Best all in one metric for player ranking?

[jazzfan1971]

So, I'm a fan of RPM. I understand it has many detractors and problems. But, I'll tell you why I like it.

#1- availability. Anyone can get on ESPN.com and use it without paying a dime.

#2- Probably passes the sniff test better than any other lists I've seen. There just aren't a lot of WTF moments looking at their list.

#3- looks as impact. I don't have much use for stats like PER that just aggregate raw stats


Ok why might it be bad?

#1 - It's a black box. Nobody knows exactly where the numbers come from. This causes some folks to not place trust in it.

#2- there could be better sorting options. Sorting is very limited and basic. Being able to make queries would be very welcome.

#3- not sure how scientific the offensive vs. defensive stats are.

So, I would like to know if you could just pick one stat to rank players which would you use and why that one as opposed to other choices?

[Colbinii]

I would never be naive enough to pick one statistic to rate a player, but EPM has been my go-to for a while and I haven't looked at RPM since the changes made a few years back.

[OhayoKD]

So, I'm a fan of RPM. I understand it has many detractors and problems. But, I'll tell you why I like it.

#1- availability. Anyone can get on ESPN.com and use it without paying a dime.

#2- Probably passes the sniff test better than any other lists I've seen. There just aren't a lot of WTF moments looking at their list.

#3- looks as impact. I don't have much use for stats like PER that just aggregate raw stats


Ok why might it be bad?

#1 - It's a black box. Nobody knows exactly where the numbers come from. This causes some folks to not place trust in it.

#2- there could be better sorting options. Sorting is very limited and basic. Being able to make queries would be very welcome.

#3- not sure how scientific the offensive vs. defensive stats are.

So, I would like to know if you could just pick one stat to rank players which would you use and why that one as opposed to other choices?

EPM and LEBRON are basically better versions of RPM

And it's always good to also reference rapm and raw-impact stuff to track potential archetype biases and aritficial caps(rapm and rapm derivatives cannot actually distinguish between different seasons beyond a certain treshold of impact)

[Colbinii]

So, I'm a fan of RPM. I understand it has many detractors and problems. But, I'll tell you why I like it.

#1- availability. Anyone can get on ESPN.com and use it without paying a dime.

#2- Probably passes the sniff test better than any other lists I've seen. There just aren't a lot of WTF moments looking at their list.

#3- looks as impact. I don't have much use for stats like PER that just aggregate raw stats


Ok why might it be bad?

#1 - It's a black box. Nobody knows exactly where the numbers come from. This causes some folks to not place trust in it.

#2- there could be better sorting options. Sorting is very limited and basic. Being able to make queries would be very welcome.

#3- not sure how scientific the offensive vs. defensive stats are.

So, I would like to know if you could just pick one stat to rank players which would you use and why that one as opposed to other choices?

EPM and LEBRON are basically better versions of RPM

And it's always good to also reference rapm and raw-impact stuff to track potential archetype biases and aritficial caps(rapm and rapm derivatives cannot actually distinguish between different seasons beyond a certain treshold of impact)

RAPM also is beneficial when comparing players you deem to be in similar, holistic roles.

[rk2023]

EPM and LEBRON are what I tend to like the most, DARKO’s model is cool too.

[OhayoKD]

So, I'm a fan of RPM. I understand it has many detractors and problems. But, I'll tell you why I like it.

#1- availability. Anyone can get on ESPN.com and use it without paying a dime.

#2- Probably passes the sniff test better than any other lists I've seen. There just aren't a lot of WTF moments looking at their list.

#3- looks as impact. I don't have much use for stats like PER that just aggregate raw stats


Ok why might it be bad?

#1 - It's a black box. Nobody knows exactly where the numbers come from. This causes some folks to not place trust in it.

#2- there could be better sorting options. Sorting is very limited and basic. Being able to make queries would be very welcome.

#3- not sure how scientific the offensive vs. defensive stats are.

So, I would like to know if you could just pick one stat to rank players which would you use and why that one as opposed to other choices?

EPM and LEBRON are basically better versions of RPM

And it's always good to also reference rapm and raw-impact stuff to track potential archetype biases and aritficial caps(rapm and rapm derivatives cannot actually distinguish between different seasons beyond a certain treshold of impact)

RAPM also is beneficial when comparing players you deem to be in similar, holistic roles.

It is, just make sure to also look at minuties played and the "total" impact as opposed to just mpg. It's just that a hypothetically 40-win season and a hypothetically 20 win season anda hypothetically 30 win season all look the same. RAPM should be used for extended samples and you should be seeing how frequently guys are topping the list. For example, looking at RAPM(or even PIPM) and concluding that two players were comparable at their peak because they both hit the same mark in their highest scoring year isn't really how you're supposed to use it
(and that's more or less how we got to "steph curry's 2016 was the best regular season ever!!!")

[Doctor MJ]

Forced to use an all-in-one without knowing anything else, EPM & LEBRON seem to be the cutting edge in public stats.

