King of Empty stats

[dhsilv2]

Sounds like Lowe just chose a crappy stat. The 82games version which takes in to account scoring in the last 5 minutes of a close game is more representative of a player's ability to help his team close out games.

I agree his stats were not empty, but being able to help your team close games is pretty important.

It's really hard to blame or give credit for end of game value. There aren't that many games in a year and you only get so many plays. I would need a really good case to argue that Love was falling off in those big moments.

NBA.com is well....the offical stats source. And it is the same method as what you listed for 82 games as far as I'm aware.

Clearly not the same stat (or it was partial season) as RGM_SU demonstrated Love had far more clutch time shot attempts using the 5-minute method. And I don't find it hard at all to draw conclusions. It's very obvious which players step-up in important parts of games and which ones don't.

And please understand the nit I'm picking here because Kevin clutch time numbers are not all bad. Compared to his peers, he comes out ahead of many of them. For instance, Blake Griffin's shooting efficiency (30.3 eFG%) was putrid in the clutch last year, but I wouldn't label him a superstar either.

Lotta people draw conclusions...the value of them tends to be pretty awful as I rarely see the response we should see 80%+ (we don't have enough data to be sure).

[JonFromVA]

That team starting Tarik Black, Joey Dorsey, Marcus Thorton, Jason Terry and had Corey **** Brewer as the first man off the bench. Yes Harden had various issues with the team and especially with Dwight, but without him dragging those guys all season long playing 82 games, that Houston team would be straight up lottery.

29ppg can be a DeRozan, but along with 7.5 apg you have to seriously hate the guy to call it empty stats.

The whole point of empty stats is that they look much greater than the actual impact of the player on the floor.
In this case Harden's were historically great, scoring with efficiency while filling up the rest of stat sheet.
But he was not close to that, because of his attitude of defence, his continuously stopping the ball and his playing to protect his own efficiency, often pounding the ball for several seconds and then serving a guarded teammate for bailout shot.

He was still a winning player who made his team better when on the floor, though, and that's where we usually draw the line when saying someone is putting up empty stats. Every player has weaknesses - the trick is to play to their strengths so your team can win games.

The "empty stats" guys are the ones you can take out of the game for a role player and your team improves.

[Yoshun]

Here's the thing about all of this, saying "Kevin Love has a positive impact on his team and isn't an empty stat padder" is different from saying "Kevin Love is a superstar."

This an issue that comes up pretty often on this board, and in this thread. There is a lot of space on the spectrum between Lebron James and suck.

Love will never be Lebron and will never have a Lebron level impact, but neither will 99% of the other players who have or who will ever play. There is a very small list of players that could realistically "carry" a bad team to the playoffs, never mind a ring. Right now, maybe Lebron, Curry, Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi are the only ones. That small list is also probably pretty debatable as I'm not even sure that it's accurate. The reality is that maybe only a few of those guys even would be able to do it. That doesn't mean guys like Wall, Lowry, Embiid, Simmons, Griffin, Klay, Giannis, Beal, Kyrie, etc.... aren't impactful players. They have obvious impacts on their teams, just not "best player ever" impacts. It's extremely difficult for one player to do that. It may be easier than in other sports, but basketball is still a team game. The criteria for "empty stats" can't be "Did [player x] carry his team to the playoffs/a ring?" Because, if that were the case, 99% of players who ever played would not be considered impactful.

Love was clearly an impactful player. He had flaws keeping him from making Lebron James impact, he'll never do that, but that doesn't mean he was some stat padder. His teams were clearly much better with him on them when he was there.

[Gus McCrae]

I watched the Laker/76er game lat night and was shocked to see that /Simmons had 13 rebounds and 15 assists. I barely even noticed him out there on offense.

[Karate Diop]

Shout out to my boy Ricky Davis.

[JonFromVA]

Here's the thing about all of this, saying "Kevin Love has a positive impact on his team and isn't an empty stat padder" is different from saying "Kevin Love is a superstar."

This an issue that comes up pretty often on this board, and in this thread. There is a lot of space on the spectrum between Lebron James and suck.

