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

[og15]

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:

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).

Interestingly, the Spurs are 5th in Ortg and 28th in Drtg, and so far, it is actually their inability to defend, not their offense or lack of spacing that is their biggest problem. So while the end result is accurate so far, the proposed cause doesn’t seem to be the reason, we’ll see with a greater sample though.

[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 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?

This is what I mean when I say my approach is not as narrow as you think it is. I come at these questions from a lot of different angles, but always through the lens of "impact". You'll notice the themes of +/- and on/off throughout the threads I posted, but there's not a specific algorithm I use that tells me what to believe.

[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:

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).

Interestingly, the Spurs are 5th in Ortg and 28th in Drtg, and so far, it is actually their inability to defend, not their offense or lack of spacing that is their biggest problem. So while the end result is accurate so far, the proposed cause doesn’t seem to be the reason, we’ll see with a greater sample though.

Beyond that, the Spur that impressed me the most last season (Derrick White) will either need to (A) accept a role reduction or (B) eat into the minutes of their next best floor spacers in Bryn Forbes and Patty Mills.

^^^
This exact phenomenon is forcing Pop's hand into playing worse defenders to compensate for the spacing problem. And even still their offense will likely end up mid tier as they start to play better teams.

[Bob8]

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?

This is what I mean when I say my approach is not as narrow as you think it is. I come at these questions from a lot of different angles, but always through the lens of "impact". You'll notice the themes of +/- and on/off throughout the threads I posted, but there's not a specific algorithm I use that tells me what to believe.

Ok, my last question. You said that you have watched only 2 Mavs games. Wouldn’t watching more games made your analysis even more realistic, included even more data, because actual playing should tell you more than just numbers? For example, Luka’s best game was against Boston, but if you didn’t watch it and just see - 17, your conclusion could be totally wrong. To be honest, I don’t really care what your algorithm or feeling is, if results are clearly wrong. We will see soon enough.

Thanks for nice conversation.

[GeorgeMarcus]

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?

This is what I mean when I say my approach is not as narrow as you think it is. I come at these questions from a lot of different angles, but always through the lens of "impact". You'll notice the themes of +/- and on/off throughout the threads I posted, but there's not a specific algorithm I use that tells me what to believe.

Ok, my last question. You said that you watched only 2 Mavs games. Wouldn’t watching more games made your analysis even more realistic, included even more data, because actual playing should tell you more than just numbers. For example, Luka’s best game was against Boston, but if you didn’t watch it and just see - 17, your conclusion could be totally wrong.

Yes, watching every game would have improved my analysis. I use the eye test to inform the numbers I see, and the numbers to inform my eye test, but the ideal in any case is to be wholly informed on both.

Don't worry, I wouldn't look at the +/- of a single game and jump to any conclusions. Generally I wouldn't do it from 10 games either unless they extend from another dataset like in the OP. But of course the jump from rookie to sophomore year is trickier to judge, so I have no problem admitting my findings were premature. It seems that way at the moment, but time will tell. At this point I expect Luka to maintain firmly positive offensive impact at a minimum.

[og15]

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:

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).

Interestingly, the Spurs are 5th in Ortg and 28th in Drtg, and so far, it is actually their inability to defend, not their offense or lack of spacing that is their biggest problem. So while the end result is accurate so far, the proposed cause doesn’t seem to be the reason, we’ll see with a greater sample though.

Beyond that, the Spur that impressed me the most last season (Derrick White) will either need to (A) accept a role reduction or (B) eat into the minutes of their next best floor spacers in Bryn Forbes and Patty Mills.

^^^
This exact phenomenon is forcing Pop's hand into playing worse defenders to compensate for the spacing problem. And even still their offense will likely end up mid tier as they start to play better teams.

That’s a possibility. He’s only down 2.4 mpg though and Murray an excellent defender also is getting 22.5 mpg, so shouldn’t they be better off defensively than last season when they didn’t have Murray and only had 2.4 more mpg of White? Forbes (27.9 mpg from 28.0 mpg) and Mills (21.7 mpg from 23.3 mpg) are not playing more minutes, so while that thought makes sense, that isn’t their defensive issue right now compared to last season. Murray is replacing minutes of Cunningham and taking some from Belinelli (down about 7 minutes). They were only 19th in Drtg last season, but were 7th in Ortg, so they were winning on offense last season too.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Interestingly, the Spurs are 5th in Ortg and 28th in Drtg, and so far, it is actually their inability to defend, not their offense or lack of spacing that is their biggest problem. So while the end result is accurate so far, the proposed cause doesn’t seem to be the reason, we’ll see with a greater sample though.

