A player whose impact doesn't match his reputation (yet)

[VanWest82]

FWIW Luka is average to above average so far this year guarding PnR and spot up shooters according to NBA tracking cameras. He still has a ways to go on that end but the argument that he's terrible defensively isn't supported in fact.

[SF_Warriors]

The mavs would have half or less than half of their current win total without Luka. It is painfully obvious to see that he will be a top 10 player impact-wise in the nba, if not already.

[SF_Warriors]

I never believed in on/off to judge a player's impact. It can be a direct extension of how good the team's bench is and quality of the opposing team's bench. If we were to say, remove Luka from the mavs starting lineup and move him to the bench, replacing him with the guy on the bench with the highest on/off, including a straight minutes swap..would that make the mavs better? After all, putting the guy on the bench with the best on/off in the starting lineup and giving him more minutes while reducing Luka's (since he has a negative on/off) should make the team better, right?

[scrabbarista]

No, you're confused. The formula KingDavid is talking about and the one the OP is talking about are two different stats. In the one KingDavid is talking about (as stated in my post) Doncic is +11, not negative. That's the one you looked at.

The one the OP is talking about is a different stat. Or, actually, two different stats. In both of those stats, Doncic is currently negative. If you go to basketball-reference.com and go down to "Play-by-Play" and look in the middle, you'll see something marked "+/- Per 100 Possessions." The two stats the OP is referring to are the "On Court" stat and the "On/Off" stat.

But you are getting at a simple criticism that still applies to the stats the OP is referring to, which is that the sample size is very small. For example, last season Doncic's On/Off was -3.9, and this season it's -14.5. Even at first glance, for anyone who's watched Doncic play this season, this is obviously an extreme result that is probably tied to small sample size.

Stat that Tim Hardaway has + 17.6, which should explain everything about representative value of this stat at this moment.

Let see...I prefer to use this stat on a game by game basis. There are nights where certain players are hot/cold/bleh. In the morning, when I do that calculation it's usually in line with my eye test. I don't use it as a season average. Just a nightly thing.

Tim Hardaway Jr.
Win/Loss; Opponent; Ortg - Drtg=x

W vs WAS 66-104= -38
W vs NOP 110-121= -11
L vs POR 97-119= -22
W vs DEN 149-116= +33
L vs LAL 100-111= -11
W vs CLE 118-118= 0
W vs ORL 119-110= +9
L vs NYK 84-112= -28
W vs MEM 146-124= +22
L vs BOS 85-122= -37

Seems like he's only had two outstanding, on fire games. But for the most part, he looks like he's been very, very bad. If you average that out, his games where he was hot would spike that average. Turnovers hurt sooooo bad with this calculation.

Hardaway is -7 on the season. You don't have to average them. BBref does it for you in the "Per 100 Poss" section, on the far right. Thanks for clueing me in on where to find the single-game number, though, as I wasn't aware!

[scrabbarista]

What I am curious about is if the basic formula shows a extreme high negative on 10-29, does the OPS on/off formula show an unusually high negative for that game as well?

I believe the OP's formula is actually more "basic," but that's semantics.

Yes, in the OP's formula, Doncic was an extreme negative in that game. I don't know how to isolate the numbers or translate them into Per100's, but simple "OnCourt" +/- numbers show that Doncic was a -17 in that game. He was also a -17 in the recent game against Boston, but other than that, his lowest score in 10 games is only a -5 against the Knicks. In fact, he has only been a negative in 4 of DAL's 10 games.

The OP is referencing two stats. The previous paragraph addressed "OnCourt." Luka's "On-Off" for 10-29 would likely have been much more extreme, as seen by the fact that he started the game and was -17, whereas three DAL players, Tim Hardaway, Jr., Jalen Brunson, and Delon Wright, came off the bench and were +23, +20, and +14, respectively.

In short, as I stated in my previous response, you're probably right that the numbers for this season are being strongly adversely affected by just one or two games.

