Markelle Fultz Discussion

[TTP]

This isn't just my opinion either his advanced metrics aren't great either. He has a career BPM of 0.4 and a negative BPM last season. His WS/48 is pitiful.

Your argument is poorly supported here and it's one of the many reasons I frequently disagree with you and similarly minded thinkers on these topics.

You're using box score based stats to provide a valuation of a player whose impact largely does not show up in the box score. Defensive players are undervalued by box score based stats like BPM, WS, PER, etc. Likewise, these stats overrate empty box score contributors (usually offensive guys).

Smart is exactly the type of player that is underrated by these numbers and Randle is exactly the type of player that should be overrated. Yet Smart still has better career BPM and WS48 (the categories you chose) than Randle!

I like both Randle and Smart. They are both flawed players so they need to be in the right roles, but I think that they can both play big bench roles on contending teams.

Smart is probably the easier fit, and Randle is probably the better talent, but they both are going to be successful in the right role.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Randle is a 4 that doesn't space, can't defend the perimeter, and can't protect the rim. His T-Rex arms make it hard to see any defensive upside as well. I don't understand how he's more talented.

[Ericb5]

Your argument is poorly supported here and it's one of the many reasons I frequently disagree with you and similarly minded thinkers on these topics.

You're using box score based stats to provide a valuation of a player whose impact largely does not show up in the box score. Defensive players are undervalued by box score based stats like BPM, WS, PER, etc. Likewise, these stats overrate empty box score contributors (usually offensive guys).

Smart is exactly the type of player that is underrated by these numbers and Randle is exactly the type of player that should be overrated. Yet Smart still has better career BPM and WS48 (the categories you chose) than Randle!

I like both Randle and Smart. They are both flawed players so they need to be in the right roles, but I think that they can both play big bench roles on contending teams.

Smart is probably the easier fit, and Randle is probably the better talent, but they both are going to be successful in the right role.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Randle is a 4 that doesn't space, can't defend the perimeter, and can't protect the rim. His T-Rex arms make it hard to see any defensive upside as well. I don't understand how he's more talented.

I think he is more gifted at his core. He can handle, score in the post, and off the drive, and is a high level rebounder.

Smart is basically just a tough nosed competitor(so is Randle) and a bull dog defender.

So I think that Smart's defensive ability makes him easier to slot into a role, whereas Randle is a guy that could be a star if the physical demands of the league were just a little lower. He physically isn't going to be a star in the NBA, but if you put both guys in to European leagues I think that Randle would be the bigger star.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TTP]

I like both Randle and Smart. They are both flawed players so they need to be in the right roles, but I think that they can both play big bench roles on contending teams.

Smart is probably the easier fit, and Randle is probably the better talent, but they both are going to be successful in the right role.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Randle is a 4 that doesn't space, can't defend the perimeter, and can't protect the rim. His T-Rex arms make it hard to see any defensive upside as well. I don't understand how he's more talented.

I think he is more gifted at his core. He can handle, score in the post, and off the drive, and is a high level rebounder.

Smart is basically just a tough nosed competitor(so is Randle) and a bull dog defender.

So I think that Smart's defensive ability makes him easier to slot into a role, whereas Randle is a guy that could be a star if the physical demands of the league were just a little lower. He physically isn't going to be a star in the NBA, but if you put both guys in to European leagues I think that Randle would be the bigger star.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Randle is "good" at things that aren't particularly valuable. He only finishes 60.5% career within 3 feet, which is atrocious for a big, so his ability to create for himself in the post isn't even particularly efficient. Even at the 65% he finished last season, it doesn't lend to a partucularly fluid offense and he'd need to be a pretty big positive there to make up for his defensive shortcomings. He'd need to completely evolve his game and do some of the things I mentioned to be useful for a competitive team.

Smart might even be more gifted. Physically, he's long enough to defend multiple positions. Randle is limited to defending one position and his wingspan is among the shortest in the league for that position.

[Ericb5]

Randle is a 4 that doesn't space, can't defend the perimeter, and can't protect the rim. His T-Rex arms make it hard to see any defensive upside as well. I don't understand how he's more talented.

