RealGM

This is a discussion going on the lebron vs jordan rapm thread

Are there ways for rapm and other purely plus-minis based metrics (with rapm studies that dont use boxscore as a prior) to actually be inflated by player or team approach at the expense of a team?

The only situation i can imagine would cause this would be a superstar who is used with bench lineups so much that reduces his own plus-minus metrics but increasea that of the bench units heavily

And far as i can remember i dont think that is a common situation at all?

it probably can be, but lebron's has impact stuff that looks goatly even on teams where the spacing is subpar, so idk "lebron's impact is inflated" is a strong argument.

There are tons of ways this can happen. An obvious example that comes up all the time is Ginobili playing against weaker units because he came off the bench thus causing some people to think his RAPM numbers are inflated. Another one that comes up pretty often is the amount of minutes Steph and Draymond play together causes RAPM not to be sure who is driving the impact thus in some people's eyes inflating one guy's (usually Draymond's) impact. Another Steph and Dray example is some people think they're synergy causes their individual RAPM numbers to be higher than they other wise would be if they weren't playing together. This is generally the cause of what people consider to be inflated RAPM's. Team situations or contexts that allow players (usually role players) to play in a way that suits their strengths and hides their weaknesses. For example a guy like Mikal Bridges is gonna look a lot better in Phoenix than Detroit just based on the sorts of things he's asked to do. Another clear example is when amazing coaching is elevating guys past their normal capabilities (or the opposite) and obviously RAPM wont attribute that impact to the coach. RAPM is far from an exact science and it can't account for things like coaching, fit, and role. Then every mistake it makes in evaluating one player effects the evaluation of every other player. RAPM is a great tool, maybe even the best tool but its just 1 tool.

falcolombardi wrote:This is a discussion going on the lebron vs jordan rapm thread

Are there ways for rapm and other purely plus-minis based metrics (with rapm studies that dont use boxscore as a prior) to actually be inflated by player or team approach at the expense of a team?

The only situation i can imagine would cause this would be a superstar who is used with bench lineups so much that reduces his own plus-minus metrics but increasea that of the bench units heavily

And far as i can remember i dont think that is a common situation at all?

Disclosure I think plus/minus stats are essential but you have to incorporate the box score in your analysis and for small sample sizes, plus/minus can't be relied on. This is why I avoid single game plus/minus and frankly post-season plus minus.

It can also be depressed by team strategy, an example. Team A has a good coach. Team B has a bad coach or inflexible one. Team A adjusts the playcalling when their superstar goes to the bench to fit the backup skills. Team B runs the same plays. The starter on Team A runs the risk of having his plus/minus depressed relative to team B because his backup gets to play in a system that fits his talent. This does happen.

I actually would argue that they are more often to be inflated in situations where a player is on a dominant team on a side of the ball that a player traditionally doesn't make most of their impact.

Probably happens more often on the defensive end since there's less to base that estimation off of.

RCM88x wrote:I actually would argue that they are more often to be inflated in situations where a player is on a dominant team on a side of the ball that a player traditionally doesn't make most of their impact.

Probably happens more often on the defensive end since there's less to base that estimation off of.

What do you mean less to base off of? It's all based on plus minus. Plus often when that happens it's because there isn't a very clean break between ORAPM/DRAPM. Sometimes it just means a defensive player is getting shortchanged on his defensive value as well as overrated on offense (or vice versa for the offensive player). An obvious way this can happen is the better defensive player causing more live ball misses/blocks/steals causing more transition and thus more points and seemingly offensive impact.

The discussion in that thread is silly. This idea that Lebron's teams are more interested in making Lebron's stats look as impressive as possible over trying to win games and championships is absolutely ludicrous.

But if one was so pro-Mike they were willing to talk themselves into such a narrative, they would have to look at how incredibly successful Lebron's teams have been despite the teams not actually prioritizing winning, that it actually would strengthen rather than weaken his case against Mike.

The bottom line is Lebron James is one hell of a basketball player and that's why his impact stats look great. Because he is having great impact. And its not zero sum so his impact has nothing to do with Mike.

I would just completely ignore that whole line of argument.

It can be effected by a number of things which is why people use priors in the first place.

Even in rs you can be effected by innocuous looking things like strength of conference. If there's a significant imbalance in conferences, you play more games against your own conference than others. To exaggerate it to make a point imagine conferences as two different leagues entirely. Obviously it will be easier to separate yourself in a weaker league than a strong one.

Texas Chuck wrote:The discussion in that thread is silly. This idea that Lebron's teams are more interested in making Lebron's stats look as impressive as possible over trying to win games and championships is absolutely ludicrous.

