Devin Vassell has to go asap.

[LeBowen]

Yes, that's exactly my point. We shouldn't get overly excited about our guys putting up low-efficiency high scoring games because that's exactly what other teams want. It's no coincidence that high scoring games from Vassell and Castle are equally as likely to come with a negative +/- as they are a positive +/-

I don't agree about efficency in this specific game if we're talking Castle.
He scored 22 on 16 shots in second half, with just 1 turnover.
Team defense was the issue.

For comparison, he scored 16 on 11 shots in second half against the Lakers.

Castle needs to be an opportunistic scorer, we need to take advantage of teams trying to hide bad defenders on him.
Whether it be undersized point guards or slow footed bigs. If we don't utilize him in mismatches, he'll be a negative on the floor.

Also, I don't really care about advanced stats when it comes to rookies, Castle is obviously being tasked with uncomfortable things for him right now, but it's for the better if we talk long-term future.

Hopefully the FO notices this and sees it as a clear sign that we need a #2 (which most of us can already see).

I agree with this. Even when Castle develops, he won't be a 25ppg scorer.
Devin is already out of contention for that #2 spot, it's just about if he can be useful for the team as a role player.

Too bad we'll have to go in circles on this matter up until the next season, no way PATFO makes a big move now.
Until then, I'd rather have Castle play through growing pains even if it costs us some wins because we're not making the playoffs with this roster.

[scott]

I don't agree about efficency in this specific game if we're talking Castle.

That's your prerogative, but the data is pretty clear. Big scoring games from Castle is not our path to winning right now. This isn't even advanced analytics, just basic surface level . Other teams are smart enough to recognize this as well, and we're likely to see an increase in teams daring Castle to beat them. Until Castle improves his efficiency, it will be a winning strategy for those teams. That's basically true of any player.

With that said, it's good experience for Castle and he'll be fine in the long run. He may even develop into a #2 eventually, but it's not a winning game plan for us right now (which is the entire point of this discussion).

I also agree that it's good for Castle to go through the growing pains now, and it will likely cost us some wins (but that's okay too if we aren't going to even make a move for a backup C to try and make a playoff push). It's entirely possible for Castle scoring to not be a key driver to winning today (which seems quite clear to me) and it still being good for the long run.

No need for folks to get defensive about the facts... they just are what they are. It's okay to acknowledge them while still being able to fit them into longer long term objectives.

[RC_Drunkford]

You are looking to deep into +/- while overlooking the main fact: we lost the Grizzlies game because Memphis took 14 more shots than the Spurs. That's cause we lost on the boards and turned it over more often. You don't win games while giving up 14 more attempts.

[scott]

You are looking to deep into +/- while overlooking the main fact: we lost the Grizzlies game because Memphis took 14 more shots than the Spurs. That's cause we lost on the boards and turned it over more often. You don't win games while giving up 14 more attempts.

+/- incorporates that though. Who was on the court when the Grizzles got (and made) those extra shots? The players with the biggest negative +/- (unless they were all misses, in which case, they didn't cause us to lose)

[scott]

+/- is like any other stat or metric. It doesn't tell you everything, and it requires context. In some contexts its quite useful. In others, it's shortcomings make it less useful. At the end of the day, the only number that matters is the scoreboard. Counting stats, advanced metrics, etc. all just help you build the story of explaining why the scoreboard ended up the way it did.

Not every fan needs a deep understanding of analytics to enjoy the game... but if you're going to come in here talking about stats, then I'm also going to be right here talking about how they are applied/misapplied.

[RC_Drunkford]

+/- doesn‘t tell you who boxed out and who didn‘t. That was one of the biggest issues in that game. You‘re picking 2 out of 9 players. That doesn’t mean they were the reason for that. Everybody know plus minus can be highly inflated by line ups

[mystargtr34]

I use the NBA website advanced stats for my numbers.

https://www.nba.com/stats/team/16106...ort=NET_RATING

That’s pretty gnarly numbers for Devin. By far the worst net rating for anyone playing 20 MPG or more. Keldon is not much better. After these two everyone else is close to 0 or positive.

And to be honest the eye tests backs this up because Vassell and Keldon are so bad on defense as well as being low efficiency players on offense. Devins TS% is 54 and Keldon 55.

[Raven]

How do you propose we evaluate whether he has been "pretty darn good, consistently"? What other game-by-game stat/function/metric/rubric/equation/algorithm do you feel would be a better gauge? Picking the metric to debunk that's "pretty darn good" is easy. We can just look at CraftedPlusMinus (37th percentile player), or LEBRON (45th percentile player), or DARKO DPM (40th percentile player). Sounds pretty mid, at best.

