RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Magic Johnson)

[cupcakesnake]

Wade is the better athlete (best first step ever?) but West is a much bigger athletic outlier for his era.

I'm not sure he was, people vastly underestimate the athletic pool from the 1960s.

I'll trust you on this one. Who were the perimeter players in the 60s that most rivalved West's athleticism?

With Wade, he's coming into a league with Vince, Tmac, Kobe, Iverson, Steve Francis... and then he's contemporaries with Lebron, Derrick Rose, Russ, John Wall etc.

[70sFan]

Wade is the better athlete (best first step ever?) but West is a much bigger athletic outlier for his era.

I'm not sure he was, people vastly underestimate the athletic pool from the 1960s.

I'll trust you on this one. Who were the perimeter players in the 60s that most rivalved West's athleticism?

With Wade, he's coming into a league with Vince, Tmac, Kobe, Iverson, Steve Francis... and then he's contemporaries with Lebron, Derrick Rose, Russ, John Wall etc.

A few athletic guard/wings from the 1960s worth mentioning:

Dave Bing
Joe Caldwell
Cliff Hagan
Lou Hudson
Terry Dischinger
Gus Johnson
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor
Paul Arizin
Oscar Robertson
Hal Greer
Carl Braun

Not all of them were top tier freaks, but all were tremendous athletes.

[OhayoKD]

It depends on what the formula is being regressed to fit to. I see a significant difference between something that is regressed to fit to one person’s subjective assessment (i.e. Ben Taylor’s assessment of pass quality) and something that is regressed to fit something more objective (such as RAPM, team offensive rating, etc.). The latter wouldn’t necessarily be without flaws, of course, but regressing to fit a subjective assessment has the additional flaw that that subjective assessment might be wrong. And it also has the additional flaw that that subjective assessment is being made only on a certain sample of film, and it may be that that film is not a representative sample (this is not as much of an issue if regressing to fit to a bunch of years of RAPM data or something like that, because the data set you’re fitting to is almost certainly going to be substantially larger and therefore not as prone to sampling error).

Are you find with people doing regressions using box score data? If so, just keep in mind that subjectivity is very much a part of the box score, and it's not something that "averages" out across sample. A player can benefit for a hometown scorekeeper that's particularly enthusiastic for his entire career. If you're using Ben's stuff, you know whose eyes were on it and what he was looking for, and that he's not being paid by a team that wants its players to shine.

On the other hand, you're certainly right that the limited sample in which he tracked certainly hurts precision. How badly? I couldn't say, but more tracking data would certainly be better.

Different scorekeepers applying different standards is definitely another potential error source.

You're burying the lede. "pass before a shot is an assist" is "wholly subjective".

The metric was designed to be more accurate and Ben justifies said accuracy by testing it against objective results.

[lessthanjake]

Are you find with people doing regressions using box score data? If so, just keep in mind that subjectivity is very much a part of the box score, and it's not something that "averages" out across sample. A player can benefit for a hometown scorekeeper that's particularly enthusiastic for his entire career. If you're using Ben's stuff, you know whose eyes were on it and what he was looking for, and that he's not being paid by a team that wants its players to shine.

On the other hand, you're certainly right that the limited sample in which he tracked certainly hurts precision. How badly? I couldn't say, but more tracking data would certainly be better.

Different scorekeepers applying different standards is definitely another potential error source.

You're burying the lede. "pass before a shot is an assist" is "wholly subjective".

The metric was designed to be more accurate and Ben justifies said accuracy by testing it against objective results.

I don’t know what point you think you’re making. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m not saying that simply looking at assist numbers is a better measure of passing quality than Passer Rating—in fact, I’ve specifically said multiple times that I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that Passer Rating shouldn’t be taken all that seriously (and neither should raw assist numbers).

[OhayoKD]

Different scorekeepers applying different standards is definitely another potential error source.

You're burying the lede. "pass before a shot is an assist" is "wholly subjective".

The metric was designed to be more accurate and Ben justifies said accuracy by testing it against objective results.

I don’t know what point you think you’re making. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m not saying that simply looking at assist numbers is a better measure of passing quality than Passer Rating—in fact, I’ve specifically said multiple times that I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that Passer Rating shouldn’t be taken all that seriously (and neither should raw assist numbers).

