The Lebron '20 Thread (Pt. 7)

[Doctor MJ]

Not sure why Elgee went with BPM as the acronym for his stat. I always get confused whether he's referring to his own stat or to Box Score Plus Minus

It's a good point actually.

The thing is that what he's doing is BPM, just as much as bkref's is. As such calling it something fundamentally different would be confusing. What do you do when you're doing something in the same family of algorithm but you think your particular flourish is better? I ask not rhetorically, I think it's a hard thing to know.

Maybe he could call it BBPM. Do you think that would be better?

I didn't know it was meant as an improvement on old BPM, but even if it's meant to be an improvement on old BPM, it still results in a different stat. Perhaps he should call it BPMx or BBPM or something. Either would be fine, just to differentiate it. FG% and eFG% are both measuring made shots, but they're different stats and are named differently.

eFG% is a simple adjustment over regular FG% that is clearly useful and easy to define.

There aren't just two people making BPM's though just like there aren't just two people making RAPM's. I completely agree with you that as a consumer of stats the ambiguity is frustrating, but if you're just another guy making a BPM, giving it an entirely new name is confusing and overly self-aggrandizing.

On the other hand, maybe ElGee has enough stature that branding it make sense? I honestly don't know what's best.

[mademan]

I know the situations were different, but anyone else find it hilarious that the Clips gave up more for PG than the Lakers did for AD?

[Doctor MJ]

Not sure why Elgee went with BPM as the acronym for his stat. I always get confused whether he's referring to his own stat or to Box Score Plus Minus

It's a good point actually.

The thing is that what he's doing is BPM, just as much as bkref's is. As such calling it something fundamentally different would be confusing. What do you do when you're doing something in the same family of algorithm but you think your particular flourish is better? I ask not rhetorically, I think it's a hard thing to know.

Maybe he could call it BBPM. Do you think that would be better?

I didn't know it was meant as an improvement on old BPM, but even if it's meant to be an improvement on old BPM, it still results in a different stat. Perhaps he should call it BPMx or BBPM or something. Either would be fine, just to differentiate it. FG% and eFG% are both measuring made shots, but they're different stats and are named differently.

So I'll explain as best I can, with the caveat that I haven't seriously thought about this stuff in a long time so I may say something wrong.

BPM is something that has given weights to various box score categories, or combinations of categories, based upon the apparent impact of those stats league-wide. So if the league-wide regression says that steals are valuable, then steals will get a heavier weight in the actual metric.

And this is where it becomes a problem where we don't actually have things like "Attempted Steals" in the box score. Every time you successfully get a steal it's a big deal, but that doesn't mean guys who gun for steels are overall good defenders. They are gambling and the traditional box score is basically rewarding them for any success they have without dinging them for the problems they cause their team.

Anyhow, once you get those weights, BPM basically operates like PER, WS, WP, etc.

If memory serves, what ElGee has done is create weights by regressing on the game tracking he's personally done, and connections with stats he's created from that such as Opportunities Created.

[xb3at band1tx]

I don't think Bron is the type of shooter anymore that you hope and pray will take wide open 3s lol. He can dust you from out there. Lol they would just get AD to screen him anyway and burn Jokic on the roll or pop

Knicks leaving him wide open this year was straight comedy

Read on Twitter

[thebigbird]

It still amazes me that there was ever a question of whether to trade the ‘young core’ for Anthony Davis.

Read on Twitter

?s=21

[Joey Wheeler]

This makes no sense. Why would Lebron be viewed on a better light for winning this year? It was absolutely never in doubt that he would once he was paired with Davis + he'd have won at any point in the past decade if he was playing with Davis anyway.

What are you talking about? Before the season started most analysts and fans had Clippers and Bucks in the Finals. And then again, before the bubble started, most NBA analysts including respected ones like Lowe had Clippers as the favorites.

Maybe you personally had the Lakers as the favorites but that doesn't change the fact that most people were expecting the Clippers to come out of the West.

But you can't act like that there was never a "doubt" that the Lakers were going to win. Hell, I remember the survey on RGM before the season started had the Lakers as a 4th or 5th seed.

Completely agree. Now I'm not saying "Stop the playoffs now because only the Lakers can win this!", but that's really how it feels right now.

And if this holds out, man, there's going to be a sea change in the league in terms of seeing LeBron compared to how he was before. He was already the Man in the league, but people really thought that Kawhi or Giannis might just plain make LeBron look old. We'll never know what would have happened in 2020 had they not stumbled out early, but regardless, LeBron is about to get placed on a pedestal that people have never been ready to put him on before.

And of course, the Jordan vs LeBron debate is going to burn scorching hot like never before.

7 games tho.