Love will never be Lebron and will never have a Lebron level impact, but neither will 99% of the other players who have or who will ever play. There is a very small list of players that could realistically "carry" a bad team to the playoffs, never mind a ring. Right now, maybe Lebron, Curry, Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi are the only ones. That small list is also probably pretty debatable as I'm not even sure that it's accurate. The reality is that maybe only a few of those guys even would be able to do it. That doesn't mean guys like Wall, Lowry, Embiid, Simmons, Griffin, Klay, Giannis, Beal, Kyrie, etc.... aren't impactful players. They have obvious impacts on their teams, just not "best player ever" impacts. It's extremely difficult for one player to do that. It may be easier than in other sports, but basketball is still a team game. The criteria for "empty stats" can't be "Did [player x] carry his team to the playoffs/a ring?" Because, if that were the case, 99% of players who ever played would not be considered impactful.

Love was clearly an impactful player. He had flaws keeping him from making Lebron James impact, he'll never do that, but that doesn't mean he was some stat padder. His teams were clearly much better with him on them when he was there.

Which begs the difference between a good team and a bad team and the ability of a franchise player and the head coach to elevate a team from one category to the other without top-notch talent. All the factors are interrelated.

For instance, maybe Al Horford belongs in the category of a player who can get a bad team in to the playoffs as generally his teams have been pretty bad when he's been out injured. He's clearly not the closer for his team, though.

[kodo]

I need some help, who are the all time kings of empty stat seasons?

Devin Booker last year for example was one of the more hollow stat lines I've seen. 22ppg and only a 14.9 PER /.53% true shooting both under league average.

So this guy would also be the king of empty stats: 22.1 ppg on 51% TS, 15.8 PER.
That would be Kevin Durant at about Booker's age.

"Empty stats" isn't a term applied to young players because they need time & experience to apply their production to a A) winning games and B) gain consistency in their performance, which leads to higher TS% & PER.

People have can start making predictions, like Kevin Love in Minny after 5 years caused chatter to start up in the vein of "he's starting to look like an empty stats guy."

But at 20 years old last season, Devin Booker is way too young to call him an empty stat padder.

[12footrim]

I need some help, who are the all time kings of empty stat seasons?

Devin Booker last year for example was one of the more hollow stat lines I've seen. 22ppg and only a 14.9 PER /.53% true shooting both under league average.

So this guy would also be the king of empty stats: 22.1 ppg on 51% TS, 15.8 PER.
That would be Kevin Durant at about Booker's age.

"Empty stats" isn't a term applied to young players because they need time & experience to apply their production to a A) winning games and B) gain consistency in their performance, which leads to higher TS% & PER.

People have can start making predictions, like Kevin Love in Minny after 5 years caused chatter to start up in the vein of "he's starting to look like an empty stats guy."

But at 20 years old last season, Devin Booker is way too young to call him an empty stat padder.

That season sucked. We can look at it for what it is, a dude that had no business being a #1. So yeah throw his crappy season in the bag too. Nothing was said about how these guys would project out, nothing and most people can compartmentalize. That was a lame season.

[dhsilv2]

I watched the Laker/76er game lat night and was shocked to see that /Simmons had 13 rebounds and 15 assists. I barely even noticed him out there on offense.

Not really related to the topic unless you think those are empty stats. Duncan used to have quit 40-20 games and nobody is telling me had empty stats.

[BetterCallSaul]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Mitch Richmond
Tom Chambers
Wiggins
DeRozan

At least the first few off the top of my head.

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

[durden-tyler]

I watched the Laker/76er game lat night and was shocked to see that /Simmons had 13 rebounds and 15 assists. I barely even noticed him out there on offense.

Not really fair, he was invisible the last 4 minutes because Embiid is their go to guy when they want a bucket, but he played great before that. It helped that the Lakers played him poorly, I didn't understand why they choose to defend him this way, but he's far from an empty stat player, his impact is real...

[dhsilv2]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Mitch Richmond
Tom Chambers
Wiggins
DeRozan

At least the first few off the top of my head.

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

Given he's with Lowry if he were as good as this box score stats say, yeah they'd be a better team.

[phanman]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Mitch Richmond
Tom Chambers
Wiggins
DeRozan

At least the first few off the top of my head.

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

Given he's with Lowry if he were as good as this box score stats say, yeah they'd be a better team.

They have the 5th best record in the entire NBA with the 3rd best point differential @7.5. They rank 3rd in ORTG @113.5 and 9th in DRTG @105.9 with a SRS of 7.63(3rd). They also have the best home record currently @ 9-1.

Not sure how much better they can be.

[Gus McCrae]

I watched the Laker/76er game lat night and was shocked to see that /Simmons had 13 rebounds and 15 assists. I barely even noticed him out there on offense.

