RealGM

If you don't know what impact stats are, they effectively use the little +/- data provided in the box score since the 96-97 season. From this data we can determine whether a team has been winning with a player on the floor and by also assessing their teammates and opponents during the time they spend on floor we can determine the positive or negative value added to winning by a player.

It's a noisy statistic but it means you can have players that don't put up many box score stats that still make a big impact, something counterintuitive to box score watchers but also the eye test as these players aren't often strong scorers or ball handlers.

So for many seasons it's been obvious that Presti has been selecting guys based on this impact, specifically been looking for the ones that have low box score stats but high impact stats numbers to surround his young on-ball core in OKC.

Now we can see the outcome is a dominant team filled with players that many wouldn't speculate were that value without impact metrics. The addition of Caruso and iHart was the big indication here, both very high impact stats guys.

So have OKC proven the value here of impact stats over traditional stats for team building?

OKC have a lot of FRPs but they actually haven't really used them (other than their own) to build this team, they could have built this team without any other teams FRPs.

The quants have been in front offices since the early-to-mid 2000s. I think DAL was one of the first? Cuban was ahead of the curve, for sure. All teams have an analytics guy/team/department these days, and it's been this way for maybe 10-15 years? Probably closer to 10. From what I've read, teams have their own proprietary statistics, metrics, & formulas. Adjusted +/- is a core ingredient to all of them, no doubt.

But just because they're there doesn't mean management listens to them.

zimpy27 wrote:OKC have a lot of FRPs but they actually haven't used them to build this team, they could have built this team without any FRPs.

Chet was the #2 pick in the draft. JWill and Wallace were lottery picks. That's your 2nd and 3rd best players and another top 7 guy.

I don't believe they could have built this team without those players.

OKC have gotten ridiculous value in several draft picks: J-Dub (late lottery pick) -> All-NBA player in his 3rd year, Dort (undrafted player) -> All-NBA Defensive Team player, Wiggins (2nd rounder) -> valuable role player.

I don't think they did anything 'special' in getting Caruso or Hartenstein, they were well-respected players in the league prior to OKC deals, and they were fitting there really well from the start.

So, their scouting department is amazing (although they had Pokusevski or Sengun blunders) and Presti is great in assets management. Not necessarily an argument for some groundbreaking use of impact stats or moneyball strategies on the market (Hartenstein was a legit starter on +4 SRS team, and Caruso had multiple All-NBA D Teams appearances prior to the trade for Giddey).

zimpy27 wrote:
OKC have a lot of FRPs but they actually haven't used them to build this team, they could have built this team without any FRPs.

They used some of those first round picks to acquire some of the players they have on their team, like Ousmane Dieng, Cason Wallace (taking on Davis Bertans' deal cost them to move up from their pick, which Dallas took Derrick Lively with), Alex Caruso (trading Josh Giddey, which they drafted with one of their first round picks), SGA (via Paul George via Victor Oladipo and Domantas Sabonis via Serge Ibaka, taken with a pick from Phoenix), etc.

I'd say their first round picks were used pretty well.

Texas Chuck wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:OKC have a lot of FRPs but they actually haven't used them to build this team, they could have built this team without any FRPs.

Chet was the #2 pick in the draft. JWill and Wallace were lottery picks. That's your 2nd and 3rd best players and another top 7 guy.

I don't believe they could have built this team without those players.

Sorry I meant other teams FRPs. I think their own is all they needed.

FrodoBaggins wrote:The quants have been in front offices since the early-to-mid 2000s. I think DAL was one of the first? Cuban was ahead of the curve, for sure. All teams have an analytics guy/team/department these days, and it's been this way for maybe 10-15 years? Probably closer to 10. From what I've read, teams have their own proprietary statistics, metrics, & formulas. Adjusted +/- is a core ingredient to all of them, no doubt.

But just because they're there doesn't mean management listens to them.

Yeah I agree but also think that management don't listen because of the deeper trust with eye tests and box Dore numbers in upper management.

If he wins, it is somewhat revolutionary for team building.

They used to use the phrase "no-stat superstar" and I think that's a fair assessment for not the players themselves (since many of them do have strong box score stats) but the impact attributes they all bring to the table.

Looking at the roster on paper, I don't think many people would guess this would be a title contender. And particularly not this early and then the team is still so young, with three (!) starters still on rookie contracts. I'm not sure anything like that has been done before.

What really distinguishes them and causes them to have no weak links is that the impact extends across role players and stars. Completely seamless construction.

