2016 RAPM/RPM/etc. *Full 2016 RS + PS RPM & RAPM Updated 6/24*

[lorak]

Go to nba.com and check my data if you don't believe it. Maybe I made mistake adding threes or something.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Go to nba.com and check my data if you don't believe it. Maybe I made mistake adding threes or something.

No, I doubt u did. It's the stats are prolly off for both sites.

I'm probably sticking to wowy just because it's easier to use honestly.

Looking at the scoring tab though, it says 38.8% of his field goal attempts are from 3,
41.1% of his points (not attempts, and consider one is worth 2 and the other is worth 3, and he shoots above 40% from 3 in this sample)
in the paint with curry off the court

The tracking data or something must be off for NBA.stats because the numbers on the bottom don't match the averages, and are different from wowy.

[lorak]

I've checked it and both wowy and nba.com have the same number of FGA w/o Curry: 116. However wowy is missing 1 FGA somewhere, because sum of all locations is 115.

Code: Select all

FGM   FGA   FG%   Curry - Off Court
26   50   52.0   Less Than 5 ft.
2   8   25.0   5-9 ft.
3   6   50.0   10-14 ft.
1   7   14.3   15-19 ft.
9   20   45.0   20-24 ft.
10   25   40.0   25-29 ft.
0   0   0.0   30-34 ft.
0   0   0.0   35-39 ft.
0   0   0.0   40+ ft.
51   116      


Code: Select all

FGA   DIST   %
45   0-3   55,6
10   4-9   30
8   10-15   37,5
7   16+   14,3
45   24-29   42,2
115      



So looks very similar and I don't know where do you see a problem here

[MyUniBroDavis]

I've checked it and both wowy and nba.com have the same number of FGA w/o Curry: 116. However wowy is missing 1 FGA somewhere, because sum of all locations is 115.

Code: Select all

FGM   FGA   FG%   Curry - Off Court
26   50   52.0   Less Than 5 ft.
2   8   25.0   5-9 ft.
3   6   50.0   10-14 ft.
1   7   14.3   15-19 ft.
9   20   45.0   20-24 ft.
10   25   40.0   25-29 ft.
0   0   0.0   30-34 ft.
0   0   0.0   35-39 ft.
0   0   0.0   40+ ft.
51   116      


Code: Select all

FGA   DIST   %
45   0-3   55,6
10   4-9   30
8   10-15   37,5
7   16+   14,3
45   24-29   42,2
115      



So looks very similar and I don't know where do you see a problem here

That's not what I mean tho. I mean, according to those stats he attempts around 45-50% of his shots inside the paint.

But per 100 possessions numbers tell a different story,

Since I've learned that I don't know how to see lol (I literally thought they were so different lol)

So I guess they r both still reliable.

But the way I look at it, the per 100 possession numbers are off. I mean, he attempts nearly double of his shots from 3 compared to in the restricted area, but both numbers say he shoots around the same amount from both places.

With curry on the floor, it says that over 100 poss he has 24.1 of his shots from 0-3, 18.2 from 3-10, and 31.3 from 3 point, but it says in the data that he has 234 attempts inside the restricted area vs 214 from 3

Oh, and on a sidenote, my thing with the "spacing effect" is that I take more value from how many shots in the restricted area then the percentage. I mean, 0-3 feet, it's kinda hard to miss lol. (And yes, I understand those can still be contested... But still)

When I put it in per 100 possessions


Curry off the court
6.311 shots from 0-3
1.4025 shots from 3-9
1.12 shots from 10-15
0.98 shots from 16-3pt
6.311 shots from 3pnt


Curry on the floor
7.06 shots from 0-3
1.76 shots from 3-9
0.31 shots from 10-15
0.35 shots from 15-3pt
4.13 shots from 3pt

Overall

Curry off the floor

Roughly 16.1 shots a game

Curry on the floor

Roughly 13.6 shots a game

Fits in with bball reference stats

taking out the 3, it's 9.8 shots and 9.5 shots

6.3/9.8 vs 7.06/9.5, or 64% vs 74.3%, and 1.4/9.8 vs 1.7/9.5, or 10.62% vs 17.9%

Sorry if I have sounded kinda pissy lately lol.