[Bob8]

I'm not typically a gif-kinda-guy, but

Kinda underwhelming, isn’t it?

[PistolPeteJR]

KAT and Davis traditionally come to mind, as they’ve been touted as top ten players leading unenthusing treadmill teams in a era where offensive bigs have a lot less impact.

They’ve both started this season well, and so have their teams, though I suspect the Timberwolves go to their mean as the schedule toughens up and the Lakers become a treadmill when LeBron ages

Really? I actually think Davis hasn’t had an impact worthy of his reputation so far with the Lakers, but to the realist, that’s to be expected with a brand new team and coaching staff, as well as his shoulder injury.

I’m putting Jokic up for discussion too.

[GeorgeMarcus]

If Doncic really had such a non-existent impact beyond his boxcore, how does Dallas have a record of 6-4 (+3.0 Net Rating) with Maxi Kleber, Dwight Powell, Dorian Finney-Smith, Delon Wright, Tim Hardaway Jr. and Jalen Brunson as the only players to average more than 20 MPG apart from Luka and Kristaps? None of those players I mentioned averages more than 11.6 PPG, by the way. Is Carlisle that good of a coach? Is this a miracle? Just to highlight what has already been said.

The Mavs have a great player (Luka Doncic), a really **** player (Kristaps Porzingis - as of now), and a bunch of good role players (apart from Hardaway, he sucks). Doncic carries those role players + rusty Porzingis against starting lineups, just losing gracefully in those minutes is already a great feat. Their superior and very cohesive bench unit then pushes them to victory.

I do agree though that he was not a star impact-wise in his rookie season (no rookie is), and his defense is overall still a negative despite some improvements - nonetheless, he is definitely All-NBA material in my books and I think once stats like RPM get released, we will have a clearer picture.

That argument doesn't really hold given that Luka has been outscored on the court -1.7 per 100 possessions. That means it's the very players you mention who have actually contributed most directly to winning by outscoring their opponents while on the court. I'm willing to accept that sample size in his sophomore season has been a major factor though, and that the numbers will calibrate as the season goes on.

[GeorgeMarcus]

First of all, you cannot say you are proving anything through numbers if applying your theory you end up with absurd results.
THJ would be Mavs best player according to your "model" and we all know that's not the case. So let's forget about the presumption of some kind of model-given proof.

Now, numbers are interesting and we can investigate these. We can think about rotations, lineups and so on and find some reasonable explainations about the phenomenon. We can even conclude Doncic needs to change some habits and improve, which he certainly needs to do. But this is more an optimization/team building kind of reasoning.

But, again, you are dealing with flawed statistics and you are using these according to your interpretation, cause there is no general consensus about these statistics being an appropriate measure of impact.

I suggest you take a more reasonable approach in order to develop a proper model capable of measuring impact: start from the evidence.
The Earth is a globe: you can find a lot of evidence supporting this and you can also imagin ubercomplex models allowing the assumption that this is the opposite according to some flawed line of reasoning. But this does not change the fact that the Earth is a globe, so if your reasoning gives you a flat earth, you have a fallacy somewhere. Change the reasoning, change the model.
Doncic is a great player which is the backbone of his team: you can also find a lot of evidence supporting this and Carlisle would play him even if some measure is not that good. If your "model" gives you an indication of the opposite, again, change your reasoning, change the model.

Your numbers are genuinely interesting and worth investigating, but your model gives you an absurd result. I think it is more reasonable to think that your reasoning is flawed than that Doncic is not an impact player.

If we look into THJ's history, he's been more of a negative than a positive using the same "model" (though I'm not sure I'd call it a model). I think you and others are misunderstanding how I'm using those numbers. I'm not saying "rank the players based on these 2 values" but I addressed the direct implications of the values, and how we can interpret them. For example, if a player is regarded as clearly the most impactful on his team, it doesn't really make sense for him to have a negative on/off. I stand by that opinion but, as I said in other posts, I'm willing to give Luka the benefit of the doubt in terms of the sample size so far this season. I wouldn't even have addressed a 10 game sample size if it wasn't backed up by the rookie data, which again is understandable for a rookie.

