Draymond Green: First player ever to hit +1,000 Plus/Minus

[Dr Spaceman]

I'd agree he's there this year, but the argument made in that post was that his impact was so great based off FFAPM numbers, and that was a commonly held point here. Every time the idea was brought up maybe he was "only" top 25-30 it came back to that.

Right. That's your opinion, and you justify it using stats and your eye test. Those who disagree do so based on other stats and their eye test.

The only issue here then is that it seems you don't want people to be able to disagree with you. No one is stopping you from doing it your way, but people are going to use their own methods and quite obviously your counterarguments haven't been enough to convince them they're mistaken.

[bondom34]

I'd agree he's there this year, but the argument made in that post was that his impact was so great based off FFAPM numbers, and that was a commonly held point here. Every time the idea was brought up maybe he was "only" top 25-30 it came back to that.

Right. That's your opinion, and you justify it using stats and your eye test. Those who disagree do so based on other stats and their eye test.

The only issue here then is that it seems you don't want people to be able to disagree with you. No one is stopping you from doing it your way, but people are going to use their own methods and quite obviously your counterarguments haven't been enough to convince them they're mistaken.

No, I'm totally fine with it, I just thought it to be an interesting thought experiment that occurred to me. TBH, I rank him better this season, but questioned it last year (and still do, though I respect the ability to disagree if its well reasoned). The reasoning presented was what I'm intrigued by, not the ability to disagree.

Sorry if it came off that way as I didn't want it to, I just thought it seemed like an interesting thought experiment.

Edit: And also to be clear I'm not saying he's more important than Curry either. It was just kind of a late night thought that came to me and wanted to throw it out there.

[bondom34]

What I am saying is not that posters may or may not have said this, but rather that I don't care what they said. I am saying that you can 100% negate plus-minus and still very easily describe Draymond Green as a top 10 player in the NBA. Fwiw, I have him around 7th.

The entire point of my post was that people DID say this last year. So if you're arguing against that, but don't care what people said last year you're not really saying anything against my point.

And I can see a case for top 20 for sure, but if you're tossing out all PM numbers and only going box score, even that's tough.

Well, the real underlying point you are trying to make is that Draymond is not a top-10 player, and I am saying that he is, and that you don't need +/- to argue as much. As I started on earlier, if you just described a player who is a top defensive PF/C in the league with the versatility to guard PG's on a PnR (and does so frequently), who finished with the most 1st place votes for DPOY, we would know that we are talking about a borderline top 20 player in the NBA even is his offense was largely useless. His level of defensive impact is simply enormous, and the fact that he has enough ability to play true center for extended stretches is the key to the Warriors best lineup. Now, we are adding to that the box-score #'s per-36 of 14/10/8 +1.5/1.5; a player with enough triple-doubles (13) in this season ALONE to rank in the top 20 in all of NBA history. And this is the Warriors PF/C. If it's box-score #'s you're looking for, let that sink in. Let's throw in that it's for the team with the best regular season in NBA history. Not exactly empty numbers.

^You're telling me that if 3 years ago I described the above about a nameless/theoretical player (not mentioning RPM what so ever), every single person reading would not definitely say that I was obviously describing a top 10 player in the league? We can leave out stuff like him being top 10 multiple years running in BPM/VORP as well. He's a top 10 player in the league dude; RPM, Box-Score, eye-test, whatever you want to use, he falls right in.

I'd disagree, in part because of Curry, he's such a fantastic fit in that lineup I don't see it. Curry, Lebron, Durant, Westbrook, Paul, Griffin, Cousins, Lillard, Lowry, Leonard are 10 I take over him without blinking and I'd feel fine continuing with a couple more.

But that wasn't really the point of the thread, nor was my post, which was based again off his rank last season, not this one.

[bondom34]

I'd disagree, in part because of Curry, he's such a fantastic fit in that lineup I don't see it. Curry, Lebron, Durant, Westbrook, Paul, Griffin, Cousins, Lillard, Lowry, Leonard are 10 I take over him without blinking and I'd feel fine continuing with a couple more.

But that wasn't really the point of the thread, nor was my post, which was based again off his rank last season, not this one.

Well, it is about this one though. You're just adjusting your curve to now accept that he may in fact be top 20, where as last season you would not have done so. You're saying that it's a tough sell to describe a player who is arguably the leagues best defender + already has one of the highest single season triple-double totals in NBA history (in limited minutes for one of the best teams in NBA history) as top 10 without using RPM. I... just don't follow your logic to be honest.

