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

[Pg81]

This is the point I'm making. If the numbers were good on Luka, GM wouldn't be making this post. If they change, as they have, I'm willing to bet that GM's opinion will also change because it's rooted in the numbers and not some irrational hate for Luka. When people see something that puts their favorite player in a negative light, they treat it as though it's a personal attack on their player and rooted in the rationale presented.

Blindly following the numbers is bad, I'm not saying I agree with GM here. But, blindly supporting a player and not acknowledging any point that doesn't make him out to be the most amazing player ever is really no different.

Exactly there lies the problem. How should I acknowledge the point, which is so obviously wrong?

1. Method is wrong, because +/- cannot measure single player impact.
2. 10 games is absolutely to small data for that kind of violative stats like +/-, even if you believe in it, which I don’t.
3. What we can see in the court, is exactly the opposite to what GM is saying. Luka is serious candidate for MVP at the moment. (I’m first to say that his incredible high level of playing is unsuitable, because he’s too young and his conditioning is not good enough to play like that the whole season, but he’s really playing like MVP candidate at the moment.) 30/10/10, 62.5 TS%, the best BPM, VORP, breaking all kind of records, leading 1 of the best offenses (his offrtg is 115.5) in the league and Dallas being 9/5.

Sorry, but I couldn’t care less for +/-.

I'm not the analysis police, you can do whatever you want. I'm just saying we're too quick to dismiss points that work against our existing beliefs. Again, I'm not saying I 100% agree with GM. I've had lengthy discussions about why I think his method is poor. But I thought he brought up a good point. It's fair to acknowledge how well lineups with Luka have fared and how well lineups without Luka have fared. Is there a direct line from that to impact? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has no relevance at all.

I talked about this a bit in the MVP thread, but there's a narrative that Luka is the only thing the Mavs have going for them. That's not true. They have a great bench and that has lead to a lot of wins.

We have easily 10+ indicators that say the exact opposite of what the OP is proposing based on two stats that are saying primarily something about the lineups Luka is carrying than anything else. It is far more likely that this is cherry picking for the sake of controversy than anything else.

[KqWIN]

Exactly there lies the problem. How should I acknowledge the point, which is so obviously wrong?

1. Method is wrong, because +/- cannot measure single player impact.
2. 10 games is absolutely to small data for that kind of violative stats like +/-, even if you believe in it, which I don’t.
3. What we can see in the court, is exactly the opposite to what GM is saying. Luka is serious candidate for MVP at the moment. (I’m first to say that his incredible high level of playing is unsuitable, because he’s too young and his conditioning is not good enough to play like that the whole season, but he’s really playing like MVP candidate at the moment.) 30/10/10, 62.5 TS%, the best BPM, VORP, breaking all kind of records, leading 1 of the best offenses (his offrtg is 115.5) in the league and Dallas being 9/5.

Sorry, but I couldn’t care less for +/-.

I'm not the analysis police, you can do whatever you want. I'm just saying we're too quick to dismiss points that work against our existing beliefs. Again, I'm not saying I 100% agree with GM. I've had lengthy discussions about why I think his method is poor. But I thought he brought up a good point. It's fair to acknowledge how well lineups with Luka have fared and how well lineups without Luka have fared. Is there a direct line from that to impact? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has no relevance at all.

I talked about this a bit in the MVP thread, but there's a narrative that Luka is the only thing the Mavs have going for them. That's not true. They have a great bench and that has lead to a lot of wins.

We have easily 10+ indicators that say the exact opposite of what the OP is proposing based on two stats that are saying primarily something about the lineups Luka is carrying than anything else. It is far more likely that this is cherry picking for the sake of controversy than anything else.

