3/5 | Sunday Game Thread | NBA on ABC

[MrCheerios]

Gordon's much better than VO. Anderson's better than Taj too, and neither are too close. I posted the BPM numbers above, but that plus Harden's team actually having a positive net rating when he's on the bench should show he's actually got help. OKC's worse than Brooklyn by net rating when Russ sits.

That's gotta be one of the most intentionally misleading stats out there. If you go by net rating, Kawhi Leonard's a non-factor: +9.1 off court. Meanwhile Lebron's supporting cast must be total crap: -4.9 off court rating. Steph Curry's off court rating during last year's 73 win season? -4.3.

Could you imagine what Lebron and Curry could do if they had Harden's or Leonard's supporting cast? Dynasties. Having two all-star teammates plus a stacked bench is totally overrated.

It's misleading because it goes against your pre-conceived notions?

Considering that Curry and Green played most of their minutes together, it's clear that most of the time when Curry was off, Green was off too. And yeah, it's not all that far-fetched to say that the 73 win Warriors were highly dependent on Curry and Green (much like how the 72-win Bulls were highly dependent on Jordan and Pippen), and when they both went to the bench, they didn't play that great (much like how I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Bulls were getting outscored when both Jordan and Pippen were on the bench).

Maybe this also means that LeBron's supporting cast isn't as "stacked" as people think, which is also supported by the fact that the Cavs are 0-5 in games that he doesn't play.

And that Harden's supporting cast gets underrated. As does Leonard's, which is also supported by the fact that the Spurs are 4-1 in games that he doesn't play.

Some context goes a long way. It doesn't make the stats invalid.

The stats are not invalid, it's the manner in which bondom34 was using them which is misleading. You give context to Curry's highly negative off court rating for the 15-16 season, he does no such thing. He was talking about supporting casts overall, not just bench play, and using on/off splits as kind of a catch all. Harden has a positive off court rating, therefore his supporting cast is better. It doesn't work that way. The Spurs being well coached and able to win games without Leonard doesn't mean his team wouldn't be able to do the same if they replaced some of their roster with Thunder players.

Try to argue that Curry's 15-16 supporting cast was worse than Harden or Leonard's this year based mostly on off court rating and it falls apart. Leonard is my MVP choice at this point, so hearing an argument on the grounds of off court rating just doesn't make sense. How about this? Leonard is going to lead his team to a better record than Westbrook ever could, even with KD, Harden, and Ibaka. Is that a good enough case for MVP?

[NBAFan93]

Knicks first half will have no arena sounds. More teams should do this.


Enviado desde mi iPad con RealGM Forums

I guess Draymond had an issue with it. But he cries like a bitch about everything, so there you go.

I love that they did this. There's too much **** going on now during the actual NBA game now in these arenas and it's a big distraction from the actual game.

I agree - I went to a few games in other cities (I have no local team) and the extra superfluous crap going on is really hard to drown out in person. When you watch on TV you get a much more focused/instense view of the game itself.

I guess they are trying to entertain the kids and people who are there but don't really care about the game - but that's annoying in unto itself.

[bondom34]

That's gotta be one of the most intentionally misleading stats out there. If you go by net rating, Kawhi Leonard's a non-factor: +9.1 off court. Meanwhile Lebron's supporting cast must be total crap: -4.9 off court rating. Steph Curry's off court rating during last year's 73 win season? -4.3.

Could you imagine what Lebron and Curry could do if they had Harden's or Leonard's supporting cast? Dynasties. Having two all-star teammates plus a stacked bench is totally overrated.

It's misleading because it goes against your pre-conceived notions?

Considering that Curry and Green played most of their minutes together, it's clear that most of the time when Curry was off, Green was off too. And yeah, it's not all that far-fetched to say that the 73 win Warriors were highly dependent on Curry and Green (much like how the 72-win Bulls were highly dependent on Jordan and Pippen), and when they both went to the bench, they didn't play that great (much like how I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Bulls were getting outscored when both Jordan and Pippen were on the bench).

