Post-game: Ingram-Scottie-CMB-RJ lead Raps to victory!

[MoneyBall]

I thought we decided a decade ago to ignore individual ORTG. I guess some people haven’t yet.

If poeple don't understand what it measures or how to use it appropriately, then I agree, those people should not use it.

Like this?

Don't confuse scoring effeciency with offensive efficiency:

DeMar career ORtg of 113
Ingram career ORtg of 109

DeMar career OBPM of +1.6
Ingram career OBPM of +0.8

^ This tells you nothing about Demar or Ingram. It tells you Demar had better box score stats (because despite what you believe, that is how these two #'s are contrived). All these numbers do is take their box scores and computes a #.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm2.html

Box Plus/Minus, Version 2.0 (BPM) is a basketball box score-based metric that estimates a basketball player’s contribution to the team when that player is on the court. It is based only on the information in the traditional basketball box score--no play-by-play data or non-traditional box score data (like dunks or deflections) are included.

Like sheesh man. Just accept it already lol. It is not an impact stat, so it does not take into consideration quality of opponents or teammates. It doesn't care "why" something happens, just that it did. Not to mention, it adjusts for "position" which means Demar (a SG) and Ingram (a SF/PF) do not even follow the same formula.

Like I said, I never want to see you use TS% ever again because that depends on boxscore stats too. Same with DARKO, EPM, and LEBRON. Your entire argument falls back on stats don't matter lol.

[YogurtProducer]

If poeple don't understand what it measures or how to use it appropriately, then I agree, those people should not use it.

Like this?

Don't confuse scoring effeciency with offensive efficiency:

DeMar career ORtg of 113
Ingram career ORtg of 109

DeMar career OBPM of +1.6
Ingram career OBPM of +0.8

^ This tells you nothing about Demar or Ingram. It tells you Demar had better box score stats (because despite what you believe, that is how these two #'s are contrived). All these numbers do is take their box scores and computes a #.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm2.html

Box Plus/Minus, Version 2.0 (BPM) is a basketball box score-based metric that estimates a basketball player’s contribution to the team when that player is on the court. It is based only on the information in the traditional basketball box score--no play-by-play data or non-traditional box score data (like dunks or deflections) are included.

Like sheesh man. Just accept it already lol. It is not an impact stat, so it does not take into consideration quality of opponents or teammates. It doesn't care "why" something happens, just that it did. Not to mention, it adjusts for "position" which means Demar (a SG) and Ingram (a SF/PF) do not even follow the same formula.

Like I said, I never want to see you use TS% ever again because that depends on boxscore stats too. Same with DARKO, EPM, and LEBRON. Your entire argument falls back on stats don't matter lol.

TS% is meaningless without context. Me telling you Ingram has a career TS% of 56.2% and Demar has a career TS% of 55.6% doesn't really mean much.

However, TS% is not trying to be a catch-all stat in any fashion, and no one is pretending it to be one. I would also LOL at anyone who was trying to argue player A > player B solely on the heels of TS% like you are here with Ortg and OBPM (which are different flavors of the same exact stat)

[MoneyBall]

Like this?



^ This tells you nothing about Demar or Ingram. It tells you Demar had better box score stats (because despite what you believe, that is how these two #'s are contrived). All these numbers do is take their box scores and computes a #.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm2.html

Like sheesh man. Just accept it already lol. It is not an impact stat, so it does not take into consideration quality of opponents or teammates. It doesn't care "why" something happens, just that it did. Not to mention, it adjusts for "position" which means Demar (a SG) and Ingram (a SF/PF) do not even follow the same formula.

Like I said, I never want to see you use TS% ever again because that depends on boxscore stats too. Same with DARKO, EPM, and LEBRON. Your entire argument falls back on stats don't matter lol.

TS% is meaningless without context. Me telling you Ingram has a career TS% of 56.2% and Demar has a career TS% of 55.6% doesn't really mean much.

