A player whose impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)

[Archx]

Offensive and Defensive rating emphasize counting stats. On Defense, Doncic does nothing but hunt steals and rebounds. A perfect example was the Knicks game tonight where he gave up a couple drives. When he wasn’t doing that, the Knicks put him in a pick and roll where Doncic made no effort to fight over the pick or recover. Over that time the Knicks significantly increased their lead.

You know Luka is a superstar when people start cherry picking dumb things about him and even start making stuff up.

Looking at the NYK game, what did you want him to do? Because it felt like he was literally doing everything this game. Yes, agreed he could have shot better BUT he provided 80% of the Mavs offense in the 1st Q, he helped them with assists in the 2nd Q, Mavs at the end never trailed by a large margin. He also kept them in the game in the 3rd with 14 straight points if i am not mistaken. He got so many Knicks players in foul trouble that one of them fouled out at the end. Also had 3 steals and a block and only 3 TO's. Mavs had 21 assists, 11 of those came from Luka. Bench couldn't provide any reasonable playmaking, at some point in the 4th Q, Wright simply stopped dribbling, and because he couldn't get the shot off, he simply waited till the shot clock runs out, they were that bad.

Trying to pin point this loss on Luka because he missed a couple of defensive assignments is mind boggling. NYK shot 43% from 3, that's also Doncic's fault, right?

Nah, what the original poster is saying is stop calling Luka a superstar when he obviously hasn't earned it.

Devin Booker is putting up a much more efficient season and it's having an impact on winning, yet you guys will NEVER say Devin is a superstar.

Superstars are made in the playoffs. Once Luka drags the Mavs there and puts up numbers to help then succeed, we can then start having the superstar conversation.

It's just annoying you guys are throwing Superstar around and being so damn hyperbolic. Luka's great by the way, but his stans are worst thing to happen to the nba in a while.

Superstar is a very subjective criteria. People call Irving superstar, while i don't. I also called Luka jokingly a superstar because people are nit picking and looking at every small excuse to denounce his success in his 2nd season so far.

Devin Booker is not more efficient than Luka and is also not a better overall player. Scorer? Maybe...If you think Mavs would have more wins without Doncic, you're not watching games then. A lot of those loses were also seriously close because Luka made it possible.

But first it was said that Luka won't be able to play in the NBA, now he is re-writing history almost every week and somehow we still have to blame him for Mavs losses. And i am pretty sure you experience the same thing with Trae, so you know what i am talking about.

People who try to speak reason and defend him with various stats and eye test are in my opinion not problematic, but it's quite the opposite, some are looking for such ridiculous things to bring him down and without any concept or proper knowledge on how Mavs play.

[deneem4]

This thread is telling me luka is like mvp James harden without the winning impact

[Bob8]

This thread is telling me luka is like mvp James harden without the winning impact

That’s a compliment, it looks that Luka made a long way from Hezonja and Turkoglu comparisons. I’m sure you know that 20 years old Harden was 10/3/2 player.

[Alyosha12]

Offensive and Defensive rating emphasize counting stats. On Defense, Doncic does nothing but hunt steals and rebounds. A perfect example was the Knicks game tonight where he gave up a couple drives. When he wasn’t doing that, the Knicks put him in a pick and roll where Doncic made no effort to fight over the pick or recover. Over that time the Knicks significantly increased their lead.

You know Luka is a superstar when people start cherry picking dumb things about him and even start making stuff up.

Looking at the NYK game, what did you want him to do? Because it felt like he was literally doing everything this game. Yes, agreed he could have shot better BUT he provided 80% of the Mavs offense in the 1st Q, he helped them with assists in the 2nd Q, Mavs at the end never trailed by a large margin. He also kept them in the game in the 3rd with 14 straight points if i am not mistaken. He got so many Knicks players in foul trouble that one of them fouled out at the end. Also had 3 steals and a block and only 3 TO's. Mavs had 21 assists, 11 of those came from Luka. Bench couldn't provide any reasonable playmaking, at some point in the 4th Q, Wright simply stopped dribbling, and because he couldn't get the shot off, he simply waited till the shot clock runs out, they were that bad.

Trying to pin point this loss on Luka because he missed a couple of defensive assignments is mind boggling. NYK shot 43% from 3, that's also Doncic's fault, right?

