Does Luka Impact Winning?

[OhayoKD]

There's been a lot of discourse to the effect of "luka is a great talent, luka puts up great numbers, but he doesn't know how to impact winning" largely going off data-points like these:

Spoiler:

That's right folks. In 12 minutes without Luka the team gets better! I wonder what they do in 48-minutes without---



Huh. Well then they must really suck when Luka--



Well, it's probably just a fluke. Luka's team was bad the next--




Wow, Luka actually looks really good in the regular-season! And he must be really really good in the playoffs! But let's just check the net-rating, I'm sure it doesn't suggest he's a nega--




Ooof. Well maybe the haters were right. Luka doesn't impact--



Or maybe he does?

Okay, let's combine our samples:



Phew. Luka is good!

For a little less uncertainty, let's extend this a bit:
[img]https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/807803459331555363/1169265589144010793/image.png?ex=6554c670&is=65425170&hm=5ee1e7fb7b14d0a0f0abc4e0b015c0e566ead3324786994ad3deb1401a474b43&=&width=1434&height=435
[/img]



I think the answer to "does luka impact winning" is probably yes. And yes, that was something someone directly questioned because of that on/off graph(i wonder if there's anything to learn from this...). But maybe he isn't --as-- impactful as you would expect. Of course if anything this confirms that player-evaluation is an exercise in uncertainty, and he does do a fare bit better by record(helio-led teams do tend to do better in the clutch).

He also shares alot in common with, at least emperically, most valuable offensive players ever with a high-volume of ball-handling to go with high-volume and effecient scoring as well as creating a bunch for teammates. Maybe he just got unlucky!

Regardless, I think whatever you decide Luka's ability to affect winning is, it's important to look at the whole picture, and not just try and stack-metrics indiscriminately.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Honestly, Luka's impact profile has been up there with almost any star when he has been to thr PS, which is the real intrigue with him.

Compare him to someone like Jokic, who wasn't fully maximized on the defensive end, until the Nuggets made some roster changes. Luka from 20-22, looks quite good in comparison to Jokic.

Luka and Jokic offensive performance against similar opponents in the PS.


Luka's averages vs Clippers in 2020 PS (Clippers had a rDRTG of -3.1)

31 points, 9.8 rebs, 8.7 assists, 5.2 turnovers (59.6 TS%) in 35.8 MPG.

GameScore-23.4

Dallas had a 113 ORTG, and 112 ORTG with Luka on.


Jokic's averages vs Clippers in 2020 PS (Clippers had a rDRTG of -3.1)

24.4 points, 13.4 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 4.7 turnovers (60.3 TS%) in 37.7 MPG.

GameScore-19.9

Denver had a 110.6 ORTG, and 108 offensive rating with Jokic on.


Luka's averages vs Clippers in 2021 PS (Clippers had a rDRTG of -1.3)

35.7 pts, 7.9 rebounds, 10.3 assists, 4.6 turnovers (57.2 TS%) in 40.2 MPG.

GameScore-26.1

Dallas had a 116.5 ORTG, and a 114 ORTG with Luka on.



Jokic's averages vs Suns in 2021 PS (Suns had a rDRTG of -1.1)

25 points, 13.3 rebounds, 5.8 assists, 2 turnovers (53 TS%) in 33.5 MPG

GameScore-22.2

Denver had a 107.9 ORTG, and 116 ORTG with Jokic on.


Luka's averages vs Suns in 2022 PS (Suns had a rDRTG of -4.6)

32.6 points, 9.9 rebounds, and 7 assists, 4 turnovers (58.3 TS%) in 36.1 MPG

GameScore-24.8

Dallas had a 116.8 ORTG and a 116 ORTG with Luka on.


Jokic's averages vs Warriors in 2022 PS (Warriors have a rDRTG of -4.9)

31 pts, 13.2 rebs, and 5.8 assists, 4.8 turnovers (64.3 TS%) in 34.2 MPG

GameScore-25.9

Denver had a 114.7 ORTG and a 119 ORTG with Jokic on.