Maybe this also means that LeBron's supporting cast isn't as "stacked" as people think, which is also supported by the fact that the Cavs are 0-5 in games that he doesn't play.

And that Harden's supporting cast gets underrated. As does Leonard's, which is also supported by the fact that the Spurs are 4-1 in games that he doesn't play.

Some context goes a long way. It doesn't make the stats invalid.

The stats are not invalid, it's the manner in which bondom34 was using them which is misleading. You give context to Curry's highly negative off court rating for the 15-16 season, he does no such thing. He was talking about supporting casts overall, not just bench play, and using on/off splits as kind of a catch all. Harden has a positive off court rating, therefore his supporting cast is better. It doesn't work that way. The Spurs being well coached and able to win games without Leonard doesn't mean his team wouldn't be able to do the same if they replaced some of their roster with Thunder players.

Try to argue that Curry's 15-16 supporting cast was worse than Harden or Leonard's this year based mostly on off court rating and it falls apart. Leonard is my MVP choice at this point, so hearing an argument on the grounds of off court rating just doesn't make sense. How about this? Leonard is going to lead his team to a better record than Westbrook ever could, even with KD, Harden, and Ibaka. Is that a good enough case for MVP?

It sort of does say something that even when Harden sits, his team doesn't entirely fall apart. I wasn't making any case for any award or whatever, just a simple case that Westbrook's team is, by and large, terrible. Worse than Harden's by any measure. You can use teammate BPM if you'd like, where Harden's got 6 teammates with positive BPM, Russ 1. Try RPM and you'd likely get similar results. Or shooting, where OKC has surrounded Russ with the worst shooters in the league while Houston is at or near the top. There's no objective measure to show Harden's got a remotely comparable cast.

[MrCheerios]

It's misleading because it goes against your pre-conceived notions?

Considering that Curry and Green played most of their minutes together, it's clear that most of the time when Curry was off, Green was off too. And yeah, it's not all that far-fetched to say that the 73 win Warriors were highly dependent on Curry and Green (much like how the 72-win Bulls were highly dependent on Jordan and Pippen), and when they both went to the bench, they didn't play that great (much like how I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Bulls were getting outscored when both Jordan and Pippen were on the bench).

Maybe this also means that LeBron's supporting cast isn't as "stacked" as people think, which is also supported by the fact that the Cavs are 0-5 in games that he doesn't play.

And that Harden's supporting cast gets underrated. As does Leonard's, which is also supported by the fact that the Spurs are 4-1 in games that he doesn't play.

Some context goes a long way. It doesn't make the stats invalid.

The stats are not invalid, it's the manner in which bondom34 was using them which is misleading. You give context to Curry's highly negative off court rating for the 15-16 season, he does no such thing. He was talking about supporting casts overall, not just bench play, and using on/off splits as kind of a catch all. Harden has a positive off court rating, therefore his supporting cast is better. It doesn't work that way. The Spurs being well coached and able to win games without Leonard doesn't mean his team wouldn't be able to do the same if they replaced some of their roster with Thunder players.

Try to argue that Curry's 15-16 supporting cast was worse than Harden or Leonard's this year based mostly on off court rating and it falls apart. Leonard is my MVP choice at this point, so hearing an argument on the grounds of off court rating just doesn't make sense. How about this? Leonard is going to lead his team to a better record than Westbrook ever could, even with KD, Harden, and Ibaka. Is that a good enough case for MVP?

It sort of does say something that even when Harden sits, his team doesn't entirely fall apart. I wasn't making any case for any award or whatever, just a simple case that Westbrook's team is, by and large, terrible. Worse than Harden's by any measure. You can use teammate BPM if you'd like, where Harden's got 6 teammates with positive BPM, Russ 1. Try RPM and you'd likely get similar results. Or shooting, where OKC has surrounded Russ with the worst shooters in the league while Houston is at or near the top. There's no objective measure to show Harden's got a remotely comparable cast.

