is kd's "impact" high

[OhayoKD]

The top performers in those kinds of stats are overwhelmingly playmakers and defensive anchors on teams that put all their eggs in one basket and don't have capable back-ups for those roles so the team crumbles on offense or defense without them.

Or maybe raw scoring volume is a lot more replaceable and less essential than you think it is. Iverson and Kobe were their team’s lead playmakers yet did not exactly generate incredible impact.

I think raw impact signals mildly undersell Durant’s real value in the postseason in perhaps a similar way as it can for Kobe, but Durant’s typical inability to support a high-level team that way (I suppose outside of that laudable 26-game stretch in the 2014 regular season) is because of his own limitations. If he were a better defender or playmaker, he could contribute to his team beyond raw scoring or “gravity”, even without being a true lead creator or defensive anchor.

Funnily enough with how far apart our approaches seem to be sometimes, I saw what you value in modern times
in a recent post and it's actually very similar as what I do with stats like EPM and LEBRON being the gold standard.

+- stats look at what happens when you insert a player into a line-up. How much direct "impact" adding or subtracting a certain player has on winning. Box stats look at how much someone is producing and how efficiently they are doing so.

Well, production/efficiency are already baked into the "impact" bit. It's just tricky figuring out to what extent. More pressingly, "box stats look at how much someone is producing and how efficiently they are doing so" only works on offense. On defense, box-stats capture a fraction of what is produced and have no way to track "misses". So even in a "production' lense, anything not box-informed will do far better looking at defensive production and efficiency than something that isn't.

So. If player a and b are comparable or close in the box-stuff and then there's a defensive impact gap in favor of player b, deciding player b is probably better is a natural conclusion of "looking at both". (Giannis vs KD is a real-life example we could apply this to)

I'm of the opinion you need both to even come close to approximating how good someone is and I simply don't agree that +- stats alone are enough

Depends on how much we're working with. If a player mantains +20 on/off, close to 30 win lift while playing on 4 different teams in situations with and without theoretically optimal conditions, concluding they're similar to another player who only hits +20 on/off once and maxes out at 15 win-lift because that player has a box-score edge would be odd. Theoretical explanations only go so far. If reality gives you a mountain, then you really should take the mountain unless you have strong counter-evidence to back up whatever explanatory theory you're using to cast doubt.

(or somehow better/more pure without adding a box component) when they're so incredibly situational.

The "how" is pretty obvious no? If I'm assessing a player who racks up high off-ball creation, components which currently do not have "off-ball creation" will consistently underrate relative to impact. So the "purer" stuff has obvious value and if there's enough consistency there, chucking or permanently curving up the box outputs is a pretty natural solution.

Sure if we take team-based +- and on/off stats without context as "pure impact" then he doesn't look as good but no wing scorer is going to come out on top in those type of stats.

Based on? The most impactful looking offensive players are Magic, Lebron, Jordan, Nash, West, Curry, and Oscar. 1 Hybrid(lebron), 2 helio passers, 3 dudes who did more via scoring than passing.

Lebron gets separation in "impact" because his defenses also collapse without him. KD trails behind because he is unable to leverage his scoring to the end of great creation and he's weaker as a scorer(there are 4 arguably better scorers in the list of players I mentioned) than someone like nash or magic is as a passer.

Theories are cool, but they only work as "context" when there's some sort of evidence backing them. Collinearity(superstars playing together) inflating +/- has much better support and the posterchild of that is Curry/Dray(with MJ/Pippen and Magic/Kareem probably being the premier examples from the 80's and the 90's respectively)

[Dutchball97]

Or maybe raw scoring volume is a lot more replaceable and less essential than you think it is. Iverson and Kobe were their team’s lead playmakers yet did not exactly generate incredible impact.

I think raw impact signals mildly undersell Durant’s real value in the postseason in perhaps a similar way as it can for Kobe, but Durant’s typical inability to support a high-level team that way (I suppose outside of that laudable 26-game stretch in the 2014 regular season) is because of his own limitations. If he were a better defender or playmaker, he could contribute to his team beyond raw scoring or “gravity”, even without being a true lead creator or defensive anchor.

Funnily enough with how far apart our approaches seem to be sometimes, I saw what you value in modern times
in a recent post and it's actually very similar as what I do with stats like EPM and LEBRON being the gold standard.

+- stats look at what happens when you insert a player into a line-up. How much direct "impact" adding or subtracting a certain player has on winning. Box stats look at how much someone is producing and how efficiently they are doing so.

Well, production/efficiency are already baked into the "impact" bit. It's just tricky figuring out to what extent. More pressingly, "box stats look at how much someone is producing and how efficiently they are doing so" only works on offense. On defense, box-stats capture a fraction of what is produced and have no way to track "misses". So even in a "production' lense, anything not box-informed will do far worse looking at defensive production and efficiency than something that isn't.