Or this is something that OP believes in (which he talked about why it may be significant) and applies to every players he analyzes. Not everyone is out to get you. You can either believe that GM cherry picked this stat to create controversy about Luka, or you can believe that this is just another GM post about impact which there are one million of on this forum

[GeorgeMarcus]

I'm not the analysis police, you can do whatever you want. I'm just saying we're too quick to dismiss points that work against our existing beliefs. Again, I'm not saying I 100% agree with GM. I've had lengthy discussions about why I think his method is poor. But I thought he brought up a good point. It's fair to acknowledge how well lineups with Luka have fared and how well lineups without Luka have fared. Is there a direct line from that to impact? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has no relevance at all.

I talked about this a bit in the MVP thread, but there's a narrative that Luka is the only thing the Mavs have going for them. That's not true. They have a great bench and that has lead to a lot of wins.

We have easily 10+ indicators that say the exact opposite of what the OP is proposing based on two stats that are saying primarily something about the lineups Luka is carrying than anything else. It is far more likely that this is cherry picking for the sake of controversy than anything else.

Or this is something that OP believes in (which he talked about why it may be significant) and applies to every players he analyzes. Not everyone is out to get you. You can either believe that GM cherry picked this stat to create controversy about Luka, or you can believe that this is just another GM post about impact which there are one million of on this forum

Thank you.

What a coincidence it would be that the "cherry picked" numbers I used are the same numbers I've consistently relied on across data sets, and that the double negative (at the time) only applied to Doncic. I must have been really lucky for that to work out in favor of my agenda

[StatLine]

This is Kyle Kuzma's thread

[VanWest82]

Do you even realize what your are saying? Nobody in the NBA right now affects his team as much as Tatum does. The Celtics have the best record in basketball, and Tatum is the guy who is doing the most to accomplish that. Yes, he had a bad (OK really bad) shooting game, any yet he still had a positive affect on the game. Is he perfect? Of course not. Can he improve aspects of his game? Of course. But right now, whenever he's on the floor, he is helping his team win more than anybody else in the league (again, by quite a wide margin). If you think that is over-rated, I don't know what to say. Tatum's reputation is growing quickly this season as not just an offensive player, but as an all-around player. He is one of the better defenders on the team, as well as one of their first choices on the offensive end. The Celtics are a much better team whenever Tatum is on the floor, and yet you seem to think that he is over-rated, or that he's not living up to his reputation. What does he have to do to impress you? Does he need to score 40 points a game? Does he need to average a triple double? Right now he's doing exactly what Boston needs him to do, and he's doing it at an incredible rate (better than any other name you can throw out there). Not only is Tatum living up to his reputation, but he's playing much better than it.

You think Tatum is one of the best players in the NBA? My lawd. I'm a fan of the player but his advanced numbers literally paint him as a league average player. This TS% is hovering around .500 right now. If anything Tatum performing so well in on/off shows you how meaningless it is.

Of course I don't think Tatum is one of the best players in the league (not even close). That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about players who impact the game. When Tatum is on the floor, he has a huge impact on the game. The Celtics are better when he is on the floor by a large amount. Whether it's his offense or his defense or whatever else he does, he helps his team play better by a very large margin. When somebody (like the original poster I responded to) says that he doesn't impact the game that is extremely foolish.
If the name of this thread was "Who is the best player in the league?" and I said Tatum, sure that would be dumb. But it's simply asking which players don't live up to their reputation when it comes to impacting a game, and there is absolutely no way that you can say that Tatum doesn't have a huge impact on the game (which his +/- numbers clearly show).

1. In your very second sentence you say "nobody in the NBA right now affects his team as much as Tatum does." You are essentially implying that Tatum is one of the best players in the NBA with that statement given that 'how a player impacts his team' is one of the central criteria for determining player worth. The question asked by LipSkinMatter was appropriate given what you said.

2. I absolutely did not say Tatum doesn't impact the game. I said he doesn't impact the game at a star level, and that his reputation among NBA fans, and Celtics fans in particular, is greater than his actual on court impact which as you said is exactly what this thread is about.

[DiogoLandim]

GM clearly doesn't like Luka. There are multiple threads of evidence and dozens of posts that confirm that. That's not hating on someone for disagreeing or kissing Luka's ass. It's being honest.