Beyond that, the Spur that impressed me the most last season (Derrick White) will either need to (A) accept a role reduction or (B) eat into the minutes of their next best floor spacers in Bryn Forbes and Patty Mills.

^^^
This exact phenomenon is forcing Pop's hand into playing worse defenders to compensate for the spacing problem. And even still their offense will likely end up mid tier as they start to play better teams.

That’s a possibility. He’s only down 2.4 mpg though and Murray an excellent defender also is getting 22.5 mpg, so shouldn’t they be better off defensively than last season when they didn’t have Murray and only had 2.4 more mpg of White? Forbes (27.9 mpg from 28.0 mpg) and Mills (21.7 mpg from 23.3 mpg) are not playing more minutes, so while that thought makes sense, that isn’t their defensive issue right now compared to last season. Murray is replacing minutes of Cunningham and taking some from Belinelli (down about 7 minutes). They were only 19th in Drtg last season, but were 7th in Ortg, so they were winning on offense last season too.

The Spurs being triple-digit positive with Bertans and triple-digit negative without him (while no other Spur was close) jumped out as being very significant. Ultimately the data indicated the "what" as opposed to the "why" and I extended my own speculative interpretation. I still expect their offensive efficiency to take a hit as the season goes on, but I guess time will tell.

[Pg81]

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

Your chosen thread title and your conclusion based on outlier numbers and your refusal to even consider that you are wrong even when all the other accumulated stats and advanced numbers tell you otherwise can easily be interpreted in you pushing a certain agenda. I mean when we take measurements in physics experiments for example there are always outlier numbers, but if the amount of them is very low we do not discard the experiment, we redo it, wait for more data and see what happens. You on the other hand jump to immediate conclusions, even though basically everybody else tells you otherwise. And you wonder that people assume that you re pushing an agenda. I also find your behavior on this matter rather arrogant, despite by your own admission only having watched two games, you seem to behave like you know better than everybody else based on at best two outlier stats you correlate to individual performance.

[Driguez]

Jonathan Isaac, he's just scratching the surface of defensive juggernaut.

[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

Your chosen thread title and your conclusion based on outlier numbers and your refusal to even consider that you are wrong even when all the other accumulated stats and advanced numbers tell you otherwise can easily be interpreted in you pushing a certain agenda. I mean when we take measurements in physics experiments for example there are always outlier numbers, but if the amount of them is very low we do not discard the experiment, we redo it, wait for more data and see what happens. You on the other hand jump to immediate conclusions, even though basically everybody else tells you otherwise. And you wonder that people assume that you re pushing an agenda. I also find your behavior on this matter rather arrogant, despite by your own admission only having watched two games, you seem to behave like you know better than everybody else based on at best two outlier stats you correlate to individual performance.

Marlo Stanfield said it best: "You want it to be one way... But it's the other way."

First you misportrayed my statistical framework/analysis/conclusions (despite having access to the exact words I used), then you misportrayed my motives (which Dirk warned you about/defended my objectivity), and now you accuse me of "refusing to consider that I was wrong" directly after a series of posts where I stated my findings were probably premature. I mean, this is insane.

If you sense arrogance, it's probably the frustration building from your repeated BS. I've been diplomatic up to this point but seriously: take a step back, calm yourself down, and at the very least make sure your accusations aren't direct contradictions to the truth. I suggest not investing so much emotion in other people's opinions.

[ericwright1218]

The thing about Luka is you really have to watch the games, you can't rely on stats like this. Over the last 4 games against the Raptors, Spurs, Warriors and Cavs things have started to turn around, but before that there wasn't a consistent effort from the rest of the team. Luka was frequently the only reason the Mavs were even in games to begin with, so to suggest that he wasn't making an "impact" is crazy. It's basically Luka doing everything with a bunch of spot up shooters out there, and if those guys aren't making their shots the Mavs don't play well. Even Porzingis has been quite the disappointment so far. I thought he was going to be an impact #2 scorer and he has been nothing more than a big ass spot up shooter who doesn't even shoot it that well.

[Pg81]

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

Your chosen thread title and your conclusion based on outlier numbers and your refusal to even consider that you are wrong even when all the other accumulated stats and advanced numbers tell you otherwise can easily be interpreted in you pushing a certain agenda. I mean when we take measurements in physics experiments for example there are always outlier numbers, but if the amount of them is very low we do not discard the experiment, we redo it, wait for more data and see what happens. You on the other hand jump to immediate conclusions, even though basically everybody else tells you otherwise. And you wonder that people assume that you re pushing an agenda. I also find your behavior on this matter rather arrogant, despite by your own admission only having watched two games, you seem to behave like you know better than everybody else based on at best two outlier stats you correlate to individual performance.

