New Engelmann Career RAPM (1997–2024)

[eminence]

I do not find it unclear which is better. Again, my point is that RAPM is not really giving me the “answer”.

As for 1992’s value distinct from whatever the RAPM measure is, I feel like you would basically need to assess that as Jordan’s true defensive peak, or at least narrowly behind 1988, to make up for the offensive drop-off from 1989-91 (or 1989/90 if we want to exclude 1991 from this frame as a reasonable top season choice either way). Maybe you would see that in some hypothetical 1992 RAPM, but if it does not come through on film then I am not particularly interested in it.

I'm honestly confused at your direction here.

This entire time I have not been discussing what version of MJ is 'better' (I don't think any of us have any serious question on that one). I at one point mentioned that MJ was seen as better as one point of evidence for '92 likely performing better by an "equally applied measure of impact". The much stronger point being '92 MJ performing better in the data we have available.

I understand concerns around the sample used for '92 (and perhaps the sampling too). But I do find the data at least directional. Using '96 to appease those concerns.

'96: +15.22 On, +13.87 On/Off, +29.09 (full)
'97: +12.64 On, +8.75 On/Off, +21.39 (full)
'98: +9.02 On, +9.93 On/Off, +18.95 (full)

It is very unlikely that a player with those raw combined numbers of '97/'98 would equal or outperform a player with the '96 numbers. Somewhere in the low single digits % chance. Magnitude of change, hard to guess (based off common scales I'd guess +2 rounded to the nearest whole number). Overall point, it's strongly likely that MJ has a better two year APM (type) metric stretch than '97/'98 (rough guess, ~1/1000 chance '97/'98 is his top one with it being overwhelming likely it's either '91/'92 or '96/'97).

[Djoker]

I do not find it unclear which is better. Again, my point is that RAPM is not really giving me the “answer”.

As for 1992’s value distinct from whatever the RAPM measure is, I feel like you would basically need to assess that as Jordan’s true defensive peak, or at least narrowly behind 1988, to make up for the offensive drop-off from 1989-91 (or 1989/90 if we want to exclude 1991 from this frame as a reasonable top season choice either way). Maybe you would see that in some hypothetical 1992 RAPM, but if it does not come through on film then I am not particularly interested in it.

I'm honestly confused at your direction here.

This entire time I have not been discussing what version of MJ is 'better' (I don't think any of us have any serious question on that one). I at one point mentioned that MJ was seen as better as one point of evidence for '92 likely performing better by an "equally applied measure of impact". The much stronger point being '92 MJ performing better in the data we have available.

I understand concerns around the sample used for '92 (and perhaps the sampling too). But I do find the data at least directional. Using '96 to appease those concerns.

'96: +15.22 On, +13.87 On/Off, +29.09 (full)
'97: +12.64 On, +8.75 On/Off, +21.39 (full)
'98: +9.02 On, +9.93 On/Off, +18.95 (full)

It is very unlikely that a player with those raw combined numbers of '97/'98 would equal or outperform a player with the '96 numbers. Somewhere in the low single digits % chance. Magnitude of change, hard to guess (based off common scales I'd guess +2 rounded to the nearest whole number). Overall point, it's strongly likely that MJ has a better two year APM (type) metric stretch than '97/'98 (rough guess, ~1/1000 chance '97/'98 is his top one with it being overwhelming likely it's either '91/'92 or '96/'97).

Good post.

Just want to add that the original argument around the 91-92 plus minus started when posters were questioning Dipper13's possession count and therefore Net Rating per 100 possessions which admittedly seems absurdly high. That data you cited for 91-92 is per 48 minutes and uses only raw plus minus and minutes played so there is no uncertainty regarding possession count in that number. What exactly is the basis for questioning the data you cited?

[Jaivl]

I do not find it unclear which is better. Again, my point is that RAPM is not really giving me the “answer”.

As for 1992’s value distinct from whatever the RAPM measure is, I feel like you would basically need to assess that as Jordan’s true defensive peak, or at least narrowly behind 1988, to make up for the offensive drop-off from 1989-91 (or 1989/90 if we want to exclude 1991 from this frame as a reasonable top season choice either way). Maybe you would see that in some hypothetical 1992 RAPM, but if it does not come through on film then I am not particularly interested in it.

I'm honestly confused at your direction here.

Are you really? The sign clearly reads "LeBron Raymone James City 1".

[AEnigma]

I do not find it unclear which is better. Again, my point is that RAPM is not really giving me the “answer”.

As for 1992’s value distinct from whatever the RAPM measure is, I feel like you would basically need to assess that as Jordan’s true defensive peak, or at least narrowly behind 1988, to make up for the offensive drop-off from 1989-91 (or 1989/90 if we want to exclude 1991 from this frame as a reasonable top season choice either way). Maybe you would see that in some hypothetical 1992 RAPM, but if it does not come through on film then I am not particularly interested in it.