Nah, what the original poster is saying is stop calling Luka a superstar when he obviously hasn't earned it.

Devin Booker is putting up a much more efficient season and it's having an impact on winning, yet you guys will NEVER say Devin is a superstar.

Superstars are made in the playoffs. Once Luka drags the Mavs there and puts up numbers to help then succeed, we can then start having the superstar conversation.

It's just annoying you guys are throwing Superstar around and being so damn hyperbolic. Luka's great by the way, but his stans are worst thing to happen to the nba in a while.

Interesting you should bring up Booker of all people. For the past 3 years people were saying hes stats and play do not translate to wins, because the Suns sucked so bad. Now that they actually have a normal team around him and are wining he somehow became an impact player whose game translates to wins.

Isn't it interesting what a quality built team does in a team sport? Who knew...

[leolozon]

This thread is telling me luka is like mvp James harden without the winning impact

Yeah, he plays a lot like Harden (even though just 20yo, so I wouldn't say he's like MVP Harden) . But once again, how to define winning impact of a single player when the starters around him are clearly worst?

Paul, Capela, Gordon/Ariza/Tucker were clearly better as a group than Porzingis (not the idea of him, but how he plays), DFS, Curry and Powell.

2nd best player on the Mavs has probably been Delon Wright, and he's just playing 23mpg on the second unit.

People are just overrating what a single player can do. Booker is a prime example of that this year like it has been said. KAT too, suddenly doesn't put up empty stats when Wiggins show up... what a weird coincidence that someone else playing well means that another player's stats aren't empty anymore.

Even Michael Jordan couldn't lead his team to a winning record in his 3rd year at 23yo, putting up 37ppg, playing 40mpg. It not only took MJ, but also a little of Pippen and Grant + Oakley being slightly better to help them get to a winning record. And then it took Pippen becoming a bonafide great two-way player, and Oakley and Armstrong to get even better for them to get to the next level in 1991.

It's a team game, but people always want to forget about it because it's simpler and I guess more fun to argue about individual players.

[Sactowndog]

Regarding RPM: you know what that stat is designed to do? It's designed to approximate RAPM, so it can be used in smaller sample sizes. If we direct our attention to the number it's trying to emulate, Luka's RAPM last season was -0.3068. Even if we took RPM as scripture, Luka ranked 86th last season at +1.29. Significantly worse than any other player regarded as a star. I repeat: I'm not saying Luka is a negative impact player. I'm saying he doesn't provide star impact (yet).

Hey GeorgeMarcus, great OP and great thread.

I agree with you 100% about last season. As I stated in the first week of this season, I didn't/don't believe Doncic was a top 30 player last season.

The fatal flaw in your idea, in my opinion, is that you're putting last season's sample size of 2,318 minutes and this season's sample size of 348 minutes on apparently equal footing. Certainly, this season hasn't contradicted the idea that he's not yet a superstar, but I think you're jumping the gun.

This season, I think that over time you'll find he's made a huge leap. (I'm assuming you haven't watched more than one or two of his games this season?) The tweet posted about Porzingis' minutes and +/- is relevant, no? Assuming that KP and Doncic have been sharing the floor a lot? And given that this time with Porzingis is already weighing down this season, it may take a little longer for Doncic to dig out of this +/- hole.

For sure, many are overrating him this season as they did last season (Bill Simmons having him as a top 2 MVP candidate is laughable), but I think he's much closer to superstar impact than this single, small-sample-sized metric implies, and I think that by the All-Star break, even this metric will make that clear.

EDIT: I'm reminded of Westbrook being -46 against Miami and +40 against Golden State this season. Imagine if he'd rested one of those games. In short, it's just too early to use +/- for this season.

Thanks man, I think you addressed the 2 most acceptable explanations: KP and sample size from this year’s dataset. KP has played 64.4% of Luka’s on minutes and 43.1% of Luka’s off minutes, which is enough of a correlation to affect Luka’s on/off. For Luka to be double digit negative is still note worthy, but palatable this early in the season.

I do think the data last year shows that he wasn’t the star some touted him to be as a rookie, but he’s certainly on the trajectory to become one.

I agree it’s early but certainly interesting. While KP and Luka may be correlated but if you are looking for causation you would have to look at other data sets. Does KP have a history of also being negative negative?