BPM is team dependent stat just like on/off court rating though. When a team has a ridiculously good point differential they'll have a lot of guys with a positive BPM, but that seems obvious. Westbrook's lone teammate with a positive BPM, Adams, saw his BPM go from 2.1 last year to .5 this year. Did Adams suddenly become a worse player this year despite having a higher PER and higher raw stats across the board? Kawhi has nine teammates with a positive BPM. If those teammates went to all different teams I highly doubt they would all maintain the same BPM.

Harden's teammates being good shooters definitely inflates his assist numbers, but beyond shooting they are fairly one dimensional. Their PERs are also not impressive. And you say Anderson is much better than Gibson even though Gibson has a higher PER, per 36 stats in scoring, rebounding, and shotblocking, and is a better defender. I don't know how you figure that other than Anderson has a higher BPM as a starter than Gibson did as a reserve in Chicago.

I think Kawhi and Harden simply have teammates that better fit their gameplan than OKC does. Westbrook's best teammates (Adams and Kanter) both play the same position. They're skewed too heavily on defense and not enough shooting. Individually, Parker, Ginobili, Dedmon, Mills, and Green don't seem all that great, but together they just have enough shooting and years to chemistry to be amazingly successful.

[bondom34]

BPM is team dependent stat just like on/off court rating though. When a team has a ridiculously good point differential they'll have a lot of guys with a positive BPM, but that seems obvious. Westbrook's lone teammate with a positive BPM, Adams, saw his BPM go from 2.1 last year to .5 this year. Did Adams suddenly become a worse player this year despite having a higher PER and higher raw stats across the board? Kawhi has nine teammates with a positive BPM. If those teammates went to all different teams I highly doubt they would all maintain the same BPM.

Harden's teammates being good shooters definitely inflates his assist numbers, but beyond shooting they are fairly one dimensional. Their PERs are also not impressive. And you say Anderson is much better than Gibson even though Gibson has a higher PER, per 36 stats in scoring, rebounding, and shotblocking, and is a better defender. I don't know how you figure that other than Anderson has a higher BPM as a starter than Gibson did as a reserve in Chicago.

I think Kawhi and Harden simply have teammates that better fit their gameplan than OKC does. Westbrook's best teammates (Adams and Kanter) both play the same position. They're skewed too heavily on defense and not enough shooting. Individually, Parker, Ginobili, Dedmon, Mills, and Green don't seem all that great, but together they just have enough shooting and years to chemistry to be amazingly successful.

yes, Adams is objectively playing worse this season. TS is way down, as is rebounding slightly and blocks, with more turnovers by percentage. So BPM is showing what everything else is. Gordon is still better than Oladipo, same for Anderson/Taj (who notably has been there about 5 games).

Adams raw numbers are up due to increased usage.

Oh, and as for the team/BPM thing, Philly has more guys with a positive BPM than OKC. What does that say.

[MrCheerios]

BPM is team dependent stat just like on/off court rating though. When a team has a ridiculously good point differential they'll have a lot of guys with a positive BPM, but that seems obvious. Westbrook's lone teammate with a positive BPM, Adams, saw his BPM go from 2.1 last year to .5 this year. Did Adams suddenly become a worse player this year despite having a higher PER and higher raw stats across the board? Kawhi has nine teammates with a positive BPM. If those teammates went to all different teams I highly doubt they would all maintain the same BPM.

Harden's teammates being good shooters definitely inflates his assist numbers, but beyond shooting they are fairly one dimensional. Their PERs are also not impressive. And you say Anderson is much better than Gibson even though Gibson has a higher PER, per 36 stats in scoring, rebounding, and shotblocking, and is a better defender. I don't know how you figure that other than Anderson has a higher BPM as a starter than Gibson did as a reserve in Chicago.

