Chaos Revenant wrote:..."stat rollups" ...are attempts to capture, in a single metric, how well a player contributes to winning a basketball game. If you feel these "rollups" fail at doing so, you should explain why....
How much, not how well -- it's all quantitative. We are not watching a gymnastics floor routine & giving it a score.
We won 35 games this year. A bunch of our role players were quite solid; their numbers (quantitative!) were well above average. &, since those are in-game numbers, quantitative, they actually can't lie. I'm thinking of Delon Wright, Monte Morris, Jordan Goodwin, Daniel Gafford & Corey Kispert.
Thus, a player is "good" -- where the word means "helps his team win games" -- to the degree that 1) he scores points at an above average TS% (or helps his teammates do that -- registered as assists) or 2) he gets extra possessions for his team ("more chances to score...").
Chaos Revenant wrote:...So the main problem with comparing KP to other centers is that most centers do not shoot the ball a lot....
Why is this a problem? The main point of stat rollups is to arrive at single quantitative figures for how "good" players are, so that you can compare players who do very different things.
Chaos Revenant wrote:...Of the 31 players who have similar or higher usage to KP, only 5 of them have a higher TS% (counting Anthony Davis, who is tied). Of those 31 players, only 2 of them are centers (Jokic is slightly behind him at 27.2% usage to his 27.4). So when assessing KP's impact on winning, you have to take into account the fact that he's very efficient when compared to other *high-usage* players. Most other centers are comparatively low-usage, which is why their TS% is higher....
It's quantitative. Everything is in the numbers, including his volume & efficiency. There is nothing to "take into account." You just look at the numbers.
When a game ends, all we do is look at the scoreboard, & we know who won. We don't take anything into account, we don't calculate anything.
When you ask how good a dancer is, the answer is not quantitative. We consider all the variables, taking a variety of matters into account, & then we make a judgment. Basketball isn't like that. How "good" your team is, that is simply your record. How good a player is, that is simply your contribution to that record.
Comparing KP to Jokic is... I guess the only word is "unfair."
Chaos Revenant wrote:...As for rebounding, KP is definitely weaker in that regard. Though what's interesting is that Sabonis is the best rebounder in the NBA, but the Kings are a comparatively weak rebounding team. There's a theory that sometimes a high personal rebound rate (at least for defensive rebounds) doesn't correlate to more possessions, because that individual player getting that rebound didn't change the outcome of the possession. KP is a comparatively poor rebounder, but this has translated into his team being average at rebounding. So there may be more to it than what you're implying.
Sigh...
There's a theory about everything. If the numbers don't tell you what you want to hear, then one needs to "take something into account." I.e. explain away the numbers.But, only the numbers affect winning vs. losing. The numbers & nothing else. The Kings were 48-34 this year. We were 35-47.
Compare KP & Sabonis on the numbers:
https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?player_id2=porzikr01&p1yrfrom=2023&player_id1=sabondo01&p2yrfrom=2023&sum=0&request=1&utm_campaign=2023_01_wdgt_player_comparison&utm_source=bbr&utm_medium=sr_xsite&utm_id=sabondo01
It isn't close.
