General 76ers Thread

[TTP]

Who is the 15th man currently? (aka last man in)

TLC? he's a future play so it can't be right?

Nik and Hollis have performed well thus far. so they're out right?

TJ then?

From the perspective of roster cuts, likely TJ, especially with Bayless back.

[Sixerscan]

Based on cuts it would probably depend on who was brought in. Like if they traded Nerlens for two wings they wouldn't cut tj.

If all 15 guys were healthy (which amazingly hasn't happened since the 2012 playoffs between Bynum Noel embiid and Simmons) I'd imagine Holmes and TLC would be the ones not dressing.

[Cokeleaf]

What are the thoughts on Hollis Thompson after this season, will he get a new contract with us seeing its his final year of his current contract

[the_process]

What are the thoughts on Hollis Thompson after this season, will he get a new contract with us seeing its his final year of his current contract

I would've said no way about a month ago. But now, depending on how many picks they actually keep and how much Thompson asks for, I could see a scenario where they re-sign him as a deep reserve.

[MeCarlos24]

Not a fan of bayless at all, worst of all he seems to think hes the man on this team..

[Unbreakable99]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

[TTP]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

VORP is just BPM converted so that -2.0 BPM approximately = 0 VORP (replacement level).

The real question is why Holmes' VORP is only 0.3 with a 3.2 BPM while several other players have a VORP of 0.1 with BPMs in the -1 to 0.2 range. One would expect Holmes' VORP to be much higher. I don't have an answer but if I had to guess, I'd say that they probably calculate replacement level OBPM and DBPM differently and also probably adjust each for position (Holmes is considered a PF in their system).

It's all box score based though so make of it what you will.

[Ericb5]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

It just shows the silliness of taking analytics too seriously. It always needs context.

Embiid is a star heading for being a superstar, and Holmes is a borderline NBA player hoping to become a back up center. Unless you can express that solely through stats somehow, analytics have to be taken with a grain of salt.

[TTP]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

It just shows the silliness of taking analytics too seriously. It always needs context.

Embiid is a star heading for being a superstar, and Holmes is a borderline NBA player hoping to become a back up center. Unless you can express that solely through stats somehow, analytics have to be taken with a grain of salt.

I disagree that your conclusion can be accurately drawn from what you quoted. A more accurate conclusion would be that solely using BPM/VORP is a poor method of evaluating players. Or perhaps, using ANY one statistic is a poor method of evaluating players. UsIng a basic statistic like FG% to suggest that Holmes is a better player is similarly weak.

Furthermore, it's perfectly possible for Holmes to be having a better season now (I'm not stating that he is) while having significantly less potential. I don't think anyone is looking at each of their advanced stats and arguing that Holmes has more potential than Embiid, so it's weak to suggest that people are using advanced stats improperly in that way.

[TTP]

I also dislike the argument that "advanced stats need context". Typically, the people that use advanced stats are serious fans that enjoy basketball so much that they want to learn more about what they're seeing. They have context from watching games and they additionally dig into the numbers to get an unbiased view. They combine what they see/know and what the numbers say to get a more complete interpretation.

Frequently, the anti-advanced stat crowd is either more casual or only has the context of what they see or hear. Their refusal to consider information from other sources only limits their viewpoint.

Someone who watches games and uses advanced statistics has more context than someone who solely watches games.

[Unbreakable99]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

VORP is just BPM converted so that -2.0 BPM approximately = 0 VORP (replacement level).

The real question is why Holmes' VORP is only 0.3 with a 3.2 BPM while several other players have a VORP of 0.1 with BPMs in the -1 to 0.2 range. One would expect Holmes' VORP to be much higher. I don't have an answer but if I had to guess, I'd say that they probably calculate replacement level OBPM and DBPM differently and also probably adjust each for position (Holmes is considered a PF in their system).

It's all box score based though so make of it what you will.

