A player whose impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Moderators: Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285
A player whose impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- GeorgeMarcus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 17,939
- And1: 23,049
- Joined: Jun 17, 2006
A player whose impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Looking at on-court and on-off numbers in tandem can be very informative, especially with context regarding lineups/rotations. The 1st number takes a player's total +/- and averages it out over 100 possessions; the 2nd number compares his team's production with him versus without him and averages it out over 100 possessions.
These data points generate 4 general categories that players can fall into:
Positive-Positive
When the first number is positive, we know the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court. Maybe the player was vital to that success or maybe he was riding the coattails of his teammates, but at a minimum the positive number demonstrates the player can be part of a winning recipe.
When the second number is positive, we know that the team's average +/- was better with the player than without him. "But that depends on lineups/rotations" you might say, and you would be right. It's possible the player is benefitting from a more favorable position in the rotation. That said, if a player is regarded as being the clear best on his team, there really isn't an excuse for that player to have a negative on/off. Especially knowing that every NBA team staggers their rotations.
In sum, 2 positives show us the player (a) won more possessions than he lost while on the court and (b) his team produced more efficiently when he was on the court than off the court. Maybe he lucked his way into the best lineups on a great team, but it's much more likely the player provides positive impact of his own. It's no coincidence the top 16 players from RealGM's top 25 project all fall into this category. As for the 17th player, he lands in our next category...
Negative-Positive
A negative-positive tells us the player's team was outscored while he was on the court, but that the team played better with him than without him. Enter #17 ranked Bradley Beal. The Wizards were really bad last year, so it should come as no surprise that Beal had a negative +/- on the season. It's still not the highest praise given that only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative +/-, but at least he demonstrated positive impact on his own team. The same can't be said for our next example...
Positive-Negative
A positive-negative tells us the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court, but that they produced even more efficiently without him. The highest ranked player in this group would be Philly's own, Ben Simmons at #22. As the 3rd best player on last year's Sixers, many of Ben's minutes were staggered against 2 better players in Embiid and Butler. It makes sense that Simmons/Embiid or Simmons/Butler combos might not perform as well as Butler/Embiid. It's not an inditement on Ben, but it does provide further evidence that he's not the best player on the team (nor the 2nd best in last year's case). Only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative on/off, who also happens to be Beal's lone companion with a negative +/-. That player falls into our final category...
Negative-Negative
Opposite to the positive-positive distinction, the negative-negative shows us the player (a) lost more possessions than he won while on the court and (b) his team performed more efficiently without him than with him. Because there was only 1 negative-negative in the top 25 list, I wanted to see how far I could make it before finding another. Using SI's top 100, I made it all the way to #62 before I found another negative-negative. That's kind of telling, I think. In the rare cases that a star puts up a negative +/-, we should be able to say "yeah but the rest of the team was that bad." With a negative on/off however, that argument doesn't fly. If a true star can't demonstrably improve the production of a bad team, then maybe the player isn't as impactful as we believe him to be.
By now you might realize who I'm referring to. The only player in SI's top 61 players to sport a negative-negative last season was the European wonder: Luka Doncic. By rookie standards, it's really not that worrisome. In fact, the negative-negative at #62 was another rookie: Trae Young. Fast forward to this year though, and Trae has a firmly positive on/off, while Doncic is still a negative-negative 10 games into the season. So what's the deal? His box numbers have been incredible, but his impact just isn't there. Not yet at least. Is there any context Mavs fans can provide to explain what we're seeing? You can laugh off +/- and on/off numbers, but when he's the only player in the top 61 with 2 negatives, it's fair to assume his impact doesn't match his reputation. It's one thing to call him a future superstar, but a current superstar? I'm not convinced. His defense is only one part of the equation because the Mavs' offense has produced -4.6 less points per 100 possessions when Luka is on the court.
(Dirk and TexasChuck, please don't hold this thread against me )
These data points generate 4 general categories that players can fall into:
Positive-Positive
When the first number is positive, we know the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court. Maybe the player was vital to that success or maybe he was riding the coattails of his teammates, but at a minimum the positive number demonstrates the player can be part of a winning recipe.
When the second number is positive, we know that the team's average +/- was better with the player than without him. "But that depends on lineups/rotations" you might say, and you would be right. It's possible the player is benefitting from a more favorable position in the rotation. That said, if a player is regarded as being the clear best on his team, there really isn't an excuse for that player to have a negative on/off. Especially knowing that every NBA team staggers their rotations.
In sum, 2 positives show us the player (a) won more possessions than he lost while on the court and (b) his team produced more efficiently when he was on the court than off the court. Maybe he lucked his way into the best lineups on a great team, but it's much more likely the player provides positive impact of his own. It's no coincidence the top 16 players from RealGM's top 25 project all fall into this category. As for the 17th player, he lands in our next category...