How do you want to measure "consistently?

Sounds like you have extremely low standards.

watch the game?

[RC_Drunkford]

watch the game?

no don’t do that!!!

[Raven]

I think you're overthinking it.
It was a case of a clearly better team half-assing it in the first half, then realizing they need to lock in for the second half if they're to win the game.

Yeah, offense could've been better in the second half, but defense was the issue.
Memphis scored 43 in third quarter and 35 in fourth.
It's not Castle's fault Wemby went 3-12 in second half.
If we hadn't allowed 88 points in the second half, it would've been a close game.

As I wrote in game thread, for me the issue is that we played the same sets and completely ignored the mismatches.
Castle is a bad shooter, but there was no reason not to tell him to attack Edey over and over again because he can easily beat him to the rim.
Instead we had Edey sag off Castle while we were running some bs pindown screens for Devin and Barnes.

hm no, the game was clearly lost single-handedly by castle and memphis is a clearly worse team, they just have been better coached. They game planned the second half on castle specifically and he absolutely got devoured. yes he scored a career high, but that is not really saying much when you get the deandre jordan treatment.

[scott]

I use the NBA website advanced stats for my numbers.

https://www.nba.com/stats/team/16106...ort=NET_RATING

That’s pretty gnarly numbers for Devin. By far the worst net rating for anyone playing 20 MPG or more. Keldon is not much better. After these two everyone else is close to 0 or positive.

And to be honest the eye tests backs this up because Vassell and Keldon are so bad on defense as well as being low efficiency players on offense. Devins TS% is 54 and Keldon 55.

I'm told if we watch the games, we'll see that Devin is "pretty darn good, consistently"

I was also told earlier this season that Zach Collins was having an objectively good season.

[Raven]

+/- is like any other stat or metric. It doesn't tell you everything, and it requires context. In some contexts its quite useful. In others, it's shortcomings make it less useful. At the end of the day, the only number that matters is the scoreboard. Counting stats, advanced metrics, etc. all just help you build the story of explaining why the scoreboard ended up the way it did.

Not every fan needs a deep understanding of analytics to enjoy the game... but if you're going to come in here talking about stats, then I'm also going to be right here talking about how they are applied/misapplied.

+- is a perfect stat, what is wrong is the analysis based on it. You can't use it to compare lineups, you can't use it to measure performance, you can't use it to make any kind of analysis in fact. All it measures, is game flow per person. Sorry that it happens to not be useful, but it is just the way it is.

[scott]

+- is a perfect stat, what is wrong is the analysis based on it. You can't use it to compare lineups, you can't use it to measure performance, you can't use it to make any kind of analysis in fact. All it measures, is game flow per person. Sorry that it happens to not be useful, but it is just the way it is.

I get it, you're a moron. There is no need for you to prove it any further, the mission has been accomplished.

[Raven]

I get it, you're a moron. There is no need for you to prove it any further, the mission has been accomplished.

let me describe a thought process.. the point is that +- is only correlated to player performance, it is not causal in nature. Let us have a few stats that are causal to a team winning, let's say steals, rebounds, points, assists, blocks.. now if +- was descriptive of player performance, there should exist a function to show that the players that produce the most +-, are the ones that produce the most amount of counting stats.. we know these converge in the long term showing correlation, but they don't even within a season.

[scott]

+/- doesn‘t tell you who boxed out and who didn‘t. That was one of the biggest issues in that game. You‘re picking 2 out of 9 players. That doesn’t mean they were the reason for that. Everybody know plus minus can be highly inflated by line ups

When you have the worst (or best) +/- in a single game, there can be a lot of explanations and it doesn't tell you much on its own.

When you consistently have the worst (or best) +/- in games over the whole season, and have the worst (or best) ulative +/- for that season... there's a signal there. Or maybe Devin's just extremely unlucky that everyone else starts to suck extra hard specifically when he's in the game. Maybe it's a conspiracy?

[Raven]

When you have the worst (or best) +/- in a single game, there can be a lot of explanations and it doesn't tell you much on its own.

When you consistently have the worst (or best) +/- in games over the whole season, and have the worst (or best) ulative +/- for that season... there's a signal there. Or maybe Devin's just extremely unlucky that everyone else starts to suck extra hard specifically when he's in the game. Maybe it's a conspiracy?

it is probably more a coaching issue than anything

[scott]

let me describe a thought process.. the point is that +- is only correlated to player performance, it is not causal in nature. Let us have a few stats that are causal to a team winning, let's say steals, rebounds, points, assists, blocks.. now if +- was descriptive of player performance, there should exist a function to show that the players that produce the most +-, are the ones that produce the most amount of counting stats.. we know these converge in the long term showing correlation, but they don't even within a season.