Luka's averages vs Warriors in 2022 PS (Warriors have a rDRTG of -4.9)

32 pts, 9.2 rebs, and 6 assists, 3.8 turnovers (55.9 TS%) in 38.2 MPG

GameScore-22.9




All in all

Luka's measurements in the aforementioned PS stats

Backpicks BPM
20-7.03
21-6.87
22-7.5

AuPM/g
20-2.8
21-3.9
22-3.2

EPM
20-3.1
21-7.4
22-5.9

Multi-Year LEBRON
20-22: 4.32

Jokic's measurements in recent PS runs

Backpicks BPM
20-6.43
21-6.12
22-7.8

AuPM/g
20-3.4
21-2.7
22-4.2

EPM
20-4.1
21-2.8
22-1.4

Multi-Year LEBRON
20-22: 1.96

We didn't get to see the best version of Luka (2023) in the PS, so it is within reason another leap could be coming.

Similar to how these numbers show, Jokic needed a slightly different roster change to in particular put up a more impressive plus-minus portfolio in 23, I think one could argue that Luka going into the PS with a different roster than years pass could see uptick in his impact profile.


You don't even need to compare Luka to Jokic to see he has a huge impact.

Luka's last 3 PS

BPM-9.7

20 Backpicks BPM-7
21 Backpicks BPM-7
22 Backpicks BPM-7.5


3-year Minute-Weighted RAPTOR-8.59


For comparison sakes,

Steph's last 3 PS

BPM-6.4

19 Backpicks BPM-5.9
22 Backpicks BPM-6.3
23 Backpicks BPM-3.1

3-year Minute-Weighted RAPTOR-7.26

Embiid's last 3 PS

BPM-3.1

21 Backpicks BPM-4.3
22 Backpicks BPM-1.8
23 Backpicks BPM-2.1

3-year Minute-Weighted RAPTOR-6.95

KD's last 3 PS

BPM-5.7

21 Backpicks BPM-6.7
22 Backpicks BPM-1.8
23 Backpicks BPM-3.7

3-year Minute-Weighted RAPTOR-1.25

Luka comes out looking better in every number metric listed here. Keep in mind we didn't even get to see 2023 Luka (the best version of Luka) in the PS, so the gap Luka has in these metrics might really be understated. Luka has quite arguably been better his last few PS the biggest contenders here, and he is the youngest here as well, who perhaps can grow most easily from the players listed here.

[OhayoKD]

Honestly, Luka's impact profile has been up there with almost any star when he has been to thr PS, which is the real intrigue with him.

Compare him to someone like Jokic, who wasn't fully maximized on the defensive end, until the Nuggets made some roster changes. Luka from 20-22, looks quite good in comparison to Jokic.

Luka and Jokic offensive performance against similar opponents in the PS.


Luka's averages vs Clippers in 2020 PS (Clippers had a rDRTG of -3.1)

31 points, 9.8 rebs, 8.7 assists, 5.2 turnovers (59.6 TS%) in 35.8 MPG.

GameScore-23.4

Dallas had a 113 ORTG, and 112 ORTG with Luka on.


Jokic's averages vs Clippers in 2020 PS (Clippers had a rDRTG of -3.1)

24.4 points, 13.4 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 4.7 turnovers (60.3 TS%) in 37.7 MPG.

GameScore-19.9

Denver had a 110.6 ORTG, and 108 offensive rating with Jokic on.


Luka's averages vs Clippers in 2021 PS (Clippers had a rDRTG of -1.3)

35.7 pts, 7.9 rebounds, 10.3 assists, 4.6 turnovers (57.2 TS%) in 40.2 MPG.

GameScore-26.1

Dallas had a 116.5 ORTG, and a 114 ORTG with Luka on.



Jokic's averages vs Suns in 2021 PS (Suns had a rDRTG of -1.1)

25 points, 13.3 rebounds, 5.8 assists, 2 turnovers (53 TS%) in 33.5 MPG

GameScore-22.2

Denver had a 107.9 ORTG, and 116 ORTG with Jokic on.


Luka's averages vs Suns in 2022 PS (Suns had a rDRTG of -4.6)

32.6 points, 9.9 rebounds, and 7 assists, 4 turnovers (58.3 TS%) in 36.1 MPG

GameScore-24.8

Dallas had a 116.8 ORTG and a 116 ORTG with Luka on.


