Help me understand this stats

[Buff]

I'm looking at http://www.basketball-reference.com and I'm seeing this numbers:

Player A: ORTG: 119 DRTG: 106
Player B: ORTG: 113 DRTG: 110
Player C: ORTG: 109 DRTG: 105

How is player A much better than players B C? How can that player be, at the same time, the worst in history?
Are these bad stats?

Edit: playoffs are scary, as well:

Player A: ORTG 114 DRTG 105
Player B: ORTG 99 DRTG 111

[sca]

Are these bad stats?

Yeah, pretty much. Individual ORTG/DRTG is essentially useless.

[Buff]

Are these bad stats?

Yeah, pretty much. Individual ORTG/DRTG is essentially useless.

Care to elaborate?

[VanWest82]

Not all individual Ortg and Drtg stats are useless, but the basketball reference ones are. Check out the on/off ratings on nba.com http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Essentially, these tell you how the team performs per 100 possessions while each player is on the court vs. off (on the bench). It gives a small window into each players impact on the offense and defense, though obviously there are a lot of factors involved (i.e. how teammates and opponents play) so you shouldn't rely exclusively on them as with any stat.

[sca]

Not all individual Ortg and Drtg stats are useless, but the basketball reference ones are. Check out the on/off ratings on nba.com http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Essentially, these tell you how the team performs per 100 possessions while each player is on the court vs. off (on the bench). It gives a small window into each players impact on the offense and defense, though obviously there are a lot of factors involved (i.e. how teammates and opponents play) so you shouldn't rely exclusively on them as with any stat.

Yeah, NetRTG and related stats are really useful but these are not:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

I've never seen bkref's individual DRTG and ORTG make any sense. They are arbitrary stats which don't tell much at all about a player.

[Buff]

Not all individual Ortg and Drtg stats are useless, but the basketball reference ones are. Check out the on/off ratings on nba.com http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Essentially, these tell you how the team performs per 100 possessions while each player is on the court vs. off (on the bench). It gives a small window into each players impact on the offense and defense, though obviously there are a lot of factors involved (i.e. how teammates and opponents play) so you shouldn't rely exclusively on them as with any stat.

But on/off, as far I know, is incredibly biased to the units you play with. This is sounding like we'e picking the stats that fit our narrative.

[Buff]

Not all individual Ortg and Drtg stats are useless, but the basketball reference ones are. Check out the on/off ratings on nba.com http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Essentially, these tell you how the team performs per 100 possessions while each player is on the court vs. off (on the bench). It gives a small window into each players impact on the offense and defense, though obviously there are a lot of factors involved (i.e. how teammates and opponents play) so you shouldn't rely exclusively on them as with any stat.

Yeah, NetRTG and related stats are really useful but these are not:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

I've never seen bkref's individual DRTG and ORTG make any sense. They are arbitrary stats which don't tell much at all about a player.

I'm interested in a conversation... but all I'm getting is "this is useless", was hoping for something more scientific.

Edit: I'm not trying to attack you personally, but I have a hard time accepting "this is useless" without any context to it. At the end of the day, this is a Dean Oliver's formula and as such, should get at least the benefit of a why.

[sca]

Not all individual Ortg and Drtg stats are useless, but the basketball reference ones are. Check out the on/off ratings on nba.com http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Essentially, these tell you how the team performs per 100 possessions while each player is on the court vs. off (on the bench). It gives a small window into each players impact on the offense and defense, though obviously there are a lot of factors involved (i.e. how teammates and opponents play) so you shouldn't rely exclusively on them as with any stat.

Yeah, NetRTG and related stats are really useful but these are not:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

I've never seen bkref's individual DRTG and ORTG make any sense. They are arbitrary stats which don't tell much at all about a player.

I'm interested in a conversation... but all I'm getting is "this is useless", was hoping for something more scientific.