[ElGee]

Green without Curry is better in every box score category except of FG%, that includes better 3p% with increased volume as well as tov are lower with more asisst.

On the other hand Curry is way worse shooter without Green, his 3p% is down by almost 8 percentge points (so maybe we should start talking about how having elite playmaker like Green helps Curry?), tov are also higher, with the same amount of ast, but bigger volume.

And Green's +/- w/o Curry is better than Steph's w/o Draymond.

So maybe instead of using small sample excuse (while BTW these samples are not so small, more than 10 full games) try to find resonable explanation why results over and over again favour Green. And by resonable I mean something better than "GSW have more plays w/o Green" - as there is no way we can check if that's true or not.

I simply disagree that spot minutes during the RS against random teams when Curry goes to the bench proves anything, when the point is, against a focused defense (aka in the playoffs) that doesn't have to prepare for Curry, Green is most likely going to struggle...which we've actually seen happen against the Rockets so far. And it's the Rockets, not exactly the Spurs.

And instead of about 4.3 mpg without Curry (which is what 346 minutes over 81 games averages out to), he's played about 30.3 mpg without Curry during the 3 games, with the Rockets actually being able to prepare for him rather than Curry. It's easier to adjust your defense over the course of 30 minutes than it is over the course of 4 minutes.

And we've also seen that Green himself has not been very efficient in the 3 games that Curry missed during the RS. I'm interested to see how he looks in games that Curry straight up misses (including the 2 playoffs games, giving us 5 games total) vs how he plays in the minutes that Curry is simply on the bench. I'll check on that later.

Seconded. Fascinating discussion, so I checked the 7 games in the last 2 years Curry has missed that Green has played in.

Scoring
Green with Curry (155g): 12.9 ppg 56.9% TS
Green w/out Curry (7g): 10.7 ppg 43.7% TS

Shooting
w/Curry: 3.3 FTA, 3.7 3PA (36%)
w/out Curry: 3.9 FTA, 3.3 3PA (22%)

"Passing
w/Curry: 5.5 apg 2.4 TOV
w/out Curry: 6.9 apg, 2.9 TOV

Small sample, but screams of significance. Also, 5 of those games were on the road and Draymond actually shoots 2% higher from 3 on the road and 2.5% better overall.

[ronnymac2]

And I kind of feel that RAPM tends to assign credit to Green that should go to Curry. I think Green's role exists because of Curry...

...I think it's fair to assume that maybe Green is stealing some of that "impact" from Curry in terms of the numbers.

As a supporter of Draymond Green:

Yes, Draymond Green IS stealing impact from Curry!

Why is there resistance to the RAPM numbers and Draymond Green because of this? Why isn't this being lauded more?

If player X plays at an All-Star level on a 45-win 2-SRS team, but then plays like a marginal role player or solid sixth man on a 60-win, 7-SRS team, you would, in general, question how portable this player is and how scalable his impact is. We generally want to see how a player thrives on the best team possible, right?

By your own admission, Draymond Green has been a top-10ish player this season (I'm assuming he is top-10 in your mind in terms of "total goodness"). So this player, who you believe is excellent all by himself, has been put on a team with a player who you believe has GOAT-level Total Goodness in Steph Curry.

Now, obviously you believe Steph Curry is a major positive in terms of making the Golden State Warriors a GOAT-level team. You and Kerr and Lacob would absolutely love to have a complimentary top-10 player who meshes well with your primary superstar. Well, Draymond Green meshes so well with Curry, who you believe is a GOAT talent, that he actually pushes the score in the GSW's favor more than pretty much anybody in recorded history. He uses his teammate to do this.

