Raw plus/minus for 93-94, 94-95, 95-96 seasons

[Texas Chuck]

Doc,


I think its because defensive-oriented PG's arent held in very high esteem on the PC board. IF a PG isnt a good scorer he typically isn't highly thought of. It's probably time for this board to re-think how they evaluate PG's.

[ronnymac2]

I always thought if Orlando could have traded Nick Anderson for Blaylock, they would have been the perfect starting lineup. Huge improvement defensively since their 6'7" PG wouldn't need to defend quick guys anymore, plus Mookie is a good defender himself. Offensively, another ball-handler so Penny isn't alone in the backcourt when Jordan/Pippen/Harper harass him.

I see Blaylock's box score stats and +/- stats and immediately think of Baron Davis. You'd think they'd look bad in +/- because they are point guards known for inefficiency and shot-jacking (B-Diddy more than Mookie for chucking), but they are lifting their teams.

[ronnymac2]

-Magic with lots of collinearity, playing their big lineup together it looks like

I wish we had lineup data for 1995 and 1996, because I think the Penny/Anderson/Scott/Grant/Shaq lineups must have been rocking offensive ratings around 130+.

[colts18]

Mookie continues to have WTF level numbers. He had it in the late '90s RAPM, and he seems to still have it hear. It's definitely a cognitive dissonance moment for me, because it just feels like it has to be inflated somehow. It's one thing to see some of Stockton's numbers and say "See he was really legit", but I don't know if I've seen one thread on the board focused on Mookie in all the time I've been here. He was basically forgotten other than his fun name.

Mookie is definitely one of the guys that stood out for me. Here is his rank in Net Plus/minus:

94: 7th
95: 13th
96: 5th
97: 2nd
98: 6th
99: 12th

He had +10 Net Plus/minus in all of those years.

Here are his RAPM ranks:
97- +5.29 (8th)
98- +6.49 (3rd)
99- +6.64 (5th)

He looks awesome by plus/minus metrics. It's also not because of his defense. His defense rates well, but RAPM loves his offense more.

[colts18]

Based on ElGee's spreadsheet, I ran a regressed RAPM for the 95 season. Here are the results

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... W8g0mblnmQ

This is RAPM adjusted to the variance of the 2014 RAPM

Rank Player RAPM adj w/Variance
1 David Robinson 7.42
2 Shaquille O'Neal 5.80
3 Karl Malone 4.93
4 Anfernee Hardaway 4.68
5 Scottie Pippen 4.58
6 Hakeem Olajuwon 4.47
7 John Stockton 4.04
8 Vlade Divac 3.68
9 Avery Johnson 3.66
10 Rod Strickland 3.61
11 Horace Grant 3.58
12 Charles Barkley 3.56
13 Nick Anderson 3.56
14 Sean Elliott 3.54
15 Nate McMillan 3.50
16 Rik Smits 3.36
17 Alonzo Mourning 3.19
18 Patrick Ewing 3.13
19 Jeff Hornacek 2.99
20 Dennis Rodman 2.97


Robinson looks great once again. Shaq and Penny had great seasons too. Scottie Pippen has solid numbers in a season mostly without MJ.

[Dipper 13]

It would be nice to see the splits between offense and defense, perhaps someday the sealed play by play data will be released to the public.

[colts18]

It would be nice to see the splits between offense and defense, perhaps someday the sealed play by play data will be released to the public.

I was hoping that in the 95 and 96 books, Pollack would put points for and points against so that we could calculate the O rating and D rating of these players. He did it for the sixers players, but unfortunately he didn't do that for the whole league.

[colts18]

1996 Regressed RAPM

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... tvFj4vgKSo

Regressed RAPM adjusted for 2014 Variance

Rank PLAYER RAPM adj w/Variance
1 Michael Jordan 6.67
2 David Robinson 5.89
3 Anfernee Hardaway 5.26
4 Scottie Pippen 4.99
5 Karl Malone 4.89
6 John Stockton 4.64
7 Shaquille O'Neal 4.31
8 Toni Kukoc 4.17
9 Grant Hill 3.48
10 Horace Grant 3.46
11 Hakeem Olajuwon 3.38
12 Mookie Blaylock 3.28
13 Arvydas Sabonis 3.25
14 Reggie Miller 3.16
15 Ron Harper 3.13
16 Dennis Scott 3.02
17 Alonzo Mourning 2.94
18 Terrell Brandon 2.88
19 Derrick McKey 2.84
20 Clyde Drexler 2.80

Notes:
-MJ beats out Robinson.
-Malone and Stockton side by side, right where they belong
-Pippen with another solid finish
-Penny finishes ahead of Shaq
-Blaylock, Zo, and Miller do well in this

[Dipper 13]

Could you do the same for 1994? Looking to see if Robinson ranks ahead of Hakeem in the regular season.

[colts18]

Could you do the same for 1994? Looking to see if Robinson ranks ahead of Hakeem in the regular season.

From the 1st page of this thread:

Thanks to Elgee and Fplii, I was able to use that data to create a regressed version of RAPM.

