Kawhi is a slightly above average defender this season...

[midnightpulp]

per the "advanced" stat of RPM.

According to ESPN's metrics voodoo, white American basketball player Luke Babbitt and the ghost of Paul Pierce are "better" defenders than Leonard. Also superior to Kawhi: Rudy Gay, Kevin Durant (underrated defender, but not THAT good), Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, and Trevor Ariza.

Per 82games.com, Kawhi has been pretty much lockdown against his opponents:

http://www.82games.com/1617/16SAS10.HTM

Especially against power forwards, holding them to a 10 PER and sub-40% shooting percentage (granted he only plays PF 5% of the time).

He hasn't been as "lockdown" against SFs this season as last season, but he's still holding them to 14 PER and a sub-50% eFG (48%) compared to a 12.7 PER and 464% eFG in 2015/16.

Nothing suggests he's merely a barely net positive defender. Again, he's holding his match-ups to roughly the same production as last season, where he posted a monster (for a wing) DRPM of +3.88.

"Well, Duncan's gone. Gasol isn't as good as a last line of defense as him, so Kawhi's metrics will no doubt suffer."

First, RPM is supposed to "adjust" for teammates on the floor, meaning it shouldn't unfairly punish players for playing alongside scrubs. Secondly, Kawhi's opponent production didn't see a significant enough uptick to suggest Gasol/LMA/Dedmon whomever is failing as a paint anchor to the point where it should drop Kawhi's DPM by 3 points. Thirdly, if the big is the one who contends the shot, he'll get credit for the defensive play, so if Kawhi is indeed funneling players into Gasol and Gasol is a matador in that instance, Gasol will get credited for the error.

Furthermore on that point, Houston, for instance, is a mediocre defensive team with no paint anchors anywhere near Gasol's caliber, Ariza's counterparts perform better against him than they do against Kawhi, yet Ariza has a higher DRPM.

http://www.82games.com/1617/16HOU8.HTM

Same thing with Robert Covington, who's a DRPM monster this season:

http://www.82games.com/1516/15PHI12.HTM

That said, I don't think Kawhi is as good defensively this season as last season, which is probably by choice so he has more energy for offense, but he's certainly a better defender than the aforementioned names and at the very least still a top 10 defender in the league.

ti;dr RPM is a bad, inconsistent "advanced" metric.

[lefty]

What are Parker stats tbh

[dabom]

OP writes "Kawhi is a slightly above average defender this season" using RPM

then writes tons of sentences on why it's not matching his "eye test" using bits and pieces of raw stats

then he states that Kawhi has indeed slipped defensively to save his energy for offense

Then goes back and says RPM is bad inconsistent. :lmao

Even though on other posts uses BPM(a very fucking similar stat). :lmao

Which one is it OP? You everywhere, faggot. :lmao

[Chinook]

I love the suite approach to defensive stats as much as anyone, but using PER allowed to counteract RPM is ridiculous. PER is a terrible stat first off and isn't even additive, so something like net-PER is just absurd. Second off 82games neither accounts for cross-matches nor actually looks at what position a guy is playing at any given time. That's how you get things like Danny playing PG and Kawhi playing C.

That said, Kawhi's not getting love from advanced stats this year. I think if you were to be able to take out November, though, his numbers would look a lot better.

[midnightpulp]

OP writes "Kawhi is a slightly above average defender this season" using RPM

then writes tons of sentences on why it's not matching his "eye test" using bits and pieces of raw stats

then he states that Kawhi has indeed slipped defensively to save his energy for offense

Then goes back and says RPM is bad inconsistent. :lmao

Even though on other posts uses BPM(a very fucking similar stat). :lmao

Which one is it OP? You everywhere, faggot. :lmao

I hate BPM. I only "use it" because you and the helmet crew use in your Tony/House comparisons.

No, RPM doesn't match the "eye test," nor does it correlate with raw stats. And some raw stats are fine, like eFG, since it's largely free of context, unlike assist stats or +/- stats.

[midnightpulp]

I love the suite approach to defensive stats as much as anyone, but using PER allowed to counteract RPM is ridiculous. PER is a terrible stat first off and isn't even additive, so something like net-PER is just absurd. Second off 82games neither accounts for cross-matches nor actually looks at what position a guy is playing at any given time. That's how you get things like Danny playing PG and Kawhi playing C.

That said, Kawhi's not getting love from advanced stats this year. I think if you were to be able to take out November, though, his numbers would look a lot better.

Why? PER's flaw is that doesn't account for defense and underrates assists (which isn't a bad thing, since the assist is the most overrated stat in basketball). We're using PER in this case to simply look at an opponent's offensive production against the player in question.

82games does try and track the amount of time a player played a certain position (i.e. it has Kawhi playing PF 5% of the time). Now does it obtain that data that from a cross-match or from when the player was officially playing that position? I don't know. And this is why individual defensive metrics will always be shaky because so much defense is played as a team.

Ultimate point is that RPM is a silly, flawed stat using an arbitrary guesstimate approach. ESPN has kept the formula "secret," but using an inference model in this case is just wrong. It's why garbage time heroes and specialist second unit players usually have RPMs with net gains (Lucas Nogueira, Speights, Zaza [I know he starts, but he plays limited minutes], etc). These players beat up on scrubs for limited minutes and then from that, the model "infers" that production over 48 minutes, and then sprinkles on more statistic voodoo to "adjust" for competition. If we take it at face value, RPM is supposed to tell us that Lucas Nogueira is a more productive player than Blake Griffin. After all, it adjusted for competition, so Lucas>Blake in a statistical vacuum.

There's too many inconsistencies with this stat to take it seriously.

[dabom]

I hate BPM. I only "use it" because you and the helmet crew use in your Tony/House comparisons.

No, RPM doesn't match the "eye test," nor does it correlate with raw stats. And some raw stats are fine, like eFG, since it's largely free of context, unlike assist stats or +/- stats.

No one uses raw plus minus you stupid fuck. :lmao

If that's your argument, you're a fucking idiot. :lol

And you hate BPM but you use it when it suits you. Hypocrite much? :lmao

You taking L's this year. :lol

[dabom]

Why? PER's flaw is that doesn't account for defense and underrates assists (which isn't a bad thing, since the assist is the most overrated stat in basketball). We're using PER in this case to simply look at an opponent's offensive production against the player in question.

82games does try and track the amount of time a player played a certain position (i.e. it has Kawhi playing PF 5% of the time). Now does it obtain that data that from a cross-match or from when the player was officially playing that position? I don't know. And this is why individual defensive metrics will always be shaky because so much defense is played as a team.

Ultimate point is that RPM is a silly, flawed stat using an arbitrary guesstimate approach. ESPN has kept the formula "secret," but using an inference model in this case is just wrong. It's why garbage time heroes and specialist second unit players usually have RPMs with net gains (Lucas Nogueira, Speights, Zaza [I know he starts, but he plays limited minutes], etc). These players beat up on scrubs for limited minutes and then from that, the model "infers" that production over 48 minutes, and then sprinkles on more statistic voodoo to "adjust" for competition. If we take it at face value, RPM is supposed to tell us that Lucas Nogueira is a more productive player than Blake Griffin. After all, it adjusted for competition, so Lucas>Blake in a statistical vacuum.

There's too many inconsistencies with this stat to take it seriously.

You are getting production and impact the wrong way faggot. :lmao

[midnightpulp]

No one uses raw plus minus you stupid fuck. :lmao

If that's your argument, you're a fucking idiot. :lol

And you hate BPM but you use it when it suits you. Hypocrite much? :lmao

You taking L's this year. :lol

Raw plus minus is BPM :lol

All +/- stats are bad. If you can see why, then I can't help you.

[midnightpulp]

You are getting production and impact the wrong way faggot. :lmao

I'm using them interchangeably. If a player comes in, and "affects" the game, whether through box score production or intangibles, it's "productive" either way.

But yeah, :tu RPM. Let's get on the phone and make a deal for Jimmy Butler. Kawhi plus picks. Bulls get a star and youth and we get the best SF in the game (per RPM).

You only like RPM because it rates your lover House so highly. That's it.

And it should. All he's tasked with is throwing the ball to Manu and beating up the Kris Dunn's of the league :lol

[RD2191]

OP is by far the biggest faggot on this site. Can this queer be pinked already?

[dabom]

Raw plus minus is BPM :lol

All +/- stats are bad. If you can see why, then I can't help you.

I was talking about single game plus minus. :lol

I can already tell I don't like BPM as much already if it's what you say. But still decent to know.

[Chinook]

Why? PER's flaw is that doesn't account for defense and underrates assists (which isn't a bad thing, since the assist is the most overrated stat in basketball). We're using PER in this case to simply look at an opponent's offensive production against the player in question.

The flaws of PER are pretty well-traveled, but the biggest one in this case is that it's based on percent-of-team numbers. It favors chuckers over efficient scorers. It's extremely dependent on play-style, so guys like Korver who pretty much drove Atlanta's O in his prime, are considered below-average offensive players. It's shit.


82games does try and track the amount of time a player played a certain position (i.e. it has Kawhi playing PF 5% of the time). Now does it obtain that data that from a cross-match or from when the player was officially playing that position? I don't know. And this is why individual defensive metrics will always be shaky because so much defense is played as a team.

No, it doesn't keep track of the actual position a guy's playing. It looks at the guys on the court and assumes what position they are playing. Like if Green and Manu are on the floor together, Manu is the PG, not Danny. But 82games would give those minutes to Green. And for some reason, they assume Leonard is bigger than Anderson and would be a C if on the floor with Kyle and Davis. It's stupid.