Draymond Green is always going to have teammates because he plays 5 vs. 5 basketball. The fact that he can steal impact from a GOAT-level talent and actually be part of the most dominant 2-player core in basketball history, when we've seen throughout history that combining top-level talents always has some level of diminishing returns, is a turning point in the history of all of basketball. IT CAN BE DONE!

I don't see a point in caring how Green does on a 45-win, 2-SRS team or a 55-win, 5-SRS team or whatever you believe the Warriors would be without Curry, when he is proving right in front of our eyes what he can do on a GOAT-level team with a GOAT-level primary superstar. Who cares how he performs without Curry? You probably didn't care about Player X because he was likely replaceable on the 60-win, 7 SRS team.

I understand you noted Green's portability. As far as we know, Draymond Green is the most portable star player in NBA History, with the most scalable impact in NBA History.

Does that make him the best? Maybe, maybe not. Anybody's prerogative. Depends what you value.

But the idea I want to offer you is that you don't necessarily need to resist Draymond or resist the RAPM numbers or pit Curry against Green. Green can be the more impactful player, and Curry can still be better. Or maybe Green is better to you. Depends what you value.

[therealbig3]

And I kind of feel that RAPM tends to assign credit to Green that should go to Curry. I think Green's role exists because of Curry...

...I think it's fair to assume that maybe Green is stealing some of that "impact" from Curry in terms of the numbers.

As a supporter of Draymond Green:

Yes, Draymond Green IS stealing impact from Curry!

Why is there resistance to the RAPM numbers and Draymond Green because of this? Why isn't this being lauded more?

If player X plays at an All-Star level on a 45-win 2-SRS team, but then plays like a marginal role player or solid sixth man on a 60-win, 7-SRS team, you would, in general, question how portable this player is and how scalable his impact is. We generally want to see how a player thrives on the best team possible, right?

By your own admission, Draymond Green has been a top-10ish player this season (I'm assuming he is top-10 in your mind in terms of "total goodness"). So this player, who you believe is excellent all by himself, has been put on a team with a player who you believe has GOAT-level Total Goodness in Steph Curry.

Now, obviously you believe Steph Curry is a major positive in terms of making the Golden State Warriors a GOAT-level team. You and Kerr and Lacob would absolutely love to have a complimentary top-10 player who meshes well with your primary superstar. Well, Draymond Green meshes so well with Curry, who you believe is a GOAT talent, that he actually pushes the score in the GSW's favor more than pretty much anybody in recorded history. He uses his teammate to do this.

Draymond Green is always going to have teammates because he plays 5 vs. 5 basketball. The fact that he can steal impact from a GOAT-level talent and actually be part of the most dominant 2-player core in basketball history, when we've seen throughout history that combining top-level talents always has some level of diminishing returns, is a turning point in the history of all of basketball. IT CAN BE DONE!

I don't see a point in caring how Green does on a 45-win, 2-SRS team or a 55-win, 5-SRS team or whatever you believe the Warriors would be without Curry, when he is proving right in front of our eyes what he can do on a GOAT-level team with a GOAT-level primary superstar. Who cares how he performs without Curry? You probably didn't care about Player X because he was likely replaceable on the 60-win, 7 SRS team.

I understand you noted Green's portability. As far as we know, Draymond Green is the most portable star player in NBA History, with the most scalable impact in NBA History.

Does that make him the best? Maybe, maybe not. Anybody's prerogative. Depends what you value.

But the idea I want to offer you is that you don't necessarily need to resist Draymond or resist the RAPM numbers or pit Curry against Green. Green can be the more impactful player, and Curry can still be better. Or maybe Green is better to you. Depends what you value.

My question to you is:

Why wouldn't that make him the best?

If he can fit in and push a team's needle to the max and have uber-impact wherever he goes, no matter who he plays with, because of his unique skillset...why doesn't that automatically make him the best player?

I guess I'm wondering, how can Curry still be better, if Green pushes the needle more, and if Green can push the needle more regardless of team situation, because he's got the most portable game in history?