Negative-Positive
A negative-positive tells us the player's team was outscored while he was on the court, but that the team played better with him than without him. Enter #17 ranked Bradley Beal. The Wizards were really bad last year, so it should come as no surprise that Beal had a negative +/- on the season. It's still not the highest praise given that only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative +/-, but at least he demonstrated positive impact on his own team. The same can't be said for our next example...
Positive-Negative
A positive-negative tells us the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court, but that they produced even more efficiently without him. The highest ranked player in this group would be Philly's own, Ben Simmons at #22. As the 3rd best player on last year's Sixers, many of Ben's minutes were staggered against 2 better players in Embiid and Butler. It makes sense that Simmons/Embiid or Simmons/Butler combos might not perform as well as Butler/Embiid. It's not an inditement on Ben, but it does provide further evidence that he's not the best player on the team (nor the 2nd best in last year's case). Only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative on/off, who also happens to be Beal's lone companion with a negative +/-. That player falls into our final category...
Negative-Negative
Opposite to the positive-positive distinction, the negative-negative shows us the player (a) lost more possessions than he won while on the court and (b) his team performed more efficiently without him than with him. Because there was only 1 negative-negative in the top 25 list, I wanted to see how far I could make it before finding another. Using SI's top 100, I made it all the way to #62 before I found another negative-negative. That's kind of telling, I think. In the rare cases that a star puts up a negative +/-, we should be able to say "yeah but the rest of the team was that bad." With a negative on/off however, that argument doesn't fly. If a true star can't demonstrably improve the production of a bad team, then maybe the player isn't as impactful as we believe him to be.
By now you might realize who I'm referring to. The only player in SI's top 61 players to sport a negative-negative last season was the European wonder: Luka Doncic. By rookie standards, it's really not that worrisome. In fact, the negative-negative at #62 was another rookie: Trae Young. Fast forward to this year though, and Trae has a firmly positive on/off, while Doncic is still a negative-negative 10 games into the season. So what's the deal? His box numbers have been incredible, but his impact just isn't there. Not yet at least. Is there any context Mavs fans can provide to explain what we're seeing? You can laugh off +/- and on/off numbers, but when he's the only player in the top 61 with 2 negatives, it's fair to assume his impact doesn't match his reputation. It's one thing to call him a future superstar, but a current superstar? I'm not convinced. His defense is only one part of the equation because the Mavs' offense has produced -4.6 less points per 100 possessions when Luka is on the court.
(Dirk and TexasChuck, please don't hold this thread against me )
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- -Sammy-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 9,967
- And1: 21,702
- Joined: Sep 03, 2014
- Location: A town where you can't smell a thing
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
I'm not typically a gif-kinda-guy, but
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- Ice Trae
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,096
- And1: 10,938
- Joined: Jan 20, 2012
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
You're a brave man GeorgeMarcus
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- GeorgeMarcus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 17,939
- And1: 23,049
- Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Ice Trae wrote:You're a brave man GeorgeMarcus
Either that or a masochist
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,711
- And1: 6,037
- Joined: Jul 28, 2017
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Wilt Chamberlain. For his reputation (how many ever women he's been with), I don't see any of his decedents making an impact in the NBA.
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,040
- And1: 12,852
- Joined: Oct 31, 2013
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
The most common explanation I've heard from Mavs fans is that they have a strong bench that skews their starter's on/off numbers.
We the Champs
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- Bornstellar
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,372
- And1: 17,314
- Joined: Mar 05, 2018
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
I saw the title an immediately thought of Ben Simmons
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- GeorgeMarcus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 17,939
- And1: 23,049
- Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
NUCKER101 wrote:The most common explanation I've heard from Mavs fans is that they have a strong bench that skews their starter's on/off numbers.
That certainly has to play a part, but even among Mavs starters he was 2nd worst last season and is 2nd worst this season. And it’s not like Carlisle uses 5 man substitutions to completely pit the starters against the bench.
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- GeorgeMarcus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 17,939
- And1: 23,049
- Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Bornstellar wrote:I saw the title an immediately thought of Ben Simmons
Don’t worry, Ben got a shout out of his own.
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,933
- And1: 10,825
- Joined: Jan 05, 2013
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Oh boy, I need to get my popcorn ready.
My eye-test told me that he was a high impact player when he played against the Celtics, so I'm actually surprised by this. I'd like an explanation from Mavs fans as well.
My eye-test told me that he was a high impact player when he played against the Celtics, so I'm actually surprised by this. I'd like an explanation from Mavs fans as well.