Ultimate point is that RPM is a silly, flawed stat using an arbitrary guesstimate approach. ESPN has kept the formula "secret," but using an inference model in this case is just wrong. It's why garbage time heroes and specialist second unit players usually have RPMs with net gains (Lucas Nogueira, Speights, Zaza [I know he starts, but he plays limited minutes], etc). These players beat up on scrubs for limited minutes and then from that, the model "infers" that production over 48 minutes, and then sprinkles on more statistic voodoo to "adjust" for competition. If we take it at face value, RPM is supposed to tell us that Lucas Nogueira is a more productive player than Blake Griffin. After all, it adjusted for competition, so Lucas>Blake in a statistical vacuum.

Without knowing what the math is behind it, you can't say what it's actually arguing. I've yet to read methodology on RPM, but most stats like BPM are much better tested than they get credit for. For defensive stats, it's really hard to get a standard, but when you have stats like FG% allowed, STL% and the like, you shouldn't use something like net-PER to make a point.

[midnightpulp]

OP is by far the biggest faggot on this site. Can this queer be pinked already?

Why are you always hanging around in my threads like a Mexican at Home Depot looking for work?

Rob Diaz

Oh. I get it now.

[TheGreatYacht]

Couldnt agree more with those FACTS . The only players Kiwi locks up nowadays are LMAlpha and MVParker (who are more efficient)

[dabom]

I'm using them interchangeably. If a player comes in, and "affects" the game, whether through box score production or intangibles, it's "productive" either way.

But yeah, :tu RPM. Let's get on the phone and make a deal for Jimmy Butler. Kawhi plus picks. Bulls get a star and youth and we get the best SF in the game (per RPM).

You only like RPM because it rates your lover House so highly. That's it.

And it should. All he's tasked with is throwing the ball to Manu and beating up the Kris Dunn's of the league :lol

Production and impact are not the same thing faggot. Get it straight right now. :lol

[midnightpulp]

The flaws of PER are pretty well-traveled, but the biggest one in this case is that it's based on percent-of-team numbers. It favors chuckers over efficient scorers. It's extremely dependent on play-style, so guys like Korver who pretty much drove Atlanta's O in his prime, are considered below-average offensive players. It's shit.

It never has. It's why players like Kobe, Iverson, et al rarely ranked among the league's best (Top 5) in PER despite being "MVP Level" players.

I'm okay with it punishing players like Korver. He's a low-volume scorer who was assisted on .84 percent of his shots through his career. Players like Westbrook are starting to shift the idea that efficiency is the only thing that matters in scoring. Volume scorers (depending on where they take their attempts) can individually create for the team over more possessions. Passing offenses are nice, but they require more moving parts and more precision, while a volume scorer can do such with less risk (i.e. a bad passing offense will be turnover prone and indecisive). And their misses can "create" for the team as well through offensive boards, especially if said volume scorer is a penetrator (defense collapses, big on weakside gets an easy put back).


No, it doesn't keep track of the actual position a guy's playing. It looks at the guys on the court and assumes what position they are playing. Like if Green and Manu are on the floor together, Manu is the PG, not Danny. But 82games would give those minutes to Green. And for some reason, they assume Leonard is bigger than Anderson and would be a C if on the floor with Kyle and Davis. It's stupid.

Link to 82games methodology in this case?


Without knowing what the math is behind it, you can't say what it's actually arguing. I've yet to read methodology on RPM, but most stats like BPM are much better tested than they get credit for. For defensive stats, it's really hard to get a standard, but when you have stats like FG% allowed, STL% and the like, you shouldn't use something like net-PER to make a point.

You don't need to know the math to know it's flawed. It's funny that the stat's proponents endeavor to come off as scientific, but the stat is trying to measure events that have zero-to-little sample size, i.e. it "assumes" a scrub would be a productive player wholesale (meaning against starters) because he has a nice RPM against garbage time players. It infers an outcome from something that hasn't even happened. No amount of math can ever be "right" here. Until Marcelo Huertas plays significant minutes against NBA starters is when I consider Marcelo Huertas a capable NBA player and not just a guy who filled a roster spot for a tanking team. Yet last season his RPM was higher than Zach Lavine's and DeAngelo Russell's :lol

That said, individual defense will probably forever remain unmeasurable because of how team/lineup dependent defensive effectiveness is.

[midnightpulp]

Production and impact are not the same thing faggot. Get it straight right now. :lol

A pick isn't measured in the box score, yet picks are "productive" actions, you silly helmet headed fuck.

Same thing with creating spacing through being a shooting threat.

[dabom]

A pick isn't measured in the box score, yet picks are "productive" actions, you silly helmet headed fuck.

Same thing with creating spacing through being a shooting threat.

No you fuckface. They ain't the same. :lol

Just ask anyone besides yourself. :lol

[RD2191]

Why are you always hanging around in my threads like a Mexican at Home Depot looking for work?

Rob Diaz

Oh. I get it now.

Your threads are trash bro. You're telling me our number 1 scoring option took a hit on defense?:wow You should work for ESPN with that type of expert analysis.

[midnightpulp]

No you fuckface. They ain't the same. :lol

Just ask anyone besides yourself. :lol

:lol A pick isn't a productive action

*It only frees up an offensive player for a better shot (and open shots are statistically more productive)*

:lol A shooting threat who creates spacing isn't production

*Spacing creates bigger driving and passing lanes, which also creates better/open shots*

You're really this stupid, aren't you? Please tell me it's all an act.

[cd98]

I agree with Van Gundy that defensive stats are mostly garbage because you can't account for the team strategy or other factors.

[dabom]

Your threads are trash bro. You're telling me our number 1 scoring option took a hit on defense?:wow You should work for ESPN with that type of expert analysis.

:lol

[midnightpulp]

Your threads are trash bro. You're telling me our number 1 scoring option took a hit on defense?:wow You should work for ESPN with that type of expert analysis.

Obviously didn't read/comprehend the whole post.

Perhaps I'll get Nono to translate it in Spanish for you. Maybe then you'd better understand the point if it was in your native tongue.

[RD2191]

:lol

I swear, these Kawhi haters are fucking idiots. :lol

[dabom]

OP writes "Kawhi is a slightly above average defender this season" using RPM

then writes tons of sentences on why it's not matching his "eye test" using bits and pieces of raw stats

then he states that Kawhi has indeed slipped defensively to save his energy for offense

Then goes back and says RPM is bad inconsistent. :lmao

Even though on other posts uses BPM(a very fucking similar stat). :lmao

Which one is it OP? You everywhere, faggot. :lmao

What is the point OP? You still haven't clearly stated anything without dipping into every category. :lmao

[dabom]

I swear, these Kawhi haters are fucking idiots. :lol

He's just a porker pumper. :lol

[midnightpulp]

I swear, these Kawhi haters are fucking idiots. :lol

Are you this retarded or just being Mexican?

[RD2191]

I actually just read your entire post, fair analysis..although I still don't see why this needed a thread.

[RD2191]

Are you this retarded or just being Mexican?

I'm actually Jewish.

[midnightpulp]

What is the point OP? You still haven't clearly stated anything without dipping into every category. :lmao

Do I need to spell it out?


ti;dr RPM is a bad, inconsistent "advanced" metric.

Feel free to accept its results as gospel, though. I'll exit this debate and leave you to jerk off to RPM if you say right now:

"I believe Kawhi is the 20th best defender at the SF position in the league and that Jimmy Butler is having a better year."

But you won't say that, because you know the stat is garbage. You only selectively use it to prop up the Microwave.

[dabom]

:lol A pick isn't a productive action

*It only frees up an offensive player for a better shot (and open shots are statistically more productive)*

:lol A shooting threat who creates spacing isn't production

*Spacing creates bigger driving and passing lanes, which also creates better/open shots*

You're really this stupid, aren't you? Please tell me it's all an act.

Are you trying to change the definition of "production" used by everyone talking about basketball stats to fit your narrative? :lmao

Everyone knows what people mean when someone uses "production." :lol


Everyone knows what everyone is saying by using "impact" stats. :lol


They are not the same, faggot. :lol

[midnightpulp]

I actually just read your entire post, fair analysis..although I still don't see why this needed a thread.

Because there's too much dependence on this crappy stat on not just ST but the basketball community in general.

[midnightpulp]

Are you trying to change the definition of "production" used my everyone talking about basketball stats to fit your narrative? :lmao

Everyone knows what people mean when someone uses "production." :lol


Everyone knows what everyone is saying by using "impact" stats. :lol


They are not the same, faggot. :lol

:lol Picks aren't productive. Sure, okay.

And :lol semantics.

I used production as catch-all term for player effectiveness. Jesus fuckion' Christ you're anal. Must be salty about Parker's good year and House's slump and height.

[Brazil]

I actually just read your entire post, fair analysis..

:lol I love my nigg' roberto... talk shit to OP then he is remembered he should read OP then he reads OP then acknowledges he has been pretty fast of the name calling... it takes a man to do that.. :tu

[dabom]

:lol Picks aren't productive. Sure, okay.

And :lol semantics.

I used production as catch-all term for player effectiveness. Jesus fuckion' Christ you're anal. Must be salty about Parker's good year and House's slump and height.

It's not semantics when the whole community knows what something is except one fucking dumbass. :lol

[TimDunkem]

Well, Baseline Bum did say Michael Kidd-Gilchrist had more potential than Kawhi. :lol

[midnightpulp]

And :lol at Dabom melting down.