But if one was so pro-Mike they were willing to talk themselves into such a narrative, they would have to look at how incredibly successful Lebron's teams have been despite the teams not actually prioritizing winning, that it actually would strengthen rather than weaken his case against Mike.

The bottom line is Lebron James is one hell of a basketball player and that's why his impact stats look great. Because he is having great impact. And its not zero sum so his impact has nothing to do with Mike.

I would just completely ignore that whole line of argument.

Seems like you're referring to me and again *sigh* not at all what I said. Whatever no point in beating my head against the wall think what you want.

Lou Fan wrote:Seems like you're referring to me and again *sigh* not at all what I said. Whatever no point in beating my head against the wall think what you want.

Might want to change your password then as someone has hacked your account:

Lou Fan wrote:Considering LeBron teams are literally built to be optimized when he's out there and useless when he's not

Lou Fan wrote:It's not just that James' teams were structured in a way to maximize his individual impact while he was out there they were also structured in such a way were it virtually guaranteed that they would be hapless without him. This is true both from a roster construction standpoint and a coaching standpoint.

Lou Fan wrote: I'm also surprised at the refusal to acknowledge that building around different stars is very different and that some teams build to maximize their star and some build to maximize their team and there's a difference between those two things. For example no one in their right mind could claim the current Warriors are built to maximize Curry but they are attempting to maximize the team.

There are a lot more, but I think this is pretty clear that you are in fact trying to say that Lebron's teams are more interested in maximizing him than they are winning.

Which is ludicrous.

But if you honestly believe that then you are forced to believe Lebron is better than Mike considering how he was able to do so much winning with teams not doing everything to win but instead glorify Lebron.

I stand by its silliness.

One of the issues with any metric is that they are normally trying to measure all the players in the league, say 500 or so. At best they are an approximation, with some degree of error, you never get an exact measurement. If you say Curry has an RPM of 6.23 there's not an exact translation to points or values.
And when you look at the values at the top end - say 4-5 standard deviations out, it's really hard to determine the margin of error.
It's not a lot different if you look at two different rating systems - take your two favorite, or any two. The list of players on the top will usually be similar, but not exact. And even if the Top 5 players are exactly the same, the scale of differences wont be.
And part of the issue is if I'm trying to get something that works for 500 players, I'm more concerned about getting it right for the middle 450, and not as concerned about the exceptions caused by the very highest numbers. Most systems are not supposed to be designed to determine the value of the highest practical outcome, but rather measure the items within +/- 2 STDev of the norm.

Texas Chuck wrote:

Lou Fan wrote:Seems like you're referring to me and again *sigh* not at all what I said. Whatever no point in beating my head against the wall think what you want.

Might want to change your password then as someone has hacked your account:

Lou Fan wrote:Considering LeBron teams are literally built to be optimized when he's out there and useless when he's not

Lou Fan wrote:It's not just that James' teams were structured in a way to maximize his individual impact while he was out there they were also structured in such a way were it virtually guaranteed that they would be hapless without him. This is true both from a roster construction standpoint and a coaching standpoint.

Lou Fan wrote: I'm also surprised at the refusal to acknowledge that building around different stars is very different and that some teams build to maximize their star and some build to maximize their team and there's a difference between those two things. For example no one in their right mind could claim the current Warriors are built to maximize Curry but they are attempting to maximize the team.

There are a lot more, but I think this is pretty clear that you are in fact trying to say that Lebron's teams are more interested in maximizing him than they are winning.

Which is ludicrous.

But if you honestly believe that then you are forced to believe Lebron is better than Mike considering how he was able to do so much winning with teams not doing everything to win but instead glorify Lebron.

I stand by its silliness.

I'm glad you read my posts and at least tried to provide some evidence of my supposed beliefs but again your reading comprehension fails. If you look at my posts I say that LeBron ball works you can't argue with the results and that having players like Iggy or Wiggins fails to maximize the team when LeBron's out there because they will take some possessions that would be best used by LeBron. Obviously I believe LeBron and his teams wanted to win above all else (well before this year) I'm just pointing out what I believe to be pretty obvious and that is LeBron has essentially functioned as the team itself for a lot of his career but while that leads to greatness (for him and the team) it also causes him to swallow the impact of a lot of his teammates through both his playstyle and what I talked about in the thread. Obviously LeBron and everyone else on the team wants to win but his teams have mostly been built in such a way that they're only in a position to do so with LeBron on court. So I think that needs to be taken into account when discussing LeBron's impact footprint which I think to many people just take at face value. I don't really want to rehash the arguments I've made and I assume you've already read them (though clearly not well) but what really bothers me is the obnoxious dismissal of me.