[GeorgeMarcus]

(Dirk , please don't hold this thread against me )

His box numbers have been incredible, but his impact just isn't there.

No worries.

Life is great. Basketball gods blessed the Mavs. And Clowney wrecked the 49ers - did you see the fear in JimmyG's eyes? That was so beautiful. Let me be very frank, if I was rooting for most other teams (and I have plenty on top of my head), I'd be trading my whole franchise away for Doncic. We went from being just about the most boring team in the league to having fun every other night.

So while I actually enjoy criticism or different points of view, in this particular case, it's actually just symbolic of how far ahead of time he is --- guy is not 21 yet. Scoring 28.3 ppg on 61 TS%. 10.3 rbs, 9.1 assists. If someone told us that he'd be averaging this in year 2... we'd be laughing at them.

What I infer from your post is that you must be committing a mortal sin --- you have not watched the Mavs (Doncic) play much this year. I'd find it hard to believe that if you saw a guy have good numbers and make the right plays, that you then would look at +/- and somehow think he hasn't made that much impact. You grant him incredible numbers. So if the incredible numbers don't translate into the +/- column, "what is he doing wrong?" What is he doing that is hindering team success? What are others doing that is "making up for Doncic's lack of impact"? It's actually hard to ask him to better his numbers (it's possible, but if this stat line is beyond what most optimists would expect in year 2).

Is he preventing the team from being better? Should he shoot (even) better? Play off the ball more? A case has been made for that, but of course, this is more about coaching and having other guys run the team while he is on the floor. Let Brunson run the team on his own since he has the best +/- through 10 games despite shooting below 50%ts? Should he ask Tim Hardaway Jr how to better his game since, by the same data, he has amazing +/-?

Here's what one sees when watching him play this year, he makes good decisions most of the time. Dare I say he is an elite decision maker already? Because if you are on the floor with him... you can be sure he can find you, at any time, anywhere. He is extremely unselfish, looks to pass often, other times he looks to score when he feels that the team needs a spark and he needs to take over. Managing those moments, managing all the plays (guy literally does ALL the heavy lifting on offense) is quite complex for a 20 year old, and he has done superbly given the context. The way he reads and instinctively reacts is impressive since he is operating "at his own speed" and against some athletic freaks. So you get my idea... you see a guy playing well, being a team player --- not some guy who is 'selfishly' piling up numbers. How can you then somehow put the blame of the +/- at his doorstep? You can't. And I doubt you would if you were a Mavs fan or just watched the team play. You would look at other reasons and not at the guy that is having a goat season for a 20yo.

Since his numbers are good. We have to really dig deep for problems, I guess most would be:

--- shot selection, some low percentage shots (it's actually not that many now, but they stick out when taken, especially because he shows that he can get better shots with apparent ease)
--- some careless turnovers
--- some defensive lapses, guys cutting behind him while he is looking away, giving up some uncontested layups
--- occasionally there were complaints about passiveness in trying to score, early in the season (comical to say "early", when we only played 10 games, but think of the Blazers game)

Here's the thing though, you can see his improvement from last year and during this young season. This is his current shot chart



Lives at the basket now and scores at an elite level there, shooting better than Lebron there probably. His FT% jumped up incredibly from last season. Some actually advocate that he should shoot more from midrange since he gets the space, but he's actually pretty much eliminated mid-range shots from his game thus far. At times he takes some wild shots because he must get really bored of manipulating defenders and getting them on his back as he either takes a floater or lobs it up for someone else.

He has toyed with at least 3 teams this year. Meaning... he played at half pace... and put up some of the ridiculous numbers you see on his game logs. I invite you to watch games vs Wizards, vs Cavs, vs Grizzlies. You will know.