You are saying the stat you don't like the results of shouldn't be taken seriously because it is a box-prior and dressing that up with "it has a bunch of additional sources of error". Yet a thread ago you were arguing we shouldn't look at on/off components because they lack the error-rediction that comes from a shitton of inputs.

I imagine when we get to bird it's going to turn into "everything else is not the metric we should take seriously" when you realize passer-rating likes him best.

[lessthanjake]

You're burying the lede. "pass before a shot is an assist" is "wholly subjective".

The metric was designed to be more accurate and Ben justifies said accuracy by testing it against objective results.

I don’t know what point you think you’re making. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m not saying that simply looking at assist numbers is a better measure of passing quality than Passer Rating—in fact, I’ve specifically said multiple times that I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that Passer Rating shouldn’t be taken all that seriously (and neither should raw assist numbers).

You are saying the stat you don't like the results of shouldn't be taken seriously because it is a box-prior and dressing that up with "it has a bunch of additional sources of error". Yet a thread ago you were arguing we shouldn't look at on/off components because they lack the error-rediction that comes from a shitton of inputs.

I imagine when we get to bird it's going to turn into "everything else is not the metric we should take seriously" when you realize passer-rating likes him best.

That’s not a remotely accurate representation of anything I’ve said. The issue I’ve raised with Passer Rating is not “because it is a box-prior.” And I’m not going to explain it again because I’ve spent quite a lot of time explaining this, and I think it’s not a difficult concept.

[OhayoKD]

I don’t know what point you think you’re making. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m not saying that simply looking at assist numbers is a better measure of passing quality than Passer Rating—in fact, I’ve specifically said multiple times that I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that Passer Rating shouldn’t be taken all that seriously (and neither should raw assist numbers).

You are saying the stat you don't like the results of shouldn't be taken seriously because it is a box-prior and dressing that up with "it has a bunch of additional sources of error". Yet a thread ago you were arguing we shouldn't look at on/off components because they lack the error-rediction that comes from a shitton of inputs.

I imagine when we get to bird it's going to turn into "everything else is not the metric we should take seriously" when you realize passer-rating likes him best.

That’s not a remotely accurate representation of anything I’ve said. The issue I’ve raised with Passer Rating is not “because it is a box-prior.” And I’m not going to explain it again because I’ve spent quite a lot of time explaining this, and I think it’s not a difficult concept.

And all those explanations fall apart once you realize that "assist" or "score" are wholly subjective in how they're defined and that there are various inputs going into how credit is distributed and the terminology used with them. This is the case with every single "simple box-stat", including all the things that are weighted into gamescore or RAPTOR or PER.

Ben regresses to more accurate(Based on objective results) version of assists and comes with something that predicts offenses getting better. And your criticism of the inputs in passer-rating come down to you wanting things that are not relevant to efficiency being tossed in to distort everything.


You are whiffing on the basics. I am not the one who needs things explained.

The box-score is always wholly subjective, and it only loses subjectivity when it is checked against objective outcomes

[lessthanjake]

You are saying the stat you don't like the results of shouldn't be taken seriously because it is a box-prior and dressing that up with "it has a bunch of additional sources of error". Yet a thread ago you were arguing we shouldn't look at on/off components because they lack the error-rediction that comes from a shitton of inputs.

I imagine when we get to bird it's going to turn into "everything else is not the metric we should take seriously" when you realize passer-rating likes him best.

That’s not a remotely accurate representation of anything I’ve said. The issue I’ve raised with Passer Rating is not “because it is a box-prior.” And I’m not going to explain it again because I’ve spent quite a lot of time explaining this, and I think it’s not a difficult concept.

And all those explanations fall apart once you realize that "assist" or "score" are wholly subjective in how they're defined and that there are various inputs going into how credit is distributed and the terminology used with them. This is the case with every single "simple box-stat", including all the things that are weighted into gamescore or RAPTOR or PER.

Ben regresses to more accurate(Based on objective results) version of assists and comes with something that predicts offenses getting better. And your criticism of the inputs in passer-rating come down to you wanting things that are not relevant to efficiency being tossed in to distort everything.


You are whiffing on the basics. I am not the one who needs things explained.