So. If player a and b are comparable or close in the box-stuff and then there's a defensive impact gap in favor of player b, deciding player b is probably better is a natural conclusion of "looking at both". (Giannis vs KD is a real-life example we could apply this to)

I'm of the opinion you need both to even come close to approximating how good someone is and I simply don't agree that +- stats alone are enough

Depends on how much we're working with. If a player mantains +20 on/off, close to 30 win lift while playing on 4 different teams in situations with and without theoretically optimal conditions, concluding they're similar to another player who only hits +20 on/off once and maxes out at 15 win-lift because that player has a box-score edge would be odd. Theoretical explanations only go so far. If reality gives you a mountain, then you really should take the mountain unless you have strong counter-evidence to back up whatever explanatory theory you're using to cast doubt.

(or somehow better/more pure without adding a box component) when they're so incredibly situational.

The "how" is pretty obvious no? If I'm assessing a player who racks up high off-ball creation, components which currently do not have "off-ball creation" will consistently underrate relative to impact. So the "purer" stuff has obvious value and if there's enough consistency there, chucking or permanently curving up the box outputs is a pretty natural solution.

Sure if we take team-based +- and on/off stats without context as "pure impact" then he doesn't look as good but no wing scorer is going to come out on top in those type of stats.

Based on? The most impactful looking offensive players are Magic, Lebron, Jordan, Nash, West, Curry, and Oscar. 1 Hybrid(lebron), 2 helio passers, 3 dudes who did more via scoring than passing.

Lebron gets separation in "impact" because his defenses also collapse without him. KD trails behind because he is unable to leverage his scoring to the end of great creation and he's weaker as a scorer(there are 4 arguably better scorers in the list of players I mentioned) than someone like nash or magic is as a passer.

Theories are cool, but they only work as "context" when there's some sort of evidence backing them. Collinearity(superstars playing together) inflating +/- has much better support and the posterchild of that is Curry/Dray(with MJ/Pippen and Magic/Kareem probably being the premier examples from the 80's and the 90's respectively)

You're chronically ignoring team context. What happens when you put in a player into a certain situation is almost entirely dependent on need. When a team has a lead playmaker you're going to get diminishing returns by adding another playmaker but when a team already has a Nash then you might as well just not bother. 2-way wings are an entirely different story. They don't have as much impact on barebones teams as lead playmakers and defensive anchors but you can stack them on a team way easier. I'm just saying don't conflate potential situational impact with how good a player is generally.

Your Giannis vs KD comparison is also off the mark imo. Boxscore stats aren't great at showing defensive impact but they do try so just looking at boxscore stats and saying "this is offense only, now let's add defense" is going to give you heavily skewed results. When you look at historical LEBRON data you'll see KD being a bit more consistent across his prime but Giannis peaking noticeably higher in his MVP seasons. The thing is that the boxscore stats already show this and in large part that's because of Giannis leading in DBPM in both years and being 3rd and 1st in DWS in 2019 and 2020 respectively as well despite never coming all that close to KD's peak offensive impact.

I'm also not sure what you're going on about with the theories. You're bringing up a completely theoretical example of someone having unprecedented lift on all kinds of teams everywhere in all kinds of situations that are nothing alike but then have a problem with me pointing out playmakers and defensive anchors on teams that have only 1 good one of either type are going to be looking much better than they would in less ideal team constructions whether high scoring wings with at least some semblance of defensive ability are going to be more consistent across scenarios. I'm also not sure how the names you list is in any way a rebuttal. Sure you can invent all types of names for their roles but when it comes down to it you get some of the most elite lead playmakers like Magic, Nash, LeBron and Oscar alongside extremely efficient high volume scorers who also just so happen to be (near-)elite playmakers themselves. It's like saying Wilt doesn't count as a defensive anchor because he scored so much.

[OhayoKD]

You're chronically ignoring team context.

Not accepting claims at face value is not "chronically ignoring team context". I'm vetting your assumptions. Rushing to apply context without checking it applies is reckless.

What happens when you put in a player into a certain situation is almost entirely dependent on need.

Not for superstars. With really good players, what happens is largely determined by the number of things they can do, and how well they can do those things. Which is why we sometimes see players expected to have significantly less value in a different situation maintain or even gain value. Situational value stops being so situational if it keeps happening in various situations.

2-way wings are an entirely different story. They don't have as much impact on barebones teams as lead playmakers and defensive anchors but you can stack them on a team way easier.

That's the theory, but can you substantiate it? The only champion I can think of that successfully "stacked" wing scorers would be...the heatles? And you seem to be sorting Lebron as a "magic/nash" anyway. Maybe the Warriors? I guess klay-kd counts but it's not like adding durant to a 73 win team went pefectly. They almost lost in 2018 despite overwhelming talent and then were in trouble against a weaker 2019 Rockets until one of the scoring wings got hurt. The Clippers are the most recent acid test and they choked to a nuggets side when they were supposed to rip the league. The people predicting the Clippers would destroy everything largely did so on the assumption that there's nothing better than a 2-way wing.