The idea you have that I'm so sort of Jordan sycophant trying to tear down LeBron to elevate Mike is really reflective of the toxicity of this site. This is why I usually lurk more than post because people here are more considered with their guys being viewed as greater or whatever than having interesting basketball discussions. I happen to think Jordan was a complete **** and while I think he's better than LeBron I don't care if you or anyone else thinks that. I'm too young to be a fan I was barely alive when he played and I have little attachment to the guy. I just wanted to point out that LeBron's impact data is often talked about without any nuance which should be there and ironically that's what you and falco have been doing to my arguments. Jordan doesn't need me to defend him his play did that well enough and in fact I really never said anything at all about Jordan in that thread and all I said about him was prompted as a response to others. The only point I wanted to make was that I don't think LeBron's impact numbers should be taken at face value and automatically for criticizing their LeBron some people on here have to straw man and manipulate and label me a Jordan stan. It's sad and it has nothing to do with me. I would've posted the same things if it was a LeBron vs KAJ or anyone else impact thread.

falcolombardi wrote:This is a discussion going on the lebron vs jordan rapm thread

Are there ways for rapm and other purely plus-minis based metrics (with rapm studies that dont use boxscore as a prior) to actually be inflated by player or team approach at the expense of a team?

The only situation i can imagine would cause this would be a superstar who is used with bench lineups so much that reduces his own plus-minus metrics but increasea that of the bench units heavily

And far as i can remember i dont think that is a common situation at all?

The "at the expense of a team" part is tricky, because the way to do it is to build a roster that optimizing fit with a particular player.

If you want to build a roster to max out a helio's RAPM, you surround him with shooters, rebounders, and defenders who can focus on everything he won't be doing when he's out there. In doing so, you optimize balance while he's on the court, and imbalance when he's off.

Does that actually hurt the team? Compared to what, not letting him play helio? Investing in a back-up helio like the Lakers did this year with Westbrook? Hard to say that.

Also hard to say whether that constitutes inflation. If it's the smartest way to build around your star, that what you're doing is improving fit, and I don't think it's right to say optimizing fit causes your star's value to inflated (I'd be more inclined to use the word "optimized" again.

Now as I say all of this:

I expect we'll eventually have stats for team roster construction which give us a sense for how good the theoretical fit of a roster is or should be based on the skill and role orientation of the players on the team. If you get to that point, then you'll be able to also quantify "fit" and use that to get a stat for "impact above fit expectation". I wouldn't want that stat to replace more absolute impact evaluations, but it would be worth seeing.

Lou Fan wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

Lou Fan wrote:Seems like you're referring to me and again *sigh* not at all what I said. Whatever no point in beating my head against the wall think what you want.

Might want to change your password then as someone has hacked your account:

Lou Fan wrote:Considering LeBron teams are literally built to be optimized when he's out there and useless when he's not

Lou Fan wrote:It's not just that James' teams were structured in a way to maximize his individual impact while he was out there they were also structured in such a way were it virtually guaranteed that they would be hapless without him. This is true both from a roster construction standpoint and a coaching standpoint.

Lou Fan wrote: I'm also surprised at the refusal to acknowledge that building around different stars is very different and that some teams build to maximize their star and some build to maximize their team and there's a difference between those two things. For example no one in their right mind could claim the current Warriors are built to maximize Curry but they are attempting to maximize the team.

There are a lot more, but I think this is pretty clear that you are in fact trying to say that Lebron's teams are more interested in maximizing him than they are winning.

Which is ludicrous.

But if you honestly believe that then you are forced to believe Lebron is better than Mike considering how he was able to do so much winning with teams not doing everything to win but instead glorify Lebron.

I stand by its silliness.

I'm glad you read my posts and at least tried to provide some evidence of my supposed beliefs but again your reading comprehension fails. If you look at my posts I say that LeBron ball works you can't argue with the results and that having players like Iggy or Wiggins fails to maximize the team when LeBron's out there because they will take some possessions that would be best used by LeBron. Obviously I believe LeBron and his teams wanted to win above all else (well before this year) I'm just pointing out what I believe to be pretty obvious and that is LeBron has essentially functioned as the team itself for a lot of his career but while that leads to greatness (for him and the team) it also causes him to swallow the impact of a lot of his teammates through both his playstyle and what I talked about in the thread. Obviously LeBron and everyone else on the team wants to win but his teams have mostly been built in such a way that they're only in a position to do so with LeBron on court. So I think that needs to be taken into account when discussing LeBron's impact footprint which I think to many people just take at face value. I don't really want to rehash the arguments I've made and I assume you've already read them (though clearly not well) but what really bothers me is the obnoxious dismissal of me.