This has been proven many times over the years. I remember the Raptors ended the season with 5 guys in the top-25 in RPM in 2018-19 and at that moment I knew we were a legitimate contender. Impact metrics have proven themselves to be the best predictor of success over and over again. Some are better than others though, so it's important to look at a few and to also consider context (like usage rate).

The Master wrote:OKC have gotten ridiculous value in several draft picks: J-Dub (late lottery pick) -> All-NBA player in his 3rd year, Dort (undrafted player) -> All-NBA Defensive Team player, Wiggins (2nd rounder) -> valuable role player.

I don't think they did anything 'special' in getting Caruso or Hartenstein, they were well-respected players in the league prior to OKC deals, and they were fitting there really well from the start.

So, their scouting department is amazing (although they had Pokusevski or Sengun blunders) and Presti is great in assets management. Not necessarily an argument for some groundbreaking use of impact stats or moneyball strategies on the market (Hartenstein was a legit starter on +4 SRS team, and Caruso had multiple All-NBA D Teams appearances prior to the trade for Giddey).

I'm not even sure that you can say that their scouting department did such a great job. They drafted 16 players during their rebuild and traded tons of draft picks, young players. So in that sense the outcome is from a general perspective not super impressive.

What makes them stand out is that they were together with Houston the first team (at least that I can remember) that kind of understood that based on one and done and the amount of international players the draft lottery has literally become a lottery. So the more draft picks you have the more likely ypu wind up with at least one decent player, there aren't really many "can't miss projects".

Just as an example, here are some of the players OKC actually traded after drafting them: Immanuel Quickley (picked 25th, part of the Poku trade), Alperen Sengün (picked 16th, for 2 future firsts that were used with another pick to get Ousmane Dieng), Miles McBride (picked 36th, traded for Jeremiah Robinson-Earl).

Funny enough all 3 trades were draft day trades that involved the Knicks (for Sengün at least the Dieng part).

bkkrh wrote:

The Master wrote:OKC have gotten ridiculous value in several draft picks: J-Dub (late lottery pick) -> All-NBA player in his 3rd year, Dort (undrafted player) -> All-NBA Defensive Team player, Wiggins (2nd rounder) -> valuable role player.

I don't think they did anything 'special' in getting Caruso or Hartenstein, they were well-respected players in the league prior to OKC deals, and they were fitting there really well from the start.

So, their scouting department is amazing (although they had Pokusevski or Sengun blunders) and Presti is great in assets management. Not necessarily an argument for some groundbreaking use of impact stats or moneyball strategies on the market (Hartenstein was a legit starter on +4 SRS team, and Caruso had multiple All-NBA D Teams appearances prior to the trade for Giddey).

I'm not even sure that you can say that their scouting department did such a great job. They drafted 16 players during their rebuild and traded tons of draft picks, young players. So in that sense the outcome is from a general perspective not super impressive.

What makes them stand out is that they were together with Houston the first team (at least that I can remember) that kind of understood that based on one and done and the amount of international players the draft lottery has literally become a lottery. So the more draft picks you have the more likely ypu wind up with at least one decent player, there aren't really many "can't miss projects".

Just as an example, here are some of the players OKC actually traded after drafting them: Immanuel Quickley (picked 25th, part of the Poku trade), Alperen Sengün (picked 16th, for 2 future firsts that were used with another pick to get Ousmane Dieng), Miles McBride (picked 36th, traded for Jeremiah Robinson-Earl).

Funny enough all 3 trades were draft day trades that involved the Knicks (for Sengün at least the Dieng part).

I would say in part those trades actually prove the point a bit, at least for Quickly. Would OKC be in the position it's in giving major minutes to Quickley?

Sengun is a more interesting case given his strong impact stats. I wonder how he would look giving major minutes in OKCs system.

I'm pissed at myself because I was SO close to posting a thread during FA about how it's clear what metrics the OKC FO uses/how it would push them over the top

The goal of basketball is to win, so it makes sense to evaluate players through the lens of winning as long as there's enough data/context to counter the noise

Anticon wrote:

bkkrh wrote:

The Master wrote:OKC have gotten ridiculous value in several draft picks: J-Dub (late lottery pick) -> All-NBA player in his 3rd year, Dort (undrafted player) -> All-NBA Defensive Team player, Wiggins (2nd rounder) -> valuable role player.

I don't think they did anything 'special' in getting Caruso or Hartenstein, they were well-respected players in the league prior to OKC deals, and they were fitting there really well from the start.