I criticized a stat that is severely underrating his favorite player (Kawhi) in comparison to players like Luke Babbitt, Paul Pierce, and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, and which rates Jimmy Butler higher, but he still lashes out because he's so desperate to win an argument against me and also can't jump off the RPM bandwagon because doing so will give him less ammunition in the House/Parker debate.

It ALWAYS comes back to House/Parker for the helmets :lol

[midnightpulp]

It's not semantics when the whole community knows what something is except one fucking dumbass. :lol

What does impact generate?

Guess what?

Production.

[dabom]

I already stated dumbass OP in my first post. :lol

[dabom]

What does impact generate?

Guess what?

Production.

You don't know what your talking about dumbass. :lol

[dabom]

OP states he was gonna leave already. Maybe this is another one of his interchangeable words/meanings. :lol

[midnightpulp]

You don't know what your talking about dumbass. :lol

So solid picks aren't proven to free up players for higher percentage shots?

Good to know. I'll phone NBA GMs and let them know your revelation.

I'm also still waiting for:


Feel free to accept its results as gospel, though. I'll exit this debate and leave you to jerk off to RPM if you say right now:

"I believe Kawhi is the 20th best defender at the SF position in the league and that Jimmy Butler is having a better year."

But you won't say that, because you know the stat is garbage. You only selectively use it to prop up the Microwave.

You're going to own up or be a bitch?

[dabom]

So solid picks aren't proven to free up players for higher percentage shots?

Good to know. I'll phone NBA GMs and let them know your revelation.

I'm also still waiting for:



You're going to own up or be a bitch?

Production are box score stats dumbass. :lol

[midnightpulp]

OP states he was gonna leave already. Maybe this is another one of his interchangeable words/meanings. :lol

No I didn't. Only if you say:


Feel free to accept its results as gospel, though. I'll exit this debate and leave you to jerk off to RPM if you say right now:

"I believe Kawhi is the 20th best defender at the SF position in the league and that Jimmy Butler is having a better year."

But you won't say that, because you know the stat is garbage. You only selectively use it to prop up the Microwave.

And I want you to really believe, meaning put it in your sig.

[midnightpulp]

Production are box score stats dumbass. :lol

Hockey assists are tracked like on one site and no others. So is it a "box score" stat or not? Is it "production" or not?

:lol Box scores are the only thing measures production.

What is this? The 1960s.

[dabom]

Do I need to spell it out?



Feel free to accept its results as gospel, though. I'll exit this debate and leave you to jerk off to RPM if you say right now:

"I believe Kawhi is the 20th best defender at the SF position in the league and that Jimmy Butler is having a better year."

But you won't say that, because you know the stat is garbage. You only selectively use it to prop up the Microwave.

"I'll exit this debate"... and still here, faggot. :lmao

[dabom]

Hockey assists are tracked like on one site and no others. So is it a "box score" stat or not? Is it "production" or not?

:lol Box scores are the only thing measures production.

What is this? The 1960s.

Sorry to break it to you but when someone says their production is down, they are talking about box score stats dumbass.(eg points rebounds assist blocks...) :lmao

[midnightpulp]

"I'll exit this debate IF"... and still here, faggot. :lmao

IF.

Now are you gonna step up and side RPM full stop or be a bitch?

If you don't, I can never take you referencing it in any other debate seriously.

[dabom]

I guess I am wrong about that. I'm trying to read and reply at work.

You still wrong about production and impact. As a basketball forum, you made a severe mistake.

[dabom]

I was saying I was wrong to the "if" part. Not your stance. :lol

[Chinook]

It never has. It's why players like Kobe, Iverson, et al rarely ranked among the league's best (Top 5) in PER despite being "MVP Level" players.

I don't mean chuckers like guys who take a bunch of horrible shots. I mean it like guys who dominate the ball at best, it's a rate stat measure quantity of production with no comment on quality. That's why along with guys like Harden and Russ who dominate the ball, we see guys like Boban be up there as well.


You don't need to know the math to know it's flawed.

You kinda do need to know what it's trying to say before you can say that it's wrong. As I said, it's possible that RPM is being marketed as being stronger than it is, but that's not the fault of the stat itself, only the people misusing it.


I'm okay with it punishing players like Korver. He's a low-volume scorer who was assisted on .84 percent of his shots through his career.

Oh, so NOW assists are important. Rewarding or punishing are both wrong-headed words. It's not capturing how much Korver actually affected his team's offense, which means that PER can't really be used to measure offensive effectiveness.


Link to 82games methodology in this case?

No idea why they do it. But you can see it in their tables.


It infers an outcome from something that hasn't even happened.

That sounds more like your assumption that the model's. It could well be controlled for role, meaning that it's not arguing who is better but only who plays better in their role. Like maybe it suggests that Korver was a more elite spot-up guy than Batum was a lead perimeter creator. Or that Boban was a better garbage-time big than LMA was a front-court anchor. That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that data -- it's just weaker to the point that it would have to be part of a larger argument.


That said, individual defense will probably forever remain unmeasurable because of how team/lineup dependent defensive effectiveness is.

Eh, plus-minus with huge sample sizes will always be the best way to measure defensive effectiveness. There's a level a nuance it won't be able to catch, but you are what your on/offs say you are eventually, no matter how you try to cut the data to argue otherwise.

[dabom]

I rate a players worth on several stats. Not just one. RPM is one of those stats I use. When using multiple stats I can make an educated assumption on a players worth. What is it you want to debate OP.

[midnightpulp]

I rate a players worth on several stats. Not just one. RPM is one of those stats I use. When using multiple stats I can make an educated assumption on a players worth. What is it you want to debate OP.

RPM underrates Kawhi.

Whole point of this thread.

[dabom]

RPM underrates Kawhi.

Whole point of this thread.

You said Kawhis defense has slipped. Explain more.

[midnightpulp]

I don't mean chuckers like guys who take a bunch of horrible shots. I mean it like guys who dominate the ball at best, it's a rate stat measure quantity of production with no comment on quality. That's why along with guys like Harden and Russ who dominate the ball, we see guys like Boban be up there as well.

Guys who can create for themselves or for their teammates over multiple possessions are very valuable now, especially in the playoffs where offenses tighten up due to pressure. Counterintuitively, less ball movement/less plays can be a good thing. Relatively efficient ball dominant players have never really been a detriment: Magic, Jordan, Lebron, and even the much maligned Westbrook (he may shoot 8-23, but he'll likely go 14-16 from the stripe).


You kinda do need to know what it's trying to say before you can say that it's wrong. As I said, it's possible that RPM is being marketed as being stronger than it is, but that's not the fault of the stat itself, only the people misusing it.


I just don't see how you can extrapolate garbage time/limited minutes performances over 48 minutes with any sort of accuracy when the sample sizes are marginal at best.


Oh, so NOW assists are important. Rewarding or punishing are both wrong-headed words. It's not capturing how much Korver actually affected his team's offense, which means that PER can't really be used to measure offensive effectiveness.


I never said assists weren't important, just that they're an overrated stat. A guy shoveling the ball off 2 feet to an open player who makes a 24 foot shot is ranked "equally" as a guy who actually creates the shot for his teammate. Assists are an "eye test" stat. And Korver needed to be created for, which was my point. I don't think PER underrates him all that much. He's an average/slightly above average player who fit a specific role for his team. He's not a plug-and-play player who could fit into multiple systems. You see it all the time with spot up shooters. They have a great year, sign a contract to another team, and then under perform.


That sounds more like your assumption that the model's. It could well be controlled for role, meaning that it's not arguing who is better but only who plays better in their role. Like maybe it suggests that Korver was a more elite spot-up guy than Batum was a lead perimeter creator. Or that Boban was a better garbage-time big than LMA was a front-court anchor. That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that data -- it's just weaker to the point that it would have to be part of a larger argument.


I have no problem if that's what it is doing.



Eh, plus-minus with huge sample sizes will always be the best way to measure defensive effectiveness. There's a level a nuance it won't be able to catch, but you are what your on/offs say you are eventually, no matter how you try to cut the data to argue otherwise.

I disagree here. I agree if a team only had one bench player, but I don't see how you can isolate individual player +/- when players often check into the game with other players while the opponent is also shuffling their lineups around.

On/off champ and forum favorite Patty Mills has nice numbers here, but when he's subbed in straight up for Parker, the results aren't as good. But too many people read the stat in a vacuum and think a player would always be a net positive/negative regardless of lineup and other game conditions.

[Perry Mason]

I rate a players worth on several stats. Not just one. RPM is one of those stats I use. When using multiple stats I can make an educated assumption on a players worth. What is it you want to debate OP.


Garbage in, Garbage out. 3 inaccurate stats doesn't make the stats automatically accurate. I too am highly skeptical of the Bayesian and other inference stats that "adjust" for teammates, etc, to come up with a true impact or +/-. The more complicated the math, the more skewed results can occur, and then when even the formula (like ESPN's) is hidden, you cannot even deduce why the stat is having a bad result. It's bizzarre and faith-based only.

All of the impact stats, which can be interesting, are still circular because they are based on relative performance only. And no matter how hard they try, you can't just isolate the player from the lineup on the floor and infer the strength of that lineup.

[Perry Mason]

RPM underrates Kawhi.

Whole point of this thread.

Lol. Confirmation that Dabom doesn't read. He spent this whole thread thinking you were criticizing Kawhi.