The box-score is always wholly subjective, and it only loses subjectivity when it is checked against objective outcomes

This is largely an inscrutable and vague post, so it is difficult to respond to, and, if it were less inscrutable, I suspect the response to the vast majority of it would be to refer you back to things I’ve already said multiple times.

So I’ll just add a few quick things:

1. If you think the “score” is “wholly subjective” and just as subjective as one person’s personal 1-10 rating of passes, then I don’t know what to tell you (in fact, it’s such an odd statement that I feel like I must be misunderstanding). I understand the point that box score stats can be subjective in the sense that they don’t describe the whole picture. Which is part of why I wouldn’t say we should take “assists” stats very seriously either—something I keep saying and yet you keep beating a straw man about this over and over. But the “score” of a game is not “wholly subjective.”

2. The idea that “Ben regresses to more accurate(Based on objective results) version of assists and comes with something that predicts offenses getting better” is something you keep repeating but that doesn’t appear to have much support, at least as it relates to Passer Rating (I’ll address further below why the support you use for this is logically meaningless as it relates to Box Creation). For instance, Ben himself specifically stated that Passer Rating only has a weak correlation with offensive rating, and he never actually said anything about whether it has a higher correlation with offensive rating than even basic stats like team assist/turnover ratio or team assists (which we do know correlates at least somewhat with team success too: for instance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11361327/). I’m not of the view that those more basic measures necessarily are actually better measures of passing quality (intuitively, I’d guess Passer Rating probably is a bit better), but I don’t see any basis provided for the statements you keep making on this.

3. Even on the question of Box Creation, Ben points out that *team* Box Creation correlates a good bit with team offensive rating. But please note that’s actually not the same as an individual star’s Box Creation correlating with team offensive rating. An individual player could have huge Box Creation numbers, but have the rest of the players on the team not have much Box Creation, such that the overall team total isn’t high. And, indeed, we’d expect a negative correlation between an individual’s Box Creation and the rest of their team’s, since, for example, scoring volume is a major component of the stat (so, a player’s Box Creation goes up as they take more shots, but obviously their teammates’ Box Creation would also go down as a result of taking fewer shots). So you can’t really draw a conclusion about the accuracy/predictiveness of the stat at the individual level, based on its purported accuracy/predictiveness at the team level.

4. More importantly, related to the above, Box Creation correlating a good bit with team offensive rating is actually in large part just a meaningless tautology. Points scored is a huge input into the Box Creation stat, so of course a team’s overall Box Creation would correlate with how much the team scored! It’s basically like saying “Teams that score more do in fact score more.” The conclusion that, because of this largely tautological outcome at the team level, the stat is a really good measure at the individual level is…dubious to say the least.

[tsherkin]

I'm not sure he was, people vastly underestimate the athletic pool from the 1960s.

I'll trust you on this one. Who were the perimeter players in the 60s that most rivalved West's athleticism?

With Wade, he's coming into a league with Vince, Tmac, Kobe, Iverson, Steve Francis... and then he's contemporaries with Lebron, Derrick Rose, Russ, John Wall etc.

A few athletic guard/wings from the 1960s worth mentioning:

Dave Bing
Joe Caldwell
Cliff Hagan
Lou Hudson
Terry Dischinger
Gus Johnson
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor
Paul Arizin
Oscar Robertson
Hal Greer
Carl Braun

Not all of them were top tier freaks, but all were tremendous athletes.

I believe that is his point, though. Carter, McGrady, Iverson, Francis, Lebron, Rose, Russ, Wall... those are ALL top-tier athletic monsters.

[70sFan]

I'll trust you on this one. Who were the perimeter players in the 60s that most rivalved West's athleticism?

With Wade, he's coming into a league with Vince, Tmac, Kobe, Iverson, Steve Francis... and then he's contemporaries with Lebron, Derrick Rose, Russ, John Wall etc.

A few athletic guard/wings from the 1960s worth mentioning:

Dave Bing
Joe Caldwell
Cliff Hagan
Lou Hudson
Terry Dischinger
Gus Johnson
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor
Paul Arizin
Oscar Robertson
Hal Greer
Carl Braun

Not all of them were top tier freaks, but all were tremendous athletes.

I believe that is his point, though. Carter, McGrady, Iverson, Francis, Lebron, Rose, Russ, Wall... those are ALL top-tier athletic monsters.