[scrabbarista]

Hey GeorgeMarcus, great OP and great thread.

I agree with you 100% about last season. As I stated in the first week of this season, I didn't/don't believe Doncic was a top 30 player last season.

The fatal flaw in your idea, in my opinion, is that you're putting last season's sample size of 2,318 minutes and this season's sample size of 348 minutes on apparently equal footing. Certainly, this season hasn't contradicted the idea that he's not yet a superstar, but I think you're jumping the gun.

This season, I think that over time you'll find he's made a huge leap. (I'm assuming you haven't watched more than one or two of his games this season?) The tweet posted about Porzingis' minutes and +/- is relevant, no? Assuming that KP and Doncic have been sharing the floor a lot? And given that this time with Porzingis is already weighing down this season, it may take a little longer for Doncic to dig out of this +/- hole.

For sure, many are overrating him this season as they did last season (Bill Simmons having him as a top 2 MVP candidate is laughable), but I think he's much closer to superstar impact than this single, small-sample-sized metric implies, and I think that by the All-Star break, even this metric will make that clear.

EDIT: I'm reminded of Westbrook being -46 against Miami and +40 against Golden State this season. Imagine if he'd rested one of those games. In short, it's just too early to use +/- for this season.

Thanks man, I think you addressed the 2 most acceptable explanations: KP and sample size from this year’s dataset. KP has played 64.4% of Luka’s on minutes and 43.1% of Luka’s off minutes, which is enough of a correlation to affect Luka’s on/off. For Luka to be double digit negative is still note worthy, but palatable this early in the season.

I do think the data last year shows that he wasn’t the star some touted him to be as a rookie, but he’s certainly on the trajectory to become one.

I agree it’s early but certainly interesting. While KP and Luka may be correlated but if you are looking for causation you would have to look at other data sets. Does KP have a history of also being negative negative?

Not sure, but I think KP's injury history is more relevant than his playing history - for the time being: he's been inactive for a long, long time. A good place to find causation is in, um, the actual games. As in, by watching them. I've watched a handful of Mavs games, or more, and KP clearly hasn't yet become comfortable on offense. There have been individual plays where he's looked unbelievably bad. He just hasn't found his rhythm, timing, comfort zone, vision, etc.. The NBA game moves faster now than ever before, and he was never known as a natural decision maker anyway. Although he's getting more confident with each passing week, he still needs time to become himself again. And, of course, you could argue that he was never his developed "self" anyway, because he was only like 22 when he got hurt.

[GeorgeMarcus]

They are very flawed, cause they are telling you, as an example, that Tim Hardaway Junior is a great player while Doncic is not. They are just statistics, but if you want to use these as a basis of a model and the model give you absurd results, again, your reasoning is flawed and your model as well.

Models need to fit reality. If your model doesn't, first consideration should be your model is not that good.

In this particular case, also, given the strnght of your assumption, i.e. Doncic is not a superstar level inpact player, a more proper approach would be collect A LOT of data and A LOT of statistics and then make your conclusions.

You cherry picked two interssting stats and are ignoring basically all the others which describe Doncic as a superstar. Also, you are completely ignoring qualitative judments made by coaches, professionals,players. You decide to oversimplify a question and try to find a solution using a model you created which also give you absurd results. It is like assuming water is always in a solid state cause you once had ice in your drink.

Want to use statistics? Consider a wide range of stats and see which result you end up with.

A LOT of data went into the numbers I used. You're fundamentally misunderstanding my approach on multiple levels. If you understood what I did and the significance of those values, your defense would be to present confounding variables that influence those results. Not deny them altogether. There's a reason why he was the only player out of the top 61 to meet the criteria.

I am not misunderstanding anything. You are misunderstanding your own work and fail to uderstand the basic concepts of statistics, building a model and interpretation of results. In a scientific environment, your approach would result only in a lot of laughs and you are failing to recognise it. You would not pass a college exam with this kind of approach.

Anyway, go on and best of luck, I am done here and for sure I don't want to be the one discussing against the "prophet of the +/- impact model" which is going to relegate Doncic on the bench. I am sure your crusade will lead to Doncic being cut by Mavs by Christmas and being forgotten by general public, you just need a bigger audience.

