p0peye wrote:The-Power wrote:p0peye wrote:Lets further filter out to disregard players who are net neutral (110DRTG/110ORTG) and focus on players who have net negative effect like Booker (DRTG>=111, ORTG <=109) and we get this:
[...]
Interestingly enough, there are 3 players (out of 9 in NBA history) on that list having historically high usage while being net negative this season:
It doesn't tell us whether a player has actually been a net negative on the court or not, though. Had the played with a couple of good defensive bigs, he would all off a sudden most certainly be a net positive according to the juxtaposition of individual ORTG and DRTG. Generally speaking, we should never look at bbref's ORTG/DRTG for any type of player analysis that goes beyond trying to measure efficiency from the boxscore.
True as it might be, that list and team records they helped achieve are pretty telling as what these players have accomplished throughout NBA history.
If it's not a valid approach, however, the list itself doesn't tell us anything.
Also, your criteria are random. You want to make sure the player is at least as bad as Booker in this metric, but you refer to players who are clearly worse as to what Booker's outlook is? This is completely arbitrary at best, and dishonest at worst.
Furthermore, Booker has the highest ORTG of all players. Due to the nature of the boxscore, ORTG does at least a somewhat decent job to display a player's individual offensive efficiency when he records a boxscore entry for an offensive possession.
DRTG, however, is largely impated by the overall team defense; not to mention that the boxscore is horrible at tracking relevant defensive events. While Booker hasn't been a good defender by any means, there are players just as bad or worse out there who have a lower individual DRTG simply because they play next to better defensive players or chase rebounds, blocks or steals without that leading to positive defensive impact. It's just not a useful stat.