All to say, I think history suggests actually stacking the same type of archetype tends to be suboptimal, and scoring wings are not exempt from this. In fact I think we can say stacking paint protectors has been as or more successful. Since 2000 we've had the Twin-Towers, Brook-Giannis, and the two Wallaces win. Defensive value in general is more "portable" than offense if you believe Ben. Going by individual data, Paint protectors consistently mantain value when they switch teams, do fine when paired with other capable paint protectors.

As for stacking playmakers? You could argue for Lebron-Wade and Curry-Dray as successful examples. You could even argue for Jordan-Pippen since Jordan's playmaking was always mostly on-ball(going by blocked's filmtracking, Jordan's "off-ball" creation was almost never the most valuable part of creating a shot).

Perhaps at a higher theoretical treshold the gap between playmaker stacking and wing-scorer stacking becomes evident, but that treshold hasn't been reached and "paint-protectors" currently look like the least "situation-dependent" archetype. At an individual level, Duncan and Russell are probably the quintessential metronomes if we go by team success and if we go by individual impact, Russell and Kareem stand-out in terms of a lack of fluctuation. From rookie year to 1980 Kareem's "impact" stays pretty consistent with small postseason samples being where most of the fluctuation happens. Russell is still winning with seemingly average help right as he's about to retire.

Ironically it's the scoring wings seem kinda volatile if we take this approach. KD's numbers go all over the place year to year, even on the same team. Lebron goes from 40 to 30 to 20 season to season. Vanilla "best modern player candidate" to "historical outlier". Jordan's "impact" goes from +8 to +5 if we take 1988 and then the first three-peat as our on(though we've taken liberties to juice both of those scores so). Mind you these fluctuations don't fit what is theorized. Lebron without spacing leads to some of his most impressive adjusted or unadjusted data. And Jordan's pre-championship playoff on/off is rivalled by...his second three-peat playoff on/off.

All in all, I think you should probably look a bit to see if "scoring wings are the easiest to stack" really holds up. From a team or individual standpoint. It seems like it's actually the big-men who do the best in terms of "consistent impact". Pretty much every team ever has need of a primary paint protector. Even teams that already have one.

Your Giannis vs KD comparison is also off the mark imo. Boxscore stats aren't great at showing defensive impact but they do try so just looking at boxscore stats and saying "this is offense only, now let's add defense" is going to give you heavily skewed results.

Well I'm really proposing replace or "curve down". Box-stats cannot capture the vast majority of defensive "production" and has nothing on defensive "effiency". Impact gets all of that, even if it's noisy. In my theoretical, the players are comparable in box-score, so any consideration of defensive impact should give the other player the advantage.

When you look at historical LEBRON data you'll see KD being a bit more consistent across his prime but Giannis peaking noticeably higher in his MVP seasons.

But as we've discussed LEBRON gains accuracy over metrics with similar tech by drawing more directly from RAPM. EPM/RPM do the same. And if we look at how kd and giannis compare in the metrics that don't...

The thing is that the boxscore stats already show this and in large part that's because of Giannis leading in DBPM in both years and being 3rd and 1st in DWS in 2019 and 2020 respectively as well despite never coming all that close to KD's peak offensive impact.

...KD's DBPM is much closer to Giannis in his best two defensive years(17 and 18) than "pure" singnals indicate. KD's DWS in his best two years is virtually tied with Giannis. Even if we go with something like DRAPM or DPIPM, KD's defense is significantly lower relative to Giannis. The ranking isn't really what matters, it's the gap. If the defensive gap is smaller, then when we add offense and defense, the offensive player looks better. LEBRON has peak Giannis significantly higher. DBPM has Giannis and KD basically tied at their best. "Raw" stuff sees the gap as ginormous. And as we've covered above, you really don't have much reason to think a big-man's "raw" stuff is more situational than a wing scorer.

I'm also not sure what you're going on about with the theories.

Scoring wing impact is less situational is a theory. One that isn't supported by the evidence either of us have provided thus far. Going by team-success or pure signals, paint protectors are less volatile. So if there's anyone whose impact is being underrated by "situational impact", it's a paint-protecting big.

Sure you can invent all types of names for their roles but when it comes down to it you get some of the most elite lead playmakers like Magic, Nash, LeBron and Oscar

IIRC Lebron is 2nd in scoreval and 4th in playval. According to Ben(feel free to dispute) Oscar was a signficantly better scorer than creator. If I go off that, only 2 of the listed players can really be sorted as "playmakers who happen to score too" as opposed to "scorers who happen to be elite playmakers"

alongside extremely efficient high volume scorers who also just so happen to be (near-)elite playmakers themselves. It's like saying Wilt doesn't count as a defensive anchor because he scored so much.

If Wilt ranked higher as a scorer than he did as a rim protector, the analogy would hold, but what's actually happening is the majority of the most impactful offensive players are better scorers than playmakers. The actual reason why KD lags behind isn't that he's a scorer or a playmaker, it's that, at least pre-nets, he only does one of the two. Everyone else here does both and the two guys who lean strongly in one direction are the two best at it(Magic and Nash are #1 and #2 in play-val iirc)