I can understand that but there's a Raptors game going on at the moment. If you check the link that I posted, you'd see that the individual ratings used in basketball-reference are also entirely dependent on five-men units. They're just (poorly) modified versions of them.

[VanWest82]

Not all individual Ortg and Drtg stats are useless, but the basketball reference ones are. Check out the on/off ratings on nba.com http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Essentially, these tell you how the team performs per 100 possessions while each player is on the court vs. off (on the bench). It gives a small window into each players impact on the offense and defense, though obviously there are a lot of factors involved (i.e. how teammates and opponents play) so you shouldn't rely exclusively on them as with any stat.

But on/off, as far I know, is incredibly biased to the units you play with. This is sounding like we'e picking the stats that fit our narrative.

Like I said, they provide useful insight but they're only part of the discussion. For example, my hypothesis is that JV is a bad defensive player based on watching him play all year. When I look at his ON/OFF Drtg of 108.3 ON and 101.3 OFF, that at least shows we're better defensively with JV OFF the court. But why? Is it his fault? It is his man that's going off? It is line ups, match ups, or injury related? Need to investigate more. You need quantitative AND qualitative analysis to make a strong argument, just like in science class when you were a kid

So if you're looking for an all-in-one stat to accurately measure offense or defensive performance, don't. It's fool's gold. There are too many influencing factors in a five man, dynamic sport to narrow your overall contribution down to one form of measurement, unless it's something really specific like 3 pt shooting % in catch and shoot situations.

[Buff]

Yeah, NetRTG and related stats are really useful but these are not:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

I've never seen bkref's individual DRTG and ORTG make any sense. They are arbitrary stats which don't tell much at all about a player.

I'm interested in a conversation... but all I'm getting is "this is useless", was hoping for something more scientific.

I can understand that but there's a Raptors game going on at the moment. If you check the link that I posted, you'd see that the individual ratings used in basketball-reference are also entirely dependent on five-men units. They're just (poorly) modified versions of them.

Yeah, I'm watching the game as well Now, regarding the formula, it is fairly complex but, at least at face value, doesn't seem dependent on five man units:

The basic building blocks of the Offensive Rating calculation are Individual Total Possessions and Individual Points Produced. The formula for Total Possessions is broken down into four components: Scoring Possessions, Missed FG Possessions, Missed FT Possessions, and Turnovers.

IF you know top of your head, where do the FMU get in?

[Buff]

Like I said, they provide useful insight but they're only part of the discussion. For example, my hypothesis is that JV is a bad defensive player based on watching him play all year. When I look at his ON/OFF Drtg of 108.3 ON and 101.3 OFF, that at least shows we're better defensively with JV OFF the court. But why? Is it his fault? It is his man that's going off? It is line ups, match ups, or injury related? Need to investigate more. You need quantitative AND qualitative analysis to make virtually any kind of strong argument, just like in science class when you were a kid

So if you're looking for an all-in-one stat to accurately measure offense or defensive performance, don't. It's fool's gold. There are too many influencing factors in a five man, dynamic sport to narrow your overall contribution down to one measurement.

And here is my beef, I fear people are stat hunting to justify a predetermined hypothesis. And frankly, if that is the deal, this is the stat I choose, and it has to be as good as any.

[ForeverTFC]

Not all individual Ortg and Drtg stats are useless, but the basketball reference ones are. Check out the on/off ratings on nba.com http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Essentially, these tell you how the team performs per 100 possessions while each player is on the court vs. off (on the bench). It gives a small window into each players impact on the offense and defense, though obviously there are a lot of factors involved (i.e. how teammates and opponents play) so you shouldn't rely exclusively on them as with any stat.

Yeah, NetRTG and related stats are really useful but these are not:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

I've never seen bkref's individual DRTG and ORTG make any sense. They are arbitrary stats which don't tell much at all about a player.

I'm interested in a conversation... but all I'm getting is "this is useless", was hoping for something more scientific.

ORG and DRTG are essentially points created/given up per 100 possessions. There is a difference between team and individual ORTG/DRTG.

