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

[Pg81]

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.

No, he did not. Without Doncic the Mavs would not have won 3 games this year. Anyone who watches the games and takes ALL stats into account can see that Doncic by far has the most impact on that Mavs team. Him playing around with +/- and on/off without taking anythine else into account, never mind that neither stat is of much value due to sample size and that they are line up dependent, is cherry picking to futher a narrative.

[juju14]

You mean 2 seasons? He was wildly positive by season 3. Generally volume scorers who are getting acclimated to the league do not provide positive impact right away.

4th and 5th seasons..KD had negative on off

What I am trying to say is on off and impact may be correlated, but using it while disregarding other stats showing otherwise can lead to poor analysis.

That's not true; 4th season his on/off was -0.6 and 5th season it was +1.9. This thread was about using on-court and on/off in conjunction though, and KD was +4.0 and +7.1 on-court during those seasons. So not the same thing. I never have and never would rate players strictly on on/off.

What your numbers saying about Luka huh?

[Mulhollanddrive]

Who put their Tinder matches in a graph?

[Bob8]

It needed only 4 games for this narrative to be exposed. Not only that Luka is not negative anymore, there are more than few negative players in SI top 60. It just shows how useless and unpredictable this +/- is. On the other hand, now I understand more, why GeorgeMarcus was so in hurry to publish the narrative. It was great window of opportunity for his narrative, because it was the only moment in the season, where Luka was the only SI top 60 being negative/negative. Kinda sad if I may add.

[scrabbarista]

It needed only 4 games for this narrative to be exposed. Not only that Luka is not negative anymore, there are more than few negative players in SI top 60. It just shows how useless and unpredictable this +/- is. On the other hand, now I understand more, why GeorgeMarcus was so in hurry to publish the narrative. It was great window of opportunity for his narrative, because it was the only moment in the season, where Luka was the only SI top 60 being negative/negative. Kinda sad if I may add.

To be fair, Luka was a double negative last season. GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic when I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test. He fully agreed that more time was needed to see if the trend continued. Nothing "sad" about it. He even put "(yet)" in the title. Maybe "yet" has come! (Although, to be honest, his reputation is probably still outpacing his impact, lol, because his reputation is blowing up.)

[User_friendly]

It needed only 4 games for this narrative to be exposed. Not only that Luka is not negative anymore, there are more than few negative players in SI top 60. It just shows how useless and unpredictable this +/- is. On the other hand, now I understand more, why GeorgeMarcus was so in hurry to publish the narrative. It was great window of opportunity for his narrative, because it was the only moment in the season, where Luka was the only SI top 60 being negative/negative. Kinda sad if I may add.

To be fair, Luka was a double negative last season. GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic when I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test. He fully agreed that more time was needed to see if the trend continued. Nothing "sad" about it. He even put "(yet)" in the title. Maybe "yet" has come! (Although, to be honest, his reputation is probably still outpacing his impact, lol, because his reputation is blowing up.)

Yes but we has kind of deactivating the Doncic impact, and the bomb exploted in his face.
I bet (yet) didn't mean 4 games for him.

[Bob8]

It needed only 4 games for this narrative to be exposed. Not only that Luka is not negative anymore, there are more than few negative players in SI top 60. It just shows how useless and unpredictable this +/- is. On the other hand, now I understand more, why GeorgeMarcus was so in hurry to publish the narrative. It was great window of opportunity for his narrative, because it was the only moment in the season, where Luka was the only SI top 60 being negative/negative. Kinda sad if I may add.

To be fair, Luka was a double negative last season. GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic when I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test. He fully agreed that more time was needed to see if the trend continued. Nothing "sad" about it. He even put "(yet)" in the title. Maybe "yet" has come! (Although, to be honest, his reputation is probably still outpacing his impact, lol, because his reputation is blowing up.)

And I wouldn't say anything, if he made analysis for his rookie year. It's really rare that rookies in a bad team have positive +/-, it was even worse situation for Luka, because Dallas traded all other 4 starters + Barrea had longterm injury. Prime Lebron would have big problems playing with last years Mavs roster. Did Marcus talked about his last or this season?