I will concede that some of the players you listed may in fact be more capable in leading a weak team to mediocrity + push ticket sales. But, I would take Draymond over Cousins, Lillard, Griffin and Lowry if my goal was to win a championship. I understand he's not conventional and it seems strange for a player like him to be rated so high, but his versatility on both ends of the floor makes him as unique a piece as has ever been in the league, and one that a smart organization could certainly build around and contend for titles with.

Last season was my point though, when he was at a lower efficiency and less volume with worse playmaking. He's shown improvement in box score this season as well which gives him a solid bump for me. He's certainly not conventional and has been the 2nd most important player for GSW by a large margin to me.

Using triple double totals isn't really important to me at all, they're a fine statistical accomplishment for a single game, but not much more. I'd also disagree with "leading a team to mediocrity" as I think building a team from scratch you'd have to take any of them over Green based on the thought Green fits better on GSW than anywhere else and wouldn't be as portable. If he were magically dropped onto about 25 or so other teams, he's not nearly as good as he is in GSW. That's no knock on him.

But again, this whole experiment to me wasn't on where he ranks this season at all. It was about last season, and more so the thought process behind his ranking.

[lorak]

I'll probably catch some flack for this, but don't really know where to put it or how else to. I keep coming back to the threads a year ago on Green, and him being a top 5-10 player by a lot of people here. The main metrics used were constantly PM, and they were showing his amazing impact despite the fact that he's been playing next to Curry, who's being regarded as having possibly the GOAT season right now.

Now, my problem here is, if your point is Dray is showing out so well in said metrics, and by that he is indicated as top 10 at worst, top 5 possibly, why does it stop there? These numbers (some at least, I know single year did) are showing more impact than Curry, but there's no reasoning given to why not just put him ahead of Curry in rank if they are the reasoning he's so high in the first place. I do think he's really really really important to them, and these numbers are showing that. I don't mean to derail the thread, but the problem I have here is there seemed to be a debate last year he was ranked so highly and now this year its turned to "well he is but he's not more impactful than Curry even if numbers seem to indicate so". To me it should be one or the other.

Single year RAPM you are referring to is basically only type of RAPM I'm aware of, that favors Green. But it was in February (currently in RPM Curry has 1 point advantage, what is significant at that level; in 2016 multiyear he also looks better) and he was ahead by just 0,2. PTPM - not real plus/minus, but model which +/- people value a lot because of it's even better than RAPM's prediction power - also has Curry WAY ABOVE Green. Dryamond was worse in 3 data sets from last season done by Engelmann too.

So generally Green doesn't look as better player in impact metrics and even if he would, then there is problem described by Rosenbaum (however I'm not sure) years ago on 82games, when he discussed Pistons lineups. In such situations, when players play so much with each other and lineups doesn't change a lot, single year NPI RAPM has problems and that's why basically no one from +/- crowd uses just that one stat, but basically everyone does deeper analyses, which are consistent - what you unfortunately often can't say about people, who think their eyes are the best, so they can see everything and even if they use some kind of stats, they do it in inconsistent way, depends on what fits their agenda.

[bondom34]

I'll probably catch some flack for this, but don't really know where to put it or how else to. I keep coming back to the threads a year ago on Green, and him being a top 5-10 player by a lot of people here. The main metrics used were constantly PM, and they were showing his amazing impact despite the fact that he's been playing next to Curry, who's being regarded as having possibly the GOAT season right now.

Now, my problem here is, if your point is Dray is showing out so well in said metrics, and by that he is indicated as top 10 at worst, top 5 possibly, why does it stop there? These numbers (some at least, I know single year did) are showing more impact than Curry, but there's no reasoning given to why not just put him ahead of Curry in rank if they are the reasoning he's so high in the first place. I do think he's really really really important to them, and these numbers are showing that. I don't mean to derail the thread, but the problem I have here is there seemed to be a debate last year he was ranked so highly and now this year its turned to "well he is but he's not more impactful than Curry even if numbers seem to indicate so". To me it should be one or the other.

Single year RAPM you are referring to is basically only type of RAPM I'm aware of, that favors Green. But it was in February (currently in RPM Curry has 1 point advantage, what is significant at that level; in 2016 multiyear he also looks better) and he was ahead by just 0,2. PTPM - not real plus/minus, but model which +/- people value a lot because of it's even better than RAPM's prediction power - also has Curry WAY ABOVE Green. Dryamond was worse in 3 data sets from last season done by Engelmann too.