I think Kawhi and Harden simply have teammates that better fit their gameplan than OKC does. Westbrook's best teammates (Adams and Kanter) both play the same position. They're skewed too heavily on defense and not enough shooting. Individually, Parker, Ginobili, Dedmon, Mills, and Green don't seem all that great, but together they just have enough shooting and years to chemistry to be amazingly successful.

yes, Adams is objectively playing worse this season. TS is way down, as is rebounding slightly and blocks, with more turnovers by percentage. So BPM is showing what everything else is. Gordon is still better than Oladipo, same for Anderson/Taj (who notably has been there about 5 games).

Adams raw numbers are up due to increased usage.

Oh, and as for the team/BPM thing, Philly has more guys with a positive BPM than OKC. What does that say.

Oh c'mon. Adams is worse than last season? There will be small variance year to year in stats like rebounding and blocks for all players. Rebounding going from 13.1 to 12.7 per 100 possessions (or from 9.5 to 9.3 per 36 minutes) is not worse, that's essentially the same. He's also drawing fouls at a higher rate and nearly doubled his steal %. TS% has gone from 62.1% to 59.5%, which is fine considering he's featured on the block more this year than last, which also explains the higher TO%. Clearly his role is different and he has a higher burden with Durant and Ibaka gone, but to say he's an objectively worse player? I disagree.

I think you're painting a doom and gloom scenario for all OKC players because you want Westbrook to win MVP. I see Adams as the same player with a different role, better developed in some areas with not much growth in others. You see him as objectively worse than last year. I don't think you're being objective at all.

[bondom34]

BPM is team dependent stat just like on/off court rating though. When a team has a ridiculously good point differential they'll have a lot of guys with a positive BPM, but that seems obvious. Westbrook's lone teammate with a positive BPM, Adams, saw his BPM go from 2.1 last year to .5 this year. Did Adams suddenly become a worse player this year despite having a higher PER and higher raw stats across the board? Kawhi has nine teammates with a positive BPM. If those teammates went to all different teams I highly doubt they would all maintain the same BPM.

Harden's teammates being good shooters definitely inflates his assist numbers, but beyond shooting they are fairly one dimensional. Their PERs are also not impressive. And you say Anderson is much better than Gibson even though Gibson has a higher PER, per 36 stats in scoring, rebounding, and shotblocking, and is a better defender. I don't know how you figure that other than Anderson has a higher BPM as a starter than Gibson did as a reserve in Chicago.

I think Kawhi and Harden simply have teammates that better fit their gameplan than OKC does. Westbrook's best teammates (Adams and Kanter) both play the same position. They're skewed too heavily on defense and not enough shooting. Individually, Parker, Ginobili, Dedmon, Mills, and Green don't seem all that great, but together they just have enough shooting and years to chemistry to be amazingly successful.

yes, Adams is objectively playing worse this season. TS is way down, as is rebounding slightly and blocks, with more turnovers by percentage. So BPM is showing what everything else is. Gordon is still better than Oladipo, same for Anderson/Taj (who notably has been there about 5 games).

Adams raw numbers are up due to increased usage.

Oh, and as for the team/BPM thing, Philly has more guys with a positive BPM than OKC. What does that say.

Oh c'mon. Adams is worse than last season? There will be small variance year to year in stats like rebounding and blocks for all players. Rebounding going from 13.1 to 12.7 per 100 possessions (or from 9.5 to 9.3 per 36 minutes) is not worse, that's essentially the same. He's also drawing fouls at a higher rate and nearly doubled his steal %. TS% has gone from 62.1% to 59.5%, which is fine considering he's featured on the block more this year than last, which also explains the higher TO%. Clearly his role is different and he has a higher burden with Durant and Ibaka gone, but to say he's an objectively worse player? I disagree.