I used 2014 Gotbuckets RAPM
Here were the inputs
2014 On per 100 possessions
2014 off per 100 possesssions
Minutes played
PER
WS/48

Using those 5 variables, I was able to come up with a formula with a R^2 value of 0.62 to 2014 Gotbuckets RAPM. Then I used those 5 variables for the 1994 players to create a regressed RAPM. The 2nd to last column is Regressed RAPM. The last column is Regressed RAPM adjusted to the variance of the 2014 Gotbuckets RAPM

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... A59WS7GuA/


Top 20
1 David Robinson 5.77
2 Kevin Willis 4.30
3 Karl Malone 4.24
4 Hakeem Olajuwon 4.03
5 Nate McMillan 3.83
6 Ricky Pierce 3.27
7 Mookie Blaylock 3.25
8 Shaquille O'Neal 3.23
9 Stacey Augmon 3.12
10 Patrick Ewing 2.88
11 Dikembe Mutombo 2.87
12 Reggie Miller 2.69
13 Charles Barkley 2.60
14 John Stockton 2.59
15 Mark Price 2.49
16 Kevin Johnson 2.46
17 Shawn Kemp 2.45
18 Scottie Pippen 2.45
19 Dale Ellis 2.43
20 Horace Grant 2.30

[Dipper 13]

From the 1st page of this thread:

Can this possibly be adjusted to the variance of other seasons as well? Gotbuckets.com has RAPM going back to 2008.

http://www.gotbuckets.com/statistics/rapm/2008-rapm/

[colts18]

From the 1st page of this thread:

Can this possibly be adjusted to the variance of other seasons as well? Gotbuckets.com has RAPM going back to 2008.

http://www.gotbuckets.com/statistics/rapm/2008-rapm/

It can be done though it won't make much of a difference. It's like maybe going to change the RAPM scores by like .05-.15 points. Not that much.

[G35]

95 Players that stand out to me:
Blaylock

Mookie continues to have WTF level numbers. He had it in the late '90s RAPM, and he seems to still have it hear. It's definitely a cognitive dissonance moment for me, because it just feels like it has to be inflated somehow. It's one thing to see some of Stockton's numbers and say "See he was really legit", but I don't know if I've seen one thread on the board focused on Mookie in all the time I've been here. He was basically forgotten other than his fun name.

Mookie was always a solid PG from what I remember, not All NBA level but he was like an under appreciated Maurice Cheeks in that he was a pretty good man to man defender and was an excellent ball thief. His best years were with the Hawks and Steve Smith, Stacey Augmon but they just didn't have a big man to go the contender level. He is part of a crop of PG's that people seem to have forgotten like Sherman Douglas, Terry Porter, Pooh Richardson....

[drza]

I see Blaylock's box score stats and +/- stats and immediately think of Baron Davis. You'd think they'd look bad in +/- because they are point guards known for inefficiency and shot-jacking (B-Diddy more than Mookie for chucking), but they are lifting their teams.

I find this fascinating. I was just talking about Baron Davis in the top 100 thread. Davis, Mookie, Kidd...we're starting to get a nice little group of inefficient scoring point guards that are showing up outstanding in +/- studies. I've felt for awhile that scoring efficiency is greatly overvalued in box score based advanced stats...I'm looking forward to being able to go further in depth in looking at this with a larger data set

[drza]

1996 Regressed RAPM

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... tvFj4vgKSo

Regressed RAPM adjusted for 2014 Variance

Rank PLAYER RAPM adj w/Variance
1 Michael Jordan 6.67
2 David Robinson 5.89
3 Anfernee Hardaway 5.26
4 Scottie Pippen 4.99
5 Karl Malone 4.89
6 John Stockton 4.64
7 Shaquille O'Neal 4.31
8 Toni Kukoc 4.17
9 Grant Hill 3.48
10 Horace Grant 3.46
11 Hakeem Olajuwon 3.38
12 Mookie Blaylock 3.28
13 Arvydas Sabonis 3.25
14 Reggie Miller 3.16
15 Ron Harper 3.13
16 Dennis Scott 3.02
17 Alonzo Mourning 2.94
18 Terrell Brandon 2.88
19 Derrick McKey 2.84
20 Clyde Drexler 2.80

Notes:
-MJ beats out Robinson.
-Malone and Stockton side by side, right where they belong
-Pippen with another solid finish
-Penny finishes ahead of Shaq
-Blaylock, Zo, and Miller do well in this

I can't say I'm sure what your methodology is, but I do like that MJ ends up number one.

[penbeast0]

I see Blaylock's box score stats and +/- stats and immediately think of Baron Davis. You'd think they'd look bad in +/- because they are point guards known for inefficiency and shot-jacking (B-Diddy more than Mookie for chucking), but they are lifting their teams.

I find this fascinating. I was just talking about Baron Davis in the top 100 thread. Davis, Mookie, Kidd...we're starting to get a nice little group of inefficient scoring point guards that are showing up outstanding in +/- studies. I've felt for awhile that scoring efficiency is greatly overvalued in box score based advanced stats...I'm looking forward to being able to go further in depth in looking at this with a larger data set

Baron also always seemed to be getting injured; Mookie was out there pretty consistently. And, Mookie was reasonably efficient, he's more a small, hyperactive Chauncey Billups. The knock on him was that he didn't run an offense well, not that he shot poorly . . . part of that might be the Fratello offensive system, but he wasn't a guy who seemed to make the great pass for an easy bucket nearly as often as his competitors.