So generally Green doesn't look as better player in impact metrics and even if he would, then there is problem described by Rosenbaum (however I'm not sure) years ago on 82games, when he discussed Pistons lineups. In such situations, when players play so much with each other and lineups doesn't change a lot, single year NPI RAPM has problems and that's why basically no one from +/- crowd uses just that one stat, but basically everyone does deeper analyses, which are consistent - what you unfortunately often can't say about people, who think their eyes are the best, so they can see everything and even if they use some kind of stats, they do it in inconsistent way, depends on what fits their agenda.

The inconsistency again was my only issue, and you addressed it here pretty well. The inconsistency in enforcement of where which metrics are used was an interesting analysis in my mind, and I respect that others may not find it so interesting.

[Quotatious]

Wow, I had no idea that Pierce had a better plus/minus rating than Garnett in '08.

[SideshowBob]

Wow, I had no idea that Pierce had a better plus/minus rating than Garnett in '08.

Total Raw +/-, so Paul with 80 games has an advantage over Garnett with 71.

Pierce: 80 GP, 2873 MP, +784 Net
Garnett: 71 GP, 2328 MP, +737 Net

Garnett has him beat on a per game/minute/possession basis.

[E-Balla]

I think top 20 this season is definitely reasonable, last year he was at a worse efficiency and lower volume with lower playmaking numbers and still being argued top 5-10.

How were the 2015 GSW so good last year if Draymond was only a top 20 player? They played better than the 86 Celtics last season. No one argued that 2015 Curry > 1986 Bird. That means the Warriors supporting cast was better than the Celtics. I doubt most would have Thompson > Parish. That leaves Draymond Green vs McHale. I think Green was on McHale's level. How else did the Warriors become so good unless you want to give Curry all that credit.

Because a collection of great talent even if not all top end working under a great coach can be that good. Look at the Spurs this year, after Kawhi do they have a top 20 guy? And they're arguably better than GSW last year.

Exactly I was just about to say this. These aren't 3 man rosters and the big 3 of the 86 Celtics is easily over the Warriors top 3 IMO.

As far as Dray goes I do think PM overrates him as do most people but he's still a top 20 guy IMO. I think his role on the team makes him look better than he is because on an average team his offense is above average at best and I don't think he's the best defender in the league (he is top 3 though).

[PaulieWal]

Chuck pretty well hit it here, but from what I've seen, that's largely been the reasoning for Green's rank. Whenever someone's brought up the idea he may not be a top 20 player, its turned to PM numbers to make a case over box score. And again, if that's the case there's an arbitrary cutoff somewhere that isn't being enforced entirely.
Edit: This was a post from last year, based entirely on PM data:

Spoiler:

So I know people around here still aren't all that comfortable with FFAPM, but I find digging through the data incredibly valuable and the results seem very intuitive to me. Anyway, I want t make a comparison here to maybe shed some light on why those of us who are high on him think the way we do:

Draymond Green 2015
eFG%: 95th percentile
TOV%: 98th percentile
DRB%: 83rd percentile
FTr: 70th percentile

Kevin Garnett 2008
eFG%: 99th percentile
TOV%: 83rd percentile
DRB%: 88th percentile
FTr: 84th percentile

Here's the data to play around with: http://www.gotbuckets.com/2015-ffapm-defense/

Now something really amazing to note: look at the players who are elite in eFG. It's mostly your classic rim protectors, names like Gobert, Hibbert,Ibaka, Larry Sanders, Joakim Noah, Tim Duncan. Now look at the players who are elite in TOV: Ricky Rubio, Chris Paul, Tony Allen, Andre Iguodala, John Wall, Paul George.

Now look at who tops BOTH lists: Draymond Green.

It's one thing to say Green is super versatile and a great defensive presence. It's a whole other thing to say he might be playing defense at an all-time level. Kevin Garnett is the poster boy for this sort of versatility, and yet Draymond compares VERY favorably. Te value of a guy who can blow up your pick and roll, switch everything, and guard Marc Gasol, Anthony Davis and James freaking Harden to a stalemate is quite honestly unlike anything the league has ever seen. He's relentless, and this 6'5" dude isn't even giving anything up on the glass, where he's elite as well. Any way you slice it, the guy is having superstar impact, and primarily through his defense.

That shouldn't make him less valuable than a guy who makes his impact on offense. On every team there are things that need doing, and having multiple players who are good at the same thing is how massively expensive, flawed rosters are made. Pick any top 20 or so scoring talent in the league, and I'll be damned if Draymond isn't his perfect complement. There's no way you could make the same argument for Carmelo or Russell Westbrook. Dray has a plug and play ability that's second to none in the current league.