Thanks. It just seems odd. I just can't see how any advanced stats should have Holmes enter than Embiid. VORP is something many people use to determine how good or bad someone is like how Okafor is a negative VORP guy and Wiggins the same.

[TTP]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

VORP is just BPM converted so that -2.0 BPM approximately = 0 VORP (replacement level).

The real question is why Holmes' VORP is only 0.3 with a 3.2 BPM while several other players have a VORP of 0.1 with BPMs in the -1 to 0.2 range. One would expect Holmes' VORP to be much higher. I don't have an answer but if I had to guess, I'd say that they probably calculate replacement level OBPM and DBPM differently and also probably adjust each for position (Holmes is considered a PF in their system).

It's all box score based though so make of it what you will.

Thanks. It just seems odd. I just can't see how any advanced stats should have Holmes enter than Embiid. VORP is something many people use to determine how good or bad someone is like how Okafor is a negative VORP guy and Wiggins the same.

Holmes has been an advanced stats crusher (relative to his expectations as a second round pick) since he came into the league. He compares similarly to Embiid in RPM this season as well. It's one of the reasons a subsection of Sixers fans (including myself) want to see him get more minutes and are hopeful he will be a part of the rotation once Noel/Okafor or both are gone. He's just very efficient and likely pretty undervalued by the average fan.

It's also important to keep in mind that Embiid is still making mistakes as a rookie (high fouls, high turnovers, poor post efficiency). This drives his advanced stats down presently but doesn't make fans any less excited about his potential.

[Sixerscan]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

VORP is just BPM converted so that -2.0 BPM approximately = 0 VORP (replacement level).

The real question is why Holmes' VORP is only 0.3 with a 3.2 BPM while several other players have a VORP of 0.1 with BPMs in the -1 to 0.2 range. One would expect Holmes' VORP to be much higher. I don't have an answer but if I had to guess, I'd say that they probably calculate replacement level OBPM and DBPM differently and also probably adjust each for position (Holmes is considered a PF in their system).

It's all box score based though so make of it what you will.

Thanks. It just seems odd. I just can't see how any advanced stats should have Holmes enter than Embiid. VORP is something many people use to determine how good or bad someone is like how Okafor is a negative VORP guy and Wiggins the same.

Embiid is turning the ball over 8.6 times per 48 minutes. I'm not sure if there's a way to describe how mind boggling that is. Harden is on pace for the most turnovers in NBA history and even he only turns it over 7.4 times per 48 minutes. And he's a point guard. The next highest center that plays 20 mpg (nurkic) turns it over 4.7 times per 48 minutes. That's like half as many!

Turnovers (and to a lesser extent fouls) pretty much explain why he can have such middling advanced stats despite such an impressive traditional stat line. If he can just get that down to nurkic levels I would imagine he would blow holmes out of the water.

Luckily turnovers and fouls are something young guys improve on. In general Embiid has a lot of room to grow in advanced stats based on his skill set if he would just cut down on fouling and turning the ball over, whereas Holmes would need to add more skills to really go up much (an improved jumper, post moves, going up another level as a rebounder and defender etc).

And as always keep up in mind the small sample size especially for holmes.

[Sixerscan]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

VORP is just BPM converted so that -2.0 BPM approximately = 0 VORP (replacement level).

The real question is why Holmes' VORP is only 0.3 with a 3.2 BPM while several other players have a VORP of 0.1 with BPMs in the -1 to 0.2 range. One would expect Holmes' VORP to be much higher. I don't have an answer but if I had to guess, I'd say that they probably calculate replacement level OBPM and DBPM differently and also probably adjust each for position (Holmes is considered a PF in their system).

It's all box score based though so make of it what you will.

VORP is (sort of) a counting stat while BPM is (sort of) a rate stat. VORP is how much you contribute over a TEAM's 100 possessions (you aren't contributing anything while you are on the bench, but the possession counter still runs) while BPM is based on how much you contribute per 100 possessions you are in the game (the possession counter stops when you are on the bench)

I'd imagine whoever you are comparing holmes to has played more minutes.