[midnightpulp]

You said Kawhis defense has slipped. Explain more.

His counterparts are slightly more productive this season than last season. Eye test: He doesn't crash the boards as much and doesn't contest with as much "ferocity" on every play like he usually does, probably out of energy concerns. But his offense has surged, so it's all moot.

RPM, however, says his defense has tanked.

[midnightpulp]

Garbage in, Garbage out. 3 inaccurate stats doesn't make the stats automatically accurate. I too am highly skeptical of the Bayesian and other inference stats that "adjust" for teammates, etc, to come up with a true impact or +/-. The more complicated the math, the more skewed results can occur, and then when even the formula (like ESPN's) is hidden, you cannot even deduce why the stat is having a bad result. It's bizzarre and faith-based only.

All of the impact stats, which can be interesting, are still circular because they are based on relative performance only. And no matter how hard they try, you can't just isolate the player from the lineup on the floor and infer the strength of that lineup.

This guy gets it.

[Cry Havoc]

I don't mean chuckers like guys who take a bunch of horrible shots. I mean it like guys who dominate the ball at best, it's a rate stat measure quantity of production with no comment on quality. That's why along with guys like Harden and Russ who dominate the ball, we see guys like Boban be up there as well.

PER has a known bias against high usage rate guys.

But I don't think this is an error calculating guys like Boban high. That's basic statistical variance when you have low sample sizes. It is practically impossible to account for extremely low minute players, because it's nearly impossible to extrapolate how their play would translate to a full 48 from a purely mathematical standpoint. Of course if a guy comes in to play garbage time and scores 8 points in 4 minutes against scrubs, no one would say, "hey he should be a starter" (well maybe a few would :lol) but there's no way to translate that to a predictive model of future play. Statistics struggle with low amounts of information (like Boban's limited play) but that's not a flaw in the algorithm, that's a simple lack of data.

You kinda do need to know what it's trying to say before you can say that it's wrong. As I said, it's possible that RPM is being marketed as being stronger than it is, but that's not the fault of the stat itself, only the people misusing it.[/quote]

You don't need math to know that it's wrong, but you need it to explain why it's wrong.


Oh, so NOW assists are important. Rewarding or punishing are both wrong-headed words. It's not capturing how much Korver actually affected his team's offense, which means that PER can't really be used to measure offensive effectiveness.

PER can and is used frequently, that's why we see it quoted all the time. But like everything else it's not a perfect stat, and Hollinger said as much from day one.

Even baseball, the king of sports information, does not have perfect statistics to measure player impact. They are certainly closer than hoops, but not perfect.


Eh, plus-minus with huge sample sizes will always be the best way to measure defensive effectiveness. There's a level a nuance it won't be able to catch, but you are what your on/offs say you are eventually, no matter how you try to cut the data to argue otherwise.

I wouldn't say that's a guarantee by any stretch. It's true that the envelope for inaccuracy gets narrower as you gain more information, but like everything else, it too is flawed. For instance, Marcus Camby is rated as #3 all time in DBPM. He was not a better defender than DRob (#4) or Tim (#6). FWIW, I know Bo Outlaw was no slouch, but he checks in at #8, above Hakeem at #11. All of these players have more than enough sample size to account for error.

[TheGreatYacht]

Microwave Paddy is, in fact, the worst defender on the team. Anyone with eyes can see this

[Cry Havoc]

Guys who can create for themselves or for their teammates over multiple possessions are very valuable now, especially in the playoffs where offenses tighten up due to pressure. Counterintuitively, less ball movement/less plays can be a good thing. Relatively efficient ball dominant players have never really been a detriment: Magic, Jordan, Lebron, and even the much maligned Westbrook (he may shoot 8-23, but he'll likely go 14-16 from the stripe).

WB had 10 fucking turnovers last night. :lol


I just don't see how you can extrapolate garbage time/limited minutes performances over 48 minutes with any sort of accuracy when the sample sizes are marginal at best.

Statistically it's not possible by definition, at least with the stats that we currently use in the NBA. If there WERE a stat that would tell you which bench guys would be monsters if given more minutes that passed a p-value muster, there would be an NBA job waiting for you tomorrow. :lol



I never said assists weren't important, just that they're an overrated stat. A guy shoveling the ball off 2 feet to an open player who makes a 24 foot shot is ranked "equally" as a guy who actually creates the shot for his teammate. Assists are an "eye test" stat. And Korver needed to be created for, which was my point. I don't think PER underrates him all that much. He's an average/slightly above average player who fit a specific role for his team. He's not a plug-and-play player who could fit into multiple systems. You see it all the time with spot up shooters. They have a great year, sign a contract to another team, and then under perform.

It's sort of unfortunate that the playoffs are so relatively short, because I think as defenses tighten you see some of this noise get sorted. But then, we don't have enough data in the playoffs to really have a certainty of anything, so we go back to the eye-test.


On/off champ and forum favorite Patty Mills has nice numbers here, but when he's subbed in straight up for Parker, the results aren't as good. But too many people read the stat in a vacuum and think a player would always be a net positive/negative regardless of lineup and other game conditions.

People also literally think they know basketball better than NBA head coaches on this forum. :lol

[midnightpulp]

WB had 10 fucking turnovers last night. :lol



Statistically it's not possible by definition, at least with the stats that we currently use in the NBA. If there WERE a stat that would tell you which bench guys would be monsters if given more minutes that passed a p-value muster, there would be an NBA job waiting for you tomorrow. :lol




It's sort of unfortunate that the playoffs are so relatively short, because I think as defenses tighten you see some of this noise get sorted. But then, we don't have enough data in the playoffs to really have a certainty of anything, so we go back to the eye-test.



People also literally think they know basketball better than NBA head coaches on this forum. :lol

:tu

[dabom]

Try evenings OP if you make threads directed at me. Can't be replying during work or lunch. Got better shit to do. :tu

[spurraider21]

I'm actually Jewish.when did you renounce jehova's witness?

[Chinook]

Guys who can create for themselves or for their teammates over multiple possessions are very valuable now, especially in the playoffs where offenses tighten up due to pressure. Counterintuitively, less ball movement/less plays can be a good thing. Relatively efficient ball dominant players have never really been a detriment: Magic, Jordan, Lebron, and even the much maligned Westbrook (he may shoot 8-23, but he'll likely go 14-16 from the stripe).

And things like gravity count even more in the playoffs than they do in the regular season. The reason why most elite spot-up guys see their numbers dip in the post season is because teams make stopping them a greater emphasis. So when you have guys like Korver sprinting around the arc, you better believe that the Teague's of the world have easier driving lanes, if you want to give Jeff credit for "creating" when he passes out to Korver when the defense breaks down.


I just don't see how you can extrapolate garbage time/limited minutes performances over 48 minutes with any sort of accuracy when the sample sizes are marginal at best.

You go into this a bit more later, but RPM doesn't extrapolate shit, as far as we know -- people who use it do or might.


I never said assists weren't important, just that they're an overrated stat. A guy shoveling the ball off 2 feet to an open player who makes a 24 foot shot is ranked "equally" as a guy who actually creates the shot for his teammate. Assists are an "eye test" stat. And Korver needed to be created for, which was my point. I don't think PER underrates him all that much. He's an average/slightly above average player who fit a specific role for his team. He's not a plug-and-play player who could fit into multiple systems. You see it all the time with spot up shooters. They have a great year, sign a contract to another team, and then under perform.

The ability for a team to leverage a player's skill-set to help their team goes far beyond a player's ability to play a very specific style that happens to fit on most teams. These are supposed to be stats that measure impact and performance, even in your mind. So if Korver helps his team more than Teague, why would he not have higher stats. If anything PER just shows who are replaceable, since most guys with high PERs play the same style.


I have no problem if that's what it is doing.

Well, that's what the math is for, and that's why marketing and application matter.


I disagree here. I agree if a team only had one bench player, but I don't see how you can isolate individual player +/- when players often check into the game with other players while the opponent is also shuffling their lineups around.

This is exactly why sample size is important. Once you get enough data in those situations, you can parse out the effect that lineup has. RAPM has a similar flaw if taken to the extreme, but it's a different stat in greater samples because most of those correlations get reduced due to injuries, shuffling rotations and the number of different lineups faced. The smaller the rotations, the worse the bias would be.


On/off champ and forum favorite Patty Mills has nice numbers here, but when he's subbed in straight up for Parker, the results aren't as good. But too many people read the stat in a vacuum and think a player would always be a net positive/negative regardless of lineup and other game conditions.

Yet Parker actually has better on/offs than Mills does with the starters. So at best it seems like a data-cutting issue.

[Horse]

Kawhi is the leagues # 1 defender until further notice.

[SpurPadre]

Are you this retarded or just being Mexican?

Really dude? You had some kind of respectability trying to have an interesting basketball discussion and then you go this route? smh

[GSH]

I actually just read your entire post, fair analysis..although I still don't see why this needed a thread.


My first thought was, "Haven't we had this exact same thread under different titles?" Different flavor of the same ice cream.

[GSH]

PER has a known bias against high usage rate guys.

Yep. Stats without context can be as bad as no stats at all.



It is practically impossible to account for extremely low minute players, because it's nearly impossible to extrapolate how their play would translate to a full 48 from a purely mathematical standpoint.

Not to mention the fact that there are "energy guys" who come off the bench and change the momentum. They benefit from the abrupt change of pace, and the fact that they are usually playing against other bench players. The idea that they would continue to pile up numbers at the same rate if they were playing starter minutes, against starters? Too ridiculous to even take seriously. Once again, stats without context can be worse than no stats at all.