I think he is more gifted at his core. He can handle, score in the post, and off the drive, and is a high level rebounder.

Smart is basically just a tough nosed competitor(so is Randle) and a bull dog defender.

So I think that Smart's defensive ability makes him easier to slot into a role, whereas Randle is a guy that could be a star if the physical demands of the league were just a little lower. He physically isn't going to be a star in the NBA, but if you put both guys in to European leagues I think that Randle would be the bigger star.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Randle is "good" at things that aren't particularly valuable. He only finishes 60.5% career within 3 feet, which is atrocious for a big, so his ability to create for himself in the post isn't even particularly efficient. Even at the 65% he finished last season, it doesn't lend to a partucularly fluid offense and he'd need to be a pretty big positive there to make up for his defensive shortcomings. He'd need to completely evolve his game and do some of the things I mentioned to be useful for a competitive team.

Smart might even be more gifted. Physically, he's long enough to defend multiple positions. Randle is limited to defending one position and his wingspan is among the shortest in the league for that position.

I agree that Randle isn't good enough to be a star in the NBA, but I think that he has the ability to be a star in a lesser league, whereas Smart has a more transferable skill to the NBA, but he wouldn't necessarily be a star in Europe.

I don't know. I'm just telling you what I think. I like them both as players, but neither one of them are starters, and if I had to choose one of them for the Sixers I would take Smart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ericb5]

I think he is more gifted at his core. He can handle, score in the post, and off the drive, and is a high level rebounder.

Smart is basically just a tough nosed competitor(so is Randle) and a bull dog defender.

So I think that Smart's defensive ability makes him easier to slot into a role, whereas Randle is a guy that could be a star if the physical demands of the league were just a little lower. He physically isn't going to be a star in the NBA, but if you put both guys in to European leagues I think that Randle would be the bigger star.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Randle is "good" at things that aren't particularly valuable. He only finishes 60.5% career within 3 feet, which is atrocious for a big, so his ability to create for himself in the post isn't even particularly efficient. Even at the 65% he finished last season, it doesn't lend to a partucularly fluid offense and he'd need to be a pretty big positive there to make up for his defensive shortcomings. He'd need to completely evolve his game and do some of the things I mentioned to be useful for a competitive team.

Smart might even be more gifted. Physically, he's long enough to defend multiple positions. Randle is limited to defending one position and his wingspan is among the shortest in the league for that position.

I agree that Randle isn't good enough to be a star in the NBA, but I think that he has the ability to be a star in a lesser league, whereas Smart has a more transferable skill to the NBA, but he wouldn't necessarily be a star in Europe.

I don't know. I'm just telling you what I think. I like them both as players, but neither one of them are starters, and if I had to choose one of them for the Sixers I would take Smart.

Coming into the league I liked Randle a lot more than Smart though. Now hat I have seen them in the NBA, I think that Smart is better.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spikeslovechild]

This isn't just my opinion either his advanced metrics aren't great either. He has a career BPM of 0.4 and a negative BPM last season. His WS/48 is pitiful.

Your argument is poorly supported here and it's one of the many reasons I frequently disagree with you and similarly minded thinkers on these topics.

You're using box score based stats to provide a valuation of a player whose impact largely does not show up in the box score. Defensive players are undervalued by box score based stats like BPM, WS, PER, etc. Likewise, these stats overrate empty box score contributors (usually offensive guys).

Smart is exactly the type of player that is underrated by these numbers and Randle is exactly the type of player that should be overrated. Yet Smart still has better career BPM and WS48 (the categories you chose) than Randle!

How convenient. Look I don't know what to tell you guys but basic stats indicate he's a marginal player, advanced stats like BPM and WS/48 indicate he's a marginal player, and I'm willing to make a bet GM's around the league feel the same but none of you are.

All I get as a rebuttal is he's a winner, he does things conveniently not captured by advanced or basic stats, oh and he can guard PF (he guarded Milsap a couple of times in the playoffs) and SF despite being 6-3.