[Ericb5]

How does Holmes have a higher VORP than Embiid? Holmes is at 79 with .3. Embiid is at 150 with .1. As a side note Okafor is at 394 at -.2 and Wiggins is at 420 with -.2. Buddy Hield is dead last at 431 with a -.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_advanced.html

It just shows the silliness of taking analytics too seriously. It always needs context.

Embiid is a star heading for being a superstar, and Holmes is a borderline NBA player hoping to become a back up center. Unless you can express that solely through stats somehow, analytics have to be taken with a grain of salt.

I disagree that your conclusion can be accurately drawn from what you quoted. A more accurate conclusion would be that solely using BPM/VORP is a poor method of evaluating players. Or perhaps, using ANY one statistic is a poor method of evaluating players. UsIng a basic statistic like FG% to suggest that Holmes is a better player is similarly weak.

Furthermore, it's perfectly possible for Holmes to be having a better season now (I'm not stating that he is) while having significantly less potential. I don't think anyone is looking at each of their advanced stats and arguing that Holmes has more potential than Embiid, so it's weak to suggest that people are using advanced stats improperly in that way.

I'm not suggesting that advanced stats are invalid. I think that they are sort of like a blood test's usefulness in coming up with a diagnoses. Some number is X, and some other number is Y, and when you take them together with a description of the symptoms, and family history then you can make a determination. A different person may have the same numbers in the blood test, but have different symptoms, and a different family history, and therefore will end up with a different diagnosis.

Just quoting a number like Vorp(or any specific number) and comparing two players doesn't mean that the player with the higher number is better, or has more potential, or could even sustain that level if they played more minutes.

A further gripe of mine is with team based stats being used to measure individual abilities. For example, a post player like Okafor requires other players to properly execute a post offense. The quality of the post entry passer. The quality of the shooters on the floor. The relative attention given to the post player by the defense. This is what I mean by context.

You can't distill it down to player X has THIS effect on the team's offense, and player Y has THAT effect on the team's offense.

I think that you can get some indication of the individual skill of a rim protector on a team's total defense, but you can't measure how good of a rim protector player A is compared to player B on a different team by citing the team defensive statistics because the two players are playing with different teammates with different strengths and weaknesses. Basically Deandre Jordan plays generally on the floor with players 1-4, and Embiid plays generally on the floor with different players 1-4. How does a number show who the better rim protector is? What about all the times that players are dissuaded from taking certain shots with a certain rim protector, and you have other players who are not being dissuaded from taking those same shots, but are still not hitting them enough for it to be shown in the numbers?

I think that you can use advanced stats as a way of measuring progress of specific players in specific facets of the game, such as Player A produced advanced stat Y, and now a month later Player A produced advanced stat Y plus 1.

Or advanced stats can help you when trying to decide what kind of role players you need to add to a given roster to compliment the stars the best. You can identify a specific skill that your team lacks, and try to add role players that have that skill. It doesn't come down to a single metric, but you can get a statistical picture of a players strength's and weaknesses.

My feelings basically align with Hinkie's on the value of statistics. Too many posters on these boards make ONLY statistical arguments for how good someone is at something, as if the ONLY way to tell the story is through the numbers. That's the part that I disagree with.

[Sixerscan]

It just shows the silliness of taking analytics too seriously. It always needs context.

Embiid is a star heading for being a superstar, and Holmes is a borderline NBA player hoping to become a back up center. Unless you can express that solely through stats somehow, analytics have to be taken with a grain of salt.

I disagree that your conclusion can be accurately drawn from what you quoted. A more accurate conclusion would be that solely using BPM/VORP is a poor method of evaluating players. Or perhaps, using ANY one statistic is a poor method of evaluating players. UsIng a basic statistic like FG% to suggest that Holmes is a better player is similarly weak.