[HarlemHeat37]

1. PER is not a shitty stat, but it's antiquated and virtually useless for determining the contribution that a player made to the success of his team. It's a summary stat that describes the contributions of a player as an individual, completely ignoring the actual impact a player has on team success.

It's inherently biased against low-usage perimeter players and generally rewards high-usage guys. It's literally meaningless when assessing role players, particularly role players. Somebody like Bruce Bowen is categorized as a D-league caliber player by PER due to his role and usage rate, for example(whereas RPM consistently rated Bowen as an above average player). The reason PER gained recognition and credibility is because it became popular at a time where we didn't have other advanced metrics, nor did we have tracking websites and the massive amount of data we have today.

2. I don't believe 82games actually tracks assigned position data. They simply decide what position a player is playing and evaluate the opposition at the same position IMO. They have been around since 2001(same formula), way before the public ever had access to tracking data or mass access to games, I find it very difficult to believe that they had somebody watching every single game, every single night and assessing assignments:lol(the website has always been updated nightly, so ya, it would be virtually impossible to watch entire games every night when they only had 2 employees in 2002). Their numbers are also much closer to hoopsstats than they are to Synergy, which makes sense.

3. RPM, BPM and other on/off numbers are far more accurate than the other advanced metrics IMO. Their accuracy is based on the person using them correctly.

First of all, I don't believe any of them should be used to separate offense and defense. As proven, the results are very skewed when isolating the numbers. In basketball, there is too much action that occurs between a half court offensive possession and a half court defensive possession to separate the numbers between offense and defense. On/off numbers are far more accurate and logical when used as a whole, rather than separating offense vs. defense.

Regarding the actual evaluation of the numbers, I've never interpreted them as X player is more important than Y player because his RPM is higher. Even when adjusted to factor teammates and minutes, it should still be interpreted as X player has been more important at playing his role compared to Y player in his role(Patty Mills is not a better player than Parker, nor does it mean he would fit better with the starters. But Mills has been more valuable in his role at backup PG than TP has been in his role as starter/lead facilitator).

The numbers are falsely interpreted when somebody looks at a list and says "Kyle Anderson is higher than Carmelo Anthony, he must be a better player and more valuable in his role". That isn't how it works.

4. Defense is far easier to measure than in previous eras. Adjusted on/off numbers are flawed, but they're clearly indicative of impact over a large sample size, especially if you're using a multi-season approach. More importantly, it's 2017, NBA.com and Synergy numbers provide us with mass amounts of thoroughly collected, descriptive data. Certain categories like "spotting up" will always be flawed since judging rotations and strategy is subjective, but "isolation", "pick and roll", "post up", etc are pretty black and white IMO.

5. A player can have relatively poor advanced metrics and still be a championship-caliber player in the correct role. Kyrie Irving is an example of this. Most on/off numbers had him as a net negative player for obvious reasons. He's a PG that doesn't make anybody better, horrible playmaker and defender. However, you put him on a team with Lebron, and he can excel at his specialty of 1-on-1 scoring when required, without needing to worry about the rest of the team(although this only works when the chucker is shooting efficiently, as Irving did in the playoffs).

Aldridge is another example, he's widely hated by the metrics community. His numbers are relatively poor for obvious reasons. He doesn't make teammates better or have any notable effect on the other players on the floor.

Both these players have high PERs, though, because they are great individual players.

6. Damn, Patty Mills and Parker have caused a crusade against numbers on ST the past month:lol

[DPG21920]

I got her numba. Howdoyou like dem apples.

[Chinook]

Well Harlem just turned Mid's anus into a nuclear wasteland.

[GSH]

Well Harlem just turned Mid's anus into a nuclear wasteland.


LOL. I can't wait for the twisted-logic response. By the time he's done, he'll be arguing against shit Harlem never said, and claiming he was right all along.

Maybe I'll add him to my sig.

[DPG21920]

Mid isn't a bad poster & most of us (even those with more than average knowledge of the stats) can misinterpret them. Harlem just pays for Synergy data so he has more info than us :lol

[Chinook]

Mid isn't a bad poster & most of us (even those with more than average knowledge of the stats) can misinterpret them. Harlem just pays for Synergy data so he has more info than us :lol

Mid's an extremely solid poster, even if I disagree with him a lot. He backs up his opinions, and he's willing to give and take. It's just a rare treat to see Harlem go full Detroit on someone like that.

[spurraider21]

Agree with above. Good post by HH.

Though if mid made that identical post, you just know dabom would reply with ":lmao faggot "

[GSH]

His counterparts are slightly more productive this season than last season. Eye test: He doesn't crash the boards as much and doesn't contest with as much "ferocity" on every play like he usually does, probably out of energy concerns. But his offense has surged, so it's all moot.

RPM, however, says his defense has tanked.


I don't think it's possible to play at 100% effectiveness on both ends of the floor, if for no other reason than you can't be in two places at once. When Kawhi is taking an off-balance jumper at/near the shot clock buzzer (which happens way too often) he can't be the first one up the floor on defense. When he's locked up on the best player on defense, he's not as likely to be the one out in front in transition as much.

Add to that the pairings that got talked about in another thread (Kawhi being used to hide Tony/Pau), and it gets harder to measure Kawhi's contribution and value. With Tim defending in the middle, Kawhi was more free to be Kawhi. Any drop-off in Kawhi's defensive stats are, I believe, directly related to Pau in the middle vs. Tim. It has nothing to do with any drop-off in effort or effectiveness by Kawhi.

Here's the "eye test" people should be thinking about: Consider what this team's defense would look like if they didn't have Kawhi.



Agree with above. Good post by HH.

Though if mid made that identical post, you just know dabom would reply with ":lmao faggot "

Consider the source, and wear it with pride. Nothing says you're on the right track quite so much as that.

[RD2191]

Mid isn't a bad poster & most of us (even those with more than average knowledge of the stats) can misinterpret them. Harlem just pays for Synergy data so he has more info than us :lol
Passthesalt

[HarlemHeat37]

I never said anything about mid, he's my guy and I've been cool with him forever:lol I just disagree with him that data is useless in the NBA..

I think it's evident that he became annoyed with Patty fans using 2 or 3 specific numbers to argue that he's a better option than TP, tbh..I'm not a Patty fan boy and I haven't been a Parker "hater" in 2 years(I've argued that he should have the ball more, this season, actually), but I think it's obvious that he grew tired of those 3-4 posters..

[DPG21920]

I never said anything about mid, he's my guy and I've been cool with him forever:lol I just disagree with him that data is useless in the NBA..

I think it's evident that he became annoyed with Patty fans using 2 or 3 specific numbers to argue that he's a better option than TP, tbh..I'm not a Patty fan boy and I haven't been a Parker "hater" in 2 years(I've argued that he should have the ball more, this season, actually), but I think it's obvious that he grew tired of those 3-4 posters..

For sure - it was obvious why the thread was started and Mid is a very good poster. But he just took it to the other extreme. But ya, most posters on here are such dummies that it's enough to annoy anyone.

[HarlemHeat37]

Mid isn't a bad poster & most of us (even those with more than average knowledge of the stats) can misinterpret them. Harlem just pays for Synergy data so he has more info than us :lol

My argument had nothing to do with the data I have ,though:lol

I just hate when people use the "this shitty player has a higher number than this star player, so this stat must be useless" argument..it's also silly on the other side when somebody argues "X player has a higher number, so he must be better/more valuable"..

There's so much context and perspective that needs to be applied..fortunately, we live in a time where there is a ton of data and access to footage that it's very easy to understand the impact of a player if you take the time to research(whether you do it for work, gambling, just a fan,etc)

It also annoys me when people prematurely judge players based on live viewing(I used to do it, as well)..I forgot which coaches said it, one of them may have actually been Pop, but it's extremely difficult to judge a player without re-watching a game, even when it seemed like a player dominated or struggled..another thing that annoys me about sports fans and media:lol (and I used to do it too prior to keeping databases for my gambling)

[lilbthebasedgod]

Its because he's only a slightly above average defender this season. Sad but true.

[dabom]

I never said anything about mid, he's my guy and I've been cool with him forever:lol I just disagree with him that data is useless in the NBA..

I think it's evident that he became annoyed with Patty fans using 2 or 3 specific numbers to argue that he's a better option than TP, tbh..I'm not a Patty fan boy and I haven't been a Parker "hater" in 2 years(I've argued that he should have the ball more, this season, actually), but I think it's obvious that he grew tired of those 3-4 posters..

I'm always in the cutting edge regarding Spurs players. People might not see it, but Patty is already a better PG than Parker. Would the Spurs have a negative lineup over the first 40 games? I think not. That's just fucking small sample size. In the playoffs, you'd reap the rewards of a Patty lineup over a Porker one. I've seen Porker get thoroughly raped 3 years in a row. He's not gonna be a positive player again against the top fucking teams. That's a fact. Patty might have a down year last playoffs( Great 2014/15 though), but coming back from the Olympics, it's clear as day who the better player is. Pop played Manu in 2013 even after he was shit the entire playoffs. Patty not starting, is not indicative of who the better player is.

[Cry Havoc]

1. PER is not a shitty stat, but it's antiquated and virtually useless for determining the contribution that a player made to the success of his team. It's a summary stat that describes the contributions of a player as an individual, completely ignoring the actual impact a player has on team success.