This makes no sense. Why would Lebron be viewed on a better light for winning this year? It was absolutely never in doubt that he would once he was paired with Davis + he'd have won at any point in the past decade if he was playing with Davis anyway.

I mean, Lebron is still superior to Kawhi and Giannis, but not because of winning the title this year. Not to mention AD is superior himself. Jordan vs Lebron, Lebron has been in the league for 17 years, we know who he is by now, he's the same guy he's always been. If you didn't think he was the GOAT or better than Jordan before, no reason to think he is now for winning under circumstances where he'd have won at any other point in his career anyway.

If what I said makes no sense, then you need to get your head out of the ground. The favorite going into the year was the Clippers. Full stop. That's not my opinion, that's what the consensus was.

This is why players ring chase in a nutshell. Lebron and AD are in a situation where they can't lose unless one of them gets injured and them losing more than 1 game in a series is an upset honestly, yet their stock will apparently raise a lot for winning against teams who are clearly inferior and whose best player isn't even remotely close to either of the Lakers top 2.

The Clippers were favorites pre-season because Kawhi was "a winner" and Davis a "stat padding loser", this was never based on reality. Reality: the Clippers are a potential first round out in the playoffs and if you have Lebron and AD on the same team, you can't honestly sell an underdog overcoming the odds story. It's the by far best team winning as they should.

Lebron will win the title every year he's still in his prime and him and Davis are healthy in the playoffs, that doesn't make him better than Jordan, or worse. He's the same guy he's always been, just paired up with another guy who's one of the best players of all-time himself.

[Doctor MJ]

This makes no sense. Why would Lebron be viewed on a better light for winning this year? It was absolutely never in doubt that he would once he was paired with Davis + he'd have won at any point in the past decade if he was playing with Davis anyway.

What are you talking about? Before the season started most analysts and fans had Clippers and Bucks in the Finals. And then again, before the bubble started, most NBA analysts including respected ones like Lowe had Clippers as the favorites.

Maybe you personally had the Lakers as the favorites but that doesn't change the fact that most people were expecting the Clippers to come out of the West.

But you can't act like that there was never a "doubt" that the Lakers were going to win. Hell, I remember the survey on RGM before the season started had the Lakers as a 4th or 5th seed.

This makes no sense. Why would Lebron be viewed on a better light for winning this year? It was absolutely never in doubt that he would once he was paired with Davis + he'd have won at any point in the past decade if he was playing with Davis anyway.

I mean, Lebron is still superior to Kawhi and Giannis, but not because of winning the title this year. Not to mention AD is superior himself. Jordan vs Lebron, Lebron has been in the league for 17 years, we know who he is by now, he's the same guy he's always been. If you didn't think he was the GOAT or better than Jordan before, no reason to think he is now for winning under circumstances where he'd have won at any other point in his career anyway.

If what I said makes no sense, then you need to get your head out of the ground. The favorite going into the year was the Clippers. Full stop. That's not my opinion, that's what the consensus was.

This is why players ring chase in a nutshell. Lebron and AD are in a situation where they can't lose unless one of them gets injured and them losing more than 1 game in a series is an upset honestly, yet their stock will apparently raise a lot for winning against teams who are clearly inferior and whose best player isn't even remotely close to either of the Lakers top 2.

The Clippers were favorites pre-season because Kawhi was "a winner" and Davis a "stat padding loser", this was never based on reality. Reality: the Clippers are a potential first round out in the playoffs and if you have Lebron and AD on the same team, you can't honestly sell an underdog overcoming the odds story. It's the by far best team winning as they should.

Lebron will win the title every year he's still in his prime and him and Davis are healthy in the playoffs, that doesn't make him better than Jordan, or worse. He's the same guy he's always been, just paired up with another guy who's one of the best players of all-time himself.

You're responding to us showing you're not listening to the basic point.

You're entire argument is essentially that anyone who thought the Lakers wouldn't win is an idiot.

You have no idea how immature you come across when you do this.

[Joey Wheeler]

If you didn't think he was the GOAT or better than Jordan before, no reason to think he is now for winning under circumstances where he'd have won at any other point in his career anyway.

If he makes the finals it will be 10 finals as the man spread over 14 years and on 4 vastly different teams.
If they win he will have won with 3 completely different teams, coaches and systems while playing 3 different positions.
Compared to that MJ would look even more like a one-trick pony who won only with the same coach, same role/position, same #2, same system, same conference, same diluted league + similar 50ish-win supporting cast (and outside of that won only a single playoff game [barely]).

Everything you said is entirely narrative-based. Why would any of that make Lebron better or worse at basketball than Jordan? Why is winning with different teams better than winning with just one? Especially given that the NBA is structured for teams to retain their stars. Are we acting like those exact conditions are the only way Jordan could possibly win or something?