The problem with GeorgeMarcus's analysis is that he was talking about this season using mostly old data, knowing that Mavs and Luka are totally different this year. Name of the thread is provocative by purpose and conclusions are laughable. The man is alpha and omega of the winning Mavs team, averaging 30/10/10 with fantastic 62.5% TS, best BPM and VORP in the league. And he doesn't have positive effect? The most funny thing is, that his best game this season, considering everything, opponent and D. on him, was against Boston, when he had -17 +/-, although he was the only reason Mavs being in the game till last few minutes. That just shows how strange can +/- behave.
GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic? What could he do except admit, that 10 games average of incredible violative +/- is to small sample size? But that didn't stop him to announce his great discovery.

You will need to decide on which side you're. If you're saying that his analysis is o.k., then you believe,

1. Luka's impact is negative.
2. He's the only player in SI top 60 with negative impact.
3. Delon Wright has similar impact than Luka. GeorgeMarcus specifically said that.

At the moment, when he admitted that sample size is too small, his analysis should went directly into garbage bin. And at the moment, when he said Delon and Luka have similar impact, we should know, that he is clueless how Mavs are playing.

[scrabbarista]

It needed only 4 games for this narrative to be exposed. Not only that Luka is not negative anymore, there are more than few negative players in SI top 60. It just shows how useless and unpredictable this +/- is. On the other hand, now I understand more, why GeorgeMarcus was so in hurry to publish the narrative. It was great window of opportunity for his narrative, because it was the only moment in the season, where Luka was the only SI top 60 being negative/negative. Kinda sad if I may add.

To be fair, Luka was a double negative last season. GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic when I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test. He fully agreed that more time was needed to see if the trend continued. Nothing "sad" about it. He even put "(yet)" in the title. Maybe "yet" has come! (Although, to be honest, his reputation is probably still outpacing his impact, lol, because his reputation is blowing up.)

And I wouldn't say anything, if he made analysis for his rookie year. It's really rare that rookies in a bad team have positive +/-, it was even worse situation for Luka, because Dallas traded all other 4 starters + Barrea had longterm injury. Prime Lebron would have big problems playing with last years Mavs roster. Did Marcus talked about his last or this season?

The problem with GeorgeMarcus's analysis is that he was talking about this season using mostly old data, knowing that Mavs and Luka are totally different this year. Name of the thread is provocative by purpose and conclusions are laughable. The man is alpha and omega of the winning Mavs team, averaging 30/10/10 with fantastic 62.5% TS, best BPM and VORP in the league. And he doesn't have positive effect? The most funny thing is, that his best game this season, considering everything, opponent and D. on him, was against Boston, when he had -17 +/-, although he was the only reason Mavs being in the game till last few minutes. That just shows how strange can +/- behave.
GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic? What could he do except admit, that 10 games average of incredible violative +/- is to small sample size? But that didn't stop him to announce his great discovery.

You will need to decide on which side you're. If you're saying that his analysis is o.k., then you believe,

1. Luka's impact is negative.
2. He's the only player in SI top 60 with negative impact.
3. Delon Wright has similar impact than Luka. GeorgeMarcus specifically said that.

At the moment, when he admitted that sample size is too small, his analysis should went directly into garbage bin. And at the moment, when he said Delon and Luka have similar impact, we should know, that he is clueless how Mavs are playing.

I've already posted in this thread saying "Which side I'm on." In fact, it's in a post you quoted. (See above, in this comment.) Let me help you out by posting it again: "I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test." I posted all of this to the OP. I specifically used the phrase "huge leap." In fact, I posted within minutes of first seeing Luka play this season (it may have been preseason, I can't remember - but it was very early) that he was clearly much, much better this year. I remember ClipsFan saying, "Let's wait and see," and I responded, "No need. It's obvious." I'd go and find these posts and share them with you if I cared enough about your opinion. I also told the OP - in this thread, you can find it - that his post read like someone who had likely not really watched Luka play this season.

