Rui Hachimura 2.0

[JWizmentality]

Has Rui always been a big game player?

Always.

[tleikheen]

Rui has scored 61 points in 74 minutes in the playoffs ....soak that in...... making 23/ 33 shots and 9/12 3 pt shots

[AFM]

cant trash talk you here tleikeen. Rui has been awesome!

[Halcyon]

I'm convinced Rui ended Tommy.

[JWizmentality]

Should've gotten rid of Beal and Kuzma.

[Frichuela]

I'm convinced Rui ended Tommy.

Looks that way…

[payitforward]

...Kuz is the 3rd or 4th best player on a good team.

Not even close.

[dobrojim]

...Kuz is the 3rd or 4th best player on a good team.

Not even close.

Wouldn't he (Kuz) have to have above average efficiency for that to be true?

[Endless Loop]

I'm convinced Rui ended Tommy.

Seems to me that the mishandling of Rui is on the coaching staff, not the GM. It's the main reason I think WUJ needs to go, also.

Interesting to see how well the Lakers have handled Rui, in contrast to the outcome with Westbrook. Imagine if they had the Westbrook of the current Clippers playoff series!

[WallToWall]

I wonder if WUJ wanted to keep Hachimura, while TS wanted to trade him…?

[gambitx777]

Look I love Rui I wanted to keep him but wait till the Lakers are forced to pay him 16+ and he has another meltdown or misses another 30 games with a weird lower body injury.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

...Kuz is the 3rd or 4th best player on a good team.

Not even close.

Wouldn't he (Kuz) have to have above average efficiency for that to be true?

Exactly. & he never has.

[CobraCommander]

Not even close.

Wouldn't he (Kuz) have to have above average efficiency for that to be true?

Exactly. & he never has.

So either way - Rui better than Kuz- and honestly watching Rui now I’m even MORE pissed- dude is playing smart ball- playing a role that any team would be happy to have - over Kuz…

[Endless Loop]

And the marketing $$ that Leonsis just lost as a result of all this are HUGE.

[AFM]

What a disaster

[Dat2U]

...Kuz is the 3rd or 4th best player on a good team.

Not even close.

According to EPM he is. His value is on defense, offense is neutral (but on the Wizards that means he's the 5th best offensive player). Monte is far more valuable offensively but offsets it with really bad defense. Wiz top 6 are actually not bad, the other 11 are terrible and only Jay Huff (a two-way'er) and Jordan Goodwin (a former two-way'er) are playable. All of Shepp's picks are awful. Kispert has got to raise his usage to be valuable enough offensively to offset his very poor defense.

Code: Select all

Player                 USG   Off   Def   Tot
Kristaps Porzingis     27.4  +3.8  +1.2  +5.1
Bradley Beal           29.0  +2.7  +0.2  +2.9
Kyle Kuzma             27.4  +0.1  +1.5  +1.6
Delon Wright           12.7  -0.2  -1.2  +1.0
Daniel Gafford         14.7  +0.7  -0.5  +0.2
Monte Morris           15.6  +2.0  -1.9   0.0
Jay Huff               16.0  +0.2  -1.0  -0.8
Jordan Goodwin         16.6  -1.7  +0.6  -1.1
Deni Avdija            16.6  -2.0  +0.3  -1.7
Corey Kispert          14.1  -0.3  -1.8  -2.2
Kendrick Nunn          22.9  -1.6  -1.3  -2.9
Xavier Cooks           12.7  -2.8  -0.4  -3.2
Anthony Gill           11.6  -2.1  -1.3  -3.4
Taj Gibson             15.3  -2.3  -1.6  -4.0
Quenton Jackson        16.6  -2.8  -1.4  -4.2
Johnny Davis           19.2  -4.5  -1.5  -6.0
Isaiah Todd            13.8  -5.0  -1.1  -6.1


Read on Twitter

https://dunksandthrees.com/blog/metric-comparison

The latest all-in-one NBA player metrics were compared in terms of accuracy with a focus on the modern era. The often-used retrodiction test was performed to make the comparison. New metrics were used for the first time in such an analysis, namely Real Plus-Minus (RPM), RAPTOR, Box Plus-Minus 2.0 (BPM), and Estimated Plus-Minus (EPM). Metric accuracy was compared overall and in the context of changing rosters. EPM and RPM, which were the only metrics that used RAPM directly with a Bayesian prior, consistently performed the best among all metrics, with EPM taking the lead overall. RAPTOR was the clear third-place metric with the revamped BPM putting the pressure on in fourth place. New player metrics using the latest methodologies and data are better built for today’s game.

[payitforward]

Dat, do you know what "a Bayesian prior" is? Or who Bayes was? I'm not suggesting you should know either of these things -- not at all. But, I can tell you this:

Using EPM to calculate how "good" a player, you can have two players who play the same position & produce the exact same numbers per 100 possessions -- I mean identical! -- & EPM will tell you that one of them is better or worse than the other.

[Dat2U]

Dat, do you know what "a Bayesian prior" is? Or who Bayes was? I'm not suggesting you should know either of these things -- not at all. But, I can tell you this:

Using EPM to calculate how "good" a player, you can have two players who play the same position & produce the exact same numbers per 100 possessions -- I mean identical! -- & EPM will tell you that one of them is better or worse than the other.

Actually i was curious enough to find out. I also don't view production as a complete picture. Players can have similar production but an extremely dissimilar impact.

Bayesian statistics is a theory in the field of statistics based on the Bayesian interpretation of probability where probability expresses a degree of belief in an event. The degree of belief may be based on prior knowledge about the event, such as the results of previous experiments, or on personal beliefs about the event. This differs from a number of other interpretations of probability, such as the frequentist interpretation that views probability as the limit of the relative frequency of an event after many trials.

[payitforward]

So, how would a Bayesian prior enable one to assess how good a player is?
To put it another way, how does a prior estimate of the probability of an event affect the significance of the event -- its impact on the world -- once it happens? In basketball that "impact" is the effect of such an event on winning or losing a game.

In EPM, a two point FG made by one guy has a different meaning with respect to how good a player he is from the meaning of a two point FG made by another guy has with respect to how good that guy is.

Yet, the effect of a made 2-pt. FG on win/lose is the same independent of who makes the shot.

Hence, EPM methodology distances the estimation of how "good" a player is from the question of his effect on wins.

It does this w/ the goal of arriving at some kind of "essential" judgment of how "good" a player is -- independent of teams/games/wins. To me, that's an entirely quixotic enterprise.

Only two things determine who wins a basketball game: 1) which team had the higher TS% in the game, & 2) which team had the most chances to score (i.e. essentially number of FGAs it had plus @1/2 the number of FTAs it had).

That's it. Period. You take any game & tell me how many FGAs & FTAs each team took & what the two teams' TS%'s were, & I'll tell you who won the game. I don't mean I can tell you most of the time. I mean I can tell you every single time & never be wrong. & so can you. Or anyone.

How "good" a player of a competitive game is amounts to his effect on winning vs. losing. Period. Which means his effect on those two areas of the game. The only difficulty is trying to separate out an individual player's effect on those 2 things on defense -- i.e. his effect on the opponent's TS% & # of FGAs & FTAs. & that's largely because defense is such a team-oriented activity. One guy's defensive mistake can lead to another guy looking like he was the one who failed.

[payitforward]

...I... don't view production as a complete picture. Players can have similar production but an extremely dissimilar impact....

Now this is interesting!

Please explain. Plus, if you can provide examples of two guys who play the same position & have more or less the same production but with "extremely dissimilar impact," that would be fun to discuss! Especially if we can discuss it without rancor.