Honestly, I'd there is an argument to be made advanced stats do a poor job measuring broken players like Smart. Players who do one thing really well but are historically bad in another area. For example his career OBM is only -0.7 yet his career FG% is .358 and his TS% is .480 and what I find sort of most hurtful from a value standpoint is not only is he terrible offensively but he doesn't know he is terrible offensively. He averages over 11 shots per 36 minutes. Which sort of throws cold water on he's a winner argument. They win inspite of him not because of him. He's basically a poor mans Iman Shumpert I say poor man because Iman offers positional versatility and is a better shooter and more importantly takes less shots which means more shots for well the better offensive players on the team.

And yes Randle advanced stats are not great either. I never professed that I loved Randle (actually I was quite clear I didn;t) only that he's better and has more upside plus he's an easy sig bet to make because they will both be RFA at the same time.

[TTP]

How convenient. Look I don't know what to tell you guys but basic stats indicate he's a marginal player, advanced stats like BPM and WS/48 indicate he's a marginal player, and I'm willing to make a bet GM's around the league feel the same but none of you are.

All I get as a rebuttal is he's a winner, he does things conveniently not captured by advanced or basic stats, oh and he can guard PF (he guarded Milsap a couple of times in the playoffs) and SF despite being 6-3.

Honestly, I'd there is an argument to be made advanced stats do a poor job measuring broken players like Smart. Players who do one thing really well but are historically bad in another area. For example his career OBM is only -0.7 yet his career FG% is .358 and his TS% is .480 and what I find sort of most hurtful from a value standpoint is not only is he terrible offensively but he doesn't know he is terrible offensively. He averages over 11 shots per 36 minutes. Which sort of throws cold water on he's a winner argument. They win inspite of him not because of him. He's basically a poor mans Iman Shumpert I say poor man because Iman offers positional versatility and is a better shooter and more importantly takes less shots which means more shots for well the better offensive players on the team.

And yes Randle advanced stats are not great either. I never professed that I loved Randle (actually I was quite clear I didn;t) only that he's better and has more upside plus he's an easy sig bet to make because they will both be RFA at the same time.

How convenient that the stats that you chose don't support your argument? Maybe do some research first.

If you want to be the guy on the forum that uses basic stats and garbage advanced stats to support your arguments, by all means continue to do so. I'm sure real GMs like Dell Demps and Billy King have your back. If we're going to go the appeals to authority route though (a horribly flawed way to argue), one of the best GMs in the league, Danny Ainge, clearly valued Smart's skillset over Randle's at the draft, and likely continues to now.

My "rebuttal" for why Smart is valuable and Randle isn't was stated multiple posts ago. Smart possesses at least one valuable trait - elite perimeter defense, while Randle doesn't really do anything valuable. As a 4 in today's NBA, he needs to do one of the following well to have value (ideally more than one): space, perimeter defense, rim protection. He doesn't do any of those. He also doesn't really project to be a better shooter and doesn't have the wingspan to make me think he's ever going to be a better defender. His upside is that he'll be a better playmaker and will score more efficiently inside, but I can't imagine he's ever going to get to the point where he's able to be a first or second option for a contender in the modern NBA.

On another note, I think you could make a Venn diagram of two circles with very little overlap. On the left side you have people who like Julius Randle and Jahlil Okafor. On the right side you have people who like Robert Covington and Marcus Smart.

[spikeslovechild]

Show me an all in one stat that you consider valid that has Smart ranked as a good player so we can have a discussion then but saying Smart is a good player because I value perimeter defense in my PG's above all else (he literally does nothing else well) besides being ridiculous isn't an argument that I can refute it's just an opinion.

Might be best to leave this one alone but I have strong feelings about both Covington and Smart moreso Smart because he chucked on a good team. Covington at least has the excuse of well we sucked and someone had to take the shot and it might as well be him. He also isn't historically bad like Smart he's just slightly below average.

And yes that is born out by the stats as well. The league average TS% last year was .552. Smart Shot .486. Covington .534.

[spikeslovechild]

To give that number some perspective Embiid had a TS% of .584 last year. JJ Redick .599 last year. We have Fultz and Simmons playing. I want our best offensive players to get those possessions.

If Covington can adjust to a reduced role great and hopefully in that reduced role we see more efficiency plus less contested threes. If he wants to average 14 shots a game like he has been he can do so somewhere else.