I mean, calling Iverson and Wall contemporaries doesn't make much sense...

[lessthanjake]

Just to specifically illustrate the tautology of Box Creation correlating with offensive rating at the team level (and therefore why pointing to that is silly), I’ve created my own stat that measures creation. The formula uses two variables: (1) the amount of points a player scores per 100 possessions on the floor; and (2) the month a player was born in (1-12).

Specifically, the formula is as follows: LTJs Creation Score = 100*(points scored per 100 on-court possessions) + 0.000000001*(month born)

When we look at the team level, we find that Team LTJ Creation Score correlates essentially 100% with team offensive rating! This is clearly a more accurate version of assists that predicts offenses getting better! Therefore, we should hail it as the best way to measure individual players’ creation!

[tsherkin]

I mean, calling Iverson and Wall contemporaries doesn't make much sense...

He didn't, though.

He said that Wade was a contemporary of both Iverson and Wall, implying at different stages of his career, which is true.

[Doctor MJ]

When I see a smilie like this, makes me think we should ring the bell and have guys go back to their respective stools. I'm going to suggest to everybody that they move on from this particular topic before people give themselves head trauma.

Doc

[f4p]

EDIT: I’ll note I imagine the f4p-style take on this would be that it’s a bad thing to have underperformed the odds and a good thing to have overperformed it, and therefore that somehow Magic looks better here. That’s a take one could have, I suppose, but I think it just puts a lot of weight on randomness (for instance, if Durant doesn’t get injured in 2019, then Curry very likely overperforms the expectations rather than underperforming it) as opposed to how good a player actually was, and I think would really just give Magic a lot of credit for the Western Conference being a cakewalk in the vast majority of that era (which we’d certainly expect to make a team do better than expected just based on SRS, but is not something I think is something we should tally in favor of a player).

leaving aside the fact you're still saying the warriors without steph were really a -1.74 SRS team (or even +0 SRS) when they went 9-3 in the playoffs and were clearly, even by the standards of vegas, actually much better than -2 or 0, you're basically saying that steph's regular season advantage of predicted titles is somehow better than just winning them. like i'm pretty sure you're one of the ones criticizing the "actual vs expected" approach, but now you're taking it back one step to just "expected" and claiming that's better. like i can at least appreciate the "the change isn't what's important, it's the absolute playoff performance" arguments, even if i think the change is important. but now we're just crediting steph for titles because he was good in the regular season. magic had only 2.5 expected titles in his career by the lakers' SRS but he won 5, vastly outperforming his expected total. a boon to his case it would seem. either he has to get credit for the massve outperformance or at least get credit for just straight up winning 5 instead of 4. it can't be that steph wins the argument because he was expected to win the argument.

[lessthanjake]

EDIT: I’ll note I imagine the f4p-style take on this would be that it’s a bad thing to have underperformed the odds and a good thing to have overperformed it, and therefore that somehow Magic looks better here. That’s a take one could have, I suppose, but I think it just puts a lot of weight on randomness (for instance, if Durant doesn’t get injured in 2019, then Curry very likely overperforms the expectations rather than underperforming it) as opposed to how good a player actually was, and I think would really just give Magic a lot of credit for the Western Conference being a cakewalk in the vast majority of that era (which we’d certainly expect to make a team do better than expected just based on SRS, but is not something I think is something we should tally in favor of a player).

leaving aside the fact you're still saying the warriors without steph were really a -1.74 SRS team (or even +0 SRS) when they went 9-3 in the playoffs and were clearly, even by the standards of vegas, actually much better than -2 or 0, you're basically saying that steph's regular season advantage of predicted titles is somehow better than just winning them. like i'm pretty sure you're one of the ones criticizing the "actual vs expected" approach, but now you're taking it back one step to just "expected" and claiming that's better. like i can at least appreciate the "the change isn't what's important, it's the absolute playoff performance" arguments, even if i think the change is important. but now we're just crediting steph for titles because he was good in the regular season. magic had only 2.5 expected titles in his career by the lakers' SRS but he won 5, vastly outperforming his expected total. a boon to his case it would seem. either he has to get credit for the massve outperformance or at least get credit for just straight up winning 5 instead of 4. it can't be that steph wins the argument because he was expected to win the argument.