I'm honestly confused at your direction here.

Are you really? The sign clearly reads "LeBron Raymone James City 1".

If it did, I would be a lot less committed to my actual direction of “RAPM is not a measure of absolute goodness.”

Do better.

[eminence]

I'm honestly confused at your direction here.

Are you really? The sign clearly reads "LeBron Raymone James City 1".

Make it two, I'd move there.

Unless you mean it's 1 _measurement unit of your choice_ down the road.

In which case, I'm still confused.

[eminence]

Anywho, I've helped us go far afield.

Back to JE's career RAPMs here.

I still have my reservations about huge sample RAPMs like this.
-Treating the guys the same through their careers is questionable
-But adding season modifiers is pretty arbitrary
-As the matchup array gets bigger and bigger the basic principles simply get less valid (you couldn't/shouldn't do these operations on an array that's overly sparse)
-Personal choice here, but I don't give players negative career credit (eg late career Wade/Kobe drag their #s down)

But... It's still nice to see all the players in one spot. Nothing shocking to me on first glance (seen a lot of these). Shoutout to Jrue at #18. Take that AD/Giannis.

[Special_Puppy]

New Version that adjusts for the Rubber band effect, coaches, and age. LeBron way out in front. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pGTFzq0eE85AP5wW8v8yFzRiJn_lfSCAzh7hd4czQI4/edit#gid=0

[LukaTheGOAT]

My understanding is that whenever you're talking about a direct RAPM, the player is assumed to be the same in all samples where he shows up.

I believe JE's line "- 'season' is the only adjustment" implies there is some sort of factor between individual player seasons, but I do not have any idea how large of driver it'd be.

Interesting. He should really lay out exactly what he means by that.

Read on Twitter

[eminence]

I believe JE's line "- 'season' is the only adjustment" implies there is some sort of factor between individual player seasons, but I do not have any idea how large of driver it'd be.

Interesting. He should really lay out exactly what he means by that.

Read on Twitter

I'm going to presume that his point there doesn't apply only to Jordan, and that he's essentially saying most all of the early guys are outranked by the new guys. Which does seem against the purpose, though I'm having a bit of trouble determining how it would happen... Haven't seen that before. Funky.

Or is he saying that the O/D splits are weird? That could be, which would also be a bit against the purpose if it graded everyone from the early 00s as top tier defenders and all the guys from 20s guys as top tier on O. Makes more sense to me at first pass.

[falcolombardi]

New Version that adjusts for the Rubber band effect, coaches, and age. LeBron way out in front. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pGTFzq0eE85AP5wW8v8yFzRiJn_lfSCAzh7hd4czQI4/edit#gid=0

What is that?

[OhayoKD]

The question was not whether he was individually better, the question was how much better he would look by an equally applied measure of impact. I think with how inflated top players were in the late 1990s, it would not be much — and 1992 is not an especially convincing counter-point when I do not see any real case that he was better in 1992 than in 1990 and 1991 (and even 1989 and 1988 would need to be specifically using a lens of postseason experience that applies more to old Jordan anyway).

Fair enough.

The '92 Bulls are very slighly behind the '97 team in team measures of goodness (despite the stronger league). They pretty clearly surpass the '98 version.

Hence, any combined '97/'98 measure will favor the '92 version in on-court (+11 > +10 and all that). The other half (on/off) we don't have the data outside of samples given, but those very clearly favor '92 versions. (similar thoughts all apply to '96 likely outpacing '97/'98 as well)

How large the margin would be is very up in the air, but evidence points towards '92, and imo, pretty clearly. What do you find unclear about it?

Semi aside - I have '91 on a similar level to '92, but I have '90 a half step down. I find it difficult to believe a team jumped from +3.3 to +9.5 while keeping the same top 7 guys and that the #1 guy didn't improve at least a bit.

Semi aside - I have '91 on a similar level to '92, but I have '90 a half step down. I find it difficult to believe a team jumped from +3.3 to +9.5 while keeping the same top 7 guys and that the #1 guy didn't improve at least a bit.

Is this a valid argument? Team improved so jordan -must- have too even if neither boxcore nor eye test suggest it?

is a rather heavy assumption specially because i doubt you think jordan hypothetical improvement from 90 to 91 was worth 6 points so i assume you are already attributing the lion share lf the leap to non direct jordan element

Even more so when the 90 team that finished the season was already rather stronger than the 90 team than started it as shown in their margin lf victory across either half of their year, making the overall 90 team net rating non all that representative

Rolling SRS(which skews negatively to a degree implies the Bulls turn to a +6 srs team by the end of 1990) and Iirc their playoff ratings are similar in the first two rounds until the bulls run into a significantly version of the pistons that performed significantly worse in their first two rounds those playoffs. Notably a big chunk of that improvement was defensive.