It's inherently biased against low-usage perimeter players and generally rewards high-usage guys. It's literally meaningless when assessing role players, particularly role players. Somebody like Bruce Bowen is categorized as a D-league caliber player by PER due to his role and usage rate, for example(whereas RPM consistently rated Bowen as an above average player). The reason PER gained recognition and credibility is because it became popular at a time where we didn't have other advanced metrics, nor did we have tracking websites and the massive amount of data we have today.

2. I don't believe 82games actually tracks assigned position data. They simply decide what position a player is playing and evaluate the opposition at the same position IMO. They have been around since 2001(same formula), way before the public ever had access to tracking data or mass access to games, I find it very difficult to believe that they had somebody watching every single game, every single night and assessing assignments:lol(the website has always been updated nightly, so ya, it would be virtually impossible to watch entire games every night when they only had 2 employees in 2002). Their numbers are also much closer to hoopsstats than they are to Synergy, which makes sense.

3. RPM, BPM and other on/off numbers are far more accurate than the other advanced metrics IMO. Their accuracy is based on the person using them correctly.

First of all, I don't believe any of them should be used to separate offense and defense. As proven, the results are very skewed when isolating the numbers. In basketball, there is too much action that occurs between a half court offensive possession and a half court defensive possession to separate the numbers between offense and defense. On/off numbers are far more accurate and logical when used as a whole, rather than separating offense vs. defense.

Regarding the actual evaluation of the numbers, I've never interpreted them as X player is more important than Y player because his RPM is higher. Even when adjusted to factor teammates and minutes, it should still be interpreted as X player has been more important at playing his role compared to Y player in his role(Patty Mills is not a better player than Parker, nor does it mean he would fit better with the starters. But Mills has been more valuable in his role at backup PG than TP has been in his role as starter/lead facilitator).

The numbers are falsely interpreted when somebody looks at a list and says "Kyle Anderson is higher than Carmelo Anthony, he must be a better player and more valuable in his role". That isn't how it works.

4. Defense is far easier to measure than in previous eras. Adjusted on/off numbers are flawed, but they're clearly indicative of impact over a large sample size, especially if you're using a multi-season approach. More importantly, it's 2017, NBA.com and Synergy numbers provide us with mass amounts of thoroughly collected, descriptive data. Certain categories like "spotting up" will always be flawed since judging rotations and strategy is subjective, but "isolation", "pick and roll", "post up", etc are pretty black and white IMO.

5. A player can have relatively poor advanced metrics and still be a championship-caliber player in the correct role. Kyrie Irving is an example of this. Most on/off numbers had him as a net negative player for obvious reasons. He's a PG that doesn't make anybody better, horrible playmaker and defender. However, you put him on a team with Lebron, and he can excel at his specialty of 1-on-1 scoring when required, without needing to worry about the rest of the team(although this only works when the chucker is shooting efficiently, as Irving did in the playoffs).

Aldridge is another example, he's widely hated by the metrics community. His numbers are relatively poor for obvious reasons. He doesn't make teammates better or have any notable effect on the other players on the floor.

Both these players have high PERs, though, because they are great individual players.

6. Damn, Patty Mills and Parker have caused a crusade against numbers on ST the past month:lol

:tu More of this please. Excellent post.


I never said anything about mid, he's my guy and I've been cool with him forever:lol I just disagree with him that data is useless in the NBA..

I think it's evident that he became annoyed with Patty fans using 2 or 3 specific numbers to argue that he's a better option than TP, tbh..I'm not a Patty fan boy and I haven't been a Parker "hater" in 2 years(I've argued that he should have the ball more, this season, actually), but I think it's obvious that he grew tired of those 3-4 posters..

I don't think Mid was saying stats are useless. I think he said they're useless in a vacuum or when they're misapplied, as the above posters were doing. Now they're not even trying to argue for Patty starting, attempting to restate the position as "we just want more minutes for Patty" when that certainly wasn't the initial premise. :lol

[Cry Havoc]

I'm always in the cutting edge regarding Spurs players. People might not see it, but Patty is already a better PG than Parker. Would the Spurs have a negative lineup over the first 40 games? I think not. That's just fucking small sample size. In the playoffs, you'd reap the rewards of a Patty lineup over a Porker one. I've seen Porker get thoroughly raped 3 years in a row. He's not gonna be a positive player again against the top fucking teams. That's a fact. Patty might have a down year last playoffs( Great 2014/15 though), but coming back from the Olympics, it's clear as day who the better player is. Pop played Manu in 2013 even after he was shit the entire playoffs. Patty not starting, is not indicative of who the better player is.

I stand corrected. :lmao

[dabom]

:tu More of this please. Excellent post.



I don't think Mid was saying stats are useless. I think he said they're useless in a vacuum or when they're misapplied, as the above posters were doing. Now they're not even trying to argue for Patty starting, attempting to restate the position as "we just want more minutes for Patty" when that certainly wasn't the initial premise. :lol

Who's changing their premise, faggot? :lmao

[dabom]

I stand corrected. :lmao

We know. :lmao

[Kawhitstorm]

Just watch how "average" Jimmy Butler looked in two matchups against Kawhi & let me know if he has been a slightly above average defender this season...:lol

Players only have success against Kawhi if they can run PnRs thus are able to get switches or able to shoot coming off screens. Kawhi owns LeBron b/c he can go under the screen on him or the bigs can sag & dare him to shoot. Jimmy Butler is basically a slasher similar to LeBron.

[midnightpulp]

1. PER is not a shitty stat, but it's antiquated and virtually useless for determining the contribution that a player made to the success of his team. It's a summary stat that describes the contributions of a player as an individual, completely ignoring the actual impact a player has on team success.

It's inherently biased against low-usage perimeter players and generally rewards high-usage guys. It's literally meaningless when assessing role players, particularly role players. Somebody like Bruce Bowen is categorized as a D-league caliber player by PER due to his role and usage rate, for example(whereas RPM consistently rated Bowen as an above average player). The reason PER gained recognition and credibility is because it became popular at a time where we didn't have other advanced metrics, nor did we have tracking websites and the massive amount of data we have today.

2. I don't believe 82games actually tracks assigned position data. They simply decide what position a player is playing and evaluate the opposition at the same position IMO. They have been around since 2001(same formula), way before the public ever had access to tracking data or mass access to games, I find it very difficult to believe that they had somebody watching every single game, every single night and assessing assignments:lol(the website has always been updated nightly, so ya, it would be virtually impossible to watch entire games every night when they only had 2 employees in 2002). Their numbers are also much closer to hoopsstats than they are to Synergy, which makes sense.

3. RPM, BPM and other on/off numbers are far more accurate than the other advanced metrics IMO. Their accuracy is based on the person using them correctly.

First of all, I don't believe any of them should be used to separate offense and defense. As proven, the results are very skewed when isolating the numbers. In basketball, there is too much action that occurs between a half court offensive possession and a half court defensive possession to separate the numbers between offense and defense. On/off numbers are far more accurate and logical when used as a whole, rather than separating offense vs. defense.

Regarding the actual evaluation of the numbers, I've never interpreted them as X player is more important than Y player because his RPM is higher. Even when adjusted to factor teammates and minutes, it should still be interpreted as X player has been more important at playing his role compared to Y player in his role(Patty Mills is not a better player than Parker, nor does it mean he would fit better with the starters. But Mills has been more valuable in his role at backup PG than TP has been in his role as starter/lead facilitator).

The numbers are falsely interpreted when somebody looks at a list and says "Kyle Anderson is higher than Carmelo Anthony, he must be a better player and more valuable in his role". That isn't how it works.

4. Defense is far easier to measure than in previous eras. Adjusted on/off numbers are flawed, but they're clearly indicative of impact over a large sample size, especially if you're using a multi-season approach. More importantly, it's 2017, NBA.com and Synergy numbers provide us with mass amounts of thoroughly collected, descriptive data. Certain categories like "spotting up" will always be flawed since judging rotations and strategy is subjective, but "isolation", "pick and roll", "post up", etc are pretty black and white IMO.

5. A player can have relatively poor advanced metrics and still be a championship-caliber player in the correct role. Kyrie Irving is an example of this. Most on/off numbers had him as a net negative player for obvious reasons. He's a PG that doesn't make anybody better, horrible playmaker and defender. However, you put him on a team with Lebron, and he can excel at his specialty of 1-on-1 scoring when required, without needing to worry about the rest of the team(although this only works when the chucker is shooting efficiently, as Irving did in the playoffs).

Aldridge is another example, he's widely hated by the metrics community. His numbers are relatively poor for obvious reasons. He doesn't make teammates better or have any notable effect on the other players on the floor.

Both these players have high PERs, though, because they are great individual players.

6. Damn, Patty Mills and Parker have caused a crusade against numbers on ST the past month:lol

People use it that way, though, which is what I'm arguing against.

I'll take credit for this crusade, because I'm tired of people quoting numbers at me to "support" their position without understanding what the numbers actually illustrate.

[midnightpulp]

Well Harlem just turned Mid's anus into a nuclear wasteland.

?

He echoed my primary point in his post:


Regarding the actual evaluation of the numbers, I've never interpreted them as X player is more important than Y player because his RPM is higher. Even when adjusted to factor teammates and minutes, it should still be interpreted as X player has been more important at playing his role compared to Y player in his role(Patty Mills is not a better player than Parker, nor does it mean he would fit better with the starters. But Mills has been more valuable in his role at backup PG than TP has been in his role as starter/lead facilitator).