So, their scouting department is amazing (although they had Pokusevski or Sengun blunders) and Presti is great in assets management. Not necessarily an argument for some groundbreaking use of impact stats or moneyball strategies on the market (Hartenstein was a legit starter on +4 SRS team, and Caruso had multiple All-NBA D Teams appearances prior to the trade for Giddey).

I'm not even sure that you can say that their scouting department did such a great job. They drafted 16 players during their rebuild and traded tons of draft picks, young players. So in that sense the outcome is from a general perspective not super impressive.

What makes them stand out is that they were together with Houston the first team (at least that I can remember) that kind of understood that based on one and done and the amount of international players the draft lottery has literally become a lottery. So the more draft picks you have the more likely ypu wind up with at least one decent player, there aren't really many "can't miss projects".

Just as an example, here are some of the players OKC actually traded after drafting them: Immanuel Quickley (picked 25th, part of the Poku trade), Alperen Sengün (picked 16th, for 2 future firsts that were used with another pick to get Ousmane Dieng), Miles McBride (picked 36th, traded for Jeremiah Robinson-Earl).

Funny enough all 3 trades were draft day trades that involved the Knicks (for Sengün at least the Dieng part).

I would say in part those trades actually prove the point a bit, at least for Quickly. Would OKC be in the position it's in giving major minutes to Quickley?

Sengun is a more interesting case given his strong impact stats. I wonder how he would look giving major minutes in OKCs system.

Related to Quickley, probably not major minutes, but he would definitely be a solid player to have from the bench, kind of as we utilized him. Also, it wasn't meant as a knock against them, more to proof that it is super difficult to evaluate drafted players by now.

You can basically say that the Thunder traded for Poku in hopes that he might grow in 2-3 season into a player like Sengün, whom they drafted one year later and didn´t keep.

Guess the only real critique here and I guess that goes towards their scouting is that they kind of ignored that Sengün was super dominant in one of the best European leagues and was way ahead in accomplishments compared to Poku during his tenure in Europe. So in that sense it´s kinda weird that they didn´t go the same route that Denver did with Jokic and Nurkic and gave them 1-2 seasons to see who winds up to be the better player, especially since they traded McBride for Robinson-Earl the same day and used him as their starting Center that season. Guess it was just too tempting to receive 2 future firsts for him, on the other side they had just drafted a player at 16 that was expected to be a top 10 pick.

zimpy27 wrote:If you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

It's a noisy statistic but it means you can have players that don't put up many box score stats that still make a big impact, something counterintuitive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So have OKC proven the value here of impact stats over traditional stats for team building?

OKC have a lot of FRPs but they actually haven't really used them (other than their own) to build this team, they could have built this team without any other teams FRPs.

team A 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 =11(btw team A, okc is actually 5+1+1+1+1+1+1)
team B 5+4+1+1 =11

it doesn't matter
but injuries matter
and last year the celts showed that volume matters

it only matters when team B sustains injuries. it matters less if teamA sustains injuries

if teamB stays healthy and wins we don't have this convo

8or9 years ago there was only one curry mattered...today no one has another curry but they have a bunch of not-as-good currys

the dynamic that will change over the next few years is if there will be any healthy stars as impactful as curry.
parity has made superstars less consequential. if the universe suddenly becomes devoid of superstars the team A building will matter, but that will prolly not happen because there is ALWAYS going to be someone who stands above the rest. why should this factor cease to exist???

why can't a mature wemby with two stars not win a ring????
and let's not forget,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is okc WITHOUT shai? if shai is not a superstar he's damn close to being one

the diff twixt indy and okc is okc has shai...your posit only works if indy beats okc

Lalouie wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:If you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

It's a noisy statistic but it means you can have players that don't put up many box score stats that still make a big impact, something counterintuitive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So have OKC proven the value here of impact stats over traditional stats for team building?

OKC have a lot of FRPs but they actually haven't really used them (other than their own) to build this team, they could have built this team without any other teams FRPs.

team A 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 =11(btw team A, okc is actually 5+1+1+1+1+1+1)
team B 5+4+1+1 =11

it doesn't matter
but injuries matter
and last year the celts showed that volume matters

it only matters when team B sustains injuries. it matters less if teamA sustains injuries

if teamB stays healthy and wins we don't have this convo

8or9 years ago there was only one curry mattered...today no one has another curry but they have a bunch of not-as-good currys

the dynamic that will change over the next few years is if there will be any healthy stars as impactful as curry.
parity has made superstars less consequential. if the universe suddenly becomes devoid of superstars the team A building will matter, but that will prolly not happen because there is ALWAYS going to be someone who stands above the rest. why should this factor cease to exist???