Sure, we are fundamentally misunderstanding your great model, it's not that you are looking at a single stats without context. Please make some Youtube videos so that you can spread your theory to the world. We are so much in need to be educated and we all wish so much to see THJ winning the MVP.

You keep calling it a "model". It's not a model. Once again, I described the direct implications of the stats in the OP. They're not abstract or contrived or subjective; they give us easily digestible information to work with. The fact that you keep using the THJ example just shows you don't understand the implications, especially after I specifically referenced how rotation players can be affected by these numbers. Stars are a different animal though, and that's why Luka's numbers are so glaring compared to every other star in the league. Those are just the facts, Jack.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I partly agree with you. The problem is that this thread was made yesterday, using 10 games numbers, with only 1 clear objective, show how bad Luka is. OP was pretty sure what this numbers mean. Luka is massively overrated player.
+/- is and will always be wrong stat to measure player impact. You might use it just as complementary data, but that’s more or less it. What I can see from this lineups comparison stats is, that Mavs are far from playoffs team. They need another 2 solid starter that will enable starting unit to be competitive against the best teams. And there is another problem for the Mavs, it’s highly unlikely that Luka can play like that the whole season. I expect a drop in his performance.

It worries me whenever I see "this stat is not right" because of one player. With all due respect, surely you have to see the flaw in dismissing a stat that correlates positively with good players except for one guy, because of that one guy. Why not discuss the reasons for Luka's poor stats (which I see you've done) and apply context instead of dismissing the stat as a whole?

It's even more worrying because we all know that in a few year's time, if Luka becomes as good as we all think, this same stat will paint him in a positive light right alongside the other stars, and there won't be anyone questioning it as you're doing now.

Thank you- very well put.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Watch the game @Knicks and you will have all the answers. Luka is struggling from the field but without him the Mavs would be down double digits. Nobody can hit a shot. They miss open layups, uncontested putbacks and wide open 3s.
Luka scored 13 of 23 points and had 2 assists. Responsible for 80% of the Mavs offense. That´s not how it should be but there is no other option right now.

The bolded should reveal itself in the on/off data. Perhaps it will overtime, but it hasn't yet.

But you see, in this logic lays your fault. It is not true that the bolded would reveal itself in on/off. Not necessarily at least.

Firstly you are using average stas, not median stats. One game could throw your whole metric off balance, which it did (the Denver game). Luka's on/off for the first 10 games has been positive 6 times and negative 4 times. So he is a net positive player on average.

Even with that, both on/off and+/- have the same flaw, which is that the premise for them both is, all things being equal if a player is on court the team scores this much if he is not, they score or are scored on this much. The fundamental flaw with this is, that all things are never equal. The same situation in game never happens. Both +/- and on/off don't take into account game flow and momentum.

Who is to say that in the first 5 minutes of the game and Luka plays and Dallas is losing by 10 (his +/- then being -10) Dallas wouldn't be losing by 20 if THJ was playing instead of him? You would say, well THJ's +/- numbers say that ofcourse, which is incorrect. THJ's +/- and on/off only say that the next 5 minutes he plays the team does better. But those 5 minutes of the game are not the same as the previous ones. May be the opposite team exhausted themselves trying desperately to take that 20 pt run, or may be their run was broken by a timely pass, a timely 3pt etc. The point is, you can't know, how THJ would have done in the first 5 minutes instead of Luka. YOu can only know, how he does after Luka based on on/off and +/-.

The second fault, from an impact perspective is that +/- tracks score shifts, but doesn't track runs. It doesn't track how a player can take over a game. For example, lets say Luka plays the first 10 minutes, Dallas is loosing by 10 for those 10 minutes and his +/- being -10. He goes and sits, THJ comes in, the score shifts by 2, THJ is at +2. Luka comes back in, the teams trade baskets but the score doesn't shift, his +/1 stays -10. THJ comes in again, Kleber makes a 3 to end the second q, THJ's +/- is now +5. Dallas is still down 5. THJ starts the third, Dallas starts strong shifting the score by 3, THJ'S +/- is now +8, he fouls the opposing player, who is rewarded 2 FTS. Before he takes them, THJ is subbed out and Luka is Subbed in, the opposing player makes both FTs, Luka's +/- is now -12. Dallas is down by 4 now.