[Joey Wheeler]

What are you talking about? Before the season started most analysts and fans had Clippers and Bucks in the Finals. And then again, before the bubble started, most NBA analysts including respected ones like Lowe had Clippers as the favorites.

Maybe you personally had the Lakers as the favorites but that doesn't change the fact that most people were expecting the Clippers to come out of the West.

But you can't act like that there was never a "doubt" that the Lakers were going to win. Hell, I remember the survey on RGM before the season started had the Lakers as a 4th or 5th seed.

If what I said makes no sense, then you need to get your head out of the ground. The favorite going into the year was the Clippers. Full stop. That's not my opinion, that's what the consensus was.

This is why players ring chase in a nutshell. Lebron and AD are in a situation where they can't lose unless one of them gets injured and them losing more than 1 game in a series is an upset honestly, yet their stock will apparently raise a lot for winning against teams who are clearly inferior and whose best player isn't even remotely close to either of the Lakers top 2.

The Clippers were favorites pre-season because Kawhi was "a winner" and Davis a "stat padding loser", this was never based on reality. Reality: the Clippers are a potential first round out in the playoffs and if you have Lebron and AD on the same team, you can't honestly sell an underdog overcoming the odds story. It's the by far best team winning as they should.

Lebron will win the title every year he's still in his prime and him and Davis are healthy in the playoffs, that doesn't make him better than Jordan, or worse. He's the same guy he's always been, just paired up with another guy who's one of the best players of all-time himself.

You're responding to us showing you're not listening to the basic point.

You're entire argument is essentially that anyone who thought the Lakers wouldn't win is an idiot.

You have no idea how immature you come across when you do this.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Being wrong is normal, happens to everyone in all areas, let alone sports debate, I'm proven wrong about sports many times every year. But intelligent people change their views once new evidence comes in.

It was clear to me as soon as the trade was made that the Lakers were going to waltz the playoffs (no hindsight, I said it on this very website), it wasn't so clear for many other people. That's ok, I was higher on AD and his synergy with Lebron than most people; but then the games happened and surely by now it became clear that yeah the Lakers are clearly superior to the rest of the league and Lebron winning isn't some hero overcoming all odds story? In fact "Lebron winning" is a very questionable narrative in itself at best, since AD's role in that victory is an enormous one.

Pre-season, many people thought the Clippers would win and the Lakers were going to be a low seed in the West. Ok. But this has proven to be completely off base and based on very faulty premises (Kawhi being untouchable, AD a stat padding loser...), so why would credit be attributed to Lebron on the basis of this assessment?

[JordansBulls]

I know the situations were different, but anyone else find it hilarious that the Clips gave up more for PG than the Lakers did for AD?

It's the Clippers. The Lakers usually don't overpay for stars in trades.

[Doctor MJ]

You're responding to us showing you're not listening to the basic point.

You're entire argument is essentially that anyone who thought the Lakers wouldn't win is an idiot.

You have no idea how immature you come across when you do this.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Being wrong is normal, happens to everyone in all areas, let alone sports debate, I'm proven wrong about sports many times every year. But intelligent people change their views once new evidence comes in.

It was clear to me as soon as the trade was made that the Lakers were going to waltz the playoffs (no hindsight, I said it on this very website), it wasn't so clear for many other people. That's ok, I was higher on AD and his synergy with Lebron than most people; but then the games happened and surely by now it became clear that yeah the Lakers are clearly superior to the rest of the league and Lebron winning isn't some hero overcoming all odds story? In fact "Lebron winning" is a very questionable narrative in itself at best, since AD's role in that victory is an enormous one.

Pre-season, many people thought the Clippers would win and the Lakers were going to be a low seed in the West. Ok. But this has proven to be completely off base and based on very faulty premises (Kawhi being untouchable, AD a stat padding loser...), so why would credit be attributed to Lebron on the basis of this assessment?

Again, you're not realizing that everyone here has already perfectly diagnosed what you're doing. You keep saying "No, I'm not" and then doing it again.

That's lovely you knew the Lakers would waltz through the playoffs, I hope you bet a million bucks on it ahead of time because obviously to the rest of the world it was not so obvious. If you believed as you did and came to the right conclusion because you're so smart, then be smart enough to listen to us as we try to explain something obvious to everyone but you.

[ardee]

I'm a Bill Simmons fan but the guy REALLY hates LeBron AND the Lakers so much that having them be the same thing AND looking like heavy favorites right now is making him generate some of his worst takes ever.

He literally said in a podcast that he expects a 2004 Pistons-Lakers type series with Heat-Lakers his only justification is that the Heat are deep and will be underdogs.

I can't believe he compared the most dysfunctional Laker team to ever make the Finals with two warring stars (neither of whom were playing at their best) to this perfectly oiled machine that has LeBron and AD absolutely killing it.