And this is what fanboys of certain players do all the time on here.

"He's a better option wholesale because, um, his RPM is higher!"

My central argument isn't that RPM is a useless stat, but it's useless when making player comparisons between players in different roles and on different teams. I have no problem with the stat if its sole function is to evaluate player impact vis a vis his specific role on his specific team, but I find it HIGHLY flawed when it's used to evaluate players in a vacuum and then attempts to quantify absolute player value.

Example: Danny Green had a superstar level RPM one season. Anyone with a brain can see Danny Green isn't a superstar, but for that specific season in his specific role, he had such an impact for the Spurs (I think RPM is too kind to players like Green, Korver, Battier, etc). And even then, NBA front offices took his metrics with a grain of salt. GMs weren't exactly knocking down his door with 20 mil per year contracts, which, if evaluating in a vacuum, an RPM like his should've demanded.

[midnightpulp]

Aldridge is another example, he's widely hated by the metrics community. His numbers are relatively poor for obvious reasons. He doesn't make teammates better or have any notable effect on the other players on the floor.
l

Why?

He posted RPMs of +5 and +4 in the two years prior to joining the Spurs.

Indeed his RPM has tanked since joining the Spurs, which actually highlights the problem with RPM when it's used to evaluate players absolutely. So much of a player's "individual impact" is based on lineup compatibility.

[midnightpulp]

:tu More of this please. Excellent post.



I don't think Mid was saying stats are useless. I think he said they're useless in a vacuum or when they're misapplied, as the above posters were doing. Now they're not even trying to argue for Patty starting, attempting to restate the position as "we just want more minutes for Patty" when that certainly wasn't the initial premise. :lol

Yep.

[Cry Havoc]

Why?

He posted RPMs of +5 and +4 in the two years prior to joining the Spurs.

Indeed his RPM has tanked since joining the Spurs, which actually highlights the problem with RPM when it's used to evaluate players absolutely. So much of a player's "individual impact" is based on lineup compatibility.

LMA isn't liked because he's a traditional center in frame but doesn't have the traditional back to the basket game, but isn't a new age 3 point shooter. He's a bit like a slower DRob who's much worse on defense.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Just watch how "average" Jimmy Butler looked in two matchups against Kawhi & let me know if he has been a slightly above average defender this season...:lol

Players only have success against Kawhi if they can run PnRs thus are able to get switches or able to shoot coming off screens. Kawhi owns LeBron b/c he can go under the screen on him or the bigs can sag & dare him to shoot. Jimmy Butler is basically a slasher similar to LeBron.
Lets see how the game goes on Saturday. Lebron has been shooting very well this year.

[Kawhitstorm]

Lets see how the game goes on Saturday. Lebron has been shooting very well this year.

Dedmon can get his Biyombo on & protect the rim but what actually concerns me is D-League Danny's defense against Kyrie.:lol

[HarlemHeat37]

Why?

He posted RPMs of +5 and +4 in the two years prior to joining the Spurs.

Indeed his RPM has tanked since joining the Spurs, which actually highlights the problem with RPM when it's used to evaluate players absolutely. So much of a player's "individual impact" is based on lineup compatibility.

All the metrics-based analysts and writers on ESPN, True Hoop, etc have always detested Aldridge:lol

I think it was mostly based on his efficiency numbers IIRC..

[YGWHI]

...

"I said Kawhi's a slightly above average defender...But he's not. I lied and put a misleading title. Why do you not understand that I made this thread to prove that some metrics are poop...Don't use them on Parker."

:cry :cry

[BD24]

Jesus christ. All this thread has done is reminded me how much of an insufferable **** Dabom is.

Far and away the biggest waste of Oxygen of any poster on the site, and that saying alot with rejects like Avante here.

[Chinook]

?

He echoed my primary point in his post:



And this is what fanboys of certain players do all the time on here.

"He's a better option wholesale because, um, his RPM is higher!"

My central argument isn't that RPM is a useless stat, but it's useless when making player comparisons between players in different roles and on different teams. I have no problem with the stat if its sole function is to evaluate player impact vis a vis his specific role on his specific team, but I find it HIGHLY flawed when it's used to evaluate players in a vacuum and then attempts to quantify absolute player value.

Example: Danny Green had a superstar level RPM one season. Anyone with a brain can see Danny Green isn't a superstar, but for that specific season in his specific role, he had such an impact for the Spurs (I think RPM is too kind to players like Green, Korver, Battier, etc). And even then, NBA front offices took his metrics with a grain of salt. GMs weren't exactly knocking down his door with 20 mil per year contracts, which, if evaluating in a vacuum, an RPM like his should've demanded.

You were talking about why the stat sucked. Now you're agreeing that it was a problem with use. Don't trying to twist that. You literally said you didn't see how RPM could be calculated to make sense. This whole thread was how RPM was messed up because of Kawhi having a great dPER while also having a lackluster DRPM.

All advanced stats are opinions, and just like tweets and articles, the makers of them oversell what the stats do so that more people consume them. That doesn't mean they don't do good math or that the stat isn't informative. It just has to be put into a larger argument.

There's more to the qualification than just role. A guy being able to do more with the ball doesn't necessarily make him better, at least not in the sense anyone should care about. A guy perfectly suited for his role can be a better OVERALL player than a generalist with more skill, especially considering the economy for skills. Three-and-D guys, athletic rim-protectors/rim-runners, stretch-bigs: These guys are more helpful to a team than more skilled guys who can't do anything at an elite level, and great ones are rarer than hen's teeth. The guys who dominate RPM from these roles can be said to be straight-up better than a lot of guys below them. Are there exceptions? Yes. But not as many as folks want to think.

If you can cover for a center not being able to shoot better than you can cover for one who sucks on D, then you can argue that the metrics should reflect that.

[Chinook]

I wasn't anywhere near the Patty/Murray should start crowd this season, but to be fair to them, it's not enough to just say that Patty failed as a starter so that's it. There'd need to be time for everyone to adjust to the change of duties before you could say anything for sure. I think Mills is a horrible example for this, though, since I think the starting O is about as Mills-friendly as possible already

Let's just say like Prime Parker and Prime Paul. You could argue the Spurs would have been better with Prime CP3 instead of MVParker, but if you swapped them, the Spurs would have been worse. However, once the offense shifted to play to Paul's strengths (maybe more three-point shooting and less slashing/Zipper Series), perhaps it would improve? It's not easy to tell from most stats I'd put any stock into.

[Arcadian]

OP is one of the smartest posters on this board...not sure why he got so much hate in this thread. I mean come on, he didn't even insult anyone's favorite player, he just insulted a particular stat. How can someone be offended by that? :lol

And when people attack him with stupid name-calling, he responds coolly and calmly with more logic and data. You gotta respect that.

[GSH]

OP is one of the smartest posters on this board...not sure why he got so much hate in this thread. I mean come on, he didn't even insult anyone's favorite player, he just insulted a particular stat. How can someone be offended by that? :lol

And when people attack him with stupid name-calling, he responds coolly and calmly with more logic and data. You gotta respect that.


My beef is that he seems to be arguing both sides. The thread title was supposed to be sarcastic... I think. But then the talk about how Kawhi isn't as good of a defender as last year, isn't "crashing the boards", etc. Then bringing in PER. Shit, I don't care if someone criticizes a Spur, especially when they deserve it. But at the very least, he keeps quoting stats, and then applying the "eye test" to defend his belief that Kawhi isn't defending as well this year. Pick one - not both.

I know a bit about the evolution of RPM and RAPM. And no matter what anyone says about them, they were designed for the purpose of finding "diamonds in the rough" - players who are contributing more than their "traditional" stats and/or their reputations might indicate. And the ultimate purpose was to identify good players who could be signed on the cheap. It was an attempt at "Moneyball" for the NBA. And I know that because I know some of the guys who were involved. I don't know how many of you even know or understand that RPM is absolutely intended to be predictive, and not a strict measure of this season.

You want to know the problem with RPM and RAPM (and xRAPM, and DBPM, etc.)? They work great... except when they don't. The biggest thing they do is point out the incredibly fucking obvious. Tim Duncan looked good. LeBron looks good. I don't need some damn advanced stat to tell me that. But those same advanced stats got Brian Cardinal one of the worst FA contracts in history. People got twisted today, when those jagoffs said that Kawhi would be no better than Otto Porter if he was on any other team. They were saying that Otto Porter isn't a very good player. But even Otto Porter's DRPM is substantially higher than Kawhi's this year. When a stat tells you something that you know can't be true, you should figure out that the stat is flawed. Either that, or you can hand Brian Cardinal a juicy 6-year contract, because the stat says so.

One of the best examples I've come across said that if you look at RPM, it would say that putting the 5 best centers in the league on the floor at the same time would result in them blowing out other teams by 20+ points every game. But if you really did it, they would get their asses kicked every time by balanced teams. No matter how much RPM tries to adjust out the impact of teammates, there are situations where it can't do that. This is one of those extreme situations. I don't think that Kawhi is ANY worse defender than he was last season. And I don't think that he is neglecting to crash the boards, or any of the other silly shit I've read. He's in a situation where playing team defense means that he isn't free to be Kawhi. Add that to some of the other inherent flaws in RPM, and you've got a stat that doesn't mean a damn thing here. Nothing.

[midnightpulp]

You were talking about why the stat sucked. Now you're agreeing that it was a problem with use. Don't trying to twist that. You literally said you didn't see how RPM could be calculated to make sense. This whole thread was how RPM was messed up because of Kawhi having a great dPER while also having a lackluster DRPM.