[TTP]

Show me an all in one stat that you consider valid that has Smart ranked as a good player so we can have a discussion then but saying Smart is a good player because I value perimeter defense in my PG's above all else (he literally does nothing else well) besides being ridiculous isn't an argument that I can refute it's just an opinion.

Might be best to leave this one alone but I have strong feelings about both Covington and Smart moreso Smart because he chucked on a good team. Covington at least has the excuse of well we sucked and someone had to take the shot and it might as well be him. He also isn't historically bad like Smart he's just slightly below average.

And yes that is born out by the stats as well. The league average TS% last year was .552. Smart Shot .486. Covington .534.

RPM - arguably the best all in one stat.

Smart has ranked 12/64, 25/67, 20/82 among PGs his first 3 years in the league. Randle has finished 69/72 and 63/79 among PFs.

You'd paint a more accurate picture using positional TS% because bigs are going to average higher. I don't have the breakdown for 2016-17, but the previous season's 50th percentile for PGs was 51.7%. Smart was somewhere around 20th percentile. He got a lot of minutes at the 2 though where 50th percentile was 53.4%.

There's more to offense than shooting though. The Celtics offense has only been slightly worse when he's been on the floor the last three years (and was actually much better his rookie year).

Contrast that with Randle, who has been a net negative on both ends each of his two years (hugely negative on defense). The Lakers were 11.5 and 7.4 points per 100 better when Randle is off the floor.

You get so hung up on scoring but the objective of basketball is to outscore your opponent and there's many ways to contribute to that. Marcus Smart in his role has been better at helping his team do that than Julius Randle in his, and it's really not close.

I look forward to the future where smart people will have developed better methods to quantify that which is currently unquantifiable and people will have a better understanding of which players are actually contributing value.

[spikeslovechild]

It's hard to take any stat seriously who gave Smart a positive grade offensively last year.

But here are his numbers according to your chosen stat RPM 0.75 last year, -0.01 in 2015, and 2.22 in 2014 (1.07 ORPM). I tried to find more about ESPN RPM stat but apparently they don't publish their formula what is known at least of what I could find is that is a predictive not a descriptive statistic for example it includes prior year data in it's equation.

So why you would use it and say he ranked x in 2017 is beyond me but people will use whatever stats that will show them what they want to see even if it is not a reflection of what actually happened.

[Sixerscan]

RPM is definitely the closest thing that we have right now to a good all encompassing statistic.

The fact that they keep the formula private is annoying, but the general consensus is that it is pretty similar to RAPM.

Win Shares, BPM ect are generally considered inferior.

I still think it overrates guys on good teams though.

[Ericb5]

Smart isn't just a point guard defender, so arguing the merits of having a good defender at that position vs another is misleading.

He is a versatile perimeter defender that can defend both back court positions, as well as many wings.

This is why I say that his skills are easier to fit into an NBA role than Randle's.

Every NBA team could use Smart because every NBA team needs to defend the players that he can defend. The fact that he isn't a facilitator or a shooter is problematic at times, but pairing him with the right teammates can help mitigate that.

Man, put him on the Sixers and our defense would be relentless. He would be great paired with Saric on the second unit too.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spikeslovechild]

RPM is definitely the closest thing that we have right now to a good all encompassing statistic.

The fact that they keep the formula private is annoying, but the general consensus is that it is pretty similar to RAPM.

Win Shares, BPM ect are generally considered inferior.

I still think it overrates guys on good teams though.

Look I don't know the details of RPM but I do remember getting into similar arguments regarding baseball WAR more then a decade ago. I don't know if the formula is still done the same but it used to be that fangraphs WAR used xFIP while Bref focused on the pitchers ERA and for the hitters they used BABIP the problem is people where using the players WAR figure as evidence they should win awards.

So the questions sort of becomes should you give credit to the player for what did happen versus what should have happened. I always erred on what actually happened and honestly I don't even know how good of predictive formula RPM is there seems to be a fairly large variance of his RPM numbers that isn't caught up in the other stats and honestly looking at his raw numbers there doesn't seem a ton of improvement from 2015 to 2016. His shooting numbers improved slightly to .486 TS%. His AST% improved but his turnover rate spiked at pretty much the same rate which should be a negative.