I don't remember anyone saying Delon and Luka have similar impact. I didn't see it in the OP. Quote it for me (with context), and I can respond.

OP did not say Luka is the only player in the top 60 with negative impact. He never said (in the OP) that Luka has a negative impact. He said Luka was the only player in the top 60 who had a negative +/- and a negative on-off differential last season, and that he was also negative in both again in his first ten games this season. All true facts. Then he said Luka hadn't (after ten games this season) established himself as having a true superstar impact. I agreed. Key phrase being "established himself." You can also go back and read my responses to the OP in which I stated, "Luka is much closer to superstar impact than your post implies, and by the All-Star break at the latest, I think even these +/- and on-off numbers will bear that out." Clearly, Luka didn't have a superstar impact last season, or he wouldn't have been the only player in the top 61 with a double negative (the OP says this is normal for a rookie, which, of course, it is).

Eh. I'm already getting fed up. This is turning into a "he said, she said" conversation. I'm not really interested in spending my time correcting misquotations, misinterpretations, exaggerations, straw men, and assumptions. No one was trying to discredit Luka in the OP. He was merely pointing out a very interesting statistical phenomena, one that clearly seemed to indicate that Luka did not have a superstar impact in his first 82 NBA games. For some reason, you seem convinced that "not superstar" equals "negative." I don't follow you very well on that one.

Sigh. Again, I'll say I don't really have the patience for this kind of discussion where everything that's said has to be rehashed and reframed and reinterpreted ad nauseum. At a certain point, reading comprehension and giving posters a fair shake and the benefit of the doubt should be the order of the day; when they aren't, I always try to have the good sense to disengage. If you respond to this, I'll read you carefully, but if I still find you misrepresenting the posts of others, I'll just leave your comments alone.

[Bob8]

To be fair, Luka was a double negative last season. GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic when I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test. He fully agreed that more time was needed to see if the trend continued. Nothing "sad" about it. He even put "(yet)" in the title. Maybe "yet" has come! (Although, to be honest, his reputation is probably still outpacing his impact, lol, because his reputation is blowing up.)

And I wouldn't say anything, if he made analysis for his rookie year. It's really rare that rookies in a bad team have positive +/-, it was even worse situation for Luka, because Dallas traded all other 4 starters + Barrea had longterm injury. Prime Lebron would have big problems playing with last years Mavs roster. Did Marcus talked about his last or this season?

The problem with GeorgeMarcus's analysis is that he was talking about this season using mostly old data, knowing that Mavs and Luka are totally different this year. Name of the thread is provocative by purpose and conclusions are laughable. The man is alpha and omega of the winning Mavs team, averaging 30/10/10 with fantastic 62.5% TS, best BPM and VORP in the league. And he doesn't have positive effect? The most funny thing is, that his best game this season, considering everything, opponent and D. on him, was against Boston, when he had -17 +/-, although he was the only reason Mavs being in the game till last few minutes. That just shows how strange can +/- behave.
GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic? What could he do except admit, that 10 games average of incredible violative +/- is to small sample size? But that didn't stop him to announce his great discovery.

You will need to decide on which side you're. If you're saying that his analysis is o.k., then you believe,

1. Luka's impact is negative.
2. He's the only player in SI top 60 with negative impact.
3. Delon Wright has similar impact than Luka. GeorgeMarcus specifically said that.

At the moment, when he admitted that sample size is too small, his analysis should went directly into garbage bin. And at the moment, when he said Delon and Luka have similar impact, we should know, that he is clueless how Mavs are playing.

I've already posted in this thread saying "Which side I'm on." In fact, it's in a post you quoted. (See above, in this comment.) Let me help you out by posting it again: "I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test." I posted all of this to the OP. I specifically used the phrase "huge leap." In fact, I posted within minutes of first seeing Luka play this season (it may have been preseason, I can't remember - but it was very early) that he was clearly much, much better this year. I remember ClipsFan saying, "Let's wait and see," and I responded, "No need. It's obvious." I'd go and find these posts and share them with you if I cared enough about your opinion. I also told the OP - in this thread, you can find it - that his post read like someone who had likely not really watched Luka play this season.