[tsherkin]

95 Players that stand out to me:
Blaylock

Mookie continues to have WTF level numbers. He had it in the late '90s RAPM, and he seems to still have it hear. It's definitely a cognitive dissonance moment for me, because it just feels like it has to be inflated somehow. It's one thing to see some of Stockton's numbers and say "See he was really legit", but I don't know if I've seen one thread on the board focused on Mookie in all the time I've been here. He was basically forgotten other than his fun name.

Mookie was always a solid PG from what I remember, not All NBA level but he was like an under appreciated Maurice Cheeks in that he was a pretty good man to man defender and was an excellent ball thief. His best years were with the Hawks and Steve Smith, Stacey Augmon but they just didn't have a big man to go the contender level. He is part of a crop of PG's that people seem to have forgotten like Sherman Douglas, Terry Porter, Pooh Richardson....

Well put. His D always stood out to me. I think of him as a wicked #3.

[colts18]

Using Lorak's spreadsheet, I created a spreadsheet of career plus/minus from 94-14.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 8PFCQ/edit

Top 20 in Net Plus/Minus (Min. 5000 MP):
Rank Player Net
1 Dirk Nowitzki 12.9
2 LeBron James 12.6
3 David Robinson 12.5
4 Kevin Garnett 12.3
5 Mookie Blaylock 11.3
6 John Stockton 10.8
7 Tim Duncan 10.6
8 Karl Malone 10.5
9 Vince Carter 10.4
10 Shaquille O'Neal 10.0
11 Damian Lillard 9.9
12 Chris Paul 9.6
13 LaMarcus Aldridge 9.0
14 Michael Jordan 8.9
15 Alonzo Mourning 8.8
16 Dwyane Wade 8.6
17 Manu Ginobili 8.6
18 Steve Nash 8.5
19 Dikembe Mutombo 8.5
20 Blake Griffin 8.4

Dirk is #1 in Plus/Minus during that span. Robinson, Blaylock, Mutombo, and Vince Carter come out well.

Top 10 in On court Plus/Minus:

Player On
Nate McMillan 13.0
Manu Ginobili 11.0
Dennis Rodman 10.5
David Robinson 10.2
Tim Duncan 10.0
John Stockton 9.7
Sam Perkins 9.4
Detlef Schrempf 8.7
Michael Jordan 8.7
Shaquille O'Neal 8.7

Nate McMillan gets helped by playing on some awesome 94-98 Sonics teams. Stockton, Robinson, and Rodman look good by this metric.

[Doctor MJ]

I see Blaylock's box score stats and +/- stats and immediately think of Baron Davis. You'd think they'd look bad in +/- because they are point guards known for inefficiency and shot-jacking (B-Diddy more than Mookie for chucking), but they are lifting their teams.

I find this fascinating. I was just talking about Baron Davis in the top 100 thread. Davis, Mookie, Kidd...we're starting to get a nice little group of inefficient scoring point guards that are showing up outstanding in +/- studies. I've felt for awhile that scoring efficiency is greatly overvalued in box score based advanced stats...I'm looking forward to being able to go further in depth in looking at this with a larger data set

I think we have to start by first recognizing that the focus on efficiency with regards to point guards is tied to the shift where we tend to see actual playmaking-oriented guys be much more impactful than scoring oriented guys. That trend remains overwhelmingly true.

What your pointing out is a countertrend in which we see that while efficiency is typically a great indicator of actually playing the point guard position correctly, there are exceptions. In the case of Kidd, he's an exception, but everyone always assumed he was, because he was considered a genius on the floor but just not a very good shooter. The +/- data hasn't actually turned up anything surprising with Kidd except to those who thought he was even better than that.

Now, Baron & Mookie are more interesting.

With Baron, what we mostly see is similar to Kidd: That the addition of his nice defense, can boost some already pretty-good offense. The anomaly are a couple years with GS where his offensive RAPM is massive. So what to make of it? Lots of room for debate.

With Mookie it's more crazy to me. While Baron may have been seen as a 2nd tier guy, he was known to be high potential as a prospect and played with superstar primacy relatively early in his career. The data basically confirms that he at times lived up to his potential.

I never saw Mookie like that. He only made all-star once, and did so in a year when BJ Armstrong made it too. Calling him a Tier 3 star still seems like overstating it.

Obviously he was respected for his defense, but his defensive RAPM only makes him look like your typical All-D guard, It's his offense to this point that makes him look like an outlier. If that holds as we get more data, we have to ask what it was he was doing that was so damn effective.

[penbeast0]

Basically, he was living by the 3 pointer at a high volume in an era where the 3 pointer was being underutilized and fg% rather than ts% was used as the primary efficiency measure. That's his main offensive skill so it seems logical that that is the key to this.