Not gonna lie, this is an irritating post. As an authority over myself I know it's completely untrue.

The only reasons I can think of for you saying that are (a) preferring Embiid/Simmons to Doncic/KP and (b) my opinion that Simmons/Doncic was a toss up going into the season. I still wholeheartedly agree with the former, but based on Luka's start to the season I now take him over Ben. That doesn't mean I feel badly about my assessment before the season, because Ben was better just last year. The transition from rookie to sophomore season is more unpredictable than any other.

Without providing posts to defend such a claim, you shouldn't be making it in the first place. I'm not an agenda poster and frankly I take offense to the accusation. Maybe you were misled by the narrative being painted by my friend BoB, but other than that I have no idea why you would say that.

Marcus never liked Doncic. You can write in a polite way, try to "uncover" the magic behind player impact using +/- as the true measure, this fact won't change. The fact that we even had a lot of people agreeing with him in this post is laughabe.

Sometimes I wonder how many people really watch games in this forum, to someone think that THJ and Delon are more impactful players on that team haha. I'll glad bump this thread by the end of the season, already knowing he'll be locked, like some recent topics with terrible assertments from mods.

What's laughable is your lack of comprehension to think I ever said THJ/Delon are more impactful. But more importantly, read my above response to Ambrose. If you can't back it up with evidence then don't say it. I know for a fact it's untrue, so out of genuine curiosity I'd like to know what compelled you to make that accusation.

Also idk what you're implying about locking threads. If that was my intention I would have done so already. All kinds of false accusations floating around... If you can't back it up, don't say it.

Lack of comprehension hum. You use criteria X to qualify something. A is bad because his X sucks, but B is bad as well despite of their good X? You lack coherence.

You have been defensive about Doncic since the Simmons comparisions. This thread has ultimately this only objective, make yourself feel better about Simmons, whilte portraiting Doncic as a net negative player. And please, without euphemism, that's how you portrayed.

I don't wanna sound over defensive, since I have nothing to gain defending A or B, or have any blind passion about the matter. But this Is a well written petty thread.

[GeorgeMarcus]

GM clearly doesn't like Luka. There are multiple threads of evidence and dozens of posts that confirm that. That's not hating on someone for disagreeing or kissing Luka's ass. It's being honest.

Not gonna lie, this is an irritating post. As an authority over myself I know it's completely untrue.

The only reasons I can think of for you saying that are (a) preferring Embiid/Simmons to Doncic/KP and (b) my opinion that Simmons/Doncic was a toss up going into the season. I still wholeheartedly agree with the former, but based on Luka's start to the season I now take him over Ben. That doesn't mean I feel badly about my assessment before the season, because Ben was better just last year. The transition from rookie to sophomore season is more unpredictable than any other.

Without providing posts to defend such a claim, you shouldn't be making it in the first place. I'm not an agenda poster and frankly I take offense to the accusation. Maybe you were misled by the narrative being painted by my friend BoB, but other than that I have no idea why you would say that.

Marcus never liked Doncic. You can write in a polite way, try to "uncover" the magic behind player impact using +/- as the true measure, this fact won't change. The fact that we even had a lot of people agreeing with him in this post is laughabe.

Sometimes I wonder how many people really watch games in this forum, to someone think that THJ and Delon are more impactful players on that team haha. I'll glad bump this thread by the end of the season, already knowing he'll be locked, like some recent topics with terrible assertments from mods.

What's laughable is your lack of comprehension to think I ever said THJ/Delon are more impactful. But more importantly, read my above response to Ambrose. If you can't back it up with evidence then don't say it. I know for a fact it's untrue, so out of genuine curiosity I'd like to know what compelled you to make that accusation.

Also idk what you're implying about locking threads. If that was my intention I would have done so already. All kinds of false accusations floating around... If you can't back it up, don't say it.

Lack of comprehension hum. You use criteria X to qualify something. A is bad because his X sucks, but B is bad as well despite of their good X? You lack coherence.