Furthermore, it's perfectly possible for Holmes to be having a better season now (I'm not stating that he is) while having significantly less potential. I don't think anyone is looking at each of their advanced stats and arguing that Holmes has more potential than Embiid, so it's weak to suggest that people are using advanced stats improperly in that way.

I'm not suggesting that advanced stats are invalid. I think that they are sort of like a blood test's usefulness in coming up with a diagnoses. Some number is X, and some other number is Y, and when you take them together with a description of the symptoms, and family history then you can make a determination. A different person may have the same numbers in the blood test, but have different symptoms, and a different family history, and therefore will end up with a different diagnosis.

Just quoting a number like Vorp(or any specific number) and comparing two players doesn't mean that the player with the higher number is better, or has more potential, or could even sustain that level if they played more minutes.

A further gripe of mine is with team based stats being used to measure individual abilities. For example, a post player like Okafor requires other players to properly execute a post offense. The quality of the post entry passer. The quality of the shooters on the floor. The relative attention given to the post player by the defense. This is what I mean by context.

You can't distill it down to player X has THIS effect on the team's offense, and player Y has THAT effect on the team's offense.

I think that you can get some indication of the individual skill of a rim protector on a team's total defense, but you can't measure how good of a rim protector player A is compared to player B on a different team by citing the team defensive statistics because the two players are playing with different teammates with different strengths and weaknesses. Basically Deandre Jordan plays generally on the floor with players 1-4, and Embiid plays generally on the floor with different players 1-4. How does a number show who the better rim protector is? What about all the times that players are dissuaded from taking certain shots with a certain rim protector, and you have other players who are not being dissuaded from taking those same shots, but are still not hitting them enough for it to be shown in the numbers?

I think that you can use advanced stats as a way of measuring progress of specific players in specific facets of the game, such as Player A produced advanced stat Y, and now a month later Player A produced advanced stat Y plus 1.

Or advanced stats can help you when trying to decide what kind of role players you need to add to a given roster to compliment the stars the best. You can identify a specific skill that your team lacks, and try to add role players that have that skill. It doesn't come down to a single metric, but you can get a statistical picture of a players strength's and weaknesses.

My feelings basically align with Hinkie's on the value of statistics. Too many posters on these boards make ONLY statistical arguments for how good someone is at something, as if the ONLY way to tell the story is through the numbers. That's the part that I disagree with.

I think people should stop talking about "advanced stats" like it actually means a consistent thing. What is this advanced stat that grades how good of a rim protector someone is? You could be talking about anything from blocked shots to, opponents field goal percentage on shots at the rim, to points per possession while the guy is on the court, to +/-, to DBPM, to DRPM etc etc etc. Some of those are more valuable than others. Some do a better job than others adjusting for quality of teammate. Like Andrew Bogut had the best DRPM in the league last year for the Warriors and still has it playing for the Mavs. Which isn't to say DRPM is perfect, but it's not like we've never had guys switch teams or roles in the league, and guys' numbers generally don't completely flip when that happens (sometimes it does, and sometimes it's because a guy's level of play actually changes). This isn't exactly rocket science here, it's 10 guys playing basketball.

I'm all for context, but if you don't understand the nuances of a stat and what it's purporting to do, I'm unclear on how complete of context you can really give. It's kind of a two way street. Like VORP, while it is positively correlated with future performance, isn't built to project future performance. If it did, it would probably cut Embiid more slack for fouling and turning the ball over at historic rate. But it's supposed to show current production, and currently he's a center turning the ball over at a higher rate than anyone in NBA history, and years of data indicates that that makes pretty tough to have a strong offense. Which starts to explain why, despite all of Embiid's obvious offensive gifts, the team isn't scoring many more points per possession with him on the court.

Also using advance stats to measure month over month progress is probably a bad idea. With the more complicated stuff you need larger sample sizes. There's a difference between being more productive over a period of time versus actually being better at basketball.

[76ciology]

We are surprisingly low on offense for a team that is very good on 3pts and assists.