why can't a mature wemby with two stars not win a ring????
and let's not forget,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is okc WITHOUT shai? if shai is not a superstar he's damn close to being one

the diff twixt indy and okc is okc has shai...your posit only works if indy beats okc

i think you are severely underrating chet, hartenstein and even caruso's impact stat. caruso is like top 5 overall in xrapm in this league lmao. that's op point btw. both chet and hartenstein are top 30. there's tangible evidence that hartenstein and caruso impact games way beyond "+1"

and tbh i think it's hard not to see someone like caruso jump out of screen. there are other guys like that too. one of them is kenrich williams which it's really beyond my comprehension how little he's utilized by the thunder's coaching staff.

let's check the top10 in xrapm:

jokic +9.6
sga +9.4
doncic +6.3
caruso +5.9
giannis +5.4
haliburton +5.0
kyrie +4.8
wembanyama +4.7
herb jones +4.5
anthony davis +4.3

with all honesty of the world: i do see this impact in his limited on court action. caruso turns games around that's for sure.

bbms wrote:

Lalouie wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:If you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

It's a noisy statistic but it means you can have players that don't put up many box score stats that still make a big impact, something counterintuitive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So have OKC proven the value here of impact stats over traditional stats for team building?

OKC have a lot of FRPs but they actually haven't really used them (other than their own) to build this team, they could have built this team without any other teams FRPs.

team A 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 =11(btw team A, okc is actually 5+1+1+1+1+1+1)
team B 5+4+1+1 =11

it doesn't matter
but injuries matter
and last year the celts showed that volume matters

it only matters when team B sustains injuries. it matters less if teamA sustains injuries

if teamB stays healthy and wins we don't have this convo

8or9 years ago there was only one curry mattered...today no one has another curry but they have a bunch of not-as-good currys

the dynamic that will change over the next few years is if there will be any healthy stars as impactful as curry.
parity has made superstars less consequential. if the universe suddenly becomes devoid of superstars the team A building will matter, but that will prolly not happen because there is ALWAYS going to be someone who stands above the rest. why should this factor cease to exist???

why can't a mature wemby with two stars not win a ring????
and let's not forget,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is okc WITHOUT shai? if shai is not a superstar he's damn close to being one

the diff twixt indy and okc is okc has shai...your posit only works if indy beats okc

i think you are severely underrating chet, hartenstein and even caruso's impact stat. caruso is like top 5 overall in xrapm in this league lmao. that's op point btw. both chet and hartenstein are top 30. there's tangible evidence that hartenstein and caruso impact games way beyond "+1"

and tbh i think it's hard not to see someone like caruso jump out of screen. there are other guys like that too. one of them is kenrich williams which it's really beyond my comprehension how little he's utilized by the thunder's coaching staff.

i dunno. maybe my interpretation is wrong but i'm not underestimating anyone. the op suggests that okc is building through quantity (many supporters) as opposed to the tradition 2or3 superstars. - am i mistaken?. so i'm not going to parse who is a superstar and who is not. that is another topic.

i am using as an example luka mavs last year versus okc this year. am i mistaking the op?

Lalouie wrote:

bbms wrote:

Lalouie wrote:

team A 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 =11(btw team A, okc is actually 5+1+1+1+1+1+1)
team B 5+4+1+1 =11

it doesn't matter
but injuries matter
and last year the celts showed that volume matters

it only matters when team B sustains injuries. it matters less if teamA sustains injuries

if teamB stays healthy and wins we don't have this convo

8or9 years ago there was only one curry mattered...today no one has another curry but they have a bunch of not-as-good currys

the dynamic that will change over the next few years is if there will be any healthy stars as impactful as curry.
parity has made superstars less consequential. if the universe suddenly becomes devoid of superstars the team A building will matter, but that will prolly not happen because there is ALWAYS going to be someone who stands above the rest. why should this factor cease to exist???

why can't a mature wemby with two stars not win a ring????
and let's not forget,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is okc WITHOUT shai? if shai is not a superstar he's damn close to being one

the diff twixt indy and okc is okc has shai...your posit only works if indy beats okc

i think you are severely underrating chet, hartenstein and even caruso's impact stat. caruso is like top 5 overall in xrapm in this league lmao. that's op point btw. both chet and hartenstein are top 30. there's tangible evidence that hartenstein and caruso impact games way beyond "+1"

and tbh i think it's hard not to see someone like caruso jump out of screen. there are other guys like that too. one of them is kenrich williams which it's really beyond my comprehension how little he's utilized by the thunder's coaching staff.