Luka takes over the game and is crucial in a 10-0 run. Dallas takes the lead by 6, and is able to hold the lead till the end of the game. Luka has a +/- of -2, THJ has a +/- of +8. The impact Luka had on the game is huge, he was responsible for the lead change and Dallas taking over the game, however +/- doesn't show that. It doesn't show the impact, it doesn't show the influence Luka had on the game momentum. That is impact, that is superstar power. Taking over a game. Imposing your will on the other team, your rhythm. IMO that is why your model is flawed.

Though TBH, i do think you are on to something, and that is, that Dallas is not using Luka correctly, and i still stand by my statement, that having him at PG is not the best thing for any team. He is not a true PG and game flow does seem to suffer because of it. Thats what I think at least. Him at SG and a an aggressive PG like Rose, Dragic, CP3 or Fox, would be amazing.

Though it could be like someone said in another thread that Carlisle is grooming him into a superstar, that is why he is giving him the usage he has atm. Which also might be true.

1) Of course I used average stats over median stats. Including each possession makes the numbers much more accurate/informative. The rotation argument only goes so far when 3 of the starters allegedly weighing him down have better on/offs than Luka's.
2) "Taking over a game" is a simplistic narrative that generally only focuses on one side of the ball. I've heard people say the same thing about Kyrie, despite his defensive vulnerabilities and tendency to stagnate the rest of the offense while "taking over".

I appreciate that you addressed lineup fit, and I don't object to that being a contributing factor. When the team accumulates more data, it will be easier to compare different lineups with Luka to put that theory to the test. The problem certainly isn't Luka's ability, but that's not the problem with Kyrie either. The challenge is harnessing that ability in a way that translates to team success, which understandably takes time for young players. I have no doubt Luka will get there in time, but I'm not convinced he's there yet. There is plenty of season left for me to be convinced otherwise.

For the record, I study these stats religiously for every player in the NBA. I'm not cherry picking or painting an agenda based-narrative here. That's why I took the time to clarify each step in the process, which individually aren't controversial. Beyond that- and this is important- I never stated I believe Luka is a net-negative player. That's not the point of the post. The point is that I don't think his impact is on par with true stars at this point in his career.

[bran muffin]

According to these On/Off statistics this season (per 100 possessions):

-13.6 = Luka
-22.5 = Porzingis
+16.1 = Tim Hardaway Jr
+20.1 = Jalen Brunson
+29.0 = Boban Marjanovic

So according to you guys, the Mavs will be a better team if they replace Luka/KP with THJ/Boban in the starting lineup... right?

[GeorgeMarcus]

According to these On/Off statistics this season (per 100 possessions):

-13.6 = Luka
-22.5 = Porzingis
+16.1 = Tim Hardaway Jr
+20.1 = Jalen Brunson
+29.0 = Boban Marjanovic

So according to you guys, the Mavs will be a better team if they replace Luka/KP with THJ/Boban in the starting lineup... right?

No, that is not my argument at all.

[Pumpkin17]

A LOT of data went into the numbers I used. You're fundamentally misunderstanding my approach on multiple levels. If you understood what I did and the significance of those values, your defense would be to present confounding variables that influence those results. Not deny them altogether. There's a reason why he was the only player out of the top 61 to meet the criteria.

I am not misunderstanding anything. You are misunderstanding your own work and fail to uderstand the basic concepts of statistics, building a model and interpretation of results. In a scientific environment, your approach would result only in a lot of laughs and you are failing to recognise it. You would not pass a college exam with this kind of approach.

Anyway, go on and best of luck, I am done here and for sure I don't want to be the one discussing against the "prophet of the +/- impact model" which is going to relegate Doncic on the bench. I am sure your crusade will lead to Doncic being cut by Mavs by Christmas and being forgotten by general public, you just need a bigger audience.

Sure, we are fundamentally misunderstanding your great model, it's not that you are looking at a single stats without context. Please make some Youtube videos so that you can spread your theory to the world. We are so much in need to be educated and we all wish so much to see THJ winning the MVP.

You keep calling it a "model". It's not a model. Once again, I described the direct implications of the stats in the OP. They're not abstract or contrived or subjective; they give us easily digestible information to work with. The fact that you keep using the THJ example just shows you don't understand the implications, especially after I specifically referenced how rotation players can be affected by these numbers. Stars are a different animal though, and that's why Luka's numbers are so glaring compared to every other star in the league. Those are just the facts, Jack.