Sixers, specially Okafor, needs to improve our FT rate. After Embiid who gets to the line 6/g, it's ilyasova/Roco/Okafor at 1.8-2.5/g each.

Opponents fastbreak points: 18ppg (best)
76ers' fastbreak points: 11ppg (comparable to Spurs FWIW)

Brightside, fastbreak points and FTr, are Ben Simmons strenghts on offense.

[Ericb5]

I disagree that your conclusion can be accurately drawn from what you quoted. A more accurate conclusion would be that solely using BPM/VORP is a poor method of evaluating players. Or perhaps, using ANY one statistic is a poor method of evaluating players. UsIng a basic statistic like FG% to suggest that Holmes is a better player is similarly weak.

Furthermore, it's perfectly possible for Holmes to be having a better season now (I'm not stating that he is) while having significantly less potential. I don't think anyone is looking at each of their advanced stats and arguing that Holmes has more potential than Embiid, so it's weak to suggest that people are using advanced stats improperly in that way.

I'm not suggesting that advanced stats are invalid. I think that they are sort of like a blood test's usefulness in coming up with a diagnoses. Some number is X, and some other number is Y, and when you take them together with a description of the symptoms, and family history then you can make a determination. A different person may have the same numbers in the blood test, but have different symptoms, and a different family history, and therefore will end up with a different diagnosis.

Just quoting a number like Vorp(or any specific number) and comparing two players doesn't mean that the player with the higher number is better, or has more potential, or could even sustain that level if they played more minutes.

A further gripe of mine is with team based stats being used to measure individual abilities. For example, a post player like Okafor requires other players to properly execute a post offense. The quality of the post entry passer. The quality of the shooters on the floor. The relative attention given to the post player by the defense. This is what I mean by context.

You can't distill it down to player X has THIS effect on the team's offense, and player Y has THAT effect on the team's offense.

I think that you can get some indication of the individual skill of a rim protector on a team's total defense, but you can't measure how good of a rim protector player A is compared to player B on a different team by citing the team defensive statistics because the two players are playing with different teammates with different strengths and weaknesses. Basically Deandre Jordan plays generally on the floor with players 1-4, and Embiid plays generally on the floor with different players 1-4. How does a number show who the better rim protector is? What about all the times that players are dissuaded from taking certain shots with a certain rim protector, and you have other players who are not being dissuaded from taking those same shots, but are still not hitting them enough for it to be shown in the numbers?

I think that you can use advanced stats as a way of measuring progress of specific players in specific facets of the game, such as Player A produced advanced stat Y, and now a month later Player A produced advanced stat Y plus 1.

Or advanced stats can help you when trying to decide what kind of role players you need to add to a given roster to compliment the stars the best. You can identify a specific skill that your team lacks, and try to add role players that have that skill. It doesn't come down to a single metric, but you can get a statistical picture of a players strength's and weaknesses.

My feelings basically align with Hinkie's on the value of statistics. Too many posters on these boards make ONLY statistical arguments for how good someone is at something, as if the ONLY way to tell the story is through the numbers. That's the part that I disagree with.

I think people should stop talking about "advanced stats" like it actually means a consistent thing. What is this advanced stat that grades how good of a rim protector someone is? You could be talking about anything from blocked shots to, opponents field goal percentage on shots at the rim, to points per possession while the guy is on the court, to +/-, to DBPM, to DRPM etc etc etc. Some of those are more valuable than others. Some do a better job than others adjusting for quality of teammate. Like Andrew Bogut had the best DRPM in the league last year for the Warriors and still has it playing for the Mavs. Which isn't to say DRPM is perfect, but it's not like we've never had guys switch teams or roles in the league, and guys' numbers generally don't completely flip when that happens (sometimes it does, and sometimes it's because a guy's level of play actually changes). This isn't exactly rocket science here, it's 10 guys playing basketball.