If we are attributing that to Jordan improving, then the question arises where that improvement manifested. Jordan putting up similar numbers on similar efficiency against weaker defensive competition with more help in the postseason would, if anything, suggest 1990 as better. He was defensively less active as well I think though that drop-off started in 90 really.

Though priority 1 should be vetting the 92 data I think: The source giving MJ the best on/off of his career was overselling players of that period by a factor of 2 or 3.

[Doctor MJ]

Interesting. He should really lay out exactly what he means by that.

Read on Twitter

I'm going to presume that his point there doesn't apply only to Jordan, and that he's essentially saying most all of the early guys are outranked by the new guys. Which does seem against the purpose, though I'm having a bit of trouble determining how it would happen... Haven't seen that before. Funky.

Or is he saying that the O/D splits are weird? That could be, which would also be a bit against the purpose if it graded everyone from the early 00s as top tier defenders and all the guys from 20s guys as top tier on O. Makes more sense to me at first pass.

Yeah, this makes sense. Not something it occurred to me to predict, but it's clear what the cause is, and the normalization can be done cleanly.

I will say I think it's good we don't use the normalization without realizing that's been done, but I am more interested in the normalized data than the un-normalized.

[ShotCreator]

Kobe’s D split being that low is pitiful imo. For all the accolades, the athleticism, the coaching and teammates, for him to have an overall bad NBA defensive career is inexcusable at his level of greatness and acclaim.

Draymond Green quietly weighted out as a solidly ATG player. Same for PG.

Kawhi is curiously low to me. Especially defensively. He had a monstrous 4 year run after his rookie year defensively, and then was pretty damn solid afterward - or so I thought.

Quick glance, I’ll definitely be revisiting this for some time.

[sp6r=underrated]

As always the guy who stands out to me is Stockton. The +/- data is extremely strong. The +/- data is overwhelming that Stockton was a generational top 10 All time level player. Super high peak and played forever. That's a top 10 player all time.

And yet his team's offenses reached their highest level when his role was downgraded. When the offenses were built around him the clubs were fairly pedestrian. In the mid to late 90s the Jazz reached their heighest level. In the eyes of most who watched them live in the mid-late 90s, myself included they became more Malone centric.

And when he retired the +/- data said the team should have imploded but they only suffered a minor drop off. Again the +/- data is overwhelmingly strong but I can't grasp it.

It genuinely seems nuts to me to think Stockton was far better than Kobe but that's what the +/- data says. I'm not a +/- fundamentalist like some so I can ignore it. But the box score also says Stockton was a top 10 player all time level guy.

His career combined with the arc of Jazz success just doesn't make sense to me.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

New Version that adjusts for the Rubber band effect, coaches, and age. LeBron way out in front. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pGTFzq0eE85AP5wW8v8yFzRiJn_lfSCAzh7hd4czQI4/edit#gid=0

I don't like the fact that it's very likely that old LeBron is pushing up LeBron's evaluation so much as he's much more of an outlier at 38 rather than 28, even if he's (obviously) a much lesser player

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Read on Twitter

I'm going to presume that his point there doesn't apply only to Jordan, and that he's essentially saying most all of the early guys are outranked by the new guys. Which does seem against the purpose, though I'm having a bit of trouble determining how it would happen... Haven't seen that before. Funky.

Or is he saying that the O/D splits are weird? That could be, which would also be a bit against the purpose if it graded everyone from the early 00s as top tier defenders and all the guys from 20s guys as top tier on O. Makes more sense to me at first pass.

Yeah, this makes sense. Not something it occurred to me to predict, but it's clear what the cause is, and the normalization can be done cleanly.

I will say I think it's good we don't use the normalization without realizing that's been done, but I am more interested in the normalized data than the un-normalized.

that also means that the defensive impact of older players gets overstated, though, while the net effect is the same

[Rishkar]

As always the guy who stands out to me is Stockton. The +/- data is extremely strong. The +/- data is overwhelming that Stockton was a generational top 10 All time level player. Super high peak and played forever. That's a top 10 player all time.

And yet his team's offenses reached their highest level when his role was downgraded. When the offenses were built around him the clubs were fairly pedestrian. In the mid to late 90s the Jazz reached their heighest level. In the eyes of most who watched them live in the mid-late 90s, myself included they became more Malone centric.

And when he retired the +/- data said the team should have imploded but they only suffered a minor drop off. Again the +/- data is overwhelmingly strong but I can't grasp it.

It genuinely seems nuts to me to think Stockton was far better than Kobe but that's what the +/- data says. I'm not a +/- fundamentalist like some so I can ignore it. But the box score also says Stockton was a top 10 player all time level guy.