Hate to break it to you, but individual player counting stats do not have a causal relationship to a team winning. If they did, Russell Westbrook might have a few rings by now.

Which is the entire point here, you "watch the games" and see Devin's counting stats and come to the conclusion that Devin is "pretty darn good, consistently"

Whereas I watch the games, and see that Devin plays horrible defense, is a ball stopper, and our team does objectively worse when he is playing and come to the conclusion that he is not "pretty darn good, consistently". My conclusion is reinforced by every single catch all metric used these days. Your conclusion is supported by what? Fantasy Basketball Scores?

[scott]

it is probably more a coaching issue than anything

It's definitely fair to question whether Devin is being used properly (as most of us have already acknowledged he's not). I definitely think Devin's impact would be significantly improved if he was used better. Just my opinion, but the blame is shared amongst the FO, the Coach and the player in this case. To which degree for each of those, certainly up for debate.

[Raven]

Hate to break it to you, but individual player counting stats do not have a causal relationship to a team winning. If they did, Russell Westbrook might have a few rings by now.

Which is the entire point here, you "watch the games" and see Devin's counting stats and come to the conclusion that Devin is "pretty darn good, consistently"

Whereas I watch the games, and see that Devin plays horrible defense, is a ball stopper, and our team does objectively worse when he is playing and come to the conclusion that he is not "pretty darn good, consistently". My conclusion is reinforced by every single catch all metric used these days. Your conclusion is supported by what? Fantasy Basketball Scores?

they literally are, the easiest to prove is points. Scoring more points than the opposition, wins the game.

[Raven]

It's definitely fair to question whether Devin is being used properly (as most of us have already acknowledged he's not). I definitely think Devin's impact would be significantly improved if he was used better. Just my opinion, but the blame is shared amongst the FO, the Coach and the player in this case. To which degree for each of those, certainly up for debate.

yes and it is also not proven that because he ends up with a worse +-, it means that the team doesn't benefit from it. Specifically, Devin is often tasked to keep the offence going when the rest of the team can't hit anything, leading to tighter marking and so on..

[RC_Drunkford]

When you have the worst (or best) +/- in a single game, there can be a lot of explanations and it doesn't tell you much on its own.

When you consistently have the worst (or best) +/- in games over the whole season, and have the worst (or best) ulative +/- for that season... there's a signal there. Or maybe Devin's just extremely unlucky that everyone else starts to suck extra hard specifically when he's in the game. Maybe it's a conspiracy?

maybe it‘s because he plays all the non-Wemby minutes and our whole team sucks when Victor ain‘t playing cause they can’t guard anybody?

[scott]

they literally are, the easiest to prove is points. Scoring more points than the opposition, wins the game.

The team scoring more points wins the game. An individual scoring more points, does not. This is not a hard concept to understand. I thought you watched the games? Are you even aware of the rules?

[scott]

maybe it‘s because he plays all the non-Wemby minutes and our whole team sucks when Victor ain‘t playing cause they can’t guard anybody?

Maybe, except Wemby's minutes are a -10 NETRTG swing when he shares the court with Devin (and 2/3 of Devin's minutes come with Wemby on the court... they are REALLY bad in Devin's minutes without him)

[Raven]

The team scoring more points wins the game. An individual scoring more points, does not. This is not a hard concept to understand. I thought you watched the games? Are you even aware of the rules?

it is still causal, if one player scored every point for the team and the amount is bigger than the opposition, the team wins. If it is causal in a dumbed down theoretical scenario, it is still true in any other situation.

[scott]

it is still causal, if one player scored every point for the team and the amount is bigger than the opposition, the team wins. If it is causal in a dumbed down theoretical scenario, it is still true in any other situation.

Lamelo Ball is 4th in the league in scoring average. His team has the 3rd worst win %. His scoring more points does not have a causal relationship with the Hornets winning basketball games.

If a player scored every point for the team and the amount is bigger than the opposition yes, that team would win. However, you ignore that if a player scored every point for the team - they would be extremely unlikely to outscore the opposition, and your posited causal relationship immediately falls apart. The key part of the scenario you presented is not that an individual player scored a lot of points, it's that the team's points are more than the opponents (with a perfect correlation). You can just look at a simple scatter plot of the Top Scorers and their Team Win %s and see that your hypothesis is ing stupid.