I'm all for context, but if you don't understand the nuances of a stat and what it's purporting to do, I'm unclear on how complete of context you can really give. It's kind of a two way street. Like VORP, while it is positively correlated with future performance, isn't built to project future performance. If it did, it would probably cut Embiid more slack for fouling and turning the ball over at historic rate. But it's supposed to show current production, and currently he's a center turning the ball over at a higher rate than anyone in NBA history, and years of data indicates that that makes pretty tough to have a strong offense. Which starts to explain why, despite all of Embiid's obvious offensive gifts, the team isn't scoring many more points per possession with him on the court.

Also using advance stats to measure month over month progress is probably a bad idea. With the more complicated stuff you need larger sample sizes. There's a difference between being more productive over a period of time versus actually being better at basketball.

Advanced stats or traditional stats I think have the same strengths and weaknesses, and require the same contextual analysis.

With Vorp measuring production, that would mean that Holmes is more productive than Embiid, which is absurd. I understand that Embiid's turnovers are depressing his efficiency/effectiveness.

So take the vorp stat between them with a grain of salt. If Holmes was handling the ball as much as Embiid he would have a much lower vorp as well.

People on this board all the time will say that player X has a certain vorp number, and therefore he is better than a player that has a worse Vorp number.

It would be a disaster if we tried to use Holmes like Embiid or Okafor. The stats are not reflecting the true disparity in skills.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sixerscan]

I'm not suggesting that advanced stats are invalid. I think that they are sort of like a blood test's usefulness in coming up with a diagnoses. Some number is X, and some other number is Y, and when you take them together with a description of the symptoms, and family history then you can make a determination. A different person may have the same numbers in the blood test, but have different symptoms, and a different family history, and therefore will end up with a different diagnosis.

Just quoting a number like Vorp(or any specific number) and comparing two players doesn't mean that the player with the higher number is better, or has more potential, or could even sustain that level if they played more minutes.

A further gripe of mine is with team based stats being used to measure individual abilities. For example, a post player like Okafor requires other players to properly execute a post offense. The quality of the post entry passer. The quality of the shooters on the floor. The relative attention given to the post player by the defense. This is what I mean by context.

You can't distill it down to player X has THIS effect on the team's offense, and player Y has THAT effect on the team's offense.

I think that you can get some indication of the individual skill of a rim protector on a team's total defense, but you can't measure how good of a rim protector player A is compared to player B on a different team by citing the team defensive statistics because the two players are playing with different teammates with different strengths and weaknesses. Basically Deandre Jordan plays generally on the floor with players 1-4, and Embiid plays generally on the floor with different players 1-4. How does a number show who the better rim protector is? What about all the times that players are dissuaded from taking certain shots with a certain rim protector, and you have other players who are not being dissuaded from taking those same shots, but are still not hitting them enough for it to be shown in the numbers?

I think that you can use advanced stats as a way of measuring progress of specific players in specific facets of the game, such as Player A produced advanced stat Y, and now a month later Player A produced advanced stat Y plus 1.

Or advanced stats can help you when trying to decide what kind of role players you need to add to a given roster to compliment the stars the best. You can identify a specific skill that your team lacks, and try to add role players that have that skill. It doesn't come down to a single metric, but you can get a statistical picture of a players strength's and weaknesses.

My feelings basically align with Hinkie's on the value of statistics. Too many posters on these boards make ONLY statistical arguments for how good someone is at something, as if the ONLY way to tell the story is through the numbers. That's the part that I disagree with.

I think people should stop talking about "advanced stats" like it actually means a consistent thing. What is this advanced stat that grades how good of a rim protector someone is? You could be talking about anything from blocked shots to, opponents field goal percentage on shots at the rim, to points per possession while the guy is on the court, to +/-, to DBPM, to DRPM etc etc etc. Some of those are more valuable than others. Some do a better job than others adjusting for quality of teammate. Like Andrew Bogut had the best DRPM in the league last year for the Warriors and still has it playing for the Mavs. Which isn't to say DRPM is perfect, but it's not like we've never had guys switch teams or roles in the league, and guys' numbers generally don't completely flip when that happens (sometimes it does, and sometimes it's because a guy's level of play actually changes). This isn't exactly rocket science here, it's 10 guys playing basketball.