The idea you have that I'm so sort of Jordan sycophant trying to tear down LeBron to elevate Mike is really reflective of the toxicity of this site. This is why I usually lurk more than post because people here are more considered with their guys being viewed as greater or whatever than having interesting basketball discussions. I happen to think Jordan was a complete **** and while I think he's better than LeBron I don't care if you or anyone else thinks that. I'm too young to be a fan I was barely alive when he played and I have little attachment to the guy. I just wanted to point out that LeBron's impact data is often talked about without any nuance which should be there and ironically that's what you and falco have been doing to my arguments. Jordan doesn't need me to defend him his play did that well enough and in fact I really never said anything at all about Jordan in that thread and all I said about him was prompted as a response to others. The only point I wanted to make was that I don't think LeBron's impact numbers should be taken at face value and automatically for criticizing their LeBron some people on here have to straw man and manipulate and label me a Jordan stan. It's sad and it has nothing to do with me. I would've posted the same things if it was a LeBron vs KAJ or anyone else impact thread.

I literally provided you with your own words.

But your righteous indignation loses a lot of its steam when you repeatedly tell other posters their reading comprehension sucks as opposed to taking ownership of your own posts.

Your first response to me was to tell me you didn't say what you said. When I then clearly established you did in fact say it, the issue is I'm toxic because I hold you accountable for your own positioning? And the issue is I'm not smart enough to understand your arguments?

Have you considered I understand your arguments and find them lacking in merit? I say this not be attacking your personally, but to question your arguments--something I do with other posters every day on this site, and they with mine and we manage it without accusing the other of an inability to understand. I assure you I followed your posts with no difficulties at all.

What you appear to want is to be able to create whatever narrative you want around Lebron without being accountable for how absurd your positioning is.

Which is fair enough. I'll know not to attempt to engage you as you aren't interested in a discussion or a debate but rather a blanket acceptance of whatever story you would like to tell. Based on nothing more than some sort of arbitrarily defined "Lebronball" which isn't actually a quantifiable thing.

And I ask nobody to take any numbers at face value, Lebron or anyone else. But if you post fanciful narratives I'm going to point out why that's not particularly valuable in the topic at hand.

Texas Chuck wrote:

Lou Fan wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
Might want to change your password then as someone has hacked your account:








There are a lot more, but I think this is pretty clear that you are in fact trying to say that Lebron's teams are more interested in maximizing him than they are winning.

Which is ludicrous.

But if you honestly believe that then you are forced to believe Lebron is better than Mike considering how he was able to do so much winning with teams not doing everything to win but instead glorify Lebron.

I stand by its silliness.

I'm glad you read my posts and at least tried to provide some evidence of my supposed beliefs but again your reading comprehension fails. If you look at my posts I say that LeBron ball works you can't argue with the results and that having players like Iggy or Wiggins fails to maximize the team when LeBron's out there because they will take some possessions that would be best used by LeBron. Obviously I believe LeBron and his teams wanted to win above all else (well before this year) I'm just pointing out what I believe to be pretty obvious and that is LeBron has essentially functioned as the team itself for a lot of his career but while that leads to greatness (for him and the team) it also causes him to swallow the impact of a lot of his teammates through both his playstyle and what I talked about in the thread. Obviously LeBron and everyone else on the team wants to win but his teams have mostly been built in such a way that they're only in a position to do so with LeBron on court. So I think that needs to be taken into account when discussing LeBron's impact footprint which I think to many people just take at face value. I don't really want to rehash the arguments I've made and I assume you've already read them (though clearly not well) but what really bothers me is the obnoxious dismissal of me.

The idea you have that I'm so sort of Jordan sycophant trying to tear down LeBron to elevate Mike is really reflective of the toxicity of this site. This is why I usually lurk more than post because people here are more considered with their guys being viewed as greater or whatever than having interesting basketball discussions. I happen to think Jordan was a complete **** and while I think he's better than LeBron I don't care if you or anyone else thinks that. I'm too young to be a fan I was barely alive when he played and I have little attachment to the guy. I just wanted to point out that LeBron's impact data is often talked about without any nuance which should be there and ironically that's what you and falco have been doing to my arguments. Jordan doesn't need me to defend him his play did that well enough and in fact I really never said anything at all about Jordan in that thread and all I said about him was prompted as a response to others. The only point I wanted to make was that I don't think LeBron's impact numbers should be taken at face value and automatically for criticizing their LeBron some people on here have to straw man and manipulate and label me a Jordan stan. It's sad and it has nothing to do with me. I would've posted the same things if it was a LeBron vs KAJ or anyone else impact thread.