Individual ORTG/DRTG
I've never fully understood individual ORTG/DRTG, though my introduction to it was that it relies on box score stats (pts, shooting %, offensive rebounds, steals, defensive rebounds, blocks, etc), along with forced misses. I'm not quite sure how this could have changed. Individual ORTG tries to measure the points a player generates while individual DRTG measures how many points the individual player allows per 100 possessions. You can read the entire formula here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

There are a number of reasons why the stat in isolation is not very good: on the offensive end - the system the player operates in, the usage that player has, defensive end - assumes all players around that player to be "good enough" defensively. as such, it's extremely hard to separate team performance from individual performance which is what this stat aims to do.

Team ORTG/DRTG
A much easier and intuitive measure to understand. It's essentially the number of points scored/given up per 100 possessions for the team. (There is nuance to calculating possessions) You can then look at this number for each individual player by looking at on/off numbers: what is the team's ORTG when the player is on the court and what is it when the player is off the court. By virtue of being a team stat, it is a team driven metric and tells us - more than anything - how an individual player contributes to the team around them.

Ps. There are a ton of threads on RealGM and pages online that explain this stuff. Not sure if you have a point you're trying to prove with all of this or are naturally curious, but a few hours of research will get you where you want to be.

[VanWest82]

Like I said, they provide useful insight but they're only part of the discussion. For example, my hypothesis is that JV is a bad defensive player based on watching him play all year. When I look at his ON/OFF Drtg of 108.3 ON and 101.3 OFF, that at least shows we're better defensively with JV OFF the court. But why? Is it his fault? It is his man that's going off? It is line ups, match ups, or injury related? Need to investigate more. You need quantitative AND qualitative analysis to make virtually any kind of strong argument, just like in science class when you were a kid

So if you're looking for an all-in-one stat to accurately measure offense or defensive performance, don't. It's fool's gold. There are too many influencing factors in a five man, dynamic sport to narrow your overall contribution down to one measurement.

And here is my beef, I fear people are stat hunting to justify a predetermined hypothesis. And frankly, if that is the deal, this is the stat I choose, and it has to be as good as any.

I fear the opposite, that people see stats and then use them to form an hypothesis. "Hunting" for information to back up your initial educated guess is exactly what good scientists do, as long as you are rigorous in also challenging it through multiple sources of good information and analysis, both qualitative and quantitative based (i.e. attack your own belief to check its validity). Sadly, many here do not do that.

[sca]

I'm interested in a conversation... but all I'm getting is "this is useless", was hoping for something more scientific.

I can understand that but there's a Raptors game going on at the moment. If you check the link that I posted, you'd see that the individual ratings used in basketball-reference are also entirely dependent on five-men units. They're just (poorly) modified versions of them.

Yeah, I'm watching the game as well Now, regarding the formula, it is fairly complex but, at least at face value, doesn't seem dependent on five man units:

The basic building blocks of the Offensive Rating calculation are Individual Total Possessions and Individual Points Produced. The formula for Total Possessions is broken down into four components: Scoring Possessions, Missed FG Possessions, Missed FT Possessions, and Turnovers.

IF you know top of your head, where do the FMU get in?

It's very complex but basically,

ORtg = 100 * (PProd / TotPoss)

TotPoss = ScPoss + FGxPoss + FTxPoss + TOV

ScPoss = (FG_Part + AST_Part + FT_Part) * (1 - (Team_ORB / Team_Scoring_Poss) * Team_ORB_Weight * Team_Play%) + ORB_Part

Which are basically team-dependent (a.k.a. FMU-dependent) stats, e.g.

Team_ORB% = Team_ORB / (Team_ORB + (Opponent_TRB - Opponent_ORB))

Team_Play% = Team_Scoring_Poss / (Team_FGA + Team_FTA * 0.4 + Team_TOV)

Team_Scoring_Poss = Team_FGM + (1 - (1 - (Team_FTM / Team_FTA))^2) * Team_FTA * 0.4 etc.