I don't remember anyone saying Delon and Luka have similar impact. I didn't see it in the OP. Quote it for me (with context), and I can respond.

OP did not say Luka is the only player in the top 60 with negative impact. He never said (in the OP) that Luka has a negative impact. He said Luka was the only player in the top 60 who had a negative +/- and a negative on-off differential last season, and that he was also negative in both again in his first ten games this season. All true facts. Then he said Luka hadn't (after ten games this season) established himself as having a true superstar impact. I agreed. Key phrase being "established himself." You can also go back and read my responses to the OP in which I stated, "Luka is much closer to superstar impact than your post implies, and by the All-Star break at the latest, I think even these +/- and on-off numbers will bear that out." Clearly, Luka didn't have a superstar impact last season, or he wouldn't have been the only player in the top 61 with a double negative (the OP says this is normal for a rookie, which, of course, it is).

Eh. I'm already getting fed up. This is turning into a "he said, she said" conversation. I'm not really interested in spending my time correcting misquotations, misinterpretations, exaggerations, straw men, and assumptions. No one was trying to discredit Luka in the OP. He was merely pointing out a very interesting statistical phenomena, one that clearly seemed to indicate that Luka did not have a superstar impact in his first 82 NBA games. For some reason, you seem convinced that "not superstar" equals "negative." I don't follow you very well on that one.

Sigh. Again, I'll say I don't really have the patience for this kind of discussion where everything that's said has to be rehashed and reframed and reinterpreted ad nauseum. At a certain point, reading comprehension and giving posters a fair shake and the benefit of the doubt should be the order of the day; when they aren't, I always try to have the good sense to disengage. If you respond to this, I'll read you carefully, but if I still find you misrepresenting the posts of others, I'll just leave your comments alone.

He was talking about this year, nobody normal would assume that anybody can have superstar impact from the start of his career.

I agree it's enough, for the end only this, you can read in previous page, "The very question you're asking doesn't make sense based on the very long/very repetitive conversation we've already had about the stats. If you're asking me who the Mavs best player is, I'd say Luka. A guy like Delon Wright probably rivals his impact though at this stage in his career. KP may as well if he gets his **** together."

[leolozon]

It needed only 4 games for this narrative to be exposed. Not only that Luka is not negative anymore, there are more than few negative players in SI top 60. It just shows how useless and unpredictable this +/- is. On the other hand, now I understand more, why GeorgeMarcus was so in hurry to publish the narrative. It was great window of opportunity for his narrative, because it was the only moment in the season, where Luka was the only SI top 60 being negative/negative. Kinda sad if I may add.

To be fair, Luka was a double negative last season. GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic when I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test. He fully agreed that more time was needed to see if the trend continued. Nothing "sad" about it. He even put "(yet)" in the title. Maybe "yet" has come! (Although, to be honest, his reputation is probably still outpacing his impact, lol, because his reputation is blowing up.)

And I wouldn't say anything, if he made analysis for his rookie year. It's really rare that rookies in a bad team have positive +/-, it was even worse situation for Luka, because Dallas traded all other 4 starters + Barrea had longterm injury. Prime Lebron would have big problems playing with last years Mavs roster. Did Marcus talked about his last or this season?

The problem with GeorgeMarcus's analysis is that he was talking about this season using mostly old data, knowing that Mavs and Luka are totally different this year. Name of the thread is provocative by purpose and conclusions are laughable. The man is alpha and omega of the winning Mavs team, averaging 30/10/10 with fantastic 62.5% TS, best BPM and VORP in the league. And he doesn't have positive effect? The most funny thing is, that his best game this season, considering everything, opponent and D. on him, was against Boston, when he had -17 +/-, although he was the only reason Mavs being in the game till last few minutes. That just shows how strange can +/- behave.
GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic? What could he do except admit, that 10 games average of incredible violative +/- is to small sample size? But that didn't stop him to announce his great discovery.

You will need to decide on which side you're. If you're saying that his analysis is o.k., then you believe,

1. Luka's impact is negative.
2. He's the only player in SI top 60 with negative impact.
3. Delon Wright has similar impact than Luka. GeorgeMarcus specifically said that.