i dunno. maybe my interpretation is wrong but i'm not underestimating anyone. the op suggests that okc is building through quantity (many supporters) as opposed to the tradition 2or3 superstars. - am i mistaken?. so i'm not going to parse who is a superstar and who is not. that is another topic.

i am using as an example luka mavs last year versus okc this year. am i mistaking the op?

op's point lies in this allegory: lebron james (+1 xrapm) - undoubtely a star with high scoring output - in terms of pure impact metrics (adjusted plus minus/apm type of data sets) is behind the following players:

lu dort +1.1
cason wallace +1.2
isaiah joe +2.2
kenrich williams +2.2
aaron wiggins +2.3
jaylin williams +2.7
isaiah hartenstein +3.2
chet holmgem +3.3
alex caruso +5.9
shai gilgeous-alexander +9.4

his point is okc (like boston and cleveland) is a collection of players that doesn't score all that great in raw box score stats, but in apm-based stats they are very positive. it's like you don't need to be a focal point of an offense to provide impact of a team - because offensive motion matters, defensive discipline matters.

curiously jalen williams is the worst performing thunder of the bunch in these stats. probably because the lineups he leads underperform compared to other combinations (specially sga-less, jdub-in lineups and vice versa).

zimpy27 wrote:

FrodoBaggins wrote:The quants have been in front offices since the early-to-mid 2000s. I think DAL was one of the first? Cuban was ahead of the curve, for sure. All teams have an analytics guy/team/department these days, and it's been this way for maybe 10-15 years? Probably closer to 10. From what I've read, teams have their own proprietary statistics, metrics, & formulas. Adjusted +/- is a core ingredient to all of them, no doubt.

But just because they're there doesn't mean management listens to them.

Yeah I agree but also think that management don't listen because of the deeper trust with eye tests and box Dore numbers in upper management.

I disagree with this. From what I heard Cuban was heavily into stats and he had the famous gambler/stats guy on his management in Heralabob (sp?). The problem is though, stats do not tell the whole story, you have to think about chemistry and how pieces fit together.

I think a lot of advanced stats guys like Morey disregard this.

I will give Presto his flowers because he finds amazing players who also have those other intangibles such as leadership, hardworking, collaborative and high output. Essentially things that don't show up with stats.

Mind you this is more a credit to the second iteration of OKC than the initial team with KD, Harden, Westbrook and Ibaka but he still gets credit for drafting high end talent as well.

bbms wrote:

Lalouie wrote:

bbms wrote:
i think you are severely underrating chet, hartenstein and even caruso's impact stat. caruso is like top 5 overall in xrapm in this league lmao. that's op point btw. both chet and hartenstein are top 30. there's tangible evidence that hartenstein and caruso impact games way beyond "+1"

and tbh i think it's hard not to see someone like caruso jump out of screen. there are other guys like that too. one of them is kenrich williams which it's really beyond my comprehension how little he's utilized by the thunder's coaching staff.

i dunno. maybe my interpretation is wrong but i'm not underestimating anyone. the op suggests that okc is building through quantity (many supporters) as opposed to the tradition 2or3 superstars. - am i mistaken?. so i'm not going to parse who is a superstar and who is not. that is another topic.

i am using as an example luka mavs last year versus okc this year. am i mistaking the op?

op's point lies in this allegory: lebron james (+1 xrapm) - undoubtely a star with high scoring output - in terms of pure impact metrics (adjusted plus minus/apm type of data sets) is behind the following players:

lu dort +1.1
cason wallace +1.2
isaiah joe +2.2
kenrich williams +2.2
aaron wiggins +2.3
jaylin williams +2.7
isaiah hartenstein +3.2
chet holmgem +3.3
alex caruso +5.9
shai gilgeous-alexander +9.4

his point is okc (like boston and cleveland) is a collection of players that doesn't score all that great in raw box score stats, but in apm-based stats they are very positive. it's like you don't need to be a focal point of an offense to provide impact of a team - because offensive motion matters, defensive discipline matters.

curiously jalen williams is the worst performing thunder of the bunch in these stats. probably because the lineups he leads underperform compared to other combinations (specially sga-less, jdub-in lineups and vice versa).

ok. maybe i'm sniffing up the wrong tree and i'm no lebrob apologist, but is the 2025 lebron of the sad 2025 laker team

Nah impact stats have been “proven” to me since I started tracking Trae Young’s career 7 years ago. Obviously Presti leans on them heavily, as he should.