[ronnymac2]

And I kind of feel that RAPM tends to assign credit to Green that should go to Curry. I think Green's role exists because of Curry...

...I think it's fair to assume that maybe Green is stealing some of that "impact" from Curry in terms of the numbers.

As a supporter of Draymond Green:

Yes, Draymond Green IS stealing impact from Curry!

Why is there resistance to the RAPM numbers and Draymond Green because of this? Why isn't this being lauded more?

If player X plays at an All-Star level on a 45-win 2-SRS team, but then plays like a marginal role player or solid sixth man on a 60-win, 7-SRS team, you would, in general, question how portable this player is and how scalable his impact is. We generally want to see how a player thrives on the best team possible, right?

By your own admission, Draymond Green has been a top-10ish player this season (I'm assuming he is top-10 in your mind in terms of "total goodness"). So this player, who you believe is excellent all by himself, has been put on a team with a player who you believe has GOAT-level Total Goodness in Steph Curry.

Now, obviously you believe Steph Curry is a major positive in terms of making the Golden State Warriors a GOAT-level team. You and Kerr and Lacob would absolutely love to have a complimentary top-10 player who meshes well with your primary superstar. Well, Draymond Green meshes so well with Curry, who you believe is a GOAT talent, that he actually pushes the score in the GSW's favor more than pretty much anybody in recorded history. He uses his teammate to do this.

Draymond Green is always going to have teammates because he plays 5 vs. 5 basketball. The fact that he can steal impact from a GOAT-level talent and actually be part of the most dominant 2-player core in basketball history, when we've seen throughout history that combining top-level talents always has some level of diminishing returns, is a turning point in the history of all of basketball. IT CAN BE DONE!

I don't see a point in caring how Green does on a 45-win, 2-SRS team or a 55-win, 5-SRS team or whatever you believe the Warriors would be without Curry, when he is proving right in front of our eyes what he can do on a GOAT-level team with a GOAT-level primary superstar. Who cares how he performs without Curry? You probably didn't care about Player X because he was likely replaceable on the 60-win, 7 SRS team.

I understand you noted Green's portability. As far as we know, Draymond Green is the most portable star player in NBA History, with the most scalable impact in NBA History.

Does that make him the best? Maybe, maybe not. Anybody's prerogative. Depends what you value.

But the idea I want to offer you is that you don't necessarily need to resist Draymond or resist the RAPM numbers or pit Curry against Green. Green can be the more impactful player, and Curry can still be better. Or maybe Green is better to you. Depends what you value.

My question to you is:

Why wouldn't that make him the best?

If he can fit in and push a team's needle to the max and have uber-impact wherever he goes, no matter who he plays with, because of his unique skillset...why doesn't that automatically make him the best player?

I guess I'm wondering, how can Curry still be better, if Green pushes the needle more, and if Green can push the needle more regardless of team situation, because he's got the most portable game in history?

I wonder the same thing. Maybe the value of Draymond's portability comes in the form of a baseline level of impact across all situations, with the impact increasing to GOAT-levels as he plays with higher levels of talent. But if you put him on a bad team, he wouldn't take them as far ("far" meaning still a bad team or maybe up to average) as other high total goodness players. What does that mean as far as evaluation of him?

Me personally, I don't on the surface think Draymond Green is as good as Shaq or Jordan or LBJ or KG or Steph Curry. But if I get to pair Green with reasonably good talent, something special happens. As far as I can tell from the numbers, Green's impact on GSW comes half from defense (prevailing theory is that impact on defense is additive; assume this and Green's "impact" stays relatively constant amongst all situations) and half from being the GOAT complimentary offensive player (C who handles the ball, shoots 3's and playmakes/passes at an elite level for the position). His impact on offense gets better when playing with better offensive talent, which is valuable when combined with his DPOY play (you can reasonably build a solid defense around Green). But even if he is playing with poor offensive teams/players, we're likely to see solid positive impact. Nothing on the superstar level, nothing like he is now, but positive.