You mention the rookie year. Can't ignore the Mavs make major moves that impacted the team. A visualization, raw +/- since it's the thing brought up, +7 before major moves. -150 the rest of the way. Rough idea: Before: 55 ts% (29.3 usg%), after 52.3 ts% (33.5 usg%). From (20 - 7 - 5.6) to (22 - 9.9 - 7.2). Essentially, the team had a structure before the trades, then blown up (and thankfully they did that) and it was just a mess the rest of the way. So his numbers are definitely skewed by that.

The basketball post trades was abysmal. That includes Doncic's own basketball - it wasn't very pretty to watch at all. Talent was there, but it was just bad basketball. So I would only be concerned with the +/- data if he was playing inefficiently (like last year post trade). That is not the case at all (as the individual numbers immediately tell you)... so it's really more of a case where you look at the guy and feel cool with what he is doing, so then you look at "other reasons".

It's 10 games. He has had 2 bad games out of 10. Look at his numbers. He was -17 in Boston. A top team in the league. Boston fans can chime in here and tell us what they witnessed... they are or were what 7-1, 8-1?... and Doncic was the best player on the floor (please allow me to say this Kemba). He played against Smart the whole game and some other guy doubling him. Not Wannamaker, the Williams guy or whoever like the bench dudes did.

Blitzed by double teams, made the right play pretty much every time. And still found a way to score on his own because he just had to. Willed the team back and take a lead in the 4th quarter. Killed by Kemba in the end. He was -12 in the 4Q despite playing well.

Here's some of the Boston double teams:

the double teams

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

He was -17 in Denver - where he actually played terribly and the Mavs bench had a surreal game. So in one game he played great, -17. In another he played badly, -17. Same number. Totally different story.

The +/- data that you are using in your OP tells us this:

Tim Hardaway Jr is the Mavs just most impactful player this year. He is rocking a +17.6.

Reality: he is an abomination. Jacks shots up like there's no tomorrow. Pylon on defense. Shooting just 37-percent from the field, 32-percent from deep. These plays actually reflect the player on offense and defense:

Spoiler:

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

Read on Twitter

I have monitored the +/- all year and it's also intriguing how Brunson (who I love) actually has the best +/- and he has played below his level [Brunson is #3 in the league when on the court, +14.4!]. The only guy who actually has a +/- that matches "the eye test" is Delon Wright who should play more minutes --- you can just see his impact with defensive disruption, timely drives.

The Mavericks don't have a set lineup. They've had 8 different starting lineups if not mistaken. And at the moment it's actually difficult to know exactly what to expect each night, except for you know who.

I don't put too much stock on the "off" numbers since at this point Carlisle has proven that he can have a midget PG, you and some random rim-rolling big and crush other teams benches.

If you're ever bored, go through this topic: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1717833&start=1120 I dumped some videos in there over time. Hey, they may not translate to the +/-, but they're basketball porn. And I know you love it. So just watch and have fun.

Wow- w a response. You've outdone yourself Dirk. To answer your question I've seen exactly 2 Mavs games this season: against the Lakers and against the Magic.

I am going to trust your judgement on his decision making and ability to facilitate a high-functioning offense. At the end of the day, he could be averaging 35ppg on 65 TS%, but if the offense is otherwise stagnant and unproductive then his presence can still be a net loss. I believe strongly that looking at team production through this holistic lens makes the most sense, and yet I also believe that 10 games is not a worthy sample size on its own. If things are still looking this way 30-40 games in then my suspicions may persist, but for now I am going to take a well-informed poster at his word.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Man, the strawmans in this thread are incredible - the Luka fanboy factor is strong. The OP didn't say Luka is a bad player who should be sitting in favor of someone else, he just brought up the fact that Luka has a negative +/- and negative on/off this year, which is worth examining. Some of the Mavs' fans explanations - collinearity with KP and early season small sample size - give good hints that Luka's impact isn't as poor as those numbers may indicate.

I'd also add that Luka's defense does looks it still has room for improvement. That was pretty noticeable during the last game vs. the Celtics, but to be fair I've only watched one other game from him this season.