The facts, "Jack", are that Doncic is a great basketball player, a phenomenal one actually given he is 20yo.

I already told you I am done here, "Jack", I have no interest in discussing with people failing to recognise reality and pretending 1 on 100 statistics means anything, without having the basic understanding of the matter. You are entitled to believe what you want.

So please, "Jack", feel free to go hunting for unicorns in the woods or looking for the edge of the world with your friend the cookie monster, that's none of my business.

Hey "Jack", a side note, while you are in fantasyland, try to have a look, maybe you will find Ben Simmons' jumpshot.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I am not misunderstanding anything. You are misunderstanding your own work and fail to uderstand the basic concepts of statistics, building a model and interpretation of results. In a scientific environment, your approach would result only in a lot of laughs and you are failing to recognise it. You would not pass a college exam with this kind of approach.

Anyway, go on and best of luck, I am done here and for sure I don't want to be the one discussing against the "prophet of the +/- impact model" which is going to relegate Doncic on the bench. I am sure your crusade will lead to Doncic being cut by Mavs by Christmas and being forgotten by general public, you just need a bigger audience.

Sure, we are fundamentally misunderstanding your great model, it's not that you are looking at a single stats without context. Please make some Youtube videos so that you can spread your theory to the world. We are so much in need to be educated and we all wish so much to see THJ winning the MVP.

You keep calling it a "model". It's not a model. Once again, I described the direct implications of the stats in the OP. They're not abstract or contrived or subjective; they give us easily digestible information to work with. The fact that you keep using the THJ example just shows you don't understand the implications, especially after I specifically referenced how rotation players can be affected by these numbers. Stars are a different animal though, and that's why Luka's numbers are so glaring compared to every other star in the league. Those are just the facts, Jack.

The facts, "Jack", are that Doncic is a great basketball player, a phenomenal one actually given he is 20yo.

I already told you I am done here, "Jack", I have no interest in discussing with people failing to recognise reality and pretending 1 on 100 statistics means anything, without having the basic understanding of the matter. You are entitled to believe what you want.

So please, "Jack", feel free to go hunting for unicorns in the woods or looking for the edge of the world with your friend the cookie monster, that's none of my business.

Hey "Jack", a side note, while you are in fantasyland, try to have a look, maybe you will find Ben Simmons' jumpshot.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I'm the first person to say Ben needs to take jumpers. Idk if you meant for me to take offense to that or what, but analysis is not emotional for me. I would be doing myself a disservice if it was. I guess that's why I can see what you refuse to.

C'est la vie, happy trails.

[Bob8]

According to these On/Off statistics this season (per 100 possessions):

-13.6 = Luka
-22.5 = Porzingis
+16.1 = Tim Hardaway Jr
+20.1 = Jalen Brunson
+29.0 = Boban Marjanovic

So according to you guys, the Mavs will be a better team if they replace Luka/KP with THJ/Boban in the starting lineup... right?

No, that is not my argument at all.

If I understand you right. Luka is not negative player, just not a star, even though your stats are clearly saying that he’s a negative player. And THJ, Brunson... are not positive players, even though your stats are saying, that they are very positive players. You basically don’t even need stats to make your conclusions, even more, your conclusions are in direct contradiction of stats that you’re using. Interesting. Too bad we didn’t know all this before. It would be much shorter debate.

[GeorgeMarcus]

According to these On/Off statistics this season (per 100 possessions):

-13.6 = Luka
-22.5 = Porzingis
+16.1 = Tim Hardaway Jr
+20.1 = Jalen Brunson
+29.0 = Boban Marjanovic

So according to you guys, the Mavs will be a better team if they replace Luka/KP with THJ/Boban in the starting lineup... right?

No, that is not my argument at all.

If I understand you right. Luka is not negative player, just not a star, even though your stats are clearly saying that he’s a negative player. And THJ, Brunson... are not positive players, even though your stats are saying, that they are positive players. You basically don’t even need stats to make your conclusions, even more, your conclusions are in direct contradiction of stats that you’re using. Interesting.

My stats are not 'clearly saying he's a negative player'. My stats are saying (1) he has been outscored while on the court and (2) that his team has performed more efficiently without him than with him.