Me personally, I don't think Draymond pushes the needle more regardless of team situation than Curry or O'Neal or Dream. Maybe — this is one thing I am playing with in my head — maybe Green can actually have greater total impact than a superior "total goodness" player when playing with that superior "total goodness player" when the superior's players "total goodness" is concentrated on one side of the ball.

So Curry with offense. Green can "steal some of Curry's offensive impact" — this is a good thing for the team, and is therefore a positive for the player — and then go right by him with his superior defensive play.

Then that makes me think that maybe being a "two-way player" — as in, having at least an all-star level impact on both sides of the ball across all situations" — is more valuable than having your impact/goodness concentrated on one side.

So I don't know. If I'm drafting a team in an ALL-Time League, do I take Draymond first knowing he'll mesh perfectly with whoever the most talented player is at the time of my second pick? It's a question I would need to consider, despite on the surface thinking Green ain't no Shaq or LBJ or KAJ.

How does this relate to the POY thread? Well if we would take Dray with our first pick in the current league and we're reading "POY in 2016" like that matters, I don't see why we couldn't vote Dray 1st. If we'd take him first in an ALL-Time league, same thing. If we want the guy who had the highest positive impact in reality, it's Dray. Who's the best? Maybe that's Dray, too. Like I said, on the surface, Green isn't my best player, but is that because I personally can't see a complimentary offensive player, no matter the unique package of skills he presents, being my POY without Olajuwon/Russell/KG/Duncan-like defense?

Is this an unreasonable hangup of mine? Is it important that I accept that a complimentary offensive player can not only have elite "impact" but also have elite "total goodness" on offense?

[therealbig3]

Ok, but then this is where I'm at specifically with a Draymond Green vs Kevin Garnett comparison:

My opinion on Kevin Garnett has shifted quite dramatically since I've joined, and I've got him quite high in my personal rankings now, and the realization I came to was:

Kevin Garnett is not an elite 1 on 1 scorer, and he certainly falls short of someone like Tim Duncan in this regard. However, unless you are literally one of the handful of super elite big man scorers (Shaq, Barkley, Dirk, Kareem, Hakeem), which Tim Duncan certainly was not, it just doesn't make much sense to use your big man as a volume scorer...it's a last resort that's just not very efficient offense. Duncan's Spurs during his prime were merely ok on offense, and they got better once Parker and Manu got more involved. The best Spurs offenses have featured Duncan as a finisher on offense, rather than an initiator.

And this is what got me thinking about the ideal non-elite big man scorer...what should they excel in? And this is where KG shines, and why I've become so high on him. Because when you start thinking about using most great big men optimally, KG trumps pretty much everyone.

You want great defense first and foremost...KG is the best defensive player I've ever seen...this is supported by a lot of +/- data, as well as qualitative analysis that points to the conclusion that yes, KG is a monster defensively, and is certainly as good as anyone post-Russell, at least.

Offensively, if you're not going to run the offense through him as a volume scorer, then this big man should be able to complement great offense in every way. This is done through being able to handle the ball, pass, shoot, and finish...he'd be providing dynamic playmaking, versatility, spacing, and offensive gravity towards the rim. Again, KG did this as well as anybody. So for me, his non-elite 1 on 1 scoring is NOT a big deal to me, because except for some rare exceptions, most big men aren't elite 1 on 1 scorers and shouldn't be relied on to do so for volume. This is why KG has an advantage over the Tim Duncans and the Karl Malones and the David Robinsons...when used optimally, none of those guys can provide what KG does, and this largely explains why KG was a +/- king, even towards the end of his career in Boston.

But then we get to Draymond Green. He's quite close to KG defensively. He's probably the closest thing we've got actually. Insane versatility, quickness, length, and instincts. He's been the anchor of one of the league's best defenses for the last 2 years. Can't say enough about him defensively.