Just understand that in your statement that "no way is Draymond a top 15 guy" it's implied that no matter how good a guy is defensively, pretty much any decent offensive talent will eclipse him. I don't see how that's a defensible position, but then I don't think people actually realize how dominant Green is. Dray just had a season that would put him on the short list of GOAT defensive non-centers, and yet "he's a role player" so he can't be better than John Wall. That sounds fishy to me.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1401961&hilit=where+does+draymond+green+rank&start=20#start_here

Ah, that thread brings back so many memories. It did get contentious for a while.

I better stay away from this thread lest I get distracted and get drawn into a Green as a top 5-10 guy discussion AGAIN based on +/-.

[lorak]

The inconsistency again was my only issue, and you addressed it here pretty well. The inconsistency in enforcement of where which metrics are used was an interesting analysis in my mind, and I respect that others may not find it so interesting.

But where do you see that inconsistency? Among 6 RAPM data sets (NPI, multiyear and RPM) from two seasons Green is higher only in one and it's barely.

[bondom34]

The inconsistency again was my only issue, and you addressed it here pretty well. The inconsistency in enforcement of where which metrics are used was an interesting analysis in my mind, and I respect that others may not find it so interesting.

But where do you see that inconsistency? Among 6 RAPM data sets (NPI, multiyear and RPM) from two seasons Green is higher only in one and it's barely.

Because the idea was that Green was ahead of these guys last season, not this one. His entire reasoning for even being close to where he was was PM based. There's a cutoff somewhere that wasn't being addressed then.

We were seeing Korver called a top player, Middleton's regressed in these metrics as well. Its an issue of use of the data, not the data itself.

Edit: Here was one RAPM set from last year posted:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CA4KxmzjZrTlYqxNU85jkUnCcqvJjsP5LT818LSYjkk/edit#gid=0

Green ahead of Curry again.

[LA Bird]

Ah... I see. Should just quote the original guy next time to avoid the confusion.

I did, I quoted you. I just didn't quote the entirety of your post, which was:

Curry would fall out of the top 10 if the Warriors DRtg declined by 2.2 with him on court. Draymond Green's defensive on off this season is a GOAT-level 12.2. Neither is making the top 10 without the other and it's about time Green gets recognized as a highly impactful player in his own right and not just a sidekick role player leeching off Curry's success.

So you talked about Warriors DRTG and Draymond's defensive on/off, which is wy I was quite confused when you returned and said stuff about his offense, you know what I mean?

I think both his offense and defense is underrated because he plays with Curry so that's probably the cause for confusion.
Draymond's defensive on-off is flying under the radar big time and he would probably have gotten more attention if he had the same impact numbers on another team.

[lorak]

BTW, how unique and at the same time all time great Green is:
per 100 possessions he averages 19.3/13.4/10.4. Only other players who did it (since '74)- Grant Hill (x1), LJ (x2), Magic (x4) Kidd (x5) and Westbrook (x2). So in terms of versatility he is at the level of the best in history. But that's just part of his greatness as he is also elite defensive player - unlike most of mentioned above.

IMO so many people have problem with accepting how good is Green, because he is relatively new player, who never had much hype around him and most people struggle with changing their opinions. Similar story was with LeBron's defense and clutch several years ago, when data clearly showed he was very good/elite in both, but so many people disagreed with that and needed more time to see truth.

[lorak]

The inconsistency again was my only issue, and you addressed it here pretty well. The inconsistency in enforcement of where which metrics are used was an interesting analysis in my mind, and I respect that others may not find it so interesting.

But where do you see that inconsistency? Among 6 RAPM data sets (NPI, multiyear and RPM) from two seasons Green is higher only in one and it's barely.

Because the idea was that Green was ahead of these guys last season, not this one.

What guys? I thought you are talking about Curry and RAPM definitely wasn't showing that last year.

Edit: Here was one RAPM set from last year posted:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CA4KxmzjZrTlYqxNU85jkUnCcqvJjsP5LT818LSYjkk/edit#gid=0

Green ahead of Curry again.

What is that? Nash and Rasheed in 2015 data set. That doesn't look like 2015 RAPM prior or NPI.

[bondom34]

But where do you see that inconsistency? Among 6 RAPM data sets (NPI, multiyear and RPM) from two seasons Green is higher only in one and it's barely.

Because the idea was that Green was ahead of these guys last season, not this one.