I'm all for context, but if you don't understand the nuances of a stat and what it's purporting to do, I'm unclear on how complete of context you can really give. It's kind of a two way street. Like VORP, while it is positively correlated with future performance, isn't built to project future performance. If it did, it would probably cut Embiid more slack for fouling and turning the ball over at historic rate. But it's supposed to show current production, and currently he's a center turning the ball over at a higher rate than anyone in NBA history, and years of data indicates that that makes pretty tough to have a strong offense. Which starts to explain why, despite all of Embiid's obvious offensive gifts, the team isn't scoring many more points per possession with him on the court.

Also using advance stats to measure month over month progress is probably a bad idea. With the more complicated stuff you need larger sample sizes. There's a difference between being more productive over a period of time versus actually being better at basketball.

Advanced stats or traditional stats I think have the same strengths and weaknesses, and require the same contextual analysis.

With Vorp measuring production, that would mean that Holmes is more productive than Embiid, which is absurd. I understand that Embiid's turnovers are depressing his efficiency/effectiveness.

So take the vorp stat between them with a grain of salt. If Holmes was handling the ball as much as Embiid he would have a much lower vorp as well.

People on this board all the time will say that player X has a certain vorp number, and therefore he is better than a player that has a worse Vorp number.

It would be a disaster if we tried to use Holmes like Embiid or Okafor. The stats are not reflecting the true disparity in skills.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they don't have the same strength and weaknesses. You're not going to tell me that DRPM and Blocks per game are equally relevant.

Again, you're not getting the basic idea of small sample size or statistical significance if you think someone having 0.3 VORP over 200 minutes is a "better player" than someone else with a 0.2 VORP over 200 minutes. You're not in a position to say what "grain of salt" needs to be taken if you don't get that.

I also think it's interesting that your conclusion is that "well Holmes would do worse if he handled the ball more" when I think the much more interesting question is whether the other two are handling the ball too much. (Unless your goal is to just give them reps, efficiency be damned). There has been mounting evidence over the last year plus that this team is more efficient when it moves the ball and involves everyone rather than relying on one guy having a huge usage rate, and now you have a small but growing sample of the team having some success offensively with a center with very limited skills playing out there with basically the same teammates. Maybe using Embiid as a roll man more and posting up less would make a more efficient offense.

Of course there are quibbles, he's played some in blowouts (so have the other guys though) but I think it's at least something worth considering rather than just blindly assuming that whatever grains of salt you can come up with balance it out and going back to the same tired arguments we've been having for the last year.

[Ericb5]

I think people should stop talking about "advanced stats" like it actually means a consistent thing. What is this advanced stat that grades how good of a rim protector someone is? You could be talking about anything from blocked shots to, opponents field goal percentage on shots at the rim, to points per possession while the guy is on the court, to +/-, to DBPM, to DRPM etc etc etc. Some of those are more valuable than others. Some do a better job than others adjusting for quality of teammate. Like Andrew Bogut had the best DRPM in the league last year for the Warriors and still has it playing for the Mavs. Which isn't to say DRPM is perfect, but it's not like we've never had guys switch teams or roles in the league, and guys' numbers generally don't completely flip when that happens (sometimes it does, and sometimes it's because a guy's level of play actually changes). This isn't exactly rocket science here, it's 10 guys playing basketball.

I'm all for context, but if you don't understand the nuances of a stat and what it's purporting to do, I'm unclear on how complete of context you can really give. It's kind of a two way street. Like VORP, while it is positively correlated with future performance, isn't built to project future performance. If it did, it would probably cut Embiid more slack for fouling and turning the ball over at historic rate. But it's supposed to show current production, and currently he's a center turning the ball over at a higher rate than anyone in NBA history, and years of data indicates that that makes pretty tough to have a strong offense. Which starts to explain why, despite all of Embiid's obvious offensive gifts, the team isn't scoring many more points per possession with him on the court.