At the moment, when he admitted that sample size is too small, his analysis should went directly into garbage bin. And at the moment, when he said Delon and Luka have similar impact, we should know, that he is clueless how Mavs are playing.

I disagreed with GeorgeMarcus’ conclusion and expressed it, but I think you’re taking this really personally even making a lot of jokes about it in other threads like “But Wright is better than Luka according to GeorgeMarcus.”. GeorgeMarcus put his opinion out there respectfully. I feel a bit of relentlessness from you and I’m wondering if you’ll bring this back all season long?

I think +/- is flawed and is dependant on a lot of external factors, but you have to let it go at some point, right?

[Bob8]

To be fair, Luka was a double negative last season. GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic when I pointed out that this was a small sample size, KP was probably pulling Doncic down, and Doncic had clearly taken a huge leap based on the eye test. He fully agreed that more time was needed to see if the trend continued. Nothing "sad" about it. He even put "(yet)" in the title. Maybe "yet" has come! (Although, to be honest, his reputation is probably still outpacing his impact, lol, because his reputation is blowing up.)

And I wouldn't say anything, if he made analysis for his rookie year. It's really rare that rookies in a bad team have positive +/-, it was even worse situation for Luka, because Dallas traded all other 4 starters + Barrea had longterm injury. Prime Lebron would have big problems playing with last years Mavs roster. Did Marcus talked about his last or this season?

The problem with GeorgeMarcus's analysis is that he was talking about this season using mostly old data, knowing that Mavs and Luka are totally different this year. Name of the thread is provocative by purpose and conclusions are laughable. The man is alpha and omega of the winning Mavs team, averaging 30/10/10 with fantastic 62.5% TS, best BPM and VORP in the league. And he doesn't have positive effect? The most funny thing is, that his best game this season, considering everything, opponent and D. on him, was against Boston, when he had -17 +/-, although he was the only reason Mavs being in the game till last few minutes. That just shows how strange can +/- behave.
GeorgeMarcus was more than diplomatic? What could he do except admit, that 10 games average of incredible violative +/- is to small sample size? But that didn't stop him to announce his great discovery.

You will need to decide on which side you're. If you're saying that his analysis is o.k., then you believe,

1. Luka's impact is negative.
2. He's the only player in SI top 60 with negative impact.
3. Delon Wright has similar impact than Luka. GeorgeMarcus specifically said that.

At the moment, when he admitted that sample size is too small, his analysis should went directly into garbage bin. And at the moment, when he said Delon and Luka have similar impact, we should know, that he is clueless how Mavs are playing.

I disagreed with GeorgeMarcus’ conclusion and expressed it, but I think you’re taking this really personally even making a lot of jokes about it in other threads like “But Wright is better than Luka according to GeorgeMarcus.”. GeorgeMarcus put his opinion out there respectfully. I feel a bit of relentlessness from you and I’m wondering if you’ll bring this back all season long?

I think +/- is flawed and is dependant on a lot of external factors, but you have to let it go at some point, right?

I believe we will end this nonsense as soon RPM and RAPM come out.

[LipSkinMatter]

All the guys who love Luka BLINDLY know every advanced stat until it shows Luka in a bad light. Then it is his teammates fault. Luka is a very good player. Proabably the best player still on a rookie deal but people trying to annoint him into a top 10 player this early are jumping the gun. He has a ways to go.

Yeah maybe when he has a 45 PER and .600 WS/48 he can crack that top 10!

[LipSkinMatter]

You mean the guy with the hightest +/- of anybody in the league (by far) Jayson Tatum? Or is there another Jayson Tatum that you are thinking of?

Yup, and this is partly what I’m talking about. The whole Celtics starting unit has gaudy +/- #s. If you’re referring to his OFF numbers which make it look like the Celtics offense just can’t possibly function without his 39% FG% and middling to below average play making then yeah I call BS.