And then we get to offense, and basically all of those things that I give credit to KG for in terms of being the ultimate "glue guy" and complementing the offense in every way he can outside of 1 on 1 scoring...Green does all of those things as good or better. He's a better shooter. He's a better ball handler and passer, and thus a more dynamic playmaker both in transition and in the half court. He's got insane gravity moving towards the rim.

The one thing on offense that peak KG has over Green is...1 on 1 scoring. Is that really something to give much credit for when KG's entire argument against everyone else is that you don't need him to be a 1 on 1 scorer? Honestly, it's pretty irrelevant to me, because KG isn't best used that way. And at the other non-scoring things on offense...Green is just better. And defensively, I would give KG the edge based on pure size, but then again, Green is even more versatile, because he can legitimately defend guards for extended periods of time, while the best of KG was more so about being able to keep up with them on switches, not necessarily play them as well as a primary defender.

So...why exactly peak KG over Draymond? Seems to me that when you look at everything besides 1 on 1 scoring, which was never KG's strength and isn't really the reason why so many people consider him amazing, Green matches up very favorably to Garnett, with some clear advantages in terms of shooting and playmaking. And to consider Green over Garnett seems like heresy at first, but to me, it's almost like Green is a KG that dialed back the scoring even more and improved on certain key areas that make him even more useful as an offensive piece.

And the RAPM isn't exactly a landslide in KG's favor here either, which means that it might not be so crazy to feel that Green matches up just fine...

04 KG: +8.6
08 KG: +8.1

16 Green: +7.93


And if he matches up to peak/prime KG as the uber-portable superstar that can make some really great things happen when surrounded with some talent, he can technically match up with almost anyone, since KG had one of the greatest peaks of all time.

[lorak]

Green with and without Curry, RS+PO, per 36 minutes, sample is equal to almost 10 full games:

Code: Select all

TYPE   2FGA   2FG%   3PA   3P%   FTA   FT%   REB   AST   TOV   STL   BLK   PF   PTS   +/-
WTH   7,2   54,8   3,1   38,4   4,2   69,0   9,6   7,5   3,42   1,50   1,52   3,0   14,4   15,0
WOT   7,5   44,2   4,3   40,0   4,4   66,1   11,4   8,1   2,67   1,65   1,02   3,6   14,7   7,1


So without Steph Green does more, with lover amount of turnovers, but worse efficiency - however from 3p line he is better without Curry (and worse 2p%migt be explained by Livingston, who doesn't provide spacing, because of lack of 3p shot). With Green and no Steph Warriors are also still VERY good team, with +7,1 +/-, what is good enough to be top 2 team in the NBA.

PS
No player ever averaged 9/7/1/1. Only Bird did 9/7 with at least 1 3PA/g. Basically no one ever provided that kind of versatility on both ends of the floor. So is it really so unlikely, that Green in fact is special player in all time sense?

[ronnymac2]

...And if he matches up to peak/prime KG as the uber-portable superstar that can make some really great things happen when surrounded with some talent, he can technically match up with almost anyone, since KG had one of the greatest peaks of all time.

Yeah, that's where I'm at, too. I can't believe I'm actually wondering this about somebody who I thought would simply be a better version of Robert Horry. I mean, Draymond IS a better version of Horry, but I never thought he'd end up at this level. It's pretty wild.

[colts18]

If there is bright side to the Curry injury, we will finally get some Curry/Green separation in RAPM. We might get 9 playoff games of Green without Curry. As a result, the co-linearity issues between the two will go away.

[RSCD3_]

I don't think that Garnett's scoring edge is as small as you'd think, yeahs not an ISO scorer that you want to give the ball to constantly in the clutch and say score now like Kobe or Wade or Durant. But we didn't really see a prime KG with offensive support like green has had. The closest was 2004 and he did well all things considered for his role up to the playoffs were cassell got injured.

[Blackmill]

Something I found interesting.