I think you're painting a doom and gloom scenario for all OKC players because you want Westbrook to win MVP. I see Adams as the same player with a different role, better developed in some areas with not much growth in others. You see him as objectively worse than last year. I don't think you're being objective at all.

I've said everywhere Russ won't win MVP. I'm painting exactly what OKC has done this year.

He's declined in DRPM as well as his efficiency with high expectations coming into the season. Is he a bad player, no, but he's not great this year either. And that's the single best teammate Russ has. Harden has the best 3 point shooting cast in the league, Russ the worst. Harden has 2 guys capable of coming into a game and creating offense while he sits, Russ has one (sometimes with VO) or none. Harden has a bench that lets him rest, Russ does not.

I don't think Russ wins MVP, the team around him is why. He's got by any measure objectively a worse supporting cast, I've provided multiple measures of it here, while you've simply said I'm wrong without any tangible evidence.

[MrCheerios]

BPM is team dependent stat just like on/off court rating though. When a team has a ridiculously good point differential they'll have a lot of guys with a positive BPM, but that seems obvious. Westbrook's lone teammate with a positive BPM, Adams, saw his BPM go from 2.1 last year to .5 this year. Did Adams suddenly become a worse player this year despite having a higher PER and higher raw stats across the board? Kawhi has nine teammates with a positive BPM. If those teammates went to all different teams I highly doubt they would all maintain the same BPM.

Harden's teammates being good shooters definitely inflates his assist numbers, but beyond shooting they are fairly one dimensional. Their PERs are also not impressive. And you say Anderson is much better than Gibson even though Gibson has a higher PER, per 36 stats in scoring, rebounding, and shotblocking, and is a better defender. I don't know how you figure that other than Anderson has a higher BPM as a starter than Gibson did as a reserve in Chicago.

I think Kawhi and Harden simply have teammates that better fit their gameplan than OKC does. Westbrook's best teammates (Adams and Kanter) both play the same position. They're skewed too heavily on defense and not enough shooting. Individually, Parker, Ginobili, Dedmon, Mills, and Green don't seem all that great, but together they just have enough shooting and years to chemistry to be amazingly successful.

yes, Adams is objectively playing worse this season. TS is way down, as is rebounding slightly and blocks, with more turnovers by percentage. So BPM is showing what everything else is. Gordon is still better than Oladipo, same for Anderson/Taj (who notably has been there about 5 games).

Adams raw numbers are up due to increased usage.

Oh, and as for the team/BPM thing, Philly has more guys with a positive BPM than OKC. What does that say.

And I haven't watched a ton of Philly games, so I don't know the context behind their players' BPM. Embiid's being pretty high is kind of obvious. Nerlens Noel and Richaun Holmes may be positive players, but they can't play at the same time as Embiid. Minutes, as well as whole games, are staggered on that team and Noel and Embiid have both had plenty of DNPs.

Also, Robert Covington having a much higher BPM than either Adams or Kanter, despite having the lowest PER and 3pt % in his Philly career, suggests to me that BPM is not the most accurate measure of player's talent.

[bondom34]

BPM is team dependent stat just like on/off court rating though. When a team has a ridiculously good point differential they'll have a lot of guys with a positive BPM, but that seems obvious. Westbrook's lone teammate with a positive BPM, Adams, saw his BPM go from 2.1 last year to .5 this year. Did Adams suddenly become a worse player this year despite having a higher PER and higher raw stats across the board? Kawhi has nine teammates with a positive BPM. If those teammates went to all different teams I highly doubt they would all maintain the same BPM.

Harden's teammates being good shooters definitely inflates his assist numbers, but beyond shooting they are fairly one dimensional. Their PERs are also not impressive. And you say Anderson is much better than Gibson even though Gibson has a higher PER, per 36 stats in scoring, rebounding, and shotblocking, and is a better defender. I don't know how you figure that other than Anderson has a higher BPM as a starter than Gibson did as a reserve in Chicago.