He’s been Celtics 4th best player so far this year. To hear Celtics fans talk about it he’s this untradable all star, future MVP candidate and I just don’t see it. I don’t see that type of impact when I watch him play. He’s a good three point shooter and system defender. He doesn’t get to the rim or play make for others. He’s a one to two dribble player with a tendency to float in the offense. Obviously he has talent and I’m not saying he can’t one day be a great player with a lot of improvement but as the thread title says right now he’s someone who’s on court impact doesn’t match the reputation he has among NBA fans as this sure fire potential top 10 guy.

Do you even realize what your are saying? Nobody in the NBA right now affects his team as much as Tatum does. The Celtics have the best record in basketball, and Tatum is the guy who is doing the most to accomplish that. Yes, he had a bad (OK really bad) shooting game, any yet he still had a positive affect on the game. Is he perfect? Of course not. Can he improve aspects of his game? Of course. But right now, whenever he's on the floor, he is helping his team win more than anybody else in the league (again, by quite a wide margin). If you think that is over-rated, I don't know what to say. Tatum's reputation is growing quickly this season as not just an offensive player, but as an all-around player. He is one of the better defenders on the team, as well as one of their first choices on the offensive end. The Celtics are a much better team whenever Tatum is on the floor, and yet you seem to think that he is over-rated, or that he's not living up to his reputation. What does he have to do to impress you? Does he need to score 40 points a game? Does he need to average a triple double? Right now he's doing exactly what Boston needs him to do, and he's doing it at an incredible rate (better than any other name you can throw out there). Not only is Tatum living up to his reputation, but he's playing much better than it.

You think Tatum is one of the best players in the NBA? My lawd. I'm a fan of the player but his advanced numbers literally paint him as a league average player. This TS% is hovering around .500 right now. If anything Tatum performing so well in on/off shows you how meaningless it is.

[DiogoLandim]

Marcus never liked Doncic. You can write in a polite way, try to "uncover" the magic behind player impact using +/- as the true measure, this fact won't change. The fact that we even had a lot of people agreeing with him in this post is laughabe.

Sometimes I wonder how many people really watch games in this forum, to someone think that THJ and Delon are more impactful players on that team haha. I'll glad bump this thread by the end of the season, already knowing he'll be locked, like some recent topics with terrible assertments from mods.

[Ron Swanson]

Yes, it was an inaccurate anomaly that painted Luka as a negative impact player at any point this season. conversely, and hypocritically, that's not stopping a lot of people from saying that he's the next Jordan and "already" on the level of the reigning MVP after 14 NBA basketball games. Pumping the brakes on this kind of stuff goes both ways.

[DoItALL9]

"Doncic Defenders" showed out in this thread

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

[Bob8]

"Doncic Defenders" showed out in this thread

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

...and Professor Moriarty.

[Joshyjess]

Yup, and this is partly what I’m talking about. The whole Celtics starting unit has gaudy +/- #s. If you’re referring to his OFF numbers which make it look like the Celtics offense just can’t possibly function without his 39% FG% and middling to below average play making then yeah I call BS.

He’s been Celtics 4th best player so far this year. To hear Celtics fans talk about it he’s this untradable all star, future MVP candidate and I just don’t see it. I don’t see that type of impact when I watch him play. He’s a good three point shooter and system defender. He doesn’t get to the rim or play make for others. He’s a one to two dribble player with a tendency to float in the offense. Obviously he has talent and I’m not saying he can’t one day be a great player with a lot of improvement but as the thread title says right now he’s someone who’s on court impact doesn’t match the reputation he has among NBA fans as this sure fire potential top 10 guy.

Do you even realize what your are saying? Nobody in the NBA right now affects his team as much as Tatum does. The Celtics have the best record in basketball, and Tatum is the guy who is doing the most to accomplish that. Yes, he had a bad (OK really bad) shooting game, any yet he still had a positive affect on the game. Is he perfect? Of course not. Can he improve aspects of his game? Of course. But right now, whenever he's on the floor, he is helping his team win more than anybody else in the league (again, by quite a wide margin). If you think that is over-rated, I don't know what to say. Tatum's reputation is growing quickly this season as not just an offensive player, but as an all-around player. He is one of the better defenders on the team, as well as one of their first choices on the offensive end. The Celtics are a much better team whenever Tatum is on the floor, and yet you seem to think that he is over-rated, or that he's not living up to his reputation. What does he have to do to impress you? Does he need to score 40 points a game? Does he need to average a triple double? Right now he's doing exactly what Boston needs him to do, and he's doing it at an incredible rate (better than any other name you can throw out there). Not only is Tatum living up to his reputation, but he's playing much better than it.