All advanced stats are opinions, and just like tweets and articles, the makers of them oversell what the stats do so that more people consume them. That doesn't mean they don't do good math or that the stat isn't informative. It just has to be put into a larger argument.

There's more to the qualification than just role. A guy being able to do more with the ball doesn't necessarily make him better, at least not in the sense anyone should care about. A guy perfectly suited for his role can be a better OVERALL player than a generalist with more skill, especially considering the economy for skills. Three-and-D guys, athletic rim-protectors/rim-runners, stretch-bigs: These guys are more helpful to a team than more skilled guys who can't do anything at an elite level, and great ones are rarer than hen's teeth. The guys who dominate RPM from these roles can be said to be straight-up better than a lot of guys below them. Are there exceptions? Yes. But not as many as folks want to think.

If you can cover for a center not being able to shoot better than you can cover for one who sucks on D, then you can argue that the metrics should reflect that.

No twisting. I conceded that point to you which then Harlem echoed.


YOU:That sounds more like your assumption that the model's. It could well be controlled for role, meaning that it's not arguing who is better but only who plays better in their role. Like maybe it suggests that Korver was a more elite spot-up guy than Batum was a lead perimeter creator. Or that Boban was a better garbage-time big than LMA was a front-court anchor. That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that data -- it's just weaker to the point that it would have to be part of a larger argument.



ME:I have no problem if that's what it is doing.

And I stand by my position that RPM doesn't make much sense when used for absolute player comparisons (i.e Player A on the Bucks has a higher RPM than Player B on the Nets, ergo Player A is better).

And to clarify, that is the use of RPM I'm attacking. When people use it to compare their favorite/least liked players and such.

[midnightpulp]

My beef is that he seems to be arguing both sides. The thread title was supposed to be sarcastic... I think. But then the talk about how Kawhi isn't as good of a defender as last year, isn't "crashing the boards", etc. Then bringing in PER. Shit, I don't care if someone criticizes a Spur, especially when they deserve it. But at the very least, he keeps quoting stats, and then applying the "eye test" to defend his belief that Kawhi isn't defending as well this year. Pick one - not both.

I know a bit about the evolution of RPM and RAPM. And no matter what anyone says about them, they were designed for the purpose of finding "diamonds in the rough" - players who are contributing more than their "traditional" stats and/or their reputations might indicate. And the ultimate purpose was to identify good players who could be signed on the cheap. It was an attempt at "Moneyball" for the NBA. And I know that because I know some of the guys who were involved. I don't know how many of you even know or understand that RPM is absolutely intended to be predictive, and not a strict measure of this season.

You want to know the problem with RPM and RAPM (and xRAPM, and DBPM, etc.)? They work great... except when they don't. The biggest thing they do is point out the incredibly fucking obvious. Tim Duncan looked good. LeBron looks good. I don't need some damn advanced stat to tell me that. But those same advanced stats got Brian Cardinal one of the worst FA contracts in history. People got twisted today, when those jagoffs said that Kawhi would be no better than Otto Porter if he was on any other team. They were saying that Otto Porter isn't a very good player. But even Otto Porter's DRPM is substantially higher than Kawhi's this year. When a stat tells you something that you know can't be true, you should figure out that the stat is flawed. Either that, or you can hand Brian Cardinal a juicy 6-year contract, because the stat says so.

One of the best examples I've come across said that if you look at RPM, it would say that putting the 5 best centers in the league on the floor at the same time would result in them blowing out other teams by 20+ points every game. But if you really did it, they would get their asses kicked every time by balanced teams. No matter how much RPM tries to adjust out the impact of teammates, there are situations where it can't do that. This is one of those extreme situations. I don't think that Kawhi is ANY worse defender than he was last season. And I don't think that he is neglecting to crash the boards, or any of the other silly shit I've read. He's in a situation where playing team defense means that he isn't free to be Kawhi. Add that to some of the other inherent flaws in RPM, and you've got a stat that doesn't mean a damn thing here. Nothing.

The thread title was supposed to be sarcastic, yes. Personally, I don't think Kawhi has been AS good on defense as last season, but he is certainly better on defense than Luke Babbitt, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, and Paul Pierce. I'm not trying to play both sides here. Kawhi is still the best defensive wing in the league. He's only "slipped" on that end due to carrying more offensive load. I'm not slighting Kawhi but taking to task when RPM is used in a vacuum, as many people do in these player comparisons. To do such in this case would lead someone to state, "Trevor Ariza is a better defender than Kawhi Leonard." That's the argument I'm challenging.

As for the rest of your post, excellent stuff. Especially bolded :tu

[Chinook]

No twisting. I conceded that point to you which then Harlem echoed.

And I stand by my position that RPM doesn't make much sense when used for absolute player comparisons (i.e Player A on the Bucks has a higher RPM than Player B on the Nets, ergo Player A is better).

And to clarify, that is the use of RPM I'm attacking. When people use it to compare their favorite/least liked players and such.

All right. That makes sense, and I agree with you on anyone using stats without thought to what they mean and where they fit within a larger narrative. They shouldn't be used to replace the eye-test or common sense -- they're supposed to supplement and inform those things.

At the same time, stats with a large enough sample base and long enough history of accuracy should often be given the benefit of the doubt in instances where their results seem counter-intuitive. In that way, it's extremely hard to break a stat by showing an example where it seems wrong, and that happens a lot.

[DMC]

I was talking about single game plus minus. :lol

I can already tell I don't like BPM as much already if it's what you say. But still decent to know.

:lol not knowing what BPM means but criticizing someone for using it
:lol calculated shit bombs missing targets up in here

[dabom]

:lol not knowing what BPM means but criticizing someone for using it
:lol calculated shit bombs missing targets up in here

I have no problem saying when I'm wrong. Other people are wrong in this thread but my bump mine. I can see why you always been a faggot. :lol

[Chinook]

BPM is not regular plus-minus. It's a derivative stat just like RPM. It's just a Lynux version made by BBRef.

Like seriously, there's a DBPM and an OBPM. Do you see that shit on a box score?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm.html

[dabom]

BPM is not regular plus-minus. It's a derivative stat just like RPM. It's just a Lynux version made by BBRef.

So it's not total raw plus minus divided by games?

[dabom]

In that case Mid lied to me. :lol and I've been using it right, faggots. :lmao DMC faggot

[Chinook]

So it's not total raw plus minus divided by games?

Nope. I'm not sure that anyone really keeps track of that stat, since that would be useless AF. Instead, it's plus-minus that cares about the other stats you pick up and relative to the team. So a guy who just stands there while the others lead a run would get dinged by BPM while a guy who's the only one of the court making a difference would be raised up by it.

[Chinook]

In that case Mid lied to me. :lol and I've been using it right, faggots. :lmao DMC (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20665) faggot

To be fair, before BBRef came out with this stat (I think it's only like two years old) "box-score plus-minus" used to just mean the regular version. But yes, if you were citing this stat from BBRef, then you were using a different stat than Mid thought you were.

[dabom]

:lol :tu

[midnightpulp]

:lol :tu

BBRef's BPM is pretty shaky, too.

They're open about its limitations:


Note: BPM does not take into account playing time – it is purely a rate stat.

There are limitations on all box score stats – if the box score doesn't measure a particular contribution, a box-score-based metric can only approximate that contribution. This is not a great hindrance on the offensive side, as nearly everything of importance on offense is captured by the box score (only missing things like screen-setting), but on defense the box score is quite limited. Blocks, steals, and rebounds, along with minutes and what little information offensive numbers yield about defensive performance are all that is available. Such critical components of defense as positioning, communication, and the other factors that make Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan elite on defense can't be captured, unfortunately.

What does this mean? Box Plus/Minus is good at measuring offense and solid overall, but the defensive numbers in particular should not be considered definitive. Look at the defensive values as a guide, but don't hesitate to discount them when a player is well known as a good or bad defender.

And RPM is rather fruitless when comparing players in different roles and on different teams.

[DMC]

In that case Mid lied to me. :lol and I've been using it right, faggots. :lmao DMC faggot

:lol being knocked off your confidence by a suggestion
:lol still you have no fucking clue

[poeticism707]

What are Parker stats tbh

:rollin :rollin :rollin

[dabom]

:lol being knocked off your confidence by a suggestion
:lol still you have no fucking clue

You said nothing, faggot. :lmao

[gambit1990]

OP writes "Kawhi is a slightly above average defender this season" using RPM

then writes tons of sentences on why it's not matching his "eye test" using bits and pieces of raw stats

then he states that Kawhi has indeed slipped defensively to save his energy for offense

Then goes back and says RPM is bad inconsistent. :lmao

Even though on other posts uses BPM(a very fucking similar stat). :lmao

Which one is it OP? You everywhere, faggot. :lmao
:lol

[dabom]

:lol

[dabom]

So average defense but above that. :lol

OP stay being a faggot. Should have won DPOY again anchoring the best defense in the NBA. :lmao

OP is one of those totals fans. Let me make it simple for you. Kawhi plays the most minutes on the team especially vs the best teams in the NBA. With the minutes he's getting, an above average defender doesn't get us the best defense in the league fuck twat. :lol

[testies]

danny green is our best defender and has been for years

[spurs1990]

I wanted to put this in a Leonard related thread:


https://youtu.be/PuzpcwOU4CY?t=2m5s

[dabom]

"But but but he ain't a point forward..." :lmao