppose a player sees his "real" statistical production RISE when his team starts playing at a faster pace, but his pace-adjusted stats show a DROP in individual production. Which measure is more accurate? If he's a high usage "star", perhaps his marginal utility can't really be much improved upon by the faster pace, simply because he was already near his peak of possible productivity. Meanwhile his lesser teammates disproportionately gain the rewards of a faster pace. Cousy is a good example of this, since he played in both the pre-shot-clock era and in the 60's when scoring was off the charts. Let's look at his PER, since it's not tied to team performance beyond the pace adjustment. It turns out Cooz had a PER over 20.0 in his first 6 seasons (not counting his rookie year, when they didn't track minutes). But from 1958-63, his PER fell below 20, despite the fact that his ppg and apg both rose on a per minute basis, and his FG% improved. What changed in 58? Bos went from averaging 105 ppg to 110 ppg; and that was just a transition year; in 59 Bos avgd 116 ppg; in 60, they avgd 124 ppg.
July 30th, 2010 at 2:08 am
Cousy from 1952-57, then from 1958-63:
18.5 ppg/ 5.5 rpg/ 7.0 apg (36 mpg), .373 FG%, .814 FT%, 416 G, 21.1 PER
19.5 ppg/ 4.8 rpg/ 8.9 apg (36 mpg), .379 FG%, .795 FT%, 432 G, 18.2 PER
If we exclude his last season with boston (due to decline) and look at 1958-62:
19.8 ppg/ 5.0 rpg/ 8.9 apg (36 mpg), .376 FG%, .805 FT%, 356 G, 18.5 PER
July 30th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
"First, I brought up Hakeem in 90 in the context of comparing his "real" stats to those of other centers with similar OWS totals for a full season. Most of the players on the list ahead of Dream are nowhere close to being "star offensive players"."
You're comparing players from different seasons where the league environment and defenses change from season to season. It makes comparing their per game numbers absurd.
"Just as Cooz unfairly benefitted with more DWS once Russell arrived, Hakeem's OWS was unfairly hurt by being on a bad offensive team (HOU was 21st out of 27 in ORtg in 1990)."
First of all, it wasn't "unfair" for the reasons I already mentioned. DRtg is also based on the assumption that the individual faces 1/5th of the opposing team's offense while on the floor, so DWS is going to tie alot of your value to how the rest of your team performs defensively (which reflects how defense works on the floor anyway).
Second, unlike defense, offense is much less team-oriented, and this is also reflected in ORtg (which is the basis for OWS). When OWS is calculated, it doesn't even look at what your team does - it compares your performance to the rest of the league on offense.
"Let's suppose a player sees his "real" statistical production RISE when his team starts playing at a faster pace, but his pace-adjusted stats show a DROP in individual production. Which measure is more accurate? If he's a high usage "star", perhaps his marginal utility can't really be much improved upon by the faster pace, simply because he was already near his peak of possible productivity. Meanwhile his lesser teammates disproportionately gain the rewards of a faster pace."
You need to explain the last sentence in your paragraph. But with what you're talking about, you still don't understand that the key here is measuring VALUE (which is the same point I have been making about the list that you put up with Hakeem). Those points scored in an offense where there are more possessions in a given time span don't have as much value as points in a slower paced offense.
In the example of Cousy, he went from scoring in a slower-paced offense to scoring in a faster-paced one, in a league where the overall pace also was faster. So those per game numbers are misleading despite the increase - the actual value of the point, assist, etc. (which contribute to wins) went down in the late 50s and 60s. Once again, you cry foul over this phenomenon, but I don't see how you can attribute the same amount of value to each case.
July 30th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
What's "absurd" is any measure that says Ben Wallace had a better offensive season than Hakeem or Ewing. Wallace is one of the worst offensive players in NBA history. Hakeem avgd 24.3 ppg, shot above the league avg from the field, and wasn't far off the league avg from the line; he also grabbed plenty of off. rebounds. His TO/G was high, but that happens with high usage players; nothing about his statline suggests that a single-figure scorer (7 ppg) who shot under 50% from the line was more valuable offensively.
Regarding pace, my point was that high usage "star" players see diminishing returns from increased pace (or minutes for that matter), because they are already producing at peak level. Conversely, role-payers have more to gain from a faster pace or more minutes. I think it's telling that fast-paced teams are associated with a balanced attack, rather than a single dominant scorer; think Russell's Celts, Magic's Lakers, Webber's Kings, and Nash's Suns.
August 12th, 2010 at 11:29 am
"What's "absurd" is any measure that says Ben Wallace had a better offensive season than Hakeem or Ewing. Wallace is one of the worst offensive players in NBA history."
And we're not talking about NBA history are we? We're talking about Ben's 2003 season compared to Hakeem's 1993 season.
Anyway, it's almost like you didn't comprehend a single thing I was explaining by my earlier statement in the first place. Hakeem's 104 ORtg (on around 26% of his team's offense) is equivalent to someone putting up a 99 ORtg in 2003. He would still have a higher ORtg (and the difference isn't exactly by leaps and bounds, either) than Wallace given the usage/efficiency tradeoff, but once again the metric is measuring value. Two players can post identical ORtgs and % poss rates in the same statistical league environment, but if Player A played in more games where points are harder to come by, his production is going to be more important to his team winning their games, plain and simple.
You can be impressed with raw offense and per game numbers all you want, but without putting them into the right context, it's like buying a computer because you went by the clock speed of its CPU. Per game numbers/PER/ORtg + % poss rate gives you raw offense, WS gives you the CONTEXT to put those numbers into.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Clearly an improper context. But hey, you go on believing Wallace had more "value" offensively because WS tell you so....
November 11th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@above commenter: I honestly don't think so. Besides that my two cents: have been looking on the Aol Search for that topic and took some hours to finally find a blog that provides the required infos - and that not in boring way, quite the opposite. Rarely to find and the design is cool as well. Maybe just change the link colour to red, but that just besides. It has proven to be very useful to me and I am quite sure to all your visitors here! But since it's already a little older, any news on that topic? Have looked but couldn't find anything! Any hints will be very much appreciated. Please feel free to send me a mail or contact me...thank you very much! :-) See yah!