You have been defensive about Doncic since the Simmons comparisions. This thread has ultimately this only objective, make yourself feel better about Simmons, whilte portraiting Doncic as a net negative player. And please, without euphemism, that's how you portrayed.

I don't wanna sound over defensive, since I have nothing to gain defending A or B, or have any blind passion about the matter. But this Is a well written petty thread.

Yes, lack of comprehension. Went over this pretty relentlessly already but here's a post that might help you understand:

Consider this an exact analogy for the disconnect in our conversation:
Person A: the Blazers are 4-8 so I don't think they're a contender this year
Person B: going 4-8 doesn't mean they're a subpar team
Person A: True- it doesn't mean that- but it does mean they lost more games than they won, which I used to support my theory about not being a contender.

My last post about Luka prior to your accusations about my agenda:

Going by the box score, that's one of the most impressive halves of basketball I've ever seen.

Ultimately you're wrong on both accounts. If you want to attribute other conclusions to me that I didn't make (when the exact wording is in the OP) or make unfounded accusations without presenting evidence then it's probably you that has the agenda.

[Knosh]

Read on Twitter

It's official now. Luka best Maverick of all time, Powell in third place.

[Bob8]

We have easily 10+ indicators that say the exact opposite of what the OP is proposing based on two stats that are saying primarily something about the lineups Luka is carrying than anything else. It is far more likely that this is cherry picking for the sake of controversy than anything else.

Or this is something that OP believes in (which he talked about why it may be significant) and applies to every players he analyzes. Not everyone is out to get you. You can either believe that GM cherry picked this stat to create controversy about Luka, or you can believe that this is just another GM post about impact which there are one million of on this forum

Thank you.

What a coincidence it would be that the "cherry picked" numbers I used are the same numbers I've consistently relied on across data sets, and that the double negative (at the time) only applied to Doncic. I must have been really lucky for that to work out in favor of my agenda

To be honest you have been really lucky, because few games later not only Luka is not double negative, but more than few others in top 60 SI are double negative. Players like Beal for example. It’s obvious that negative +/- is more correlated with playing with bad teammates than with your personal performance.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Or this is something that OP believes in (which he talked about why it may be significant) and applies to every players he analyzes. Not everyone is out to get you. You can either believe that GM cherry picked this stat to create controversy about Luka, or you can believe that this is just another GM post about impact which there are one million of on this forum

Thank you.

What a coincidence it would be that the "cherry picked" numbers I used are the same numbers I've consistently relied on across data sets, and that the double negative (at the time) only applied to Doncic. I must have been really lucky for that to work out in favor of my agenda

To be honest you have been really lucky, because few games later not only Luka is not double negative, but more than few others in top 60 SI are double negative. Players like Beal for example. It’s obvious that negative +/- is more correlated with playing with bad teammates than with your personal performance.

You realize the data was from last year, right? So they couldn’t possibly have changed lol

[Bob8]

Not gonna lie, this is an irritating post. As an authority over myself I know it's completely untrue.

The only reasons I can think of for you saying that are (a) preferring Embiid/Simmons to Doncic/KP and (b) my opinion that Simmons/Doncic was a toss up going into the season. I still wholeheartedly agree with the former, but based on Luka's start to the season I now take him over Ben. That doesn't mean I feel badly about my assessment before the season, because Ben was better just last year. The transition from rookie to sophomore season is more unpredictable than any other.

Without providing posts to defend such a claim, you shouldn't be making it in the first place. I'm not an agenda poster and frankly I take offense to the accusation. Maybe you were misled by the narrative being painted by my friend BoB, but other than that I have no idea why you would say that.



What's laughable is your lack of comprehension to think I ever said THJ/Delon are more impactful. But more importantly, read my above response to Ambrose. If you can't back it up with evidence then don't say it. I know for a fact it's untrue, so out of genuine curiosity I'd like to know what compelled you to make that accusation.

