RealGM

ESPN/Engelmann's Single-Year RPM is up

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

As usual, I'll keep the thread updated as new data rolls in.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only ~14 games played, so take with a grain of salt. Broad scale trends are more useful than actual numbers at this point.

On first glance, spread looks much tighter than last years RS+PS data, so top 2 numbers are really impressive.

Unsurprising to see Curry at the top, given GSW's performance. Russ has been a monster though, he'll likely climb as OKC gets more games played with Durant under their belt.

Interesting to see Curry as a negative defensively, on-court he's clearly been better on that end and a small positive at the least.

YES!!!!

CP and Harden both fell so far.

bondom34 wrote:CP and Harden both fell so far.

I was looking for Harden earlier and was surprised at how far down he was, but I didn't even think about Paul...homeboy is on the second page! Hopefully he can pick it up soon.

#16 SF Jae Crowder RPM=3.52
#26 SF Kevin Durant RPM=2.94

#20 C Mason Plumlee RPM=3.34
#37 C DeMarcus Cousins RPM=2.33

#21 PF Marvin Williams RPM=3.31
#78 PF Anthony Davis RPM=1.12

#36 PG George Hill RPM=2.38
#64 PG Chris Paul RPM=1.41

I've mentioned before my belief that its a stat's responsibility to conform to reality. It can't create reality. And if what it measures doesn't conform to reality then what is its use?

Winsome Gerbil wrote:#16 SF Jae Crowder RPM=3.52
#26 SF Kevin Durant RPM=2.94

#20 C Mason Plumlee RPM=3.34
#37 C DeMarcus Cousins RPM=2.33

#21 PF Marvin Williams RPM=3.31
#78 PF Anthony Davis RPM=1.12

#36 PG George Hill RPM=2.38
#64 PG Chris Paul RPM=1.41

I've mentioned before my belief that its a stat's responsibility to conform to reality. It can't create reality. And if what it measures doesn't conform to reality then what is its use?

These numbers should obviously be role-adjusted and they're not supposed to be used as a reflection of how "good" a player is. Still, I agree. There have been some wildly incoherent results in the past, and everytime something seems out of place it's an "exception" and not the statistic simply failing.

RPM is a regression based model that uses SPM as a prior, it is similar to other box&+/- hybrid metrics such as IPV, but it is not a blend in the same manner. This kind of stat needs a considerably larger sample size for stability; I wish ESPN had held out, just for the sake of irrational responses that we'll now see.

RPM (in this case) is meant to say the following:

All else held equal, if [Player X] is in a lineup, the lineup's performance (MOV per 100 possesions) is expected to change by [Rating] per 100 possessions.

It is NOT a catch-all player rater.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A valid statement I can make based on RPM:

"If I put Steph Curry on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Steph Curry is on the court, to improve by 8.85 points per 100 possessions, given the the league-wide lineup data we have for the first 3 weeks of the 2016 season."

An invalid statement:

"Kyle Lowry is the 3rd best player in the league."

Winsome Gerbil wrote:#16 SF Jae Crowder RPM=3.52
#26 SF Kevin Durant RPM=2.94

#20 C Mason Plumlee RPM=3.34
#37 C DeMarcus Cousins RPM=2.33

#21 PF Marvin Williams RPM=3.31
#78 PF Anthony Davis RPM=1.12

#36 PG George Hill RPM=2.38
#64 PG Chris Paul RPM=1.41

I've mentioned before my belief that its a stat's responsibility to conform to reality. It can't create reality. And if what it measures doesn't conform to reality then what is its use?

Have you considered that "reality" may actually just consist of an extremely complex computer program created by sentient robots that require our body heat and energy to live, and that RPM is the only way to awaken your mind to the way things truly are, and you can use its reality-altering powers to defeat the agents and end the present enslavement of the human race?

Also, again to reiterate it is role based. Its what Sideshow said, with the caveat of "if I put Steph Curry on a random team to play the exact same role he's in" they'd improve by X. I wouldn't swap Curry for Dwight Howard and expect the same effect (honestly thinking I don't know if Curry works on Houston, which is bizarre to say but I don't think a Curry/Harden backcourt can exist).

Spread is pretty tight. 2.25 SD for total RPM, mean is -0.62.

Top 5 by SD

Steph 4.2
Russ 3.5
Lowry 3.4
James 3.1
Green 2.8

Enes Kanter at a slight positive overall. I'll take it. I don't put full stock in PM numbers, he's been a pleasant surprise.

Dang, just realized he's at -0.33 on DRPM. Was -3.87 last year.

Top 10 Offense

Curry +9.6
Westbrook +8.0
Lowry +5.7
James +5.0
Harden +4.6
Bledsoe +4.2
Durant +4.1
Knight +3.9
Thomas +3.9
Butler +3.7

Top 10 Defense

Duncan +4.8
Jordan +3.9
Drummond +3.8
Gren +3.7
Mahinmi +3.7
Demon +3.6
Asik +3.0
Chandler +3.0
Hibbert +2.9
Hilario +2.9

SideshowBob wrote:Spread is pretty tight. 2.25 SD for total RPM, mean is -0.62.

Top 5 by SD

Steph 4.2
Russ 3.5
Lowry 3.4
James 3.1
Green 2.8

Curry the anomaly ...

and Russ and Lowry, WOW!

Winsome Gerbil wrote:#16 SF Jae Crowder RPM=3.52
#26 SF Kevin Durant RPM=2.94

#20 C Mason Plumlee RPM=3.34
#37 C DeMarcus Cousins RPM=2.33

#21 PF Marvin Williams RPM=3.31
#78 PF Anthony Davis RPM=1.12

#36 PG George Hill RPM=2.38
#64 PG Chris Paul RPM=1.41

I've mentioned before my belief that its a stat's responsibility to conform to reality. It can't create reality. And if what it measures doesn't conform to reality then what is its use?