Marlo Stanfield said it best: "You want it to be one way... But it's the other way."

First you misportrayed my statistical framework/analysis/conclusions (despite having access to the exact words I used), then you misportrayed my motives (which Dirk warned you about/defended my objectivity), and now you accuse me of "refusing to consider that I was wrong" directly after a series of posts where I stated my findings were probably premature. I mean, this is insane.

If you sense arrogance, it's probably the frustration building from your repeated BS. I've been diplomatic up to this point but seriously: take a step back, calm yourself down, and at the very least make sure your accusations aren't direct contradictions to the truth. I suggest not investing so much emotion in other people's opinions.

Amazing so now you try to interpret from a post how people feel and think over the internet. What about you starting to change the thread title and admit that you were dead wrong? Also funny how you can deflect criticsm by your claim that you were "probably" premature, yet continued to make asinine claims about Doncic's impact. Also I made no accusations, that is my honest impression of you.

[Johnny Firpo]

The very question you're asking doesn't make sense based on the very long/very repetitive conversation we've already had about the stats. If you're asking me who the Mavs best player is, I'd say Luka. A guy like Delon Wright probably rivals his impact though at this stage in his career. KP may as well if he gets his **** together.

Lol

It’s best that we end this conversation. I apparently don’t know nothing about stats, even though I’m using them for my living and you not just apparently but surely don’t know much about Mavs.

Lol is right. Consider the conversation ended.

How in the eff is this crap allowed? You are a moderator, what are you doing man? You can't do this, it's totally going against moderating guidelines, reported.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Your chosen thread title and your conclusion based on outlier numbers and your refusal to even consider that you are wrong even when all the other accumulated stats and advanced numbers tell you otherwise can easily be interpreted in you pushing a certain agenda. I mean when we take measurements in physics experiments for example there are always outlier numbers, but if the amount of them is very low we do not discard the experiment, we redo it, wait for more data and see what happens. You on the other hand jump to immediate conclusions, even though basically everybody else tells you otherwise. And you wonder that people assume that you re pushing an agenda. I also find your behavior on this matter rather arrogant, despite by your own admission only having watched two games, you seem to behave like you know better than everybody else based on at best two outlier stats you correlate to individual performance.

Marlo Stanfield said it best: "You want it to be one way... But it's the other way."

First you misportrayed my statistical framework/analysis/conclusions (despite having access to the exact words I used), then you misportrayed my motives (which Dirk warned you about/defended my objectivity), and now you accuse me of "refusing to consider that I was wrong" directly after a series of posts where I stated my findings were probably premature. I mean, this is insane.

If you sense arrogance, it's probably the frustration building from your repeated BS. I've been diplomatic up to this point but seriously: take a step back, calm yourself down, and at the very least make sure your accusations aren't direct contradictions to the truth. I suggest not investing so much emotion in other people's opinions.

Amazing so now you try to interpret from a post how people feel and think over the internet. What about you starting to change the thread title and admit that you were dead wrong? Also funny how you can deflect criticsm by your claim that you were "probably" premature, yet continued to make asanine claims about Doncic's impact.

"Probably" wasn't in the post. You would know if you read it

But that's the problem here, and has been the problem all along. You never attempted to digest what I was saying or engage in honest discussion. Even BoB made more of an attempt. You want to call me out for 'continuing to make asinine claims'- ok then. What were the claims? If you believe they're asinine I'm sure you can articulate why you think that. Otherwise, it's one more unfounded claim to add to your list.

P.S. It's easy to gage how people feel over the internet based on their tone and patterns of behavior.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Lol

It’s best that we end this conversation. I apparently don’t know nothing about stats, even though I’m using them for my living and you not just apparently but surely don’t know much about Mavs.

Lol is right. Consider the conversation ended.

How in the eff is this crap allowed? You are a moderator, what the eff are you doing man? You can't do this, it's totally going against moderating guidelines, reported.

How the eff is what allowed? ...

[Johnny Firpo]

Lol is right. Consider the conversation ended.

How in the eff is this crap allowed? You are a moderator, what the eff are you doing man? You can't do this, it's totally going against moderating guidelines, reported.

How the eff is what allowed? ...

You are escalating bad posting behavior by returning the insult/mocking of a poster. It doesn't matter that he did the same thing, you should ignore it, that's literally in your job description/guideline, you cannot/shouldn't get personal.

[GeorgeMarcus]

How in the eff is this crap allowed? You are a moderator, what the eff are you doing man? You can't do this, it's totally going against moderating guidelines, reported.

How the eff is what allowed? ...