I literally provided you with your own words.

But your righteous indignation loses a lot of its steam when you repeatedly tell other posters their reading comprehension sucks as opposed to taking ownership of your own posts.

Your first response to me was to tell me you didn't say what you said. When I then clearly established you did in fact say it, the issue is I'm toxic because I hold you accountable for your own positioning? And the issue is I'm not smart enough to understand your arguments?

Have you considered I understand your arguments and find them lacking in merit? I say this not be attacking your personally, but to question your arguments--something I do with other posters every day on this site, and they with mine and we manage it without accusing the other of an inability to understand. I assure you I followed your posts with no difficulties at all.

What you appear to want is to be able to create whatever narrative you want around Lebron without being accountable for how absurd your positioning is.

Which is fair enough. I'll know not to attempt to engage you as you aren't interested in a discussion or a debate but rather a blanket acceptance of whatever story you would like to tell. Based on nothing more than some sort of arbitrarily defined "Lebronball" which isn't actually a quantifiable thing.

And I ask nobody to take any numbers at face value, Lebron or anyone else. But if you post fanciful narratives I'm going to point out why that's not particularly valuable in the topic at hand.

You claimed I said LeBron's teams cared more about LeBron's stats than winning. I said no such thing. You provided no evidence that I said that. You showed me words that I said which I explained did not mean what you thought they meant and yet you claim either to not have had a comprehension error or know better what I meant and said than I, the author, do. Nice.

I absolutely stand behind my posts and I'm only having an issue with two posters plenty of other people responded and understood them fine. I never said anything about your intelligence you could well be a genius for all I know and I suspect you did understand my arguments but are just more interested in making me look like a moron and a jackass than engaging with them. It's totally fine to find my arguments lacking multiple people did and I discussed it with them no problem. Issue is when people put words in my mouth and reduce my arguments to what they are not. When I'm met with the charge you have no understanding of the things you're saying, your argument is silly/ridiculous whatever else what do you think my response will be other than clearly you did not understand what I meant? If you said you're wrong I disagree here's why then fine. That's not what you said. You're essentially accusing me of being an ignorant narrative pusher, when I know I'm not, and then expecting me to respond to that positively like the other posters who manage it everyday. I'm more than fine being disagreed with I'm more than fine being definitively proven wrong I'm not ok being treated like an idiot or a clown especially when my words are being manipulated to make me look that way.

I'm actually interested in the exact opposite I wouldn't be here if all the people agreed with me it'd be a complete waste of my time. I'm here for basketball discussion. I was actually hesitant to post that because I normally steer way clear of LeBron because of bull like this that usually comes along with it.

I've read a lot of your posts and I think you often have interesting things to say. For whatever reason you've decided that I'm not worthy of discussion with you and whatever that's fine I bear you no ill will but acting like you are above this and that I'm out of bounds for defending myself when I'm being misrepresented is ridiculous.

i've said this before but none of the people pushing "lebron's impact is inflated by shooters" have yet to address this: how do you explain lebron's high level of impact in situations without shooting like 2012, 2015, and 2020?

this is not the inflation that theyre talking about but being played in an optimal or suboptimal role can increase or decrease a player’s rapm.

jalengreen wrote:this is not the inflation that theyre talking about but being played in an optimal or suboptimal role can increase or decrease a player’s rapm.

Right so based on role you're rapm can be increased or inflated. We're arguing over minutiae at this point. Just using different words to convey the same meaning.

Lou Fan wrote: but are just more interested in making me look like a moron and a jackass than engaging with them.

I freely acknowledge I should have engaged more constructively. That's on me and you are due an apology for that and you have it. I didn't need to be an ass.



I think the most basic explanation for why great players look great in +/- stats is because they are great players so of course their teams play better with them on the court. Now some teams have multiple stars or deep benches and can mitigate those minutes when their star is on the bench better than others.

But no team is intentionally trying to construct their team to be terrible without their star, even if its Lebron James.

I feel like the entire premise of that thread is flawed though, because it was my understanding that you can't really compare RAPM values year-to-year and draw any useful conclusions?

Like it was my understanding that it's not even a given (based on what limited data we have) that Lebron even looks better than MJ by that metric.