Also idk what you're implying about locking threads. If that was my intention I would have done so already. All kinds of false accusations floating around... If you can't back it up, don't say it.

Lack of comprehension hum. You use criteria X to qualify something. A is bad because his X sucks, but B is bad as well despite of their good X? You lack coherence.

You have been defensive about Doncic since the Simmons comparisions. This thread has ultimately this only objective, make yourself feel better about Simmons, whilte portraiting Doncic as a net negative player. And please, without euphemism, that's how you portrayed.

I don't wanna sound over defensive, since I have nothing to gain defending A or B, or have any blind passion about the matter. But this Is a well written petty thread.

Yes, lack of comprehension. Went over this pretty relentlessly already but here's a post that might help you understand:

Consider this an exact analogy for the disconnect in our conversation:
Person A: the Blazers are 4-8 so I don't think they're a contender this year
Person B: going 4-8 doesn't mean they're a subpar team
Person A: True- it doesn't mean that- but it does mean they lost more games than they won, which I used to support my theory about not being a contender.

My last post about Luka prior to your accusations about my agenda:

Going by the box score, that's one of the most impressive halves of basketball I've ever seen.

Ultimately you're wrong on both accounts. If you want to attribute other conclusions to me that I didn't make (when the exact wording is in the OP) or make unfounded accusations without presenting evidence then it's probably you that has the agenda.

My I said that your last positive comment about Luka was not in this thread and it was made, when it was painfully obvious how wrong you were about him.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Lack of comprehension hum. You use criteria X to qualify something. A is bad because his X sucks, but B is bad as well despite of their good X? You lack coherence.

You have been defensive about Doncic since the Simmons comparisions. This thread has ultimately this only objective, make yourself feel better about Simmons, whilte portraiting Doncic as a net negative player. And please, without euphemism, that's how you portrayed.

I don't wanna sound over defensive, since I have nothing to gain defending A or B, or have any blind passion about the matter. But this Is a well written petty thread.

Yes, lack of comprehension. Went over this pretty relentlessly already but here's a post that might help you understand:

Consider this an exact analogy for the disconnect in our conversation:
Person A: the Blazers are 4-8 so I don't think they're a contender this year
Person B: going 4-8 doesn't mean they're a subpar team
Person A: True- it doesn't mean that- but it does mean they lost more games than they won, which I used to support my theory about not being a contender.

My last post about Luka prior to your accusations about my agenda:

Going by the box score, that's one of the most impressive halves of basketball I've ever seen.

Ultimately you're wrong on both accounts. If you want to attribute other conclusions to me that I didn't make (when the exact wording is in the OP) or make unfounded accusations without presenting evidence then it's probably you that has the agenda.

My I said that your last positive comment about Luka was not in this thread and it was made, when it was painfully obvious how wrong you were about him.

I don’t know what that posts means but your shtick is getting tiresome

[Bob8]

Thank you.

What a coincidence it would be that the "cherry picked" numbers I used are the same numbers I've consistently relied on across data sets, and that the double negative (at the time) only applied to Doncic. I must have been really lucky for that to work out in favor of my agenda

To be honest you have been really lucky, because few games later not only Luka is not double negative, but more than few others in top 60 SI are double negative. Players like Beal for example. It’s obvious that negative +/- is more correlated with playing with bad teammates than with your personal performance.

You realize the data was from last year, right? So they couldn’t possibly have change lol

First 10 games too?

You understand how wrong it is to use last year +/- data to make conclusions about present time? +/- data is about lineups and lineups are in many teams very different than last year. Luka for example started last year with DSJ, Wes, Barnes and Jordan. In January all starters were trades and totally new lineup was made and this year he has totally new lineups again. So please explain to me, what has lineup DSJ, Luka, Wes, Barnes, Jordan with Luka, Curry, DFS, Kp, Powell? You’re using previous data like its the same lineup.