I get your point that I do often say I prefer to only rate people based on what they did, rather than on a hypothetical. It’s a fair point. But the point of the analysis you’re responding to was largely to illustrate the value of making your team incredibly good, *under a CORP-style framework*. A CORP framework is *inherently* looking at a hypothetical, rather than what actually happened. So yeah, any CORP-style analysis is contrary to the idea of just judging players on what they did or didn’t do/achieve (and, of course, I’ll note that an actual-achievement-based analysis has Steph looking fantastic too—his teams were actually great and won a bunch of titles). But there’s a lot of people who personally think about these rankings based on a CORP type of analysis, and I wanted to share how I’d think about that sort of analysis and why I think Steph looks good under that sort of framework too, even despite the somewhat lesser longevity.

[f4p]

EDIT: I’ll note I imagine the f4p-style take on this would be that it’s a bad thing to have underperformed the odds and a good thing to have overperformed it, and therefore that somehow Magic looks better here. That’s a take one could have, I suppose, but I think it just puts a lot of weight on randomness (for instance, if Durant doesn’t get injured in 2019, then Curry very likely overperforms the expectations rather than underperforming it) as opposed to how good a player actually was, and I think would really just give Magic a lot of credit for the Western Conference being a cakewalk in the vast majority of that era (which we’d certainly expect to make a team do better than expected just based on SRS, but is not something I think is something we should tally in favor of a player).

leaving aside the fact you're still saying the warriors without steph were really a -1.74 SRS team (or even +0 SRS) when they went 9-3 in the playoffs and were clearly, even by the standards of vegas, actually much better than -2 or 0, you're basically saying that steph's regular season advantage of predicted titles is somehow better than just winning them. like i'm pretty sure you're one of the ones criticizing the "actual vs expected" approach, but now you're taking it back one step to just "expected" and claiming that's better. like i can at least appreciate the "the change isn't what's important, it's the absolute playoff performance" arguments, even if i think the change is important. but now we're just crediting steph for titles because he was good in the regular season. magic had only 2.5 expected titles in his career by the lakers' SRS but he won 5, vastly outperforming his expected total. a boon to his case it would seem. either he has to get credit for the massve outperformance or at least get credit for just straight up winning 5 instead of 4. it can't be that steph wins the argument because he was expected to win the argument.

I get your point that I do often say I prefer to only rate people based on what they did, rather than on a hypothetical. It’s a fair point. But the point of the analysis you’re responding to was largely to illustrate the value of making your team incredibly good,

i don't deny steph has a way of having regular season impact and generating teams with massive win totals in a way that really only jordan has ever done. or that getting up there in the stratosphere and wins/SRS scales up your winning chances in a way that isn't just linear. 140 wins in the 2 years even before durant is obviously outlier stuff and not explainable without steph being very impactful. i just don't see him as having translated it enough to actual playoff winning (or at least winning as dominantly as the regular season), given the tremendous team/teammates he has had, especially draymond and also durant.

[lessthanjake]

leaving aside the fact you're still saying the warriors without steph were really a -1.74 SRS team (or even +0 SRS) when they went 9-3 in the playoffs and were clearly, even by the standards of vegas, actually much better than -2 or 0, you're basically saying that steph's regular season advantage of predicted titles is somehow better than just winning them. like i'm pretty sure you're one of the ones criticizing the "actual vs expected" approach, but now you're taking it back one step to just "expected" and claiming that's better. like i can at least appreciate the "the change isn't what's important, it's the absolute playoff performance" arguments, even if i think the change is important. but now we're just crediting steph for titles because he was good in the regular season. magic had only 2.5 expected titles in his career by the lakers' SRS but he won 5, vastly outperforming his expected total. a boon to his case it would seem. either he has to get credit for the massve outperformance or at least get credit for just straight up winning 5 instead of 4. it can't be that steph wins the argument because he was expected to win the argument.