[Buff]

Yeah, NetRTG and related stats are really useful but these are not:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

I've never seen bkref's individual DRTG and ORTG make any sense. They are arbitrary stats which don't tell much at all about a player.

I'm interested in a conversation... but all I'm getting is "this is useless", was hoping for something more scientific.

ORG and DRTG are essentially points created/given up per 100 possessions. There is a difference between team and individual ORTG/DRTG.

Individual ORTG/DRTG
I've never fully understood individual ORTG/DRTG, though my introduction to it was that it relies on box score stats (pts, shooting %, offensive rebounds, steals, defensive rebounds, blocks, etc), along with forced misses. I'm not quite sure how this could have changed. Individual ORTG tries to measure the points a player generates while individual DRTG measures how many points the individual player allows per 100 possessions. You can read the entire formula here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

There are a number of reasons why the stat in isolation is not very good: on the offensive end - the system the player operates in, the usage that player has, defensive end - assumes all players around that player to be "good enough" defensively. as such, it's extremely hard to separate team performance from individual performance which is what this stat aims to do.

Team ORTG/DRTG
A much easier and intuitive measure to understand. It's essentially the number of points scored/given up per 100 possessions for the team. (There is nuance to calculating possessions) You can then look at this number for each individual player by looking at on/off numbers: what is the team's ORTG when the player is on the court and what is it when the player is off the court. By virtue of being a team stat, it is a team driven metric and tells us - more than anything - how an individual player contributes to the team around them.

Ps. There are a ton of threads on RealGM and pages online that explain this stuff. Not sure if you have a point you're trying to prove with all of this or are naturally curious, but a few hours of research will get you where you want to be.

I apologize, it will definitively take much more time than I have available. I'd say this: I have seen similar formulas accepted here without much discussion (i.e. NBA individual ratings and net ratings) These, save the actual formula, suffers from everything you have mentioned.

I was just wondering if there was a mathematical consensus on why we would take one over the other. It would not seem that is the case, as there doesn't seem to be an obvious critique to the method on the web. But again, this would take more research than I'm willing to do so I will thank you guys and the mods can close the thread.

[ForeverTFC]

I'm interested in a conversation... but all I'm getting is "this is useless", was hoping for something more scientific.

ORG and DRTG are essentially points created/given up per 100 possessions. There is a difference between team and individual ORTG/DRTG.

Individual ORTG/DRTG
I've never fully understood individual ORTG/DRTG, though my introduction to it was that it relies on box score stats (pts, shooting %, offensive rebounds, steals, defensive rebounds, blocks, etc), along with forced misses. I'm not quite sure how this could have changed. Individual ORTG tries to measure the points a player generates while individual DRTG measures how many points the individual player allows per 100 possessions. You can read the entire formula here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

There are a number of reasons why the stat in isolation is not very good: on the offensive end - the system the player operates in, the usage that player has, defensive end - assumes all players around that player to be "good enough" defensively. as such, it's extremely hard to separate team performance from individual performance which is what this stat aims to do.

Team ORTG/DRTG
A much easier and intuitive measure to understand. It's essentially the number of points scored/given up per 100 possessions for the team. (There is nuance to calculating possessions) You can then look at this number for each individual player by looking at on/off numbers: what is the team's ORTG when the player is on the court and what is it when the player is off the court. By virtue of being a team stat, it is a team driven metric and tells us - more than anything - how an individual player contributes to the team around them.

Ps. There are a ton of threads on RealGM and pages online that explain this stuff. Not sure if you have a point you're trying to prove with all of this or are naturally curious, but a few hours of research will get you where you want to be.

I apologize, it will definitively take much more time than I have available. I'd say this: I have seen similar formulas accepted here without much discussion (i.e. NBA individual ratings and net ratings) These, save the actual formula, suffers from everything you have mentioned.