[Bob8]

Yes, lack of comprehension. Went over this pretty relentlessly already but here's a post that might help you understand:


My last post about Luka prior to your accusations about my agenda:


Ultimately you're wrong on both accounts. If you want to attribute other conclusions to me that I didn't make (when the exact wording is in the OP) or make unfounded accusations without presenting evidence then it's probably you that has the agenda.

My I said that your last positive comment about Luka was not in this thread and it was made, when it was painfully obvious how wrong you were about him.

I don’t know what that posts means but your shtick is getting tiresome

You will understand when RAPM will be available.

[GeorgeMarcus]

To be honest you have been really lucky, because few games later not only Luka is not double negative, but more than few others in top 60 SI are double negative. Players like Beal for example. It’s obvious that negative +/- is more correlated with playing with bad teammates than with your personal performance.

You realize the data was from last year, right? So they couldn’t possibly have change lol

First 10 games too?

You understand how wrong it is to use last year +/- data to make conclusions about present time? +/- data is about lineups and lineups are in many teams very different than last year. Luka for example started last year with DSJ, Wes, Barnes and Jordan. In January all starters were trades and totally new lineup was made and this year he has totally new lineups again. So please explain to me, what has lineup DSJ, Luka, Wes, Barnes, Jordan with Luka, Curry, DFS, Kp, Powell? You’re using previous data like its the same lineup.

+/- and on/off data in conjunction, involving comparisons with other starters who would have been burdened by the same problems. So different from what you're saying. I described my approach in the OP in great detail and there's really no sense in talking in circles again about this.

[Bob8]

You realize the data was from last year, right? So they couldn’t possibly have change lol

First 10 games too?

You understand how wrong it is to use last year +/- data to make conclusions about present time? +/- data is about lineups and lineups are in many teams very different than last year. Luka for example started last year with DSJ, Wes, Barnes and Jordan. In January all starters were trades and totally new lineup was made and this year he has totally new lineups again. So please explain to me, what has lineup DSJ, Luka, Wes, Barnes, Jordan with Luka, Curry, DFS, Kp, Powell? You’re using previous data like its the same lineup.

+/- and on/off data in conjunction, involving comparisons with other starters who would have been burdened by the same problems. So different from what you're saying. I described my approach in the OP in great detail and there's really no sense in talking in circles again about this.

And you don’t believe your approach can be wrong? What if other stats like RAPM shows totally different picture?

[GeorgeMarcus]

You will understand when RAPM will be available.

Ok then. I referenced RAPM being negative last year which kind of debunks your teammate argument, but it does look like Luka has improved demonstrably from last year. I even stated that referencing the 11 game sample this year seems like it was premature. But in the same sense, it's premature to drastically change my opinion after a few big games. So let's wait and see what happens.

First 10 games too?

You understand how wrong it is to use last year +/- data to make conclusions about present time? +/- data is about lineups and lineups are in many teams very different than last year. Luka for example started last year with DSJ, Wes, Barnes and Jordan. In January all starters were trades and totally new lineup was made and this year he has totally new lineups again. So please explain to me, what has lineup DSJ, Luka, Wes, Barnes, Jordan with Luka, Curry, DFS, Kp, Powell? You’re using previous data like its the same lineup.

+/- and on/off data in conjunction, involving comparisons with other starters who would have been burdened by the same problems. So different from what you're saying. I described my approach in the OP in great detail and there's really no sense in talking in circles again about this.

And you don’t believe your approach can be wrong? What if other stats like RAPM shows totally different picture?

My approach isn't "wrong" but statistical anomalies do exist.

[Bob8]

You will understand when RAPM will be available.

Ok then. I referenced RAPM being negative last year which kind of debunks your teammate argument, but it does look like Luka has improved demonstrably from last year. I even stated that referencing the 11 game sample this year seems like it was premature. But in the same sense, it's premature to drastically change my opinion after a few big games. So let's wait and see what happens.

+/- and on/off data in conjunction, involving comparisons with other starters who would have been burdened by the same problems. So different from what you're saying. I described my approach in the OP in great detail and there's really no sense in talking in circles again about this.