He correlated impact with +/- and on/off without showing us that this is how impact is defined.

Saying that he has a negative +/- and negative on/off and then saying that it means his impact doesn't match his reputation is a strawman considering not everyone agrees that this is what impact means. He didn't just "brought a fact". Which is the problem.

How about win shares? Doncic is 6th. Why does that not show impact?

I specified exactly what the numbers tell us, and then provided some of my own analysis with regard to those findings. As I mentioned to BoB8, we can only approximate impact. There is no all-encompassing value that will give us a direct translation of impact.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I'm not typically a gif-kinda-guy, but

Kinda underwhelming, isn’t it?

Maybe for a Mavs fan trying to control the narrative

[Bob8]

I'm not typically a gif-kinda-guy, but

Kinda underwhelming, isn’t it?

Maybe for a Mavs fan trying to control the narrative

Funny, I have impression that narrative is completely yours.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Kinda underwhelming, isn’t it?

Maybe for a Mavs fan trying to control the narrative

Funny, I have impression that narrative is completely yours.

You can believe that all you want, but I don't post agenda-based threads (with the possible exception of my Embiid threads which are at least grounded in facts). I don't hate Luka, don't hate the Spurs, always rooted for the Nets to succeed, yada yada yada. It doesn't stop me from uncovering truth.

[GeorgeMarcus]

According to BasketballReference, Doncic ORTG is 119 and his DRTG is 109.

Só, how is he a negative-negative?

Those numbers are derived from individual box metrics. You can find comprehensive on/off data here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/doncilu01/on-off/2020

I'd recommend using nba.com on/off stats instead of BBRef.

nba.com uses true play by play data for possessions while BBRef is still only estimates I believe.

I believe the estimates you are referring to are ORtg and DRtg? What I used were +/- and on/off (per 100 possessions) derived from play by play data.

[GeorgeMarcus]

On/off numbers...if you have a trash bunch you look better and if you have good bench you look worse. Yet so many seem to think it is a stat that stands alone in a vacuum...just needed to say it again.

Well (1) that's why it makes sense to view them in comparison with their teammates' on/offs but (2) no teams actually sub 5 guys in and out at once, so the bench effect is often times overstated. That's why far more starters in the league have positive on/offs than negative. Because they are generally the more impactful players on their respective teams.

[Bob8]

Maybe for a Mavs fan trying to control the narrative

Funny, I have impression that narrative is completely yours.

You can believe that all you want, but I don't post agenda-based threads (with the possible exception of my Embiid threads which are at least grounded in facts). I don't hate Luka, don't hate the Spurs, always rooted for the Nets to succeed, yada yada yada. It doesn't stop me from seeking objective truth.

I believe you’re wrong, nothing else.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Funny, I have impression that narrative is completely yours.

You can believe that all you want, but I don't post agenda-based threads (with the possible exception of my Embiid threads which are at least grounded in facts). I don't hate Luka, don't hate the Spurs, always rooted for the Nets to succeed, yada yada yada. It doesn't stop me from seeking objective truth.

I believe you’re wrong, nothing else.

I won't fault you for that. Even in my infinite wisdom I've been known to be wrong from time to time

[zonedefense]

Watch the game @Knicks and you will have all the answers. Luka is struggling from the field but without him the Mavs would be down double digits. Nobody can hit a shot. They miss open layups, uncontested putbacks and wide open 3s.
Luka scored 13 of 23 points and had 2 assists. Responsible for 80% of the Mavs offense. That´s not how it should be but there is no other option right now.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Watch the game @Knicks and you will have all the answers. Luka is struggling from the field but without him the Mavs would be down double digits. Nobody can hit a shot. They miss open layups, uncontested putbacks and wide open 3s.
Luka scored 13 of 23 points and had 2 assists. Responsible for 80% of the Mavs offense. That´s not how it should be but there is no other option right now.

The bolded should reveal itself in the on/off data. Perhaps it will overtime, but it hasn't yet.