However, TS% is not trying to be a catch-all stat in any fashion, and no one is pretending it to be one. I would also LOL at anyone who was trying to argue player A > player B solely on the heels of TS% like you are here with Ortg and OBPM (which are different flavors of the same exact stat)

You keep arguing against claims I’m not making, and never have made (arguing a straw-man is a hallmark reaction when people are losing an arguement).

I’ve never said ORtg is a “catch-all” stat, only that it’s useful, just like TS%. In fact, it's YOU who falsely viewed ORtg as a "best player" metric which is both wrong and hilarious.

TS% absolutely needs context and absolutely relies on box score data… and yet you still use it. Why? Because even without being perfect, it tells you something meaningful about scoring efficiency.

That’s exactly how ORtg works. If you understand what it measures; shooting efficiency, turnovers, assists, offensive boards, and possession value, it’s a helpful part of the picture. Not the whole picture, but a real piece of it.

I’m not arguing “Player A > Player B because of one stat.” I’m saying: don’t dismiss a metric just because it relies, at least in part, on box score data. If you were held to your own standard, you’d literally have to discard just about everything. Even player impact stats like EPM and Darko need box score data to exist!

[Tripod]

What a great post game thread this was....lol.

[tsherkin]

I’m not arguing “Player A > Player B because of one stat.” I’m saying: don’t dismiss a metric just because it relies, at least in part, on box score data. If you were held to your own standard, you’d literally have to discard just about everything. Even player impact stats like EPM and Darko need box score data to exist!

So, stepping away from the two of you having an acerbic conversation with one another, let's look at this, yes?

Ingram and Demar ARE fairly similar. They're volume mid-range shooters who aren't hyper-efficient, but have a couple seasons a little above league-average efficiency. Ingram has more range and is a more capable ball-handler. He's also got more size and is a little better as an actual playmaker (though Demar has notably improved his game there over the years).

But yes, strictly speaking of their efficiency, there isn't a huge difference and Demar actually has a higher single-season peak there than Ingram. The big difference is that BI is much more comfortable with his handle and is a better 3pt shooter. Demar's better at getting to the line.

There are various statistical ways to examine their relative value. O-EPM, for example, has Derozan's 2022 season as superior to BI's 2021 season (RS only, of course). And that isn't super surprising. That was DDR in Chicago, rocking about 28/5/5 on 59.0% TS (107 TS+, or +2.4% rTS). +3.6 O-EPM (BI's topped out at +2.9).

There are various other metrics, but lots of different reasons to look at them as generally fairly similar, as much discussion has examined since the trade.

[MoneyBall]

I’m not arguing “Player A > Player B because of one stat.” I’m saying: don’t dismiss a metric just because it relies, at least in part, on box score data. If you were held to your own standard, you’d literally have to discard just about everything. Even player impact stats like EPM and Darko need box score data to exist!

So, stepping away from the two of you having an acerbic conversation with one another, let's look at this, yes?

Ingram and Demar ARE fairly similar. They're volume mid-range shooters who aren't hyper-efficient, but have a couple seasons a little above league-average efficiency. Ingram has more range and is a more capable ball-handler. He's also got more size and is a little better as an actual playmaker (though Demar has notably improved his game there over the years).

But yes, strictly speaking of their efficiency, there isn't a huge difference and Demar actually has a higher single-season peak there than Ingram. The big difference is that BI is much more comfortable with his handle and is a better 3pt shooter. Demar's better at getting to the line.

There are various statistical ways to examine their relative value. O-EPM, for example, has Derozan's 2022 season as superior to BI's 2021 season (RS only, of course). And that isn't super surprising. That was DDR in Chicago, rocking about 28/5/5 on 59.0% TS (107 TS+, or +2.4% rTS). +3.6 O-EPM (BI's topped out at +2.9).

There are various other metrics, but lots of different reasons to look at them as generally fairly similar, as much discussion has examined since the trade.