Also using advance stats to measure month over month progress is probably a bad idea. With the more complicated stuff you need larger sample sizes. There's a difference between being more productive over a period of time versus actually being better at basketball.

Advanced stats or traditional stats I think have the same strengths and weaknesses, and require the same contextual analysis.

With Vorp measuring production, that would mean that Holmes is more productive than Embiid, which is absurd. I understand that Embiid's turnovers are depressing his efficiency/effectiveness.

So take the vorp stat between them with a grain of salt. If Holmes was handling the ball as much as Embiid he would have a much lower vorp as well.

People on this board all the time will say that player X has a certain vorp number, and therefore he is better than a player that has a worse Vorp number.

It would be a disaster if we tried to use Holmes like Embiid or Okafor. The stats are not reflecting the true disparity in skills.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they don't have the same strength and weaknesses. You're not going to tell me that DRPM and Blocks per game are equally relevant.

Again, you're not getting the basic idea of small sample size or statistical significance if you think someone having 0.3 VORP over 200 minutes is a "better player" than someone else with a 0.2 VORP over 200 minutes. You're not in a position to say what "grain of salt" needs to be taken if you don't get that.

I also think it's interesting that your conclusion is that "well Holmes would do worse if he handled the ball more" when I think the much more interesting question is whether the other two are handling the ball too much. (Unless your goal is to just give them reps, efficiency be damned). There has been mounting evidence over the last year plus that this team is more efficient when it moves the ball and involves everyone rather than relying on one guy having a huge usage rate, and now you have a small but growing sample of the team having some success offensively with a center with very limited skills playing out there with basically the same teammates. Maybe using Embiid as a roll man more and posting up less would make a more efficient offense.

Of course there are quibbles, he's played some in blowouts (so have the other guys though) but I think it's at least something worth considering rather than just blindly assuming that whatever grains of salt you can come up with balance it out and going back to the same tired arguments we've been having for the last year.

I'm not saying two stats like DRPM, and Blocks per game are equally relevant at all. I'm saying that advanced stats as a category, and traditional stats as a category, share the same strengths and weakness in terms of their value to ascribing merit to a player. They both are susceptible to outside factors obscuring the truth.

For example, Number of Interceptions(analogous to blocks per game) for Deon Sanders won't tell you the truth about him that he was probably the greatest cover corner in the history of football. A player has strengths and weaknesses that influence the behavior of the teammates and opponents on the floor. The nba team with the best shot blocker may not lead the league in blocks per game because they dissuade people from taking blockable shots.

Also, I FULLY understand sample size, and that's why you won't see me ever use statistics over the short term to make sweeping conclusions. My point about advanced stats is that, correcting for sample size, they STILL don't measure who is better between two different players completely. They are PART of the equation, but not the ANSWER. Okafor played I think 59 games in his rookie season, but how many time have we seen people on this board use his advanced stats from those 59 games to make conclusions about him?

I think that advanced stats in context can be used to measure skills, but by themselves can not, and I CERTAINLY don't think that they have a lot of predictive value for saying how much potential someone has. For example, the classic idea that age factors in to potential(which it does in general) would make people today try to put Embiid's numbers into context by comparing him to other big men at 22 years of age. Someone on the general board I think was trying to compare Embiid at 22 to Cousins at 22, as if that is a valid appraisal of Embiid. In reality, the context of Embiid's current performance should be compared to someone who is 18 or 19 because the whole age thing usually is comparing players that have played basketball their whole lives, and he hasn't.

How do you account for a player that is playing his 4th year of organized basketball at age 22, who hardly played in his first season, and then got injured half way through his third season, and then missed over 2 years due to injury, and is 12 games into his 4th? The formula used to project players is totally flawed because it doesn't take into account this kind of back story. Embiid has probably played fewer than 82 official basketball games in his entire life!