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 11,086
- And1: 22,412
- Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
"Ctrl F"
Type Embiid
\
Was slightly worried there for a second
Type Embiid
\
Was slightly worried there for a second
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,382
- And1: 17,764
- Joined: Apr 08, 2009
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Did anyone ever think Ben Simmons was the best player on the team?
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- zimpy27
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 39,221
- And1: 36,983
- Joined: Jul 13, 2014
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
"Let's play some basketball!" - Fergie
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,933
- And1: 10,825
- Joined: Jan 05, 2013
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
picc wrote:Did anyone ever think Ben Simmons was the best player on the team?
Ben Simmons' RealGM burner account, Ben Simmons did. Haven't heard from him in a while though.
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- GeorgeMarcus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 17,939
- And1: 23,049
- Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
reload141 wrote:"Ctrl F"
Type Embiid
\
Was slightly worried there for a second
Whoops, I meant to include Embiid in the foot notes
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,378
- And1: 12,674
- Joined: Mar 03, 2013
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Cool premise for a thread and nice job catching this in the data.
I suspect a few factors in play here:
1) It's understandable that rookies that are controlling the flow of their team's offense need a little seasoning before they learn the league
2) As a top pick with lots of hype, he would have a target on his back and players would want to make a statement against him
3) The strength of the Mavs bench could potentially be a factor
4) 10 games this year is a pretty small sample size
I suspect a few factors in play here:
1) It's understandable that rookies that are controlling the flow of their team's offense need a little seasoning before they learn the league
2) As a top pick with lots of hype, he would have a target on his back and players would want to make a statement against him
3) The strength of the Mavs bench could potentially be a factor
4) 10 games this year is a pretty small sample size
folks who quote what I wrote get choked
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,092
- And1: 7,979
- Joined: Feb 09, 2018
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
When i've read the title and saw who created this thread, i knew right away that there will be a shade thrown at Mavs and Luka.
And yes, a lot of times Rick almost makes hockey subs. Luka plays 10-12 mins in 1st Q then gets back in the 2nd Q with 4-5 mins left. Which means he plays against opposing starters again. Same stuff happens in the 2nd half. So he very rarely plays against opposing benches.
And i don't know how good your +/- will be if you play with "all time greats" like THJ. Just to further prove my point, Luka is 2nd in the NBA in potential assists at 19.1, nr1 is LBJ at 21.
And yes, a lot of times Rick almost makes hockey subs. Luka plays 10-12 mins in 1st Q then gets back in the 2nd Q with 4-5 mins left. Which means he plays against opposing starters again. Same stuff happens in the 2nd half. So he very rarely plays against opposing benches.
And i don't know how good your +/- will be if you play with "all time greats" like THJ. Just to further prove my point, Luka is 2nd in the NBA in potential assists at 19.1, nr1 is LBJ at 21.
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- GeorgeMarcus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 17,939
- And1: 23,049
- Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
dorkestra wrote:Cool premise for a thread and nice job catching this in the data.
I suspect a few factors in play here:
1) It's understandable that rookies that are controlling the flow of their team's offense need a little seasoning before they learn the league
2) As a top pick with lots of hype, he would have a target on his back and players would want to make a statement against him
3) The strength of the Mavs bench could potentially be a factor
4) 10 games this year is a pretty small sample size
Good points- and you're right about the sample size. It definitely wouldn't stand alone, but raises suspicion for me after a full season of negative-negative last year.
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
- jason bourne
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,728
- And1: 1,602
- Joined: Dec 23, 2013
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
Another opening for All-Star in the West!
“The most contrarian thing of all is not to oppose the crowd but to think for yourself.” Peter Thiel
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,067
- And1: 7,755
- Joined: Nov 08, 2009
Re: A player who's impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)
GeorgeMarcus wrote:NUCKER101 wrote:The most common explanation I've heard from Mavs fans is that they have a strong bench that skews their starter's on/off numbers.
That certainly has to play a part, but even among Mavs starters he was 2nd worst last season and is 2nd worst this season. And it’s not like Carlisle uses 5 man substitutions to completely pit the starters against the bench.
You are a smart poster, but now you’re defining impact as On-off or +/-. How Is that the definition of impact? That’s just so weird coming from you.
Carlisle has used about 7 different starting line-up. That should give you your answer. Even the coach doesn’t think he has starters on his team. The only constant is Luka. Porzingis hasn’t played well. In fact, Luka had a positive +- without Porzingis.
Either that or 28/10/9 on great efficiency has no impact.
You’re the one posting threads about how players are dependant on the team. But now this thread ask about a player without considering the concept of team. You must know that this team is constructed weirdly, with not much difference between the 2nd best (Porzingis has been up and down) and 9 or 10th best player.