O-ePm iS uSeleSs because iT nEedS bOx sCorE dAta!!!!

[ATLTimekeeper]

I don't even know what the argument was, but DeMar became a better player at the very end of his Toronto term and into his SAS and Chicago days. This is the age range that Ingram is entering. Stylistically they are similar, but Ingram's length makes him a better midrange option into the playoffs.

We're in an age where people can make careers off of a statistical cocktail that they think makes a difference, and they're all flawed.

[tsherkin]

O-ePm iS uSeleSs because iT nEedS bOx sCorE dAta!!!!

Don't start with me, man. I'm trying to facilitate real conversation here. Let's focus on that, okay?

[ForeverTFC]

We're in an age where people can make careers off of a statistical cocktail that they think makes a difference, and they're all flawed.

Say more?

[tsherkin]

I don't even know what the argument was, but DeMar became a better player at the very end of his Toronto term and into his SAS and Chicago days. This is the age range that Ingram is entering. Stylistically they are similar, but Ingram's length makes him a better midrange option into the playoffs.

Demar did an impressive job of continuing to make small improvements through most of his career. That sounds trite or perhaps like a rip, but it's something most players don't do. He ended up having a nice little late peak in the RS, for sure. BI was already there when he was healthy a half-decade ago, so if he can just stay healthy, he can probably be a +2% rTS scorer for us with the ability to make something from nothing, which is a lot of what we need, for sure.

[MoneyBall]

O-ePm iS uSeleSs because iT nEedS bOx sCorE dAta!!!!

Don't start with me, man. I'm trying to facilitate real conversation here. Let's focus on that, okay?

Sure, no problem.

Honesty, why do you think O-EPM is still a useful metric in player comparison even though it requires box score data?

[tsherkin]

Honesty, why do you think O-EPM is still a useful metric in player comparison even though it requires box score data?

I find that a mix of different data sources is useful. Box score data has its place. Stats like TS% have their place. Plus-Minus stuff, all of it. I like looking at things in the broad context and seeing how each element paints the player, then layering my own observations on top of that.

In the context of this discussion, I think that Ingram's health and the team around him has been a major impediment to his ability to look better... but obviously that was at least partially true of Demar as well, right? 2022 Demar in Chicago during the RS was pretty damned good, on average, though, so he's worth giving his flowers, you know? He had his weaknesses/limitations, but his overall performance was pretty good.

[YogurtProducer]

Honesty, why do you think O-EPM is still a useful metric in player comparison even though it requires box score data?

I find that a mix of different data sources is useful. Box score data has its place. Stats like TS% have their place. Plus-Minus stuff, all of it. I like looking at things in the broad context and seeing how each element paints the player, then layering my own observations on top of that.

In the context of this discussion, I think that Ingram's health and the team around him has been a major impediment to his ability to look better... but obviously that was at least partially true of Demar as well, right? 2022 Demar in Chicago during the RS was pretty damned good, on average, though, so he's worth giving his flowers, you know? He had his weaknesses/limitations, but his overall performance was pretty good.

Same - but it is useless to try and post the raw numbers of two players and act like those 2 #'s with 0 context actually tell you anything. Like I pointed out once, Jarrett Allen led the league in ORTG. Anything that says Jarrett Allen is #1 in needs to be taken with massive grains of salt, and a hell of a lot more analysis than just posting two players ORTG and OBPM and walking away.

Those stats are useless without context.

[tsherkin]

Same - but it is useless to try and post the raw numbers of two players and act like those 2 #'s with 0 context actually tell you anything. Like I pointed out once, Jarrett Allen led the league in ORTG. Anything that says Jarrett Allen is #1 in needs to be taken with massive grains of salt, and a hell of a lot more analysis than just posting two players ORTG and OBPM and walking away.

Those stats are useless without context.