You think Tatum is one of the best players in the NBA? My lawd. I'm a fan of the player but his advanced numbers literally paint him as a league average player. This TS% is hovering around .500 right now. If anything Tatum performing so well in on/off shows you how meaningless it is.

Of course I don't think Tatum is one of the best players in the league (not even close). That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about players who impact the game. When Tatum is on the floor, he has a huge impact on the game. The Celtics are better when he is on the floor by a large amount. Whether it's his offense or his defense or whatever else he does, he helps his team play better by a very large margin. When somebody (like the original poster I responded to) says that he doesn't impact the game that is extremely foolish.
If the name of this thread was "Who is the best player in the league?" and I said Tatum, sure that would be dumb. But it's simply asking which players don't live up to their reputation when it comes to impacting a game, and there is absolutely no way that you can say that Tatum doesn't have a huge impact on the game (which his +/- numbers clearly show).

[KqWIN]

Here's the problem with some of the recent discussion in this thread. When someone says something that isn't a positive about another's favorite player, the reaction is that this an attack on this player for the sake of attacking him. To be fair, this is the nature of a lot of people that use advanced stats are just looking for something that fits their preconceived narrative. That's probably the most common use if we're being honest. There's so much out there, you can always find something that supports what you're saying.

GM and I don't agree on everything, but he argues in good faith. The post was not made to attack Luka. The post was made because Luka happened to raise some red flags with the way he analyzes everyone. If this was Giannis, LeBron, or anyone else, he probably would have made a similar post. It's was something interesting to point out, and even now Luka's on/off +/- shows a different narrative than what's often being put out there. The mere suggestion that the Mavs are positive without Luka, which isn't a suggestion as it is fact, causes a storm.

I get why people are skeptical, but there are people who form arguments and opinions because they believe in the substance and not just because it fits into a preconceived narrative. GM is one of those posters. If the numbers mattered when they are bad, they also matter when they start improving and look good. It's not an argument made for the sake of making Luka bad.

[Bob8]

Here's the problem with some of the recent discussion in this thread. When someone says something that isn't a positive about another's favorite player, the reaction is that this an attack on this player for the sake of attacking him. To be fair, this is the nature of a lot of people that use advanced stats are just looking for something that fits their preconceived narrative. That's probably the most common use if we're being honest. There's so much out there, you can always find something that supports what you're saying.

GM and I don't agree on everything, but he argues in good faith. The post was not made to attack Luka. The post was made because Luka happened to raise some red flags with the way he analyzes everyone. If this was Giannis, LeBron, or anyone else, he probably would have made a similar post. It's was something interesting to point out, and even now Luka's on/off +/- shows a different narrative than what's often being put out there. The mere suggestion that the Mavs are positive without Luka, which isn't a suggestion as it is fact, causes a storm.

I get why people are skeptical, but there are people who form arguments and opinions because they believe in the substance and not just because it fits into a preconceived narrative. GM is one of those posters. If the numbers mattered when they are bad, they also matter when they start improving and look good. It's not an argument made for the sake of making Luka bad.

It’s really easy. Anybody, who has watched all 14 games that Mavs played, couldn’t have come out with idea that Luka hasn’t positive impact on the Mavs. And even, if you haven’t watched a single game, 30/10/10, 62.5% TS, 18.5 potential assists...should warned you against making some claims based only on 10 games +/-. Just believing how Luka and Delon have similar impact shows you that something is seriously wrong. What will we say when advanced stats come out and show Luka being extremely positive? Will we say GM was wrong or will we say he’s great guy, just stop attacking him?