You are escalating bad posting behavior by returning the insult/mocking of a poster. It doesn't matter that he did the same thing, you should ignore it, that's literally in your job description/guideline, you cannot/shouldn't get personal.

You quoted me saying I was done with the conversation. Where did I insult or mock the poster? Which words, specifically.

[Johnny Firpo]

How the eff is what allowed? ...

You are escalating bad posting behavior by returning the insult/mocking of a poster. It doesn't matter that he did the same thing, you should ignore it, that's literally in your job description/guideline, you cannot/shouldn't get personal.

You quoted me saying I was done with the conversation. Where did I insult or mock the poster? Which words, specifically.

Come on... With the "Lol is right" line, obviously. Also, this part: "If you sense arrogance, it's probably the frustration building from your repeated BS. I've been diplomatic up to this point but seriously: take a step back, calm yourself down, and at the very least make sure your accusations aren't direct contradictions to the truth. I suggest not investing so much emotion in other people's opinions."

There is so much wrong with this reply from a moderating guideline standpoint that it's not even funny. I have never saw a moderator on these forums do this, and I've been here at the general board for 10+ years, actually, probably 15 years if we count the time with my previous account that I lost. This is ridiculous and should not be allowed, but I will leave it at that here and try a different route.

[Bob8]

Marlo Stanfield said it best: "You want it to be one way... But it's the other way."

First you misportrayed my statistical framework/analysis/conclusions (despite having access to the exact words I used), then you misportrayed my motives (which Dirk warned you about/defended my objectivity), and now you accuse me of "refusing to consider that I was wrong" directly after a series of posts where I stated my findings were probably premature. I mean, this is insane.

If you sense arrogance, it's probably the frustration building from your repeated BS. I've been diplomatic up to this point but seriously: take a step back, calm yourself down, and at the very least make sure your accusations aren't direct contradictions to the truth. I suggest not investing so much emotion in other people's opinions.

Amazing so now you try to interpret from a post how people feel and think over the internet. What about you starting to change the thread title and admit that you were dead wrong? Also funny how you can deflect criticsm by your claim that you were "probably" premature, yet continued to make asanine claims about Doncic's impact.

"Probably" wasn't in the post. You would know if you read it

But that's the problem here, and has been the problem all along. You never attempted to digest what I was saying or engage in honest discussion. Even BoB made more of an attempt. You want to call me out for 'continuing to make asinine claims'- ok then. What were the claims? If you believe they're asinine I'm sure you can articulate why you think that. Otherwise, it's one more unfounded claim to add to your list.

P.S. It's easy to gage how people feel over the internet based on their tone and patterns of behavior.

What does, even Bob8 stand for? You have stated that your findings were probably premature after our conversation. It looks to me that my “attempt” was relatively convincing. This ‘even Bob’ sounds very disrespectful.

[GeorgeMarcus]

You are escalating bad posting behavior by returning the insult/mocking of a poster. It doesn't matter that he did the same thing, you should ignore it, that's literally in your job description/guideline, you cannot/shouldn't get personal.

You quoted me saying I was done with the conversation. Where did I insult or mock the poster? Which words, specifically.

Come on... With the "Lol is right" line, obviously. Also, this part: "If you sense arrogance, it's probably the frustration building from your repeated BS. I've been diplomatic up to this point but seriously: take a step back, calm yourself down, and at the very least make sure your accusations aren't direct contradictions to the truth. I suggest not investing so much emotion in other people's opinions."

There is so much wrong with this reply from a moderating guideline standpoint that it's not even funny. I have never saw a moderator on these forums do this, and I'm been here at the general board for 10+ years, actually, probably 15 years if we count the time with my previous account that I lost. This is ridiculous and should not be allowed.

1. The first quote is not a personal attack. I don't see how or why "lol is right" would qualify as one, especially in response to the previous post.

2. The second quote is not a personal attack. It was a warning to a poster repeatedly making false claims/accusations. Demonstrably so. The same poster who took one of my comments out of context, posted it as a thread on the Mavs forum, and gave a title that straight up lied about what I said. Hence why Dirk went in and changed it.

3. You should have PM'd me or one of the other mods about your problem with what I said. This isn't the platform, and qualifies as backseat moderating. I won't strike you for it because I'm not a power hungry dictator, but I am a human being. A human being that spent a lot of time composing a thread, responding to posters and clarifying my argument. More time than I should have probably. I answered BoB's question about "what the stats tell me" 3 separate times, expressed my frustration the 3rd time, and answered him anyway. That's the portion of the conversation you quoted, where he responded with the "Lol" followed by an erroneous claim about working with statistics. So yeah, lol is right.