Jokic's averages vs Warriors in 2022 PS (Warriors have a rDRTG of -4.9)

31 pts, 13.2 rebs, and 5.8 assists, 4.8 turnovers (64.3 TS%) in 34.2 MPG

GameScore-25.9

Denver had a 114.7 ORTG and a 119 ORTG with Jokic on.


Luka's averages vs Warriors in 2022 PS (Warriors have a rDRTG of -4.9)

32 pts, 9.2 rebs, and 6 assists, 3.8 turnovers (55.9 TS%) in 38.2 MPG

GameScore-22.9




All in all

Luka's measurements in the aforementioned PS stats

Backpicks BPM
20-7.03
21-6.87
22-7.5

AuPM/g
20-2.8
21-3.9
22-3.2

EPM
20-3.1
21-7.4
22-5.9

Multi-Year LEBRON
20-22: 4.32

Jokic's measurements in recent PS runs

Backpicks BPM
20-6.43
21-6.12
22-7.8

AuPM/g
20-3.4
21-2.7
22-4.2

EPM
20-4.1
21-2.8
22-1.4

Multi-Year LEBRON
20-22: 1.96

We didn't get to see the best version of Luka (2023) in the PS, so it is within reason another leap could be coming.

Similar to how these numbers show, Jokic needed a slightly different roster change to in particular put up a more impressive plus-minus portfolio in 23, I think one could argue that Luka going into the PS with a different roster than years pass could see uptick in his impact profile.

You should use overall ratings, not just offensive ones.

[Mavrelous]

Luka has had bad stretches to the season that skewed his on/off numbers, most notably, October-December of 2021/22 season, where the bench (led by Brunson), constantly outperformed the starters (Luka/KP), it was affected by Kidd's new system, but mainly, Luka had aweful start to the season, this stretch was the main reason Luka wasn't part of the MVP discussion that year, because what he did January-May was MVP level.
The Luka-less record in 2021/22 isn't fair presentation, since the Mavs faced some tough competition and held their own (PHX, Clippers, MEM, Jazz)

[Ambrose]

Luka is weird. When he's on, he's as good as anyone in the NBA, and he's super postseason resilient.

But he has stretches where he attempts to do the things he normally does except he's straight up bad, and when you're that high volume, it's super detrimental. I view it as a consistency and stamina issue. It's like he's elite 60% of the time, ATG 20% of the time and then a clear liability 20% of the time. Combine this with the fact that he's often asked to do so much offensively that he's not always doing little things that add up to wins or engaged defensively, and it leads to wonky and inconsistent impact data.

This season so far (super small sample) he does look to be in better shape, a little less ball-dominant, and a little more willing to do the little things, so we'll see if there is a big bump in impact or not.

[Texas Chuck]

I mean this feels like not a serious question. Of course he impacts winning. And losing.

This is why the obsesssion over on/off stuff is something I never ever understand. Your team playing good or bad without you on the court isn't a reflection on you. It's a reflection on your general manager.

When we decide player X is better than player Y when players A-L are on the court and neither of X or Y is....well we just aren't getting at reality.

Edit: And this really isn't a defense of Luka who I would say isn't having a positive impact that approaches what his box score accumulation suggests. But to make a post saying he doesn't impact the results of Dallas Mavericks games just cannot be serious. He is the biggest impact good or bad every single night. He's the best player and he dominates the ball. How is this guy not impacting the results?

[MacGill]

This is why the obsesssion over on/off stuff is something I never ever understand. Your team playing good or bad without you on the court isn't a reflection on you. It's a reflection on your general manager.

When we decide player X is better than player Y when players A-L are on the court and neither of X or Y is....well we just aren't getting at reality.

In my opinion, so many undervalue or ignore this bolded statement. I still enjoy the game, not as much with the 3-ball era, but dislike where we are headed with evaluating the current superstar group.

[OhayoKD]

I mean this feels like not a serious question. Of course he impacts winning. And losing.