I think Kawhi and Harden simply have teammates that better fit their gameplan than OKC does. Westbrook's best teammates (Adams and Kanter) both play the same position. They're skewed too heavily on defense and not enough shooting. Individually, Parker, Ginobili, Dedmon, Mills, and Green don't seem all that great, but together they just have enough shooting and years to chemistry to be amazingly successful.

yes, Adams is objectively playing worse this season. TS is way down, as is rebounding slightly and blocks, with more turnovers by percentage. So BPM is showing what everything else is. Gordon is still better than Oladipo, same for Anderson/Taj (who notably has been there about 5 games).

Adams raw numbers are up due to increased usage.

Oh, and as for the team/BPM thing, Philly has more guys with a positive BPM than OKC. What does that say.

And I haven't watched a ton of Philly games, so I don't know the context behind their players' BPM. Embiid's being pretty high is kind of obvious. Nerlens Noel and Richaun Holmes may be positive players, but they can't play at the same time as Embiid. Minutes, as well as whole games, are staggered on that team and Noel and Embiid have both had plenty of DNPs.

Also, Robert Covington having a much higher BPM than either Adams or Kanter, despite having the lowest PER and 3pt % in his Philly career, suggests to me that BPM is not the most accurate measure of player's talent.

Or that maybe PER is an outdated metric that only measures volume scoring and not a ton else? Covington is valuable for way more than shooting. Try RPM too. Heck anything. PER is pretty much useless.

[inquisitive]

funny how before the season started everyone was saying rockets were gonna barely make the playoffs or miss it, but now, everyone talking about harden's supporting cast being so good....lol

[bondom34]

funny how before the season started everyone was saying rockets were gonna barely make the playoffs or miss it, but now, everyone talking about harden's cast being so good....lol

Because nobody thought you guys would have a top 15 defense. Or stay healthy.

You've done both.

[inquisitive]

funny how before the season started everyone was saying rockets were gonna barely make the playoffs or miss it, but now, everyone talking about harden's cast being so good....lol

Because nobody thought you guys would have a top 15 defense. Or stay healthy.

You've done both.

nobody also thought the players on the roster would be good enough to take the team that far either.

[bondom34]

funny how before the season started everyone was saying rockets were gonna barely make the playoffs or miss it, but now, everyone talking about harden's cast being so good....lol

Because nobody thought you guys would have a top 15 defense. Or stay healthy.

You've done both.

nobody also thought the players on the roster would be good enough to take the team that far either.

Not so sure about that.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17777645/tiers-nba-zach-lowe

Houston is going to score the hell out of the ball. If they stay healthy and trudge closer to 20th in overall defense, they should win enough games -- something in the high-40s -- to secure a spot. That's not easy for any team featuring Ryan Anderson, an unhidable saboteur, and it definitely won't be easy if Houston gets the comatose version of James Harden and Eric Gordon. Some of these guys have scary injury histories.

That sounds mostly like what's happening. Except the defense is even better than closer to 20th, it's actually closer to 10th, which bumps the wins up. If you said preseason Houston would be above average defensively I'd have said you're nuts.

[inquisitive]

Because nobody thought you guys would have a top 15 defense. Or stay healthy.

You've done both.

nobody also thought the players on the roster would be good enough to take the team that far either.

Not so sure about that.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17777645/tiers-nba-zach-lowe

Houston is going to score the hell out of the ball. If they stay healthy and trudge closer to 20th in overall defense, they should win enough games -- something in the high-40s -- to secure a spot. That's not easy for any team featuring Ryan Anderson, an unhidable saboteur, and it definitely won't be easy if Houston gets the comatose version of James Harden and Eric Gordon. Some of these guys have scary injury histories.

That sounds mostly like what's happening. Except the defense is even better than closer to 20th, it's actually closer to 10th, which bumps the wins up. If you said preseason Houston would be above average defensively I'd have said you're nuts.

well, to be clear, i meant you guys on realgm. many said they wouldn't make the playoffs or barely make it.