His career combined with the arc of Jazz success just doesn't make sense to me.

This is exactly how I feel. Heck, you could make a statistically backed Goat case for Stockton (I've never seen someone try and that's certainly not my intent with this post). Box composites love him, impact data love's him, and he racked up so many years of elite play. However, most of this data doesn't align with our perception of him, it isn't congruent with the eye test or his team success. Were he and Malone two top 20 all time players with historically awful supporting casts, or is there some huge flaw in how our data measures basketball impact?

[Jaivl]

It passes the Ricky Rubio smell test.

[AEnigma]

As always the guy who stands out to me is Stockton. The +/- data is extremely strong. The +/- data is overwhelming that Stockton was a generational top 10 All time level player. Super high peak and played forever. That's a top 10 player all time.

And yet his team's offenses reached their highest level when his role was downgraded. When the offenses were built around him the clubs were fairly pedestrian. In the mid to late 90s the Jazz reached their heighest level. In the eyes of most who watched them live in the mid-late 90s, myself included they became more Malone centric.

And when he retired the +/- data said the team should have imploded but they only suffered a minor drop off. Again the +/- data is overwhelmingly strong but I can't grasp it.

It genuinely seems nuts to me to think Stockton was far better than Kobe but that's what the +/- data says. I'm not a +/- fundamentalist like some so I can ignore it. But the box score also says Stockton was a top 10 player all time level guy.

His career combined with the arc of Jazz success just doesn't make sense to me.

This is exactly how I feel. Heck, you could make a statistically backed Goat case for Stockton (I've never seen someone try and that's certainly not my intent with this post). Box composites love him, impact data love's him, and he racked up so many years of elite play. However, most of this data doesn't align with our perception of him, it isn't congruent with the eye test or his team success. Were he and Malone two top 20 all time players with historically awful supporting casts, or is there some huge flaw in how our data measures basketball impact?

I think the Jazz were historically awful at replacing him in his role.

It always throws me how many people seem to focus in on Stockton here, when blindly chasing RAPM outputs could get you to put Manu above Kobe and Wade, Dikembe and Vlade above Ewing, Rasheed above… well, power forward is a bit thin historically except for when Rasheed himself played, but how about Kevin McHale…

[Rishkar]

As always the guy who stands out to me is Stockton. The +/- data is extremely strong. The +/- data is overwhelming that Stockton was a generational top 10 All time level player. Super high peak and played forever. That's a top 10 player all time.

And yet his team's offenses reached their highest level when his role was downgraded. When the offenses were built around him the clubs were fairly pedestrian. In the mid to late 90s the Jazz reached their heighest level. In the eyes of most who watched them live in the mid-late 90s, myself included they became more Malone centric.

And when he retired the +/- data said the team should have imploded but they only suffered a minor drop off. Again the +/- data is overwhelmingly strong but I can't grasp it.

It genuinely seems nuts to me to think Stockton was far better than Kobe but that's what the +/- data says. I'm not a +/- fundamentalist like some so I can ignore it. But the box score also says Stockton was a top 10 player all time level guy.

His career combined with the arc of Jazz success just doesn't make sense to me.

This is exactly how I feel. Heck, you could make a statistically backed Goat case for Stockton (I've never seen someone try and that's certainly not my intent with this post). Box composites love him, impact data love's him, and he racked up so many years of elite play. However, most of this data doesn't align with our perception of him, it isn't congruent with the eye test or his team success. Were he and Malone two top 20 all time players with historically awful supporting casts, or is there some huge flaw in how our data measures basketball impact?

I think the Jazz were historically awful at replacing him in his role.

It always throws me how many people seem to focus in on Stockton here, when blindly chasing RAPM outputs could get you to put Manu above Kobe and Wade, Dikembe and Vlade above Ewing, Rasheed above… well, power forward is a bit thin historically, but how about Kevin McHale…

Well, RAPM is not a definite player ranker, I hope we can all agree about that. However, it might be our best data point (at least on the defensive end of the ball) to start building our opinions off of. Would Sheed over McHale or Dikembe over Ewing or even Many over Wade/Kobe be insane? I don't know if I would take any of those stances (except the Sheed one) but the data sure makes me think about it more closely. My focus on Stockton comes mainly from being a Jazz fan and the amount of controversy around him on these boards. This RAPM data always makes me think about what ways he was providing value; like does guard screen setting impact the game significantly more than we thought? Are we still underrating the value of steals? Was Stockton a great communicator? Or was his backup just really bad? I know with Manu we often talk about him playing against bench units in limited minutes, was later career Stockton deployed similarly? He's just a fascinating player to try and analyze, with really noticable strengths and weaknesses.