I get your point that I do often say I prefer to only rate people based on what they did, rather than on a hypothetical. It’s a fair point. But the point of the analysis you’re responding to was largely to illustrate the value of making your team incredibly good,

i don't deny steph has a way of having regular season impact and generating teams with massive win totals in a way that really only jordan has ever done. or that getting up there in the stratosphere and wins/SRS scales up your winning chances in a way that isn't just linear. 140 wins in the 2 years even before durant is obviously outlier stuff and not explainable without steph being very impactful. i just don't see him as having translated it enough to actual playoff winning (or at least winning as dominantly as the regular season), given the tremendous team/teammates he has had, especially draymond and also durant.

Yeah, and I think that’s certainly a counterargument to the type of analysis I presented, since my analysis was focused on regular season performance.

I would say, though, that the Warriors’ playoff record was actually *quite* dominant in the years where they had those great regular season performances with Steph. In the 6 years where they had a 7+ SRS in games Steph played, the Warriors went to the finals every year and won 4 titles. One of those teams is on the shortlist for most dominant title run ever. Another of their title runs had a higher playoff SRS than all but 6 other teams in history (all of which are major GOAT team candidates). They only faced one game 7 in those four title wins combined, and it was without home-court advantage against an elite 65-win, 8.21 SRS team—a situation that even the best teams in history would be expected to struggle with. By Sansterre’s method—which focuses heavily on teams’ playoff performance—those Warriors included three of the top 9 teams of all time—appearing in the top 10 more than any other team in history (note: the analysis was done in 2020, so didn’t include the 2022 Warriors, though I doubt they’d have made the top 10). As for the two finals losses, one of those finals losses came with the team devastated with injuries. And the other was a 7-game series against this board’s GOAT, in a playoffs where Steph himself had had to miss games with injury (and Draymond got suspended for a game).

There’s not a whole lot better the Warriors could’ve been in the playoffs! They had title runs with +13.5, +10.3, and +8.2 playoff SRS! Those are huge numbers! Their 2022 title was also comfortably won, despite not actually being a top title favorite even after the regular season. Their 2019 loss in the finals was obviously a result of injury devastation to the team, so I don’t see how it could ever be much of a basis for saying Steph couldn’t translate their regular season success to the playoffs. Thus, it feels like this point is literally just based on them failing to win the title in 2016. Which seems like a thin reed on which to base an overall criticism of Steph’s ability to make the team dominant in the playoffs, given that it’s just one year, Steph had gotten injured early in the playoffs, and they were very close to winning the title anyways against a great team. Like, I don’t think your argument is really that you “just don't see him as having translated it enough to actual playoff winning” as much as it’s just “Even though they were extremely dominant in the playoffs otherwise, I just can’t get over the fact that they didn’t *also* dominate the playoffs in 2016.” Your demand is essentially that the Warriors have won the title at every single plausible opportunity (and have done so in dominant fashion), otherwise Steph must be deemed to have “not translated” things to the playoffs. If Steph had done that, he’d be Michael Jordan! And he essentially translated it every single possible time but one. I’d say that’s extremely good, unless we’re comparing him to MJ!

Also, you specifically mention having Durant, but of course Steph never failed to win a title with a healthy Durant, and in fact both times he had a healthy Durant, the Warriors won the title with historically high playoff SRS. Lack of playoff dominance with Kevin Durant is really *not* a viable argument against Steph!

[Moonbeam]

There was an article that compared box-oc, pr, team-assists, ast:tov in terms of correlation with o-rating, but I'll need to look for it(hopefully it's not locked behind a paywall now -_-).

Went box:oc -> ast:tov -> pr -> raw assists from memory but feel free to discount that for now

Using the links provided on this thread Ben actually tests his regression goal(oppurtunities created) against assists using "expected value" which he also checks against offensive and defensive rating(And naturally box-oc maps much better to that than assists do):


Shouldn't be surprising oc looks better here given that
A. It is tracking missed shots
B. It is tracking creation that comes before the final pass
C. Tracking creation that occurs without a pass(steph, reggie, bird!)

Ben also directly checks o-rating against boxoc and pr here too(no comparison to ast:tov though he literally spends a bunch talking about them -_-)
https://youtu.be/yoLgSWA7n6g?t=470

Maybe someone like uh...

...would be interested enough to consider doing a direct o-rating correlation check?

And if possible, I guess "adjusted passer-rating" could also be given a whirl?

Sure, I don't mind looking at this, but I'd need to get access to the data in order to calculate the correlations with Team ORTG.