Not really related to the topic unless you think those are empty stats. Duncan used to have quit 40-20 games and nobody is telling me had empty stats.

I just looked a little closer at the box score and it confirmed what I was thinking. 13 rebounds with 0 offensive rebounds plus i don’t recall any key Boards or assists. I know what you’re saying about a quiet 40 pt game from Duncan, but you can’t argue with points and winning. I’m referring to inflated numbers from a player who seem like he wasn’t impacting the game which felt pertinent to the topic.

[BetterCallSaul]

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

Given he's with Lowry if he were as good as this box score stats say, yeah they'd be a better team.

They have the 5th best record in the entire NBA with the 3rd best point differential @7.5. They rank 3rd in ORTG @113.5 and 9th in DRTG @105.9 with a SRS of 7.63(3rd). They also have the best home record currently @ 9-1.

Not sure how much better they can be.

I guess according to the stats we;re supposed to beat lebron and that's where we fall short?

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Mitch Richmond
Tom Chambers
Wiggins
DeRozan

At least the first few off the top of my head.

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

Team historicly has excelled when derozan sits and lowry is on the court> I guess derozans moral support brings the bench + lowry a lot of luck though.

[The Flying Gent]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Mitch Richmond
Tom Chambers
Wiggins
DeRozan

At least the first few off the top of my head.

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

Team historicly has excelled when derozan sits and lowry is on the court> I guess derozans moral support brings the bench + lowry a lot of luck though.

What kind of mastermind coach must you think Casey is and all around super team the Raptors have fielded over the last few years in order to be a consistently 50+ win team while having to hide a big minute marquee empty stat player?

Man, if only that were the case.

[BetterCallSaul]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Mitch Richmond
Tom Chambers
Wiggins
DeRozan

At least the first few off the top of my head.

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

Team historicly has excelled when derozan sits and lowry is on the court> I guess derozans moral support brings the bench + lowry a lot of luck though.

And despite these numbers, he is integral to our success. Maybe, just maybe, some numbers you need to take with context...Who knows.

[BetterCallSaul]

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

Team historicly has excelled when derozan sits and lowry is on the court> I guess derozans moral support brings the bench + lowry a lot of luck though.

What kind of mastermind coach must you think Casey is and all around super team the Raptors have fielded over the last few years in order to be a consistently 50+ win team while having to hide a big minute marquee empty stat player?

Man, if only that were the case.

Some people have a lack of court balance awareness and can only plug things in as they are given to them. Are unable to actually process it themselves and understand that players, as the human beings they are, do depend on playmakers to make plays...especially when they do it so consistently like DeMar. That's what makes him a star and worthy of his minutes, he gives a lot of guys an opportunity to exhale and fit into their roles.

[dhsilv2]

The team wins...consistently...He is as good as his stats suggest. And they suggest that he is limited but good. Is the team supposed to win more than we do based on what his stats imply?

Given he's with Lowry if he were as good as this box score stats say, yeah they'd be a better team.

They have the 5th best record in the entire NBA with the 3rd best point differential @7.5. They rank 3rd in ORTG @113.5 and 9th in DRTG @105.9 with a SRS of 7.63(3rd). They also have the best home record currently @ 9-1.

Not sure how much better they can be.

Traditionally, empty stats as a concept is driven from guys with high points per game who do not have the impact that the points per game would indicate. Advanced stats are not generally used because their whole concept was to cut through that BS.

Last year (we don't ever EVER talk about the current season for such a concept as it's too early to make comments) he averaged 27.3 points per game, which would by more traditional metrics imply he had one of the great seasons of all time. However RPM ranked DeRozen as the 78th best player last year. ORPM (taking out his awful defense) ranked him 38th last year. WINS ranked him 78th.

There is a massive HUGE disconnect from the traditional points per game ranking logic of just 20 years ago and what our more accurate stats indicate. Meanwhile Kyle Lowry does extremely well on the RPM metrics and from someone who has just casually watched a bit of the raptors over the last couple of years that makes a lot more sense than DeRozen being the driver of their better record.

So yes if DeRozan was as good as his stats indicate, playing with Lowry who is a top tier player, they should be knocking on 60 wins and would be a very real threat to beat the cavs. It isn't like they had an awful bench or support cast around those two.

I swear raptors fans around here are the most sensitive fan base I've seen...making the laker's fans look thick skinned.