eyriq wrote:GeorgeMarcus wrote:eyriq wrote:ESPN Net Points controls for rotations and is a more robust measure of plus minus. Franz still grades out better but the gap is closing and Paolo now has the slight edge on offense.
Age 20 (Paolo ’23 vs Franz ’22): Franz +0.1 vs Paolo −1.9 → Franz by ~2.0.
Age 21 (Paolo ’24 vs Franz ’23): Franz +1.4 vs Paolo −0.1 → Franz by ~1.5.
Age 22 (Paolo ’25 vs Franz ’24): Franz +2.0 vs Paolo +1.6 → Franz by ~0.4.
• Split: Paolo slightly better on offense (1.2 vs 1.0), Franz better on defense (1.0 vs 0.3).
For context 5+ typically puts in you the top five players in the world. 1.5+ puts you in the top 50.
Isn't Net Points box-generated? If so I reject the notion that it could effectively capture impact better than "pure" impact data like net rtg, on/off, and vanilla rapm. Which of course need to be viewed in context, but not lumped into a single jumbled value as many metrics have tried to do
It is play-by-play generated, not box-generated, hence it controls for rotations and other factors that what you call "pure" impact data can't control for.
So, adjusted +/- (such as RAPM) already accounts for rotations and does so in a way that requires minimal decisions on the part of the statmaker. I'm very cautious about metrics that seek to do more than this, and to feel more confident, I'd expect I'd need to see large sample evidence that Net Points ends up pretty similar to the RAPMs of the world.
This to say: There's absolutely room for better metrics to help us understand small sample, but divergence from +/- regression in the long-term to me would be indicative of there being a problem with some of the mysterious decisions Net Points are making.
If we look at nbarapm's 3-year RAPM for the past 3 years (matching Paolo's 3 years in the NBA), we get:
Paolo: Offense: -2.1 (bad), Defense: -2.7 (really bad), Overall: -4.8 (really, really bad)
Franz: Offense: +1.6 (good), Defense: +3.6 (really good), Overall: +5.2 (really, really good)
This is such a massive difference that it's hard for me to really imagine any comparably good stat doesn't tell a pretty similar story (Paolo bad, Franz good).
Now, none of this means Paolo can't become great. When players are given high primacy early in their career it's not with the expectation that they'll be effective in the role immediately, but that they'll figure it out. So many Paolo figures it out.
But:
a) Typically putative stars like this figure it out by their 3rd year if they're going to figure it out.
b) Because Paolo got named all-star in his 2nd year and has already been given a max contract, there's good reason to worry he takes that as proof he's already "figured it out" and thus doesn't need to make radical improvements to his game to justify playing time in a high primacy role.
Were I a Magic fan, I'd have been worried well before this season began.