Durant is great defensively by some Vantage metrics. Most notably, he is second in the league in points allowed per shot at 0.87 (Green is first at 0.86). He's better than Green and Kawhi on points allowed per screen as well. The only (published) area he is lacking in is turnovers forced. And yet, DRAPM tells a very different story, with Durant not coming close to Green or Kawhi. The most likely reasons for this would be:

(1) Vantage stats are rate stats. That is, volume has not yet been accounted for, and Kawhi and Green presumably have higher "defensive volume".

(2) Green and Kawhi are given tougher assignments which deflate their Vantage stats.

(3) Forcing turnovers has a very large defensive impact if the player isn't gambling.

Any one else have ideas on why Durant shows up so much better under Vantage stats?

[colts18]

Something I found interesting.

Durant is great defensively by some Vantage metrics. Most notably, he is second in the league in points allowed per shot at 0.87 (Green is first at 0.86). He's better than Green and Kawhi on points allowed per screen as well. The only (published) area he is lacking in is turnovers forced. And yet, DRAPM tells a very different story, with Durant not coming close to Green or Kawhi. The most likely reasons for this would be:

(1) Vantage stats are rate stats. That is, volume has not yet been accounted for, and Kawhi and Green presumably have higher "defensive volume".

(2) Green and Kawhi are given tougher assignments which deflate their Vantage stats.

(3) Forcing turnovers has a very large defensive impact if the player isn't gambling.

Any one else have ideas on why Durant shows up so much better under Vantage stats?

1. Help defense. Durant could be worse at help defense

2. Randomness. Assuming Durant is equal at man and help defense, he could easily have a worse RAPM because his teammates happened to play worse defense when he was on the court. He gets blamed for that even though he played the same as Kawhi and Green.

[SideshowBob]

Something I found interesting.

Durant is great defensively by some Vantage metrics. Most notably, he is second in the league in points allowed per shot at 0.87 (Green is first at 0.86). He's better than Green and Kawhi on points allowed per screen as well. The only (published) area he is lacking in is turnovers forced. And yet, DRAPM tells a very different story, with Durant not coming close to Green or Kawhi. The most likely reasons for this would be:

(1) Vantage stats are rate stats. That is, volume has not yet been accounted for, and Kawhi and Green presumably have higher "defensive volume".

(2) Green and Kawhi are given tougher assignments which deflate their Vantage stats.

(3) Forcing turnovers has a very large defensive impact if the player isn't gambling.

Any one else have ideas on why Durant shows up so much better under Vantage stats?

We'd have to see the extent of Vantage stats rather than the few that were posted in the Russ/Durant article (is this what you're referring to?), which covered a handful of on-ball actions (correct me if I'm incorrect ).

Given that off-ball/help defense comprises of the bulk of potential defensive impact:

A.) Durant is below-par ITO off-ball/help defense

B.) Durant's help-"defensive value" or "defensive usage" isn't in the vicinity of Green/Kawhi

[Doctor MJ]

If there is bright side to the Curry injury, we will finally get some Curry/Green separation in RAPM. We might get 9 playoff games of Green without Curry. As a result, the co-linearity issues between the two will go away.

On that note:

Green's putting up freakish +/- numbers against the Rockets. However each of us choosing to take what that means, RAPM is going to freaking love it.

[colts18]

The Warriors are +60 in 6 quarters since Curry's injury. 10 years from now, people are going to freak out about Draymond Green being 3 points higher in RAPM than Curry.

[Mutnt]

It really is interesting. It's weird how a potential GOAT offensive player doing unprecedented and unimaginable things on offense (putting up 30 ppg on 67%TS while also being a very solid playmaker, pulling insane amounts of defense towards him on the perimeter, hitting ridiculous shots consistently) apparently isn't enough to offset a guy who's putting up 14ppg/7ast (57%TS, 3 TO) on offense and no one considers even close to having GOAT level impact defensively.

[SideshowBob]

ESPN RPM Updated 5/1/16

Draymond Green and Lebron now in a near virtual tie for highest RPM, at +8.80 and +8.73 respectively. Curry has slipped to #3 at +8.45 nearly tied with Paul at +8.38