Yes, you have to use the stats correctly, and I find that if you use the stats in conjunction with other stuff, it helps form a clearer picture overall. ORTG isn't a very useful single stat for evaluating a player in my experience. It can certainly tell you that the player is doing well in their role, but Allen... or like, 2023 Clint Capela, right? Capela was a 136 ORTG player. He was a good player, but no one sane would look at the ORTG and be like "AHAHA, franchise leader!" He was a play-finisher who needed spacing and a high-end playmaker, coupled to a role with low-usage and a very shaped possession-set. ORTG identifies that he did well inside those parameters, but ultimately reveals little that raw box score numbers or actually watching him wouldn't have done, and escapes a lot of context which those provide relative to that number.

All-in-ones rarely end up super useful in basketball analysis, at least on their own. Like, sure, points per 100 possessions is nice to know, but then you get stuff like O-EPM which is a more adjusted version of that anyway, so why bother with ORTG? When Dean O first came out with it when BoP was released, sure, it was interesting information which could tell you some role-independent stuff, but we have so much other info now that it isn't really relevant except on a team level.

[YogurtProducer]

Same - but it is useless to try and post the raw numbers of two players and act like those 2 #'s with 0 context actually tell you anything. Like I pointed out once, Jarrett Allen led the league in ORTG. Anything that says Jarrett Allen is #1 in needs to be taken with massive grains of salt, and a hell of a lot more analysis than just posting two players ORTG and OBPM and walking away.

Those stats are useless without context.

Yes, you have to use the stats correctly, and I find that if you use the stats in conjunction with other stuff, it helps form a clearer picture overall. ORTG isn't a very useful single stat for evaluating a player in my experience. It can certainly tell you that the player is doing well in their role, but Allen... or like, 2023 Clint Capela, right? Capela was a 136 ORTG player. He was a good player, but no one sane would look at the ORTG and be like "AHAHA, franchise leader!" He was a play-finisher who needed spacing and a high-end playmaker, coupled to a role with low-usage and a very shaped possession-set. ORTG identifies that he did well inside those parameters, but ultimately reveals little that raw box score numbers or actually watching him wouldn't have done, and escapes a lot of context which those provide relative to that number.

All-in-ones rarely end up super useful in basketball analysis, at least on their own. Like, sure, points per 100 possessions is nice to know, but then you get stuff like O-EPM which is a more adjusted version of that anyway, so why bother with ORTG? When Dean O first came out with it when BoP was released, sure, it was interesting information which could tell you some role-independent stuff, but we have so much other info now that it isn't really relevant except on a team level.

Really feels like "usage" is underrated in these stats. Putting up say, 25ppg on league average efficiency and higher volume is certainly more remarkable of your (offensive) basketball talent than 10ppg on elite efficiency and low volume (aka, Capela vs Ingram). Defensively the creators even admit is flawed, so I refuse to use anything that those who make it admit sucks lol.

[tsherkin]

Really feels like "usage" is underrated in these stats. Putting up say, 25ppg on league average efficiency and higher volume is certainly more remarkable of your (offensive) basketball talent than 10ppg on elite efficiency and low volume (aka, Capela vs Ingram). Defensively the creators even admit is flawed, so I refuse to use anything that those who make it admit sucks lol.

Usage is important to consider, for sure. ORTG/DRTG is, as I said earlier, more valuable on a team level than on an individual level. And yes, managing even league average efficiency is more impressive than high-end efficiency on low volume on almost exclusively assisted baskets, for sure. It is still only SO useful, but that becomes more about comparison to peers in role and utility towards contention than the abstract "is this impressive relative to a high-efficiency, low-volume" type of question.

[Public_Enemy101]

RJ is the best Canadian player to put on a Raptor’s jersey. He’s carries himself professionally, motivates his teammates and also buys into the coach’s vision. Plus, his offensive efficiency continues to improve. Those are intangibles that are hard to find in this league and why you want to keep him for the longterm

[Mark_83]

If he keeps playing like this we're going to need an RJ Barrett apology thread.