[bondom34]

nobody also thought the players on the roster would be good enough to take the team that far either.

Not so sure about that.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17777645/tiers-nba-zach-lowe

Houston is going to score the hell out of the ball. If they stay healthy and trudge closer to 20th in overall defense, they should win enough games -- something in the high-40s -- to secure a spot. That's not easy for any team featuring Ryan Anderson, an unhidable saboteur, and it definitely won't be easy if Houston gets the comatose version of James Harden and Eric Gordon. Some of these guys have scary injury histories.

That sounds mostly like what's happening. Except the defense is even better than closer to 20th, it's actually closer to 10th, which bumps the wins up. If you said preseason Houston would be above average defensively I'd have said you're nuts.

well, to be clear, i meant you guys on realgm.

I think that was why most thought they'd struggle this year, they looked on paper like an amazing offense. But with bad defense and injury problems, at least that's what I figured.

[MrCheerios]

yes, Adams is objectively playing worse this season. TS is way down, as is rebounding slightly and blocks, with more turnovers by percentage. So BPM is showing what everything else is. Gordon is still better than Oladipo, same for Anderson/Taj (who notably has been there about 5 games).

Adams raw numbers are up due to increased usage.

Oh, and as for the team/BPM thing, Philly has more guys with a positive BPM than OKC. What does that say.

And I haven't watched a ton of Philly games, so I don't know the context behind their players' BPM. Embiid's being pretty high is kind of obvious. Nerlens Noel and Richaun Holmes may be positive players, but they can't play at the same time as Embiid. Minutes, as well as whole games, are staggered on that team and Noel and Embiid have both had plenty of DNPs.

Also, Robert Covington having a much higher BPM than either Adams or Kanter, despite having the lowest PER and 3pt % in his Philly career, suggests to me that BPM is not the most accurate measure of player's talent.

Or that maybe PER is an outdated metric that only measures volume scoring and not a ton else? Covington is valuable for way more than shooting. Try RPM too. Heck anything. PER is pretty much useless.

PER isn't about volume scoring. It's a summary of box score adjusted for minutes. Eric Gordon scores at a much higher volume than Adams, but has a lower PER. Even if you think Covington is underrated, to suggest that he is better than Adams or Kanter based on BPM, RPM, or anything other cherry picked advanced stat is dishonest on your part. If OKC traded either of those players for Covington straight up you'd revolt.

You blame Westbrook's supporting cast for him not winning MVP, but when KD and Ibaka were on his team he wasn't even a serious candidate.

[bondom34]

And I haven't watched a ton of Philly games, so I don't know the context behind their players' BPM. Embiid's being pretty high is kind of obvious. Nerlens Noel and Richaun Holmes may be positive players, but they can't play at the same time as Embiid. Minutes, as well as whole games, are staggered on that team and Noel and Embiid have both had plenty of DNPs.

Also, Robert Covington having a much higher BPM than either Adams or Kanter, despite having the lowest PER and 3pt % in his Philly career, suggests to me that BPM is not the most accurate measure of player's talent.

Or that maybe PER is an outdated metric that only measures volume scoring and not a ton else? Covington is valuable for way more than shooting. Try RPM too. Heck anything. PER is pretty much useless.

PER isn't about volume scoring. It's a summary of box score adjusted for minutes. Eric Gordon scores at a much higher volume than Adams, but has a lower PER. Even if you think Covington is underrated, to suggest that he is better than Adams or Kanter based on BPM, RPM, or anything other cherry picked advanced stat is dishonest on your part. If OKC traded either of those players for Covington straight up you'd revolt.

You blame Westbrook's supporting cast for him not winning MVP, but when KD and Ibaka were on his team he wasn't even a serious candidate.

As for the last line, that's why KD isn't in it this year.