This is why the obsesssion over on/off stuff is something I never ever understand. Your team playing good or bad without you on the court isn't a reflection on you.

This is copium. Obviously winning and not winning reflects a player to a degree. Management will generally have a harder time building rosters that replace players who are better: eg, impacting winning.

I'm also guessing you didn't read the post. I never claimed Luka isn't impacting winning(actually claimed the opposite)

[Texas Chuck]

I mean this feels like not a serious question. Of course he impacts winning. And losing.

This is why the obsesssion over on/off stuff is something I never ever understand. Your team playing good or bad without you on the court isn't a reflection on you.

This is copium. Obviously winning and not winning reflects a player to a degree. Management will generally have a harder time building rosters that replace players who are better: eg, impacting winning.

I'm also guessing you didn't read the post. I never claimed Luka isn't impacting winning(actually claimed the opposite)

Copium? OMG lol

You posed the question. I am saying it is not a serious question.

I get you don't like me saying your premise is bad. But I believe your premise is bad.

[OhayoKD]

I mean this feels like not a serious question. Of course he impacts winning. And losing.

This is why the obsesssion over on/off stuff is something I never ever understand. Your team playing good or bad without you on the court isn't a reflection on you.

This is copium. Obviously winning and not winning reflects a player to a degree. Management will generally have a harder time building rosters that replace players who are better: eg, impacting winning.

I'm also guessing you didn't read the post. I never claimed Luka isn't impacting winning(actually claimed the opposite)

Copium? OMG lol

I would have expected a wordsmith yourself to be familiar with the term
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Copium

Hope that helps!

[AEnigma]

Interesting approach to say “you did not even read my post, which was a defence of Luka’s impact” while also implying Chuck is “coping” over Luka’s ostensibly low impact.

[Texas Chuck]

This is copium. Obviously winning and not winning reflects a player to a degree. Management will generally have a harder time building rosters that replace players who are better: eg, impacting winning.

I'm also guessing you didn't read the post. I never claimed Luka isn't impacting winning(actually claimed the opposite)

Copium? OMG lol

I would have expected a wordsmith yourself to be familiar with the term
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Copium

Hope that helps!

Are you here for discussion or just agreement? Seems like every time someone pushes back the slightest you get off into this silliness. But I'm here to please so....

Great thread. No notes.

[OhayoKD]

Interesting approach to say “you did not even read my post, which was a defence of Luka’s impact” while also implying Chuck is “coping” over Luka’s ostensibly low impact.

The implication was not specifically about Luka Mr. "these discussions do not happen in a vacuum"

Copium? OMG lol

I would have expected a wordsmith yourself to be familiar with the term
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Copium

Hope that helps!

Are you here for discussion or just agreement? Seems like every time someone pushes back the slightest you get off into this silliness. But I'm here to please so....

Great thread. No notes.

This would work better if you didn't have a history of derailing discussion with personal whatever whenever your premises face the slighest pushback:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108389815#p108389815
If you are actually interested in discussion here, why did you skip over this?

Obviously winning and not winning reflects a player to a degree. Management will generally have a harder time building rosters that replace players who are better: eg, impacting winning.

You challenged a premise and I defended it. That is discussion.

Unfortunately the use of not-conventional-english was more important to you. And with that went the discussion.

[AEnigma]

Interesting approach to say “you did not even read my post, which was a defence of Luka’s impact” while also implying Chuck is “coping” over Luka’s ostensibly low impact.

The implication was not specifically about Luka Mr. "these discussions do not happen in a vacuum"

Yes, I am aware of your very obvious personal grudges; I am saying you blindly abandoned the premise of the thread in pursuit of this one.

The post in this ostensible Luka thread that could be most easily dismissed as “copium” is your own. That is why you trying to pull up UrbanDictionary is funny.

[OhayoKD]

Interesting approach to say “you did not even read my post, which was a defence of Luka’s impact” while also implying Chuck is “coping” over Luka’s ostensibly low impact.

The implication was not specifically about Luka Mr. "these discussions do not happen in a vacuum"

Yes, I am aware of your very obvious personal grudges; I am saying you blindly abandoned the premise of the thread in pursuit of this one.

