lessthanjake wrote:OhayoKD wrote:ijspeelman wrote:
Is "adjusted creation" still a measure of opportunities created by a player (not necessarily by passing)?
it's supposed to be anyway. IIRC, O-load(# of shots partially) and relative 3pa/3-point efficiency are put in specifically to credit players for what they are generating indirectly iirc. You can think of adjusted creation as a volume estimate, and passer-rating as a ts equivalent
“Passer rating” is *not* like a TS equivalent to box creation’s volume estimate. Passer Rating is not attempting to measure the quality or efficiency of the “creation” that box creation is measuring. It is only attempting to measure the quality of *passes,* not the quality of overall opportunities created. So these are only really tangentially related metrics.
Uh...no:
Just like Cheema's RAPM, this is not a black box, if you actually bothered to look things up, you wouldn't be saying outright falsehoods:
Notably, with Passer Rating, there’s a few extra reasons to be skeptical of it. One is that the underlying hand-counted stuff isn’t actually anything objective.
No. It is box-derived. And is thus as
objective as any other box-prior. However it(and box-creation) has several advantages that make it more predictive/accurate when we test it against something like "ast:tov" for o-rating:
-> 3-point volume and efficiency curve your creation up allowing players like Steph to be credited for what they offer indirectly
-> The quality of what you're creating plays a factor(layup assist percentage is incorperated in passer-rating's formula_
-> Height plays a factor as taller players can hit a wider variety of angles
-> Offensive-load replaces less accurate usage-rate and is baked into both(players who are creating and shooting more generate more "gravity")
None of that is aimed at "hey who has the coolest passes!" It's aimed at "who is generating higher quality looks" and whether you dislike those priors or not, they test better than the alternatives. Moreover, even if you want to say that is all bunk because it isn't directly extrapolated from winning,
winning does not favor Steph because
Magic leads better playoff offensesYou confused this(very similar to the jordan 27-3 rabbit hole) by taking a longer stretch of time for Magic and comparing it to a shorter stretch for Steph, but with opponent adjustment, good or bad, Magic is generating better offenses than Steph even with KD joining. You argue this is worthwhile because you're filtering out "weak defenses", but even "weak defenses" like the 2016 thunder have made Steph's offenses suffer. In fact, that series is a great example of why you don't just chuck out what you don't like. The Thunder were not especially talented on that end, but they were physical, so the Warriors motion was getting **** up. You know how they adjusted?
They slowed down and started playing more methodically and letting
iggy take some of Steph's on-ball load. It's also a great example of why using scoring and gamescore and per to pretend help that doesn't actually play at the level you're eyeballing them at leads to dumb conclusions. Steph's cast was exceptionally talented in terms of passing, ball-handling, decision-making, and iq. Hell even the pre-kerr Warriors were strong in all those departments.
Doc likes to toss how the warriors had a high MOV over the last 3 games after kerr's adjusted. Well, the Cavs were decisively better after Lue made his own adjustment in 2016:
Heej wrote:Cavs came into this match up with a bad game plan and trying to replicate what they did last year. Lue fixed that up after game 2, said he wanted them to run more and play faster basketball, pretty much what they had been doing through out these playoffs prior to the Finals.
You know how the Cavs, an offense that had performed better against a better and more talented defense in the conference finals than the Warriors had(and had been doing much better outside of those first 3 games all playoffs?):
do it like Magic would.
You know what other adjustment they made?
Following the game Sam Amico tweeted that all game Lebron was yelling to get the ball to whoever [Curry's] guarding. I'm sure Kerr didn't expect the Cavs gameplan was to actively seek out Curry but they did and that's why Kyrie got the ball so much before Thompson switched on to him in the second and third quarters (and that lead to JR making some plays on him).
I just watched the Dawkins clips for JR and Kyrie on youtube and JR scored 8 on Curry all after the first quarter when he switched onto JR (only one shot really contested and the 2 threes he made should be embarrassing for Steph) and the 9-0 run to open the game was a screen Curry ran under, Curry losing Kyrie on a backdoor cut, and Curry not rotating to the corner off a PNR leading to 7 of those 9 (the other 2 came off a fast break from a Curry turnover). Kerr probably did see it was likely his worst defender would be picked on but that doesn't make it better. I don't expect much from Jose Calderon either.