And PER does overrate scorers.
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=1326

The disturbing thing about these weights is that if an NBA player shot 33 .33% (1-3) then the more shots they take the higher their PER because shooting 1 for 3 gives you a net contribution of 2(45.75)-2(39.73)>0!! Clearly this is bad because a 33% shooter is not a good shooter and with these weights the more shots a bad shooter takes, the higher his PER rating.

So shooting more at a low percentage still helps. It's a bad measure of playing ability.

BPM is a measure of impact that isn't perfect either but it's quite a bit closer. It actually can be used for season prediction models, similar to RPM. PER can be too but it will be very inaccurate.

Edit: A thread from the stats board:
viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1495967#start_here

[Laimbeer]

funny how before the season started everyone was saying rockets were gonna barely make the playoffs or miss it, but now, everyone talking about harden's supporting cast being so good....lol

They're ok. It's Harden and that system.

[MrCheerios]

Or that maybe PER is an outdated metric that only measures volume scoring and not a ton else? Covington is valuable for way more than shooting. Try RPM too. Heck anything. PER is pretty much useless.

PER isn't about volume scoring. It's a summary of box score adjusted for minutes. Eric Gordon scores at a much higher volume than Adams, but has a lower PER. Even if you think Covington is underrated, to suggest that he is better than Adams or Kanter based on BPM, RPM, or anything other cherry picked advanced stat is dishonest on your part. If OKC traded either of those players for Covington straight up you'd revolt.

You blame Westbrook's supporting cast for him not winning MVP, but when KD and Ibaka were on his team he wasn't even a serious candidate.

As for the last line, that's why KD isn't in it this year.

And PER does overrate scorers.
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=1326

The disturbing thing about these weights is that if an NBA player shot 33 .33% (1-3) then the more shots they take the higher their PER because shooting 1 for 3 gives you a net contribution of 2(45.75)-2(39.73)>0!! Clearly this is bad because a 33% shooter is not a good shooter and with these weights the more shots a bad shooter takes, the higher his PER rating.

So shooting more at a low percentage still helps. It's a bad measure of playing ability.

BPM is a measure of impact that isn't perfect either but it's quite a bit closer. It actually can be used for season prediction models, similar to RPM. PER can be too but it will be very inaccurate.

Edit: A thread from the stats board:
viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1495967#start_here

I don't use PER as an end all stat. I know it undervalues defense and I try to give context in player evaluations. I say Taj Gibson is better than Anderson in a lot of aspects, but I know Anderson is much more valuable next to Harden in that system and a better fit. And that blog says the average PER is off by .37 for the top 200 players, so formula would not be off significantly. You would have to shoot a metric f-ton to have it significantly affect your PER and that statement might apply to Westbrook more than anyone else.

And PER certainly seems like a more accurate and consistent summary than BPM alone. Covington didn't suddenly become a really good player over the two prior seasons in Philly. He's mostly the same player. And he's not better than Adams and Kanter. BPM isn't a starting point in player comparisons if it suggests that.

[bondom34]

I don't use PER as an end all stat. I know it undervalues defense and I try to give context in player evaluations. I say Taj Gibson is better than Anderson in a lot of aspects, but I know Anderson is much more valuable next to Harden in that system and a better fit. And that blog says the average PER is off by .37 for the top 200 players, so formula would not be off significantly. You would have to shoot a metric f-ton to have it significantly affect your PER and that statement might apply to Westbrook more than anyone else.

And PER certainly seems like a more accurate and consistent summary than BPM alone. Covington didn't suddenly become a really good player over the two prior seasons in Philly. He's mostly the same player. And he's not better than Adams and Kanter. BPM isn't a starting point in player comparisons if it suggests that.

So basically you're going feels > reals here. OK then.

DBPM is not a great measure (which admittedly is where RoCo beats Adams), they have equal OBPM.

That said, back to the main point, Harden's cast, objectively, by any measure has been superior. There' sno other way to explain how a team is a net positive even when he's sitting.