His OWS stayed exactly the same and his OBPM was actually worse. So maybe one of you could explain how Smart improved his offense last year not slightly but from a net negative to a net positive because it makes zero sense.

[TTP]

It's hard to take any stat seriously who gave Smart a positive grade offensively last year.

But here are his numbers according to your chosen stat RPM 0.75 last year, -0.01 in 2015, and 2.22 in 2014 (1.07 ORPM). I tried to find more about ESPN RPM stat but apparently they don't publish their formula what is known at least of what I could find is that is a predictive not a descriptive statistic for example it includes prior year data in it's equation.

So why you would use it and say he ranked x in 2017 is beyond me but people will use whatever stats that will show them what they want to see even if it is not a reflection of what actually happened.

The irony here is that you automatically rule out any stat that doesn't show you what you want to see (Smart being given a negative offensive grade).

[Chris76]

RPM is definitely the closest thing that we have right now to a good all encompassing statistic.

The fact that they keep the formula private is annoying, but the general consensus is that it is pretty similar to RAPM.

Win Shares, BPM ect are generally considered inferior.

I still think it overrates guys on good teams though.

Good point. Some #s are misleading because players are on a good or bad team.

Saric shooting #s are misleading. He took the challenge to be a main playmaker and he forced a lot of contested shots.
He didn't shoot well in the beginning, but noticeable improved towards the end. However, he did show his vision and good passing for a mobile big.

It's frustrating when people say he is a poor shooter or negative player. He should have better #s this year for several reasons.
His role will be reduced and he should get better looks with more talent. His shot looks very good, he has good mechanics. He usually makes good decisions and he could be a great energy guy.

[TTP]

RPM is definitely the closest thing that we have right now to a good all encompassing statistic.

The fact that they keep the formula private is annoying, but the general consensus is that it is pretty similar to RAPM.

Win Shares, BPM ect are generally considered inferior.

I still think it overrates guys on good teams though.

Good point. Some #s are misleading because players are on a good or bad team.

Saric shooting #s are misleading. He took the challenge to be a main playmaker and he forced a lot of contested shots.
He didn't shoot well in the beginning, but noticeable improved towards the end. However, he did show his vision and good passing for a mobile big.

It's frustrating when people say he is a poor shooter or negative player. He should have better #s this year for several reasons.
His role will be reduced and he should get better looks with more talent. His shot looks very good, he has good mechanics. He usually makes good decisions and he could be a great energy guy.

You keep stating these things but Saric shot poorly despite a ton of open assisted looks from 3 last year. It's not like Covington where a huge amount of his looks were contested. Defenders were already giving Saric a lot of space so he's not going to see a large uptick in open chances from playing in a better offense.

His efficiency will improve from having (or choosing) to take fewer long 2s, where he shot horrendously.

[Sixerscan]

RPM is definitely the closest thing that we have right now to a good all encompassing statistic.

The fact that they keep the formula private is annoying, but the general consensus is that it is pretty similar to RAPM.

Win Shares, BPM ect are generally considered inferior.

I still think it overrates guys on good teams though.

Look I don't know the details of RPM but I do remember getting into similar arguments regarding baseball WAR more then a decade ago. I don't know if the formula is still done the same but it used to be that fangraphs WAR used xFIP while Bref focused on the pitchers ERA and for the hitters they used BABIP the problem is people where using the players WAR figure as evidence they should win awards.

So the questions sort of becomes should you give credit to the player for what did happen versus what should have happened. I always erred on what actually happened and honestly I don't even know how good of predictive formula RPM is there seems to be a fairly large variance of his RPM numbers that isn't caught up in the other stats and honestly looking at his raw numbers there doesn't seem a ton of improvement from 2015 to 2016. His shooting numbers improved slightly to .486 TS%. His AST% improved but his turnover rate spiked at pretty much the same rate which should be a negative.

His OWS stayed exactly the same and his OBPM was actually worse. So maybe one of you could explain how Smart improved his offense last year not slightly but from a net negative to a net positive because it makes zero sense.