The post in this ostensible Luka thread that could be most easily dismissed as “copium” is your own. That is why you trying to pull up UrbanDictionary is funny.

Fair enough. I will endeavor to be more precise in future discussions. Maybe then a word will not be used as an excuse to avoid the discussion someone allegedly wants to have.

[trex_8063]

I can't exactly follow what has happened in this thread, or why things had to get so chippy (clearly backstory and/or "old scores" to settle that I'm unaware of).

Here's what I'm seeing (having just entered on to this thread today)......

"Does Luka Impact Winning?"
Is this being asked seriously, or is this more of a rhetorical? idk, but it is the literal [verbatim] question in the title, and there were implications [no link] that persons had been asking that very question.
If it indeed posed as the former [a genuine question seeking an answer], it seems like one where the answer is pretty darn self-evident. He's the best player on the team and plays massive minutes [to say nothing of the huge load/primacy he bears]........how could he NOT impact winning [positively]?

At any rate, OP goes on to answer the title's question, arriving at the [foregone, imo] conclusion that yes, he does have positive impact.


However, the first person to point out the relatively self-evident answer was promptly needled (old scores?), and accused by the thread's author of not engaging the question that was asked.

Perhaps he wasn't semantically Luka-friendly enough in his reply for the author's liking? Perhaps he has a lower opinion in general of Luka (and again: this is known from prior encounters [given this conversation is not taking place "in a vacuum", as has been pointed out])? I'm not sure. Still doesn't seem [to me] reason to attack the reply that was given.


Or perhaps it's because the subtext question (which perhaps was presumed to be obvious???) was not answered (EDIT: whoops, on re-read, I see he did actually speak to this, too)? The subtext question [alluded to in OP] being: does he impact winning AS MUCH as his box-based metrics imply?

I'm not sure how to interpret if this was the crux of the argument. Because for one, if the author feels that subtext question was obvious, then perhaps it could be argued that the implied criticism (of some [perhaps not all]) of Luka's critics is that it's not that he has NO impact, it's just that he has impact well below what might be expected based on his box numbers.........is equally obvious.

Beyond that, I can't tell what conclusion has been arrived at by the author, after presentation of the expanded batch of impact indicators provided (multi-year on/off, rs and playoffs, and with/without team records). I certainly get the feeling my "conclusions" from that data are different.

Because while they largely indicate definitive positive impact, the measurable amount of that impact appears definitively behind what we'd expect of most other megastars: WOWY showing ~16 wins added over full season; single-season BEST net on/off of +7.2, larger multi-year sample showing +2.6..........This is arguably in-line with the implied criticism of some of his detractors [unless there are people LITERALLY saying he's a net-neutral or negative contributor that I'm unaware of]: it's positive, but not "as much" as expected (EDIT: this is what Texas Chuck stated in his original reply, too).


So this thread has really had a weird trajectory to my eye. I'm just not seeing why it needed to devolve to this so quickly. Nor are we [mod team] happy about it.

[Special_Puppy]

There's been a lot of discourse to the effect of "luka is a great talent, luka puts up great numbers, but he doesn't know how to impact winning" largely going off data-points like these:

Spoiler:

That's right folks. In 12 minutes without Luka the team gets better! I wonder what they do in 48-minutes without---



Huh. Well then they must really suck when Luka--



Well, it's probably just a fluke. Luka's team was bad the next--




Wow, Luka actually looks really good in the regular-season! And he must be really really good in the playoffs! But let's just check the net-rating, I'm sure it doesn't suggest he's a nega--




Ooof. Well maybe the haters were right. Luka doesn't impact--



Or maybe he does?

Okay, let's combine our samples:



Phew. Luka is good!

For a little less uncertainty, let's extend this a bit:
[img]https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/807803459331555363/1169265589144010793/image.png?ex=6554c670&is=65425170&hm=5ee1e7fb7b14d0a0f0abc4e0b015c0e566ead3324786994ad3deb1401a474b43&=&width=1434&height=435
[/img]



I think the answer to "does luka impact winning" is probably yes. And yes, that was something someone directly questioned because of that on/off graph(i wonder if there's anything to learn from this...). But maybe he isn't --as-- impactful as you would expect. Of course if anything this confirms that player-evaluation is an exercise in uncertainty, and he does do a fare bit better by record(helio-led teams do tend to do better in the clutch).