Different people can and will interpret information differently. I gave my interpretation and backed it up with more evidence to support my conclusion. I even asked Mavs fans if they could help me understand some of the influencing factors that I might be missing, but unfortunately I've been defending myself against straw men for most of the discussion.

[Bob8]

No, that is not my argument at all.

If I understand you right. Luka is not negative player, just not a star, even though your stats are clearly saying that he’s a negative player. And THJ, Brunson... are not positive players, even though your stats are saying, that they are positive players. You basically don’t even need stats to make your conclusions, even more, your conclusions are in direct contradiction of stats that you’re using. Interesting.

My stats are not 'clearly saying he's a negative player'. My stats are saying (1) he has been outscored while on the court and (2) that his team has performed more efficiently without him than with him.

Different people can and will interpret information differently. I gave my interpretation and backed it up with more evidence to support my conclusion. I even asked Mavs fans if they could help me understand some of the influencing factors that I might be missing, but unfortunately I've been defending myself against straw men for most most of the discussion.

How can a player who’s out scored on the floor and his team perform more efficiently without him be a positive player?

[GeorgeMarcus]

If I understand you right. Luka is not negative player, just not a star, even though your stats are clearly saying that he’s a negative player. And THJ, Brunson... are not positive players, even though your stats are saying, that they are positive players. You basically don’t even need stats to make your conclusions, even more, your conclusions are in direct contradiction of stats that you’re using. Interesting.

My stats are not 'clearly saying he's a negative player'. My stats are saying (1) he has been outscored while on the court and (2) that his team has performed more efficiently without him than with him.

Different people can and will interpret information differently. I gave my interpretation and backed it up with more evidence to support my conclusion. I even asked Mavs fans if they could help me understand some of the influencing factors that I might be missing, but unfortunately I've been defending myself against straw men for most most of the discussion.

How can a player who’s out scored on the floor and his team perform more efficiently without him be a positive player?

No:

I never stated I believe Luka is a net-negative player. That's not the point of the post. The point is that I don't think his impact is on par with true stars at this point in his career.

[Sactowndog]

If I understand you right. Luka is not negative player, just not a star, even though your stats are clearly saying that he’s a negative player. And THJ, Brunson... are not positive players, even though your stats are saying, that they are positive players. You basically don’t even need stats to make your conclusions, even more, your conclusions are in direct contradiction of stats that you’re using. Interesting.

My stats are not 'clearly saying he's a negative player'. My stats are saying (1) he has been outscored while on the court and (2) that his team has performed more efficiently without him than with him.

Different people can and will interpret information differently. I gave my interpretation and backed it up with more evidence to support my conclusion. I even asked Mavs fans if they could help me understand some of the influencing factors that I might be missing, but unfortunately I've been defending myself against straw men for most most of the discussion.

How can a player who’s out scored on the floor and his team perform more efficiently without him be a positive player?

Isn’t that a question for you to answer? It is kind of the point of the OP.

The fact that Luka is out scored on the floor and his team is more efficient without him was true last year and true for an 1/8 th of this year. Both those things are factual statements.

[Bob8]

My stats are not 'clearly saying he's a negative player'. My stats are saying (1) he has been outscored while on the court and (2) that his team has performed more efficiently without him than with him.

Different people can and will interpret information differently. I gave my interpretation and backed it up with more evidence to support my conclusion. I even asked Mavs fans if they could help me understand some of the influencing factors that I might be missing, but unfortunately I've been defending myself against straw men for most most of the discussion.

How can a player who’s out scored on the floor and his team perform more efficiently without him be a positive player?

No:

I never stated I believe Luka is a net-negative player. That's not the point of the post. The point is that I don't think his impact is on par with true stars at this point in his career.

But your stats, on which you’re basing your conclusions, are saying that he’s net-negative player. It’s irrelevant what you believe. You just cannot discard stats that you’re using, just to have conclusion, which is in line of your agenda, but in same time not overly bad for Luka, because it would be laughable how 30/10/10, very efficient player, is one of the worst players in Mavs team.

Either is your conclusion wrong or your stats totally unrepresentative, you cannot have both. Luka is a net-negative player or stats are unrepresentative to measure players impact on the team. You must choose one.