I was just wondering if there was a mathematical consensus on why we would take one over the other. It would not seem that is the case, as there doesn't seem to be an obvious critique to the method on the web. But again, this would take more research than I'm willing to do so I will thank you guys and the mods can close the thread.

No worries. The majority of what we discuss here is the second type Team ORTG/DRTG. I don't even think NBA Stats covers Individual ORTG/DRTG though could be wrong. Just like any other stat, you need to look at a full picture.

For example, look at the NetRTG on this page: http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1

What jumps out the most is that Lowry has the highest On-Court impact of any starter (8.4) and the only negative Off-Court impact of any player (-0.6).

Here's some numbers post all star: http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612761/onoffcourt-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&SeasonSegment=Post%20All-Star

It looks like Joseph is having a similar impact; the best On-Court NetRTG of any starter (7.2) and a 0 NetRTG when he's off.

So this begs the question: do we have two really good PGs, do we have a very PG friendly system, do the players on this make their PGs look good, etc, etc. It's just too hard to make a determination on the number alone. Anyone that argues a point simply based on ORTG/DRTG is at least a bit misguided.

But we can use these numbers as a basis and throw in USG% and things suddenly look different. Lowry has a 25% usage while Corey has an 18% usage post all-star. Interestingly Demar's USG hasn't increased since Lowry's been out, but we've been able to bring it Ibaka to take the plays and really upped Norman's usage. So while Corey and Lowry have similar on/off impacts, one is clearly doing it as a primary driver while the other is a complementary piece.

[Local_NG_Idiot]

I'm interested in a conversation... but all I'm getting is "this is useless", was hoping for something more scientific.

ORG and DRTG are essentially points created/given up per 100 possessions. There is a difference between team and individual ORTG/DRTG.

Individual ORTG/DRTG
I've never fully understood individual ORTG/DRTG, though my introduction to it was that it relies on box score stats (pts, shooting %, offensive rebounds, steals, defensive rebounds, blocks, etc), along with forced misses. I'm not quite sure how this could have changed. Individual ORTG tries to measure the points a player generates while individual DRTG measures how many points the individual player allows per 100 possessions. You can read the entire formula here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

There are a number of reasons why the stat in isolation is not very good: on the offensive end - the system the player operates in, the usage that player has, defensive end - assumes all players around that player to be "good enough" defensively. as such, it's extremely hard to separate team performance from individual performance which is what this stat aims to do.

Team ORTG/DRTG
A much easier and intuitive measure to understand. It's essentially the number of points scored/given up per 100 possessions for the team. (There is nuance to calculating possessions) You can then look at this number for each individual player by looking at on/off numbers: what is the team's ORTG when the player is on the court and what is it when the player is off the court. By virtue of being a team stat, it is a team driven metric and tells us - more than anything - how an individual player contributes to the team around them.

Ps. There are a ton of threads on RealGM and pages online that explain this stuff. Not sure if you have a point you're trying to prove with all of this or are naturally curious, but a few hours of research will get you where you want to be.

I apologize, it will definitively take much more time than I have available. I'd say this: I have seen similar formulas accepted here without much discussion (i.e. NBA individual ratings and net ratings) These, save the actual formula, suffers from everything you have mentioned.

I was just wondering if there was a mathematical consensus on why we would take one over the other. It would not seem that is the case, as there doesn't seem to be an obvious critique to the method on the web. But again, this would take more research than I'm willing to do so I will thank you guys and the mods can close the thread.

With the individual ORtgs/DRtgs, they weight individual rebounds vs team rebounds into the calculations (ORBs into ORtgs, DRBs into DRtgs). JV nabs over 47% of the team's ORBs on the season, hence he gets a heavier bump in his ORtg from his offensive rebounding role on the team as compared to say a guard who's main responsibility is transition defense (granted he is in that role because he is a fantastic offensive rebounder). Conversely, he corals 39% of the defensive rebounds, so again, he gets a heavier bump in his DRtg than a guard since again, a guards role is to fill lanes, start the break and look for early/easy offensive scores (and again, JV is a very good defensive rebounder).