If anyone uses RPM based on a 12-14 game sample size that is their fault and not the stat's fault.

SideshowBob wrote:RPM is a regression based model that uses SPM as a prior, it is similar to other box&+/- hybrid metrics such as IPV, but it is not a blend in the same manner. This kind of stat needs a considerably larger sample size for stability; I wish ESPN had held out, just for the sake of irrational responses that we'll now see.

RPM (in this case) is meant to say the following:

All else held equal, if [Player X] is in a lineup, the lineup's performance (MOV per 100 possesions) is expected to change by [Rating] per 100 possessions.

It is NOT a catch-all player rater.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A valid statement I can make based on RPM:

"If I put Steph Curry on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Steph Curry is on the court, to improve by 8.85 points per 100 possessions, given the the league-wide lineup data we have for the first 3 weeks of the 2016 season."

An invalid statement:

"Kyle Lowry is the 3rd best player in the league."

Except of course that this is also a valid statement:

"If I put Anthony Davis on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Anthony Davis is on the court, to improve by 1.12 points per 100 possessions, given the the league-wide lineup data we have for the first 3 weeks of the 2016 season, while I expect if I put Clint Capella on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Clint Capella is on the court, to improve by 2.66 points per 100 possessions."

And if any human walks up to you and makes that statement you laugh in his face for being an idiot and tell him to go back to his mommy's basement and watch some more World Series of Poker or whatever it is he watches instead of basketball.

But now dress that dumbass up as a "metric" and ooh! What amazing insight he must have!

NinjaSheppard wrote:

Winsome Gerbil wrote:#16 SF Jae Crowder RPM=3.52
#26 SF Kevin Durant RPM=2.94

#20 C Mason Plumlee RPM=3.34
#37 C DeMarcus Cousins RPM=2.33

#21 PF Marvin Williams RPM=3.31
#78 PF Anthony Davis RPM=1.12

#36 PG George Hill RPM=2.38
#64 PG Chris Paul RPM=1.41

I've mentioned before my belief that its a stat's responsibility to conform to reality. It can't create reality. And if what it measures doesn't conform to reality then what is its use?

If anyone uses RPM based on a 12-14 game sample size that is their fault and not the stat's fault.

That would imply that things will balance out, but that short term those numbers reflect some significant reality.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

SideshowBob wrote:RPM is a regression based model that uses SPM as a prior, it is similar to other box&+/- hybrid metrics such as IPV, but it is not a blend in the same manner. This kind of stat needs a considerably larger sample size for stability; I wish ESPN had held out, just for the sake of irrational responses that we'll now see.

RPM (in this case) is meant to say the following:

All else held equal, if [Player X] is in a lineup, the lineup's performance (MOV per 100 possesions) is expected to change by [Rating] per 100 possessions.

It is NOT a catch-all player rater.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A valid statement I can make based on RPM:

"If I put Steph Curry on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Steph Curry is on the court, to improve by 8.85 points per 100 possessions, given the the league-wide lineup data we have for the first 3 weeks of the 2016 season."

An invalid statement:

"Kyle Lowry is the 3rd best player in the league."

Except of course that this is also a valid statement:

"If I put Anthony Davis on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Anthony Davis is on the court, to improve by 1.12 points per 100 possessions, given the the league-wide lineup data we have for the first 3 weeks of the 2016 season, while I expect if I put Clint Capella on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Clint Capella is on the court, to improve by 2.66 points per 100 possessions."

And if any human walks up to you and makes that statement you laugh in his face for being an idiot and tell him to go back to his mommy's basement and watch some more World Series of Poker or whatever it is he watches instead of basketball.

But now dress that dumbass up as a "metric" and ooh! What amazing insight he must have!

Clint Capela also currently has a 24 PER to Davis' 25. He has a .218 WS/48 to Davis' .133. Let's not pretend RPM is out on an island here.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:Except of course that this is also a valid statement:

"If I put Anthony Davis on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Anthony Davis is on the court, to improve by 1.12 points per 100 possessions, given the the league-wide lineup data we have for the first 3 weeks of the 2016 season, while I expect if I put Clint Capella on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Clint Capella is on the court, to improve by 2.66 points per 100 possessions."

And if any human walks up to you and makes that statement you laugh in his face for being an idiot and tell him to go back to his mommy's basement and watch some more World Series of Poker or whatever it is he watches instead of basketball.

But now dress that dumbass up as a "metric" and ooh! What amazing insight he must have!

Only ~14 games played, so take with a grain of salt. Broad scale trends are more useful than actual numbers at this point.

This kind of stat needs a considerably larger sample size for stability.

Andre Iguodala is shooting 46.5% from the three point line. Stephen Curry is shooting 43.8% from the three point line. 3PT% does not conform with reality, what's it use?

OR

If a stat as simple as 3PT% is still volatile after 14 games and must be subject to more nuance than "X's % > Y's %, therefore X>Y", then obviously a stat such as RPM that is regression based and subject to an insane degree of multicollinearity in large samples is going to be pretty unstable/wonky in a 14 G sample.

SideshowBob wrote:Interesting to see Curry as a negative defensively, on-court he's clearly been better on that end and a small positive at the least.

Disagree, seems about right where hes at to me. Him and Westbrook at least defensively. About average, his teammates make him look better than he is on that end IMO. He cant handle tough defensive assignments but can play his role defensively against more limited guards that can allow the rest of the team to stay with the defensive scheme. We see Warriors struggle defensively whenever Steph has a tough matchup on defense like Conley in the playoffs before they had Klay or Livingston on him, or that 1st quarter against Clippers where Cp3 annihilated him.