And you don’t believe your approach can be wrong? What if other stats like RAPM shows totally different picture?

My approach isn't "wrong" but statistical anomalies do exist.

We all know that Mavs and Luka played bad after the trades last year. It manifested in Mavs results and Luka’s advanced stats, which were all down after the trade. But this years Luka and Mavs play much better, visually and all Luka’s available stats, counting and advanced skyrocketed. It’s obvious than this years Luka and last years Luka don’t have much in common. Luka plays in totally different level. So your biggest problem is with assumption that this years Luka and last years Luka are similar players, which eye test all and stats say they are not.

Why your approach can be wrong? If eye test and all advanced stats are showing totally different picture, it’s not about anomalies but about fundamentally wrong thesis.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Why your approach can be wrong? If eye test and all advanced stats are showing totally different picture, it’s not about anomalies but about fundamentally wrong thesis.

I don't think my approach is as narrow as you seem to think. I've posted exactly 5 threads on player/team impact insights in the last 1-2 years:

1) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1768784&p=70316129&hilit=kyrie#p70316129

Got mocked for it; Celtics got worse after adding Kyrie.


2) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1815082&p=73535602&hilit=sixers#p73535602
3) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1822234&p=73989559&hilit=unheralded#p73989559

Embiid and Lowry finished #1 and #2 respectively in Playoff RAPM (the threads were posted during the RS)


4) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1876929&p=77878482&hilit=nets#p77878482

Got mocked again. The Nets are currently 6-8 with one of the easier schedules in the league.


5) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1882311&p=78121443&hilit=San+Antonio#p78121443

Spurs are currently 5-10 with an even easier schedule than the Nets. Less "mocking" but a consensus that I was wrong (which continued in my seasons predictions thread).


If you want more insight into my not-so-narrow approach, here is a thread where I delve into it further: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1892076&p=78520653&hilit=impact#p78520653


So with regard to my approach being "wrong"... A baseball player doesn't change his swing every time he strikes out.

[Bob8]

Why your approach can be wrong? If eye test and all advanced stats are showing totally different picture, it’s not about anomalies but about fundamentally wrong thesis.

I don't think my approach is as narrow as you seem to think. I've posted exactly 5 threads on player/team impact insights in the last 1-2 years:

1) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1768784&p=70316129&hilit=kyrie#p70316129

Got mocked for it; Celtics got worse after adding Kyrie.


2) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1815082&p=73535602&hilit=sixers#p73535602
3) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1822234&p=73989559&hilit=unheralded#p73989559

Embiid and Lowry finished #1 and #2 respectively in Playoff RPM (the threads were posted during the RS)


4) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1876929&p=77878482&hilit=nets#p77878482

Got mocked again. The Nets are currently 6-8 with one of the easier schedules in the league.


5) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1882311&p=78121443&hilit=San+Antonio#p78121443

Spurs are currently 5-10 with an even easier schedule than the Nets. Less "mocking" but a consensus that I was wrong (which continued in my seasons predictions thread).


If you want more insight into my not-so-narrow approach, here is a thread where I delve into it further: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1892076&p=78520653&hilit=impact#p78520653


So with regard to my approach being "wrong"... A baseball player doesn't change his swing every team he strikes out.

It’s 2 at the morning in my country so pardon me, if I won’t read all your analysis. I’m kinda confused though, if I understand you right, your previous success should prove that +/- on/off analysis works in every condition?

Let’s say that it can work in normal environment, but is it sophomore player, who makes big leap forward in second year and had very specific environment in his first year, 4 starters are normally not traded, really normal case? Especially if we know that your conclusions are mostly based on his very specific rookie year? Is it possible that your conclusions are made on wrong premises, because Luka’s rookie year was very much influenced with the trade in January and you haven’t included in your calculations the jump he made in second year?

I will wait RAPM, RPM and make my final verdict about your analysis.