Just because other stats are more consistent doesn't make them better. You ask any NBA front office which publicly available stat is the closest thing to the proprietary models that they use to evaluate guys, most of them will say RPM, a few may say BPM and no one will say win shares. It doesn't make it perfect or something you don't have to put into context.

RPM is a relatively complicated multifactor regression. You can't just say "oh it's because of this stat or that stat". It could be that the other point guards around him played worse (Reggie Jackson is a name that immediately jumps out to me). It could be because it values the increase in TS% and Assist rate more than you do. It could be because his teammates randomly played better with him on the court this year. It could be because Stevens had him stand in a different place on offense where teams had to pay more attention to him, opening the floor for other guys. It could be because his usage rate spiked so he gets more "credit" for being part of a top 10 offense. It could be a whole host of reasons. Reverse engineering what the exact reason sort of defeats the purpose of having the statistic.

You are way too hung up on the raw number for his RPM, whether its negative or positive ect. It's a relative number. It doesn't matter whether his number is -20 or 0 or 10,000, if there are 30 people ahead of him in ORPM then there are 30 people ahead of him. And whether he was 30th in ORPM among PGs the way he was this year, or 46th the way he was the year before, either way he is bad on that end, especially for a guy on a good team. But probably he's not quite as destructive to a team's offense as you may think, which makes sense given that the team's production didn't completely fall off a cliff with him in the game.

As far as "predictive value" goes, I can't sit here and tell you "Oh I expect Smart to have a -0.21 RPM this year". But I'm sure there is a certain range that someone with more time/interest could predict with 95% confidence, and I will say I am guessing he will somewhere between the 20th and 40th point guard.

Definitely ahead of Randle, to bring it full circle.

[Sixerscan]

RPM is definitely the closest thing that we have right now to a good all encompassing statistic.

The fact that they keep the formula private is annoying, but the general consensus is that it is pretty similar to RAPM.

Win Shares, BPM ect are generally considered inferior.

I still think it overrates guys on good teams though.

Good point. Some #s are misleading because players are on a good or bad team.

Saric shooting #s are misleading. He took the challenge to be a main playmaker and he forced a lot of contested shots.
He didn't shoot well in the beginning, but noticeable improved towards the end. However, he did show his vision and good passing for a mobile big.

It's frustrating when people say he is a poor shooter or negative player. He should have better #s this year for several reasons.
His role will be reduced and he should get better looks with more talent. His shot looks very good, he has good mechanics. He usually makes good decisions and he could be a great energy guy.

Saric's numbers are bad in large part because he was legitimately one of the worst players in the NBA getting regular minutes the first few months of the season. I am sure if you could get his RPM from January on it would be much better.

I don't think he showed good mechanics as a shooter last year. His ball was consistently flat. It's looked betters in Euros, but that is with the shorter line. Hopefully he has it solved in camp. If so then we are in business.

[Ericb5]

RPM is definitely the closest thing that we have right now to a good all encompassing statistic.

The fact that they keep the formula private is annoying, but the general consensus is that it is pretty similar to RAPM.

Win Shares, BPM ect are generally considered inferior.

I still think it overrates guys on good teams though.

Good point. Some #s are misleading because players are on a good or bad team.

Saric shooting #s are misleading. He took the challenge to be a main playmaker and he forced a lot of contested shots.
He didn't shoot well in the beginning, but noticeable improved towards the end. However, he did show his vision and good passing for a mobile big.

It's frustrating when people say he is a poor shooter or negative player. He should have better #s this year for several reasons.
His role will be reduced and he should get better looks with more talent. His shot looks very good, he has good mechanics. He usually makes good decisions and he could be a great energy guy.

Saric's numbers are bad in large part because he was legitimately one of the worst players in the NBA getting regular minutes the first few months of the season. I am sure if you could get his RPM from January on it would be much better.

I don't think he showed good mechanics as a shooter last year. His ball was consistently flat. It's looked betters in Euros, but that is with the shorter line. Hopefully he has it solved in camp. If so then we are in business.

Saric's cumulative numbers make him look worse than he should because he was so inconsistent last year. The difference between the top third of his performances and the bottom third of his performances was huge.

By the end of the year he was playing very well though, and I expect that natural progression, as well as the greater talent level of his teammates, to make him play much better this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk