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

[GeorgeMarcus]

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.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but there's no way I'm going through the same conversation over again. The stats never said he was a net negative player, I never said he was a net negative player, and as far as I'm aware not one person in this thread said he was a net negative player.

For the last time before I drive myself nuts, the stats say exactly these 2 things:

(1) he has been outscored while on the court and (2) that his team has performed more efficiently without him than with him.

[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?

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.

I didn’t know that Luka is playing alone in the court. His lineup was out scored. That’s why you normally use +/- to compare different lineups of the team and not to measure players impact. But let say you’re right and he’s the reason that Mavs are loosing. Wouldn’t that stats in this case make him negative player? Because OP is saying that he isn’t negative player. Which is very strange to me.

[Bob8]

No:

But your stats, on which you’re basing your conclusions, are saying that he’s net-negative player.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but there's no way I'm going through the same conversation over again. The stats never said he was a net negative player, I never said he was a net negative player, and as far as I'm aware not one person in this thread said he was a net negative player.

For the last time before I drive myself nuts, the stats say exactly these 2 things:

(1) he has been outscored while on the court and (2) that his team has performed more efficiently without him than with him.

I asked you before and you didn’t answer me,

How can a player who’s out scored on the floor and his team perform more efficiently without him not be a negative player?

[carlquincy]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but there's no way I'm going through the same conversation over again. The stats never said he was a net negative player, I never said he was a net negative player, and as far as I'm aware not one person in this thread said he was a net negative player.

For the last time before I drive myself nuts, the stats say exactly these 2 things:

(1) he has been outscored while on the court and (2) that his team has performed more efficiently without him than with him.

I dont understand. Whats the difference between your conclusion and "net negative"?

[Sactowndog]

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.

I didn’t know that Luka is playing alone in the court. His lineup was out scored. That’s why you normally use +/- to compare different lineups of the team and not to measure players impact. But let say you’re right and he’s the reason that Mavs are loosing. Wouldn’t that stats in this case make him negative player? Because OP is saying that he isn’t negative player. Which is very strange to me.

He is not using plus minus alone. He has a matrix and Luka is alone among the top 50 players in the negative / negative box. Those are factual statements to which he asked why Mav’s fans thought it was true.

Saying Luka is a net negative player is an opinion that might be supported by the above facts and contradicted by others. Being unwilling to opine from those two factual statements is not a contradiction. It is merely looking for more evidence before stating an opinion.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I dont understand. Whats the difference between your conclusion and "net negative"?

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.

I didn’t know that Luka is playing alone in the court. His lineup was out scored. That’s why you normally use +/- to compare different lineups of the team and not to measure players impact. But let say you’re right and he’s the reason that Mavs are loosing. Wouldn’t that stats in this case make him negative player? Because OP is saying that he isn’t negative player. Which is very strange to me.

The stats don't "make" him anything or say anything beyond the 2 points already discussed. They aren't all-encompassing impact metrics, which set their sights on unobtainable goals IMO.

Consider this an exact analogy for the disconnect in our conversation:
Person A: the Blazers are 4-8 so I don't think they're a contender this year
Person B: going 4-8 doesn't mean they're a subpar team
Person A: True- it doesn't mean that- but it does mean they lost more games than they won, which I used to support my theory about not being a contender.

[Bob8]

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.

I didn’t know that Luka is playing alone in the court. His lineup was out scored. That’s why you normally use +/- to compare different lineups of the team and not to measure players impact. But let say you’re right and he’s the reason that Mavs are loosing. Wouldn’t that stats in this case make him negative player? Because OP is saying that he isn’t negative player. Which is very strange to me.

He is not using plus minus alone. He has a matrix and Luka is alone among the top 50 players in the negative / negative box. Those are factual statements to which he asked why Mav’s fans thought it was true.

Saying Luka is a net negative player is an opinion that might be supported by the above facts and contradicted by others. Being unwilling to opine from those two factual statements is not a contradiction. It is merely looking for more evidence before stating an opinion.

But what then means that negative/negative box? Being outscored and less efficient than your teammates? What this make you?

Btw, did you look who is in SI top 60 and what season they have? Luka alone being in that box should ring alarms in OP’s head, that something unusual is with this data and that’s not Luka not being a star.

[Bob8]

I dont understand. Whats the difference between your conclusion and "net negative"?

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.

I didn’t know that Luka is playing alone in the court. His lineup was out scored. That’s why you normally use +/- to compare different lineups of the team and not to measure players impact. But let say you’re right and he’s the reason that Mavs are loosing. Wouldn’t that stats in this case make him negative player? Because OP is saying that he isn’t negative player. Which is very strange to me.

The stats don't "make" him anything or say anything beyond the 2 points already discussed. They aren't all-encompassing impact metrics, which set their sights on unobtainable goals IMO.

Consider this an exact analogy for the disconnect in our conversation:
Person A: the Blazers are 4-8 so I don't think they're a contender this year
Person B: going 4-8 doesn't mean they're a subpar team
Person A: True- it doesn't mean that- but it does mean they lost more games than they won, which I used to support my theory about not being a contender.

Ok. Negative/Negative box is not making you negative player but it means you’re not a star. And authority for that conclusion is you? Because if team is playing worse with you than without you, you’re a negative player. But here we have a problem, don’t we? You can try to sell how Luka is not a star, but to be a negative player is a bit too much.

[kazyv]

ok, after reading the thread for a while i think i can summarize a couple of important points.

+- data is not very useful for the purpose of evaluating single players.
the classification of single players done in the op was done with +- data.
this pretty much makes the classification not very credible. as it is a lot of times with correlation, it doesn't have to mean much.

basically, op asked for the explanation for the doncic outlier on the premise that the model is valid. it has not proven to be valid so far, so this discussion is going nowhere.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I dont understand. Whats the difference between your conclusion and "net negative"?

I didn’t know that Luka is playing alone in the court. His lineup was out scored. That’s why you normally use +/- to compare different lineups of the team and not to measure players impact. But let say you’re right and he’s the reason that Mavs are loosing. Wouldn’t that stats in this case make him negative player? Because OP is saying that he isn’t negative player. Which is very strange to me.

The stats don't "make" him anything or say anything beyond the 2 points already discussed. They aren't all-encompassing impact metrics, which set their sights on unobtainable goals IMO.

Consider this an exact analogy for the disconnect in our conversation:
Person A: the Blazers are 4-8 so I don't think they're a contender this year
Person B: going 4-8 doesn't mean they're a subpar team
Person A: True- it doesn't mean that- but it does mean they lost more games than they won, which I used to support my theory about not being a contender.

Ok. Negative/Negative box is not making you negative player but it means you’re not a star. And authority for that conclusion is you?

There are no authorities in matters of truth.

I gave evidence to support my conclusion. Nobody is forcing you to be compelled by it. Some people will be, others won't, and most will land somewhere in between. Such is life.

[GeorgeMarcus]

ok, after reading the thread for a while i think i can summarize a couple of important points.

+- data is not very useful for the purpose of evaluating single players.
the classification of single players done in the op was done with +- data.
this pretty much makes the classification not very credible. as it is a lot of times with correlation, it doesn't have to mean much.

basically, op asked for the explanation for the doncic outlier on the premise that the model is valid. it has not proven to be valid so far, so this discussion is going nowhere.

[Bob8]

The stats don't "make" him anything or say anything beyond the 2 points already discussed. They aren't all-encompassing impact metrics, which set their sights on unobtainable goals IMO.

Consider this an exact analogy for the disconnect in our conversation:
Person A: the Blazers are 4-8 so I don't think they're a contender this year
Person B: going 4-8 doesn't mean they're a subpar team
Person A: True- it doesn't mean that- but it does mean they lost more games than they won, which I used to support my theory about not being a contender.

Ok. Negative/Negative box is not making you negative player but it means you’re not a star. And authority for that conclusion is you?

There are no authorities in matters of truth.

I gave evidence to support my conclusion. Nobody is forcing you to be compelled by it. Some people will be, others won't, and most will land somewhere in between. Such is life.

What evidence, except +/- on/off, which makes Luka, if we believe that those data really measures players impact, net- negative player?

When you say that Luka is a negative player, we can discuss about your stats. Until then any discussion is futile, because your conclusions are not based on your stats.

[Bob8]

The stats don't "make" him anything or say anything beyond the 2 points already discussed. They aren't all-encompassing impact metrics, which set their sights on unobtainable goals IMO.

Consider this an exact analogy for the disconnect in our conversation:
Person A: the Blazers are 4-8 so I don't think they're a contender this year
Person B: going 4-8 doesn't mean they're a subpar team
Person A: True- it doesn't mean that- but it does mean they lost more games than they won, which I used to support my theory about not being a contender.

Ok. Negative/Negative box is not making you negative player but it means you’re not a star. And authority for that conclusion is you?

There are no authorities in matters of truth.

I gave evidence to support my conclusion. Nobody is forcing you to be compelled by it. Some people will be, others won't, and most will land somewhere in between. Such is life.

I would be very disappointed in people, if most will land somewhere in between.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Ok. Negative/Negative box is not making you negative player but it means you’re not a star. And authority for that conclusion is you?

There are no authorities in matters of truth.

I gave evidence to support my conclusion. Nobody is forcing you to be compelled by it. Some people will be, others won't, and most will land somewhere in between. Such is life.

What evidence, except +/- on/off, which makes Luka, if we believe that those data really measures players impact, net- negative player?

When you say that Luka is a negative player, we can discuss about your stats. Until then any discussion is futile, because your conclusions are not based on your stats.

I'm genuinely astounded right now. At this point I can only hope you're trolling me, in which case well done for stringing me along all this time.

[Pg81]

ok, after reading the thread for a while i think i can summarize a couple of important points.

+- data is not very useful for the purpose of evaluating single players.
the classification of single players done in the op was done with +- data.
this pretty much makes the classification not very credible. as it is a lot of times with correlation, it doesn't have to mean much.

basically, op asked for the explanation for the doncic outlier on the premise that the model is valid. it has not proven to be valid so far, so this discussion is going nowhere.

'
Even if +/- would be an indicator for individual performance, a singular stat never has and never will be particularly helpful to evaluate a player. If you want to evaluate a player, you have to take many stats and their circumstances into account. That is why I find this thread and the OP utterly pointless and not helpful, especially in conjunction with the thread title.

[NotMyKawhi]

Luka can ball idc what the advanced stats say.

His team is just horrible. Dwright is the 3rd best player on that team. He was the Raptors 9th best player. Depth matters. you can't just have 2 guys

[reflex35]

Sorry to say that but it's Ben Simmons.

And it's not about stats.
Everytime I watch him trying to play a better defensive team he absolutely useless in full-court play.
If the opposing team does not let him run that is it. (not only for him but it creates issues for Philly too)
He can't shoot, he can't put his team into a proper offence once everything slows down.

Maybe that is because he should not be a point guard.
Move him to point forward. But you can't do that with Embiid and Horford...
I am waiting because he's young but I don't see him being an elite point guard ever. Or Philly just does not suit him

[Archx]

Luka is up there with the very best of them which also proves that your +/- stats are team based and shouldn't be a measurement for individual performances.

Read on Twitter

And here is why individual players shouldn't be valued based on +/-. Luka is backpacking this team to the freaking Moon and back and they are still 6-5. I would look in other direction to see why his +/- doesn't look so good.

Read on Twitter

[Sactowndog]

I didn’t know that Luka is playing alone in the court. His lineup was out scored. That’s why you normally use +/- to compare different lineups of the team and not to measure players impact. But let say you’re right and he’s the reason that Mavs are loosing. Wouldn’t that stats in this case make him negative player? Because OP is saying that he isn’t negative player. Which is very strange to me.

He is not using plus minus alone. He has a matrix and Luka is alone among the top 50 players in the negative / negative box. Those are factual statements to which he asked why Mav’s fans thought it was true.

Saying Luka is a net negative player is an opinion that might be supported by the above facts and contradicted by others. Being unwilling to opine from those two factual statements is not a contradiction. It is merely looking for more evidence before stating an opinion.

But what then means that negative/negative box? Being outscored and less efficient than your teammates? What this make you?

Btw, did you look who is in SI top 60 and what season they have? Luka alone being in that box should ring alarms in OP’s head, that something unusual is with this data and that’s not Luka not being a star.

You sound like too many Americans. My opinion must be true therefore your facts are wrong because I can’t square them with my opinion.

[Sactowndog]

Luka is up there with the very best of them which also proves that your +/- stats are team based and shouldn't be a measurement for individual performances.

Read on Twitter

And here is why individual players shouldn't be valued based on +/-. Luka is backpacking this team to the freaking Moon and back and they are still 6-5. I would look in other direction to see why his +/- doesn't look so good.

Read on Twitter

Again he provided complementary stats and correlated them with other players. He not just using plus minus but also on off stats. When the vast majority of perceived top players are in the positive positive box and players on even worse teams are positive / negative, it shows his model has validity.

He admitted this year has a sample size problem but when taken in context with last year it shows the continuation of a trend.