What guys? I thought you are talking about Curry and RAPM definitely wasn't showing that last year.

Edit: Here was one RAPM set from last year posted:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CA4KxmzjZrTlYqxNU85jkUnCcqvJjsP5LT818LSYjkk/edit#gid=0

Green ahead of Curry again.

What is that? Nash and Rasheed in 2015 data set. That doesn't look like 2015 RAPM prior or NPI.

It was multi year.

And I'm talking about Curry vs. Green this year compared to other players vs. Green last year.

Here was last year:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17dNdxpgNHvOnMwnTmw65x5exfmQaA0C6T1w7KTmCiC0/edit?pli=1#gid=0

[lorak]

Because the idea was that Green was ahead of these guys last season, not this one.

What guys? I thought you are talking about Curry and RAPM definitely wasn't showing that last year.

Edit: Here was one RAPM set from last year posted:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CA4KxmzjZrTlYqxNU85jkUnCcqvJjsP5LT818LSYjkk/edit#gid=0

Green ahead of Curry again.

What is that? Nash and Rasheed in 2015 data set. That doesn't look like 2015 RAPM prior or NPI.

It was multi year.

It looks like multiyear with each year weighted equally, so it pointless to use it to back up your position, because you are arguing about particular year.

And I'm talking about Curry vs. Green this year compared to other players vs. Green last year.

I don't understand, what exactly? Where is that inconsistency? Curry looks better than Green in 2015 and 2016, while Green looks better than some other players - what's wrong with that?

Here was last year:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17dNdxpgNHvOnMwnTmw65x5exfmQaA0C6T1w7KTmCiC0/edit?pli=1#gid=0

And Curry ahead of Green...

[bondom34]

What guys? I thought you are talking about Curry and RAPM definitely wasn't showing that last year.



What is that? Nash and Rasheed in 2015 data set. That doesn't look like 2015 RAPM prior or NPI.

It was multi year.

It looks like multiyear with each year weighted equally, so it pointless to use it to back up your position, because you are arguing about particular year.

And I'm talking about Curry vs. Green this year compared to other players vs. Green last year.

I don't understand, what exactly? Where is that inconsistency? Curry looks better than Green in 2015 and 2016, while Green looks better than some other players - what's wrong with that?

Here was last year:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17dNdxpgNHvOnMwnTmw65x5exfmQaA0C6T1w7KTmCiC0/edit?pli=1#gid=0

And Curry ahead of Green...

The point last year was "Green rates ahead of these players last year in some (but not necessarily all) PM numbers. He's ahead of those players.

This year, he rates similar to ahead of Curry in some, but not all of these numbers.
This is NOT meant to be an indictment of PM, but of its over-reliance.

[Doctor MJ]

Oh, and Wilt's a unique problem with +/- stats because there just aren't that many "off" minutes to compare when he's playing 45 to over 48 minutes a game.

That's partially true.

Wilt, and to a lesser degree other guys from his day, played so much that we couldn't get reasonable RAPM-style numbers even if we have the data...

but on the other hand that means we know pretty much how things were going when Wilt was on the court.

Wilt in '61-62 for example playing basically every minute with his team means that on average his team was outscoring opponents by about 3 points per 120-ish possessions while he played.

And right now guys like LeBron and Durant are getting knocked for their inability to do more despite the fact that when they are on the court their team has an edge roughly 4 times that. Really puts it into perspective. The "disappointment" of superstars in later eras is typically nothing like the actual inability to dominate that Wilt's teams had when he was a scorer, and even in his super-dominant year of '66-67, you're talking about edges that aren't really that impressive on a per possession basis when he's on the floor.

Of course with that you want to consider issues involving him coasting due to tiredness. It remains the case that Wilt might be far more effective today, but back then, even with the limited data we have, the degree of un-dominance Wilt's teams had when he was on the floor is pretty shocking to those only used to the modern game.

[lorak]

The point last year was "Green rates ahead of these players last year in some (but not necessarily all) PM numbers. He's ahead of those players.

This year, he rates similar to ahead of Curry in some, but not all of these numbers.
This is NOT meant to be an indictment of PM, but of its over-reliance.

I've explained it... so far we have 3 RAPM data sets I know about: RPM from ESPN and multiyear/NPI RAPM done by Engelmann in February. Green is only slightly (by 0,2) ahead in NPI set (so the one most prone to "lineups error"); in two others Curry's advantage is bigger. Steph also looks better in other data. So really where is that inconsistency?