Of course, as I'm wont to point out: Making a better all-in-one at a certain point makes a worse tool when you're looking to use other data as well. I'm still more likely to use RAPM and raw +/- data in my analyses even though by themselves they aren't as good as the more sophisticated stuff.

[jazzfan1971]

Man, I just looked at LEBRON and by my eye it sucks compared to RPM. So many players just seem wildly out of place on there.

I think if you want an all in one stat one of the most important things it should do is to somewhat follow common sense.

I'll look at EPM in a bit

[jazzfan1971]

EPM looks much better in this regard. If I had to choose between EPM and LEBRON for a all in one stat I would definitely prefer EPM.

[jalengreen]

Man, I just looked at LEBRON and by my eye it sucks compared to RPM. So many players just seem wildly out of place on there.

I think if you want an all in one stat one of the most important things it should do is to somewhat follow common sense.

I'll look at EPM in a bit

I feel like the opposite is true

LEBRON Top 10:

1. Jokic
2. Giannis
3. Embiid
4. Butler
5. AD
6. JJJ
7. Tatum
8. Mitchell
9. Luka
10. LeBron

RPM Top 10:

1. Embiid
2. Tatum
3. LeBron
4. Jokic
5. Luka
6. Lillard
7. Kyrie
8. AD
9. Mobley
10. Wagner

This is a cursory glance at just the top 10, but from a common sense POV I feel like RPM sticks out as odd more than LEBRON.

[jazzfan1971]

I would say to look at the top 50

[Colbinii]

I would say to look at the top 50

Do you consider any of these guys Top 50 players?

Derrick White
Kyle Kuzma
Aaron Gordon
Jusuf Nurcik
Franz Wagner
Evan Mobley
Brook Lopez [Higher than Giannis]
Vucevic
Michael Porter Jr
D'Angelo Russell
Mitchell Robinson
Buddy Hield
Tyler Herro
Walker Kessler
Scottie Barnes

[jazzfan1971]

I would say to look at the top 50

Do you consider any of these guys Top 50 players?

Derrick White
Kyle Kuzma
Aaron Gordon
Jusuf Nurcik
Franz Wagner
Evan Mobley
Brook Lopez [Higher than Giannis]
Vucevic
Michael Porter Jr
D'Angelo Russell
Mitchell Robinson
Buddy Hield
Tyler Herro
Walker Kessler
Scottie Barnes

Yeah, I think all those guys are probably top 50 or real close.

[Colbinii]

I would say to look at the top 50

Do you consider any of these guys Top 50 players?

Derrick White
Kyle Kuzma
Aaron Gordon
Jusuf Nurcik
Franz Wagner
Evan Mobley
Brook Lopez [Higher than Giannis]
Vucevic
Michael Porter Jr
D'Angelo Russell
Mitchell Robinson
Buddy Hield
Tyler Herro
Walker Kessler
Scottie Barnes

Yeah, I think all those guys are probably top 50 or real close.

Who do they supplant?

LeBron
Curry
AD
Draymond
Jokic
Murray
KD
Booker
PG13
Kawhi
Ja
JJJ
Bane
Towns
Gobert
Edwards
Fox
Sabonis
Zion
Ingram
Markkanen
Lillard
SGA
Tatum
Brown
Young
Murray
Giannis
Jrue
Middleton
Butler
Bam
Garland
Mitchell
Brunson
Embiid
Harden
Maxey
Mikal
Beal
Porzingis
Haliburton
Turner
DeRozan
LaVine
Siakam
OG
Ball

[jazzfan1971]

Towns
Murray
Middleton
Maxey
Beal
Derozan
Ball
Zion
Ingram
Bridges

And maybe a few of the guys on the top 50 list move down into the 'real close' range.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Towns
Murray
Middleton
Maxey
Beal
Derozan
Ball
Zion
Ingram
Bridges

And maybe a few of the guys on the top 50 list move down into the 'real close' range.

This is a very weird list of guys that cant possibly belong in the top 50 lol

[jazzfan1971]

Well, I think Towns is the singularly most over-rated guy in the league. So, there is that. A lot of the other guys struggled with injures or had down years.

[Colbinii]

Forced to use an all-in-one without knowing anything else, EPM & LEBRON seem to be the cutting edge in public stats.

Of course, as I'm wont to point out: Making a better all-in-one at a certain point makes a worse tool when you're looking to use other data as well. I'm still more likely to use RAPM and raw +/- data in my analyses even though by themselves they aren't as good as the more sophisticated stuff.

The most important part of basketball is being able to outscore your opponents.

The idea of tying in box-score to fix the fact that "not every player contributes equally to +/-" is good in theory but extremely difficult in practice.

Talking about the All-in-ones, in general, is an excellent discussion but more often than not we get disassociated with +/- too much.

Sure, scoring is good. Sure, making a pass leading to a basket is good. Sure, securing a rebound is good. But how is it actually affecting the game?

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"