Bob8 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Bob8 wrote:
I'm not saying it's just teammates, I'm saying that you need critical mass of roster quality to compete with the best players, who also have the best rosters. MJ couldn't win anything before he got the right team. He needed 4 seasons to even come out of the first round. Basketball is team sport and +/- is measuring impact of lineups not single players. That's why multiple players of the best teams have very good and very similar +/-.
If you're right and +/- is really measuring impact of a single player, then things should be very similar in playoffs too. All OKC's players in the starting lineup has light years better +/- than Mavs' starting lineup. It should be 4:0 easily. +/- is saying there isn't any chance for Mavs. OKC is just dominant in every position.
Or maybe we should look at 2022. The whole Suns' starting lineup had around + 10 +/- in RS, Luka + 3.6. And all that incredible impact numbers didn't matter much. Suns were destroyed in games 6 and 7. Booker with - 60 in those 2 games, Luka with + 52. I wonder where all that impact disappeared?
Re: if +/- is measuring impact of a single player then should be similar in the playoffs. You're still looking to treat "impact" like it's something glued to the player in all settings while I've been clear I see it as an emergent property influenced by other factors.
If I'm doing my regular season thing by grifting foul calls like crazy, and in the playoffs the refs swallow the whistle, my impact in the playoffs will go down.
If I'm doing my regular season thing where I can stand up to 90% of the bigs in the league well enough that I can focus on help defense, but in the playoffs I'm more likely to go up against that other 10%, my impact in the playoffs will go down.
If I set a casual regular season tone that leads to bad defense, but then I put the fear of god in my teammates come playoff time and we become a good defense, my impact in the playoffs will go up.
None of this means that the playoff impact is totally disconnected from regular season impact, but no, it's not a one number badge that a guy carries around with him. It varies with context.
Look, when the playoffs roll around, just pay a lot of attention to what the great analysts end up talking about in each series. When they talk about the stars they'll be focused less on how good a player is overall, and more on what he's doing that's working, what's not working, how he's being exploited, how a coach is making a move to help him no longer being exploited, etc. That's the stuff that really matters more than the holistic overall goodness to a coach, and it changes depending on the context of the series.
Re: why multiple players on teams have similar +/-. As I've said many, many times in this thread: We have stats that normalize for stuff like this with On/Off, RAPM, etc. If you literally don't understand how these stats work, just ask. But at this point your focus on raw +/- simply because that's what I use to try to communicate the basics amounts to a straw man whether you realize it or not.
Re: Phx-Dal, where all that impact disappear? Dude, Phoenix had the far better regular season and then Dallas won the series in a really important upset. Literally everything we'd point to in the regular season pointed in the same direction...so why wouldn't +/-? Makes no sense to talk as if +/- was the thing that was wrong here. It was all wrong, and the question is: What changed? It's a great conversation to have, and the NBA world has had plenty to say on it since it happened. Among the things discussed is the playoff resilience of Luka's game which I've been mentioning repeatedly here as well. (Another factor is the Chris Paul disappearing act, which is an incredibly important thing in its own right with the big question being whether it's simply about his body tending to break down over the course of the season or not.)
You're using only raw +/- in this whole conversation. On/off is as raw as it gets stat too, enormously influenced by who replacement player is. You brought, talked and made big conclusions using only raw +/-. You could have used regression, adjustments or whatever you wanted, but you didn't. We're focusing on stats you have brought in conversation not me.
If you measure players impact and say player A is far more impactful than player B and all that changes in a moment, because playoffs environment is more basketball pure. Than I can only say, you should focus more on other aspects of player's game, when measuring true impact of a player, because your conclusion based on +/- is obviously wrong. Nobody can become good or bad overnight. The main difference in playoffs is that all competitive teams are using their best lineups as much as possible. You can have a team with big problems with injuries in RS suddenly playing with full rosters, of course their performance would be totally different. Players at this point of the season are what they're, but lineups in playoffs can be very different than average lineups team has played in RS. Just looked at 3 games OKC and Mavs played. OKC with full roster all 3 times, Mavs missing half of the roster in game 1 and without Luka in game 3. The only time they played with full roster, it was blowout win for Mavs. Normally that extremely healthy team as OKC will have more wins in RS than extremely unhealthy team as Mavs. But in playoffs that extreme RS health won't matter much. And I don't believe many will be surprised if Mavs win potential series against OKC.
And that's exactly what I'm saying. All Booker's greatest, or should we say it impact, disappeared, when CP3 couldn't assist his game anymore. Suns lineup failed and with that Booker too. Booker was still the same player, but his team wasn't playing the same anymore and his +/- has fallen off the cliff. If he was truly more impactful player than Luka, that shouldn't happened, he should lead his team no matter how CP3 plays. Booker is just another prime example how meaningless +/- is. His +/- impact is far superior to Luka's in last 5 years, but if there was a trade between Suns and Mavs, Suns would need to include numerous FRPs to even start talking. It seems to me that not only Luka's stans consider him as top player in Nba, even though +/- is not agreeing with it.
I'm referencing raw +/- and On/Off yes, but I've made clear repeatedly why I'm doing this and you keep attacking it like I haven't countered what you say.
If what you're wanting is to compare RAPM data, I'm generally happy to go there. Certainly if that data presents a different story than what I've mentioned it should be brought up.
Why do I generally reference more raw data?
1. More understandable to a broader audience.
2. Standardized and readily available for free on nba.com & b-r.com, which RAPM isn't.
I do understand the challenges with the approach I use in that it makes sense for someone to counter raw +/- with on/off concerns, and counter On/Off data with concerns that speak to the need to use things like regression. But once I've addressed those issues, it doesn't make sense to keep bringing them up like I haven't.
So either:
1. You're understanding that I've addressed your concerns and you're purposefully pretending I didn't.
or
2. You're not understanding something about what I've said previously, and it's not triggering recognition on your part that you really need to re-consider the things you think you understand that you don't.
My inclination is to say (2) because I would prefer to assume good faith in those I debate with.
If it is (2), then I would say you should be looking to ask more questions, and do so with sincere curiosity.
Re: nobody becomes good or bad overnight. Right, but they can become impactful over night, and impact is what drives value, which is what the Most Valuable Player Award is named for.
You keep talking like the fact that +/- is dependent on context is a bug, but when talking about value-based achievement, I consider it a feature.
. Cam Johnson is just an overpaid injury prone not so young player. Read Nets fans comments, nobody believes Mikal is even a 2nd option. As I said Ishbea overpaid with the picks, but I don't know what it has to do with the Mavs, a narrative you are trying to push. It was simply the new owner syndrome.