It's a noteworthy stat as long as the true context of the stat is preserved, ie: Individual Offensive Rating should not be associated with a players ability to score efficiently, nor should Individual Defensive Rating be associated to how well a player can defend (1on1 or within team defensive rotations).

[Buff]

With the individual ORtgs/DRtgs, they weight individual rebounds vs team rebounds into the calculations (ORBs into ORtgs, DRBs into DRtgs). JV nabs over 47% of the team's ORBs on the season, hence he gets a heavier bump in his ORtg from his offensive rebounding role on the team as compared to say a guard who's main responsibility is transition defense (granted he is in that role because he is a fantastic offensive rebounder). Conversely, he corals 39% of the defensive rebounds, so again, he gets a heavier bump in his DRtg than a guard since again, a guards role is to fill lanes, start the break and look for early/easy offensive scores (and again, JV is a very good defensive rebounder).

It's a noteworthy stat as long as the true context of the stat is preserved, ie: Individual Offensive Rating should not be associated with a players ability to score efficiently, nor should Individual Defensive Rating be associated to how well a player can defend (1on1 or within team defensive rotations).

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!
I also didn't quite understand the ORTG/DRTG in nba.com since they are presented "per player" and it wasn't clear whatsoever that it was the team's rating when the player was on the court.

But, back to the original stat. I'm thinking it could be useful for, say, compare bigs against bigs and guards against guards?
Also, it has to be an statistical fact that guards (at least offensively) get a bigger bump since they shoot more threes... can the rebounding be the equalizer in that sense?

Thanks again guys.

[vini_vidi_vici]

With the individual ORtgs/DRtgs, they weight individual rebounds vs team rebounds into the calculations (ORBs into ORtgs, DRBs into DRtgs). JV nabs over 47% of the team's ORBs on the season, hence he gets a heavier bump in his ORtg from his offensive rebounding role on the team as compared to say a guard who's main responsibility is transition defense (granted he is in that role because he is a fantastic offensive rebounder). Conversely, he corals 39% of the defensive rebounds, so again, he gets a heavier bump in his DRtg than a guard since again, a guards role is to fill lanes, start the break and look for early/easy offensive scores (and again, JV is a very good defensive rebounder).

It's a noteworthy stat as long as the true context of the stat is preserved, ie: Individual Offensive Rating should not be associated with a players ability to score efficiently, nor should Individual Defensive Rating be associated to how well a player can defend (1on1 or within team defensive rotations).

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!
I also didn't quite understand the ORTG/DRTG in nba.com since they are presented "per player" and it wasn't clear whatsoever that it was the team's rating when the player was on the court.

But, back to the original stat. I'm thinking it could be useful for, say, compare bigs against bigs and guards against guards?
Also, it has to be an statistical fact that guards (at least offensively) get a bigger bump since they shoot more threes... can the rebounding be the equalizer in that sense?

Thanks again guys.

So theres alot going on that many have touched on.

iORTG/iDRTG are also box score metrics, so if it isnt within a boxscore, its not likely to show.

In a later chapter of Basketball on Paper, Oliver emphasized that Offensive Ratings shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum. Introducing a concept he called "Skill Curves", he acknowledged that a player's ORtg needed to be judged in conjunction with his Usage Rate, a measure of how big a role the player fills in his team's offense. The bigger the role, the more difficult it is to maintain a high ORtg; the smaller the role, the easier it is to be highly efficient. Because of this, Oliver stressed that a player's ORtg should primarily be compared to those of other players in a similar role.

Out of necessity (owing to a lack of defensive data in the basic boxscore), individual Defensive Ratings are heavily influenced by the team's defensive efficiency. They assume that all teammates are equally good (per minute) at forcing non-steal turnovers and non-block misses, as well as assuming that all teammates face the same number of total possessions per minute.