They took advantage of Steph being small and tired him out by forcing him to man-up again and again.
To be clear, this did not yield great results
offensively. Curry did much better against Kyrie than Kyrie did against Steph. But It did
wear him down, so much so, that what was hyped as the greatest offense in the history of basketball put an o-rating of
65 at the end of the last 3 games:
Re: 4th Quarter
That's what happened in games 5 and 6 as well. According to NBA.com, their (GSW) 4th quarter offense in games 5-7 was an 85.9 ORTG (so probably 88-89 by BBR's possessions) and that's WITH their garbage time points in Game 6 after James left the floor. So they must have functioned right around 80.0 with Lebron on the floor for 3 straight games in the 4th, and this was occurring at the same time I observed James playing his best defense (all over the floor, near-perfect execution, secondary rim coverage, blowing up any attempt to move towards the basket, transition hustle obviously, covering Dray + switching onto Curry, the works basically).
That is remarkable, considering most of the praise we will observe for his play will come from the big box-score lines. He out Draymonded Draymond.
...
Over the last 3 games, the Warriors had an ORtG of 67.6 in the 4th quarter with James on the floor according to stats.nba.com
You might recall that up until the going got tough the 2016 Warriors were one of the clutchest teams in basketball. And then Steph's "higher-cieling offense" came crashing down. As kobe puts it "the kingdom toppled democracy". Just because democracy is more "fun" does not make it better. And when we just look at the two in an apples to apples comparison, it's very clear who was achieving better results.
Can't put it to help either, because selective contextualization aside(apparently 2022 draymond was going very hard in those regular season games without steph and the warriors being far more affected by injury/missed games isn't relevant), Magic won with a team that was worse without him than any of Steph's
contenders have been. And on that note...
draymondgold wrote:For someone who says “The main advantage of WOWY is that you can see what truly happens when a player is removed from a team.”, for someone who characterizes WOWY as the true measure of wholistic global impact
My characterization actually lines up rather well with the bit this was apparently intended as a response to:
I think real-world stuff is especially useful to compare outliers(2016, 2004, 2009 ect), or to examine why something is happening in the artifical-stuff(Duncan staggering minutes with Drob's bad replacements, Spurs not really affected by Manu's absence, ect), but on the flip-side, lineup-adjustment makes things less noisy and is useful for establishing a baseline over longer time-frames. FWIW, I do rank RS Steph's highs pretty highly, above the best years for players like Hakeem and Jordan. But the same is true for KG. So unless you are willing to make the case years like 2016 were on another level compared to KG's 2004 or 2003, we get into how they generally look(KG carries an overwhelming advantage in both of the extended rapm sets we have), how much of their value can be tied to situation(very strongly favors Garnett), and what they and their casts do in the playoffs(2004 beats out 2016 pretty handily on that both fronts imo).
Not sure how you read that(or what I have been posting and have directly linked you to) and came away with the impression I'm some WOWY junkie who only cares about net-rating/srs splits. My issue with WOWYR is sample size and the approach being extremely noisy. With internal box-scaling(
edit: that's not true) and outlier curving...
We have two approaches for rapm approximations for Magic's time. Personally I think the above might be more useful, but WOWYR also sees Magic mostly clearing the field(david robinson is competitive). You can also go by WOWY(concentrated or extended) and you can also go by partial RAPM. Regardless of approach, Magic is "top" or pushing for "tops" for
an era.
That is an impact king. This is not:
And then there are the resumes, the winning percentage, and the ring count. The king of the 80's
"topples" Steph, democracy be damned.
PS:
ijspeelman wrote:
Passer-rating:
Formula incorporates i) Layup assist percentage (since 2002), ii) Offensive Load, iii) Assist-to-Load ratio (per 100), iv) Non-3 Creation-to-Load ratio, v) Height, and vi) Turnovers
Box-Creation:
I do not know what the process for "era-adjustment" is but it's not film-tracking passes. Ben has done that too, but that simply
informs the metric which is centered around the creation of scoring opportunities.