This team is more like the 2001 Lakers than any other Laker team before it.

[JordansBulls]

This makes no sense. Why would Lebron be viewed on a better light for winning this year? It was absolutely never in doubt that he would once he was paired with Davis + he'd have won at any point in the past decade if he was playing with Davis anyway.

What are you talking about? Before the season started most analysts and fans had Clippers and Bucks in the Finals. And then again, before the bubble started, most NBA analysts including respected ones like Lowe had Clippers as the favorites.

Maybe you personally had the Lakers as the favorites but that doesn't change the fact that most people were expecting the Clippers to come out of the West.

But you can't act like that there was never a "doubt" that the Lakers were going to win. Hell, I remember the survey on RGM before the season started had the Lakers as a 4th or 5th seed.

Vegas pre season over/under wins for western teams (per basketball reference)

Rockets 54.0
Clippers 53.5
Utah 53.5
Nuggets 53.0
Lakers 50.5

The wins are correct but the favorites were the Clippers followed by the Lakers. I am sure that is mainly because of Kawhi.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2020_preseason_odds.html

The Cavs were the preseason favorites in 2016 over GSW as well.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016_preseason_odds.html

Some other notable ones of teams that won it all and where they were predicted to win.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2011_preseason_odds.html (Dallas 7th)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2014_preseason_odds.html (San Antonio 6th)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015_preseason_odds.html (Golden State 8th)

[Doctor MJ]

I know the situations were different, but anyone else find it hilarious that the Clips gave up more for PG than the Lakers did for AD?

Oh it always was.

In the Clippers' defense, that appears to have been the only way to get Kawhi, and it appears that the trading partner (OKC) absolutely understood they had the Clippers over a barrel.

Right at this time I find myself really knocking Kawhi hard specifically because it doesn't seem like he was even interested in George specifically, he just wanted another superstar, and the way George played last year made him qualify. He doesn't have done an evaluation of what he actually needed in order to thrive. He seems to have thought that playing for Pop and Nurse was normal, and that if he had another superstar next to him things would only be easier. He plays the game as individualist, he leads like an individualist, and evaluates team needs like an individualist, and it absolutely burned him here.

I've been very critical of LeBron at various points in his career and do not consider the Laker F.O. to be all that competent so I don't want to be too rosy here, but it really seems to me that LeBron had a good sense of why AD would be a great fit for him, and now that seems to be making all the difference.

Of course, it's entirely possible that different match ups would've yielded very different results. The Clippers can absolutely be argued to have been built to take on LeBron, and so maybe in another universe they do so and win and we see things differently.

What's undeniable though is that the Clippers' fit looked clunky out there, and guys seemed uncertain and unconfident. The Lakers by contrast are getting malcontents to look their best again. That stuff matters.

[PaulieWal]

I'm a Bill Simmons fan but the guy REALLY hates LeBron AND the Lakers so much that having them be the same thing AND looking like heavy favorites right now is making him generate some of his worst takes ever.

He literally said in a podcast that he expects a 2004 Pistons-Lakers type series with Heat-Lakers his only justification is that the Heat are deep and will be underdogs.

I can't believe he compared the most dysfunctional Laker team to ever make the Finals with two warring stars (neither of whom were playing at their best) to this perfectly oiled machine that has LeBron and AD absolutely killing it.

This team is more like the 2001 Lakers than any other Laker team before it.

I don't want to hate on the guy because he's worth a few $100MM and has built a huge media empire but as my understanding of basketball gets better, I am realizing he's just a more polished and slicker Skip Bayless. He knows the history of the game but as an analyst I don't think he's worth anything. It reminds me of when Mark Cuban asked Skip why do you play a zone in the NBA and Skip legit did not know the answer

Simmons is basically that but he just doesn't do outrageous hot takes and is a pop culture savant.

[Heej]

I'm a Bill Simmons fan but the guy REALLY hates LeBron AND the Lakers so much that having them be the same thing AND looking like heavy favorites right now is making him generate some of his worst takes ever.

He literally said in a podcast that he expects a 2004 Pistons-Lakers type series with Heat-Lakers his only justification is that the Heat are deep and will be underdogs.

I can't believe he compared the most dysfunctional Laker team to ever make the Finals with two warring stars (neither of whom were playing at their best) to this perfectly oiled machine that has LeBron and AD absolutely killing it.

This team is more like the 2001 Lakers than any other Laker team before it.

I don't want to hate on the guy because he's worth a few $100MM and has built a huge media empire but as my understanding of basketball gets better, I am realizing he's just a more polished and slicker Skip Bayless. He knows the history of the game but as an analyst I don't think he's worth anything. It reminds me of when Mark Cuban asked Skip why do you play a zone in the NBA and Skip