Perhaps as a byproduct, big men tend to have the best Defensive Ratings (although Oliver notes that history's best defensive teams were generally anchored by dominant defensive big men, suggesting that those types of players are the most important to a team's defensive success). A corollary to this is that excellent perimeter defenders who don't steal the ball a lot — for instance, Joe Dumars or Doug Christie — are underrated defensively by DRtg, and are prone to look only as good as their team's overall defense performs.

So as Dean notes, youre probably better to use iORTG in terms of comparing guys with similar USG rates and roles. Which is alot harder to do for obvious reasons.

You probably wont like hearing this, and I assume youre a novice in analytics, but the best way to compare players is using a myriad of statistics to get the best possible results. Its difficult to say because _____ has a similar iORTG/PER/etc.. (all encompassing statistics) to _____, they are comparable. The upside is we have so many statistics and different variations of boxscore/non boxscore metrics we can refer to. FWIW, im not a big fan of iRTGs, but thats because I think you can get better results breaking down the minutiae with different metrics and extrapolating from those instead of a one stop statistic.

[Buff]

So theres alot going on that many have touched on.

iORTG/iDRTG are also box score metrics, so if it isnt within a boxscore, its not likely to show.

In a later chapter of Basketball on Paper, Oliver emphasized that Offensive Ratings shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum. Introducing a concept he called "Skill Curves", he acknowledged that a player's ORtg needed to be judged in conjunction with his Usage Rate, a measure of how big a role the player fills in his team's offense. The bigger the role, the more difficult it is to maintain a high ORtg; the smaller the role, the easier it is to be highly efficient. Because of this, Oliver stressed that a player's ORtg should primarily be compared to those of other players in a similar role.

Out of necessity (owing to a lack of defensive data in the basic boxscore), individual Defensive Ratings are heavily influenced by the team's defensive efficiency. They assume that all teammates are equally good (per minute) at forcing non-steal turnovers and non-block misses, as well as assuming that all teammates face the same number of total possessions per minute.

Perhaps as a byproduct, big men tend to have the best Defensive Ratings (although Oliver notes that history's best defensive teams were generally anchored by dominant defensive big men, suggesting that those types of players are the most important to a team's defensive success). A corollary to this is that excellent perimeter defenders who don't steal the ball a lot — for instance, Joe Dumars or Doug Christie — are underrated defensively by DRtg, and are prone to look only as good as their team's overall defense performs.

So as Dean notes, youre probably better to use iORTG in terms of comparing guys with similar USG rates and roles. Which is alot harder to do for obvious reasons.

That'll make sense. In reality, the original question was about the obvious difference between that metric and others used around here. Like I said, the confusion came from the poor disclosure that the nbs stats were team related stats. Now, of course, that quote clarifies any remaining questions. Thanks.

You probably wont like hearing this, and I assume youre a novice in analytics,

If it helps I have developed models to detect money laundering that are analyzing millions of transactions as we speak, but yeah, I have never done sports analytics

but the best way to compare players is using a myriad of statistics to get the best possible results. Its difficult to say because _____ has a similar iORTG/PER/etc.. (all encompassing statistics) to _____, they are comparable. The upside is we have so many statistics and different variations of boxscore/non boxscore metrics we can refer to. FWIW, im not a big fan of iRTGs, but thats because I think you can get better results breaking down the minutiae with different metrics and extrapolating from those instead of a one stop statistic.

You are not going to like this, but this approach caters more to people fishing for a combination of stats that back there own hypothesis. This is unfortunate but I understand it is the nature of the beast. The downside, obviously, that "proving" a formula is biased can be, depending on the formula, the basis for a phd.

I have, in fact, thought of writing an app that will take the end result you are looking for and it would search for a combination of stats proving that point. It would be useless, but priceless for arguments in here

Thanks for your time, it was a great post.