He also shares alot in common with, at least emperically, most valuable offensive players ever with a high-volume of ball-handling to go with high-volume and effecient scoring as well as creating a bunch for teammates. Maybe he just got unlucky!

Regardless, I think whatever you decide Luka's ability to affect winning is, it's important to look at the whole picture, and not just try and stack-metrics indiscriminately.

Luka's RAPM is surprisingly mediocre too. He ranks 97th in the league in Time-Decay RAPM. Now does that mean that Luka is actually the 97th best player in the league? No of course not. That's absurd. It should cause you to downgrade Luka in evaluations though
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mhwOLqPu2F9026EQiVxFPIN1t9RGafGpl-dokaIsm9c/edit#gid=923517192

[Joao Saraiva]

Yes he does impact winning. No player can do the things he do and not impact winning. Is he perfect? No. Somewhat of a streak shooter? Maybe.

The problem with Dallas was defense. And no, he'll not solve that. But no way you can tell me that are more than 2 or 3 guys (if any) that impact the game on offense the way Luka does.

Net ratings are cool and all and team evaluations, but those need a lot of context.

[OhayoKD]

I can't exactly follow what has happened in this thread, or why things had to get so chippy (clearly backstory and/or "old scores" to settle that I'm unaware of).

Here's what I'm seeing (having just entered on to this thread today)......

"Does Luka Impact Winning?"
Is this being asked seriously, or is this more of a rhetorical? idk, but it is the literal [verbatim] question in the title, and there were implications [no link] that persons had been asking that very question.
If it indeed posed as the former [a genuine question seeking an answer], it seems like one where the answer is pretty darn self-evident. He's the best player on the team and plays massive minutes [to say nothing of the huge load/primacy he bears]........how could he NOT impact winning [positively]?

At any rate, OP goes on to answer the title's question, arriving at the [foregone, imo] conclusion that yes, he does have positive impact.


However, the first person to point out the relatively self-evident answer was promptly needled (old scores?), and accused by the thread's author of not engaging the question that was asked.
.

That is not what was pointed out or what was engaged with:

This is why the obsesssion over on/off stuff is something I never ever understand. Your team playing good or bad without you on the court isn't a reflection on you. It's a reflection on your general manager.

This is copium. Obviously winning and not winning reflects a player to a degree. Management will generally have a harder time building rosters that replace players who are better: eg, impacting winning

Then, we get this:

Copium? OMG lol

You posed the question. I am saying it is not a serious question.

I get you don't like me saying your premise is bad. But I believe your premise is bad.

Are you here for discussion or just agreement? Seems like every time someone pushes back the slightest you get off into this silliness. But I'm here to please so....

Great thread. No notes.

Not really sure why this is getting complicated.

-> Texas Chuck challenged a premise. I defended the premise. Chuck then said I wasn't "here for discussion" after opting to ignore the discussion and levelled a personal barb to which i linked an example of them doing what they accused me of...and proceeded to quote myself inviting discussion regarding the premise.

If you think "copium" was crossing a line(and somehow what i quoted above was not), then discipline accordingly. I don't think it's consistent application, but that's your decision to make, not mine.

[trex_8063]

However, the first person to point out the relatively self-evident answer was promptly needled (old scores?), and accused by the thread's author of not engaging the question that was asked.
.

That is not what was pointed out or what was engaged with...

Oh no?:

I mean this feels like not a serious question. Of course he impacts winning......

.......Edit: And this really isn't a defense of Luka who I would say isn't having a positive impact that approaches what his box score accumulation suggests. But to make a post saying he doesn't impact the results of Dallas Mavericks games just cannot be serious. He is the biggest impact good or bad every single night. He's the best player and he dominates the ball. How is this guy not impacting the results?

It was, in fact, the primary thing spoken to in his post. You chose to ignore that, and instead focus on two side-bar sentences that spoke to his own personal skepticism of on/off data [in general].