Odinn21 wrote:Owly wrote:Plural - "are"
To my ear "lads" (especially in the usage "the lads") hasn't gone as far towards gender neutral as guys, so arguably carries an assumption of gender, which we can't know. This may be more a personal taste thing, doesn't bother me, but maybe could some?
Why on earth "Maybe including yourself" made it in is beyond me. Either you think you've seen it (and presumably outside an "impact on arrival" specific discussion where some players predate it, so it is used as a common tool - even there though, where possible you'd use and find more reliable, RAPM) or you haven't and just choose to hypothesize it.
No what I would do is use RAPM in the first instance and, as here, contextualize major rotation changes if "arrival impact" were used (i.e. Marion, Johnson, Stat, Barbosa stay, Jacobsen and Voskhul stay but minutes are down, Marbury is out, Richardson and Hunter (and Jackson) are added. More stable than the Nets but I don't love it's use and see no virtue over RAPM.
NPI RAPM disagrees somewhat re defense in terms of making the team good (versus just improving, it considers him a big improvement on the terrible Marbury, and good for position, as Jefferson is a huge defensive upgrade on Newman) it suggests multiple drivers of absolute goodness - at a glance this includes: an improved Martin; MacCulloch; Collins and Williams. PI tilts more to him being more of an active driver for good (rather than just an upgrade on bad) especially for the position, even so to say "it was Kidd's play that made the team so good defensively" as if it were a singular cause is dubious.
You probably shouldn't try to think in terms of swing because the within year RAPM is more apples to apples and the previous year with half the roster changing is just introducing unnecessary noise.
RAPM has a further benefit in being comparable with late career Stockton and with Payton (whilst Stockton and Thomas have no "in prime" arrival or departure, I'd argue Payton doesn't either).
I think I'll leave it here. Have a pleasant day.
Even when comparing RAPM numbers in a single season across multiple roles is not apples to apples.
Well for RAPM, given how far Payton is off, it's a two-horse race (Stockton, Kidd - if it's not a one horse race) and then you're comparing strong defensive, pass first point guards. Unless you need the players to be identical to be ... whatever it is you're after I don't know what the point is.
No claim it is perfect nor (even that it is "apples to apples" though hard to see what it is you mean by this). Claim is it is closer to (or "more" of an) apples to apples in that it's the same roster, Kidd is a constant difference between comparison points and other teammates are from a limited pool. Rather than Kidd and half the rotation out versus Kidd and half the rotation in, including time when Kidd is out.
Odinn21 wrote:Claiming there's unnecessary noise in comparing the before and the after seasons of an arrival and hanging onto single season RAPM is not consistent thinking.
Who's "hanging on" to single season RAPM. Single season was used was to compare with a single season of notional arrival impact, if you were to target a season, as you did, for being better at that job. Multi-year is of course much better at eliminating noise and this being possible and being done is just a further advantage over "arrival impact". "Arrival" is somewhat viable, if done thoroughly acknowledging roster changes, if better more precise tools aren't available. Where they are, you choose a method where half the roster changes (and choose not to mention this - and don't mention better tools) because ...
It wasn't the best tool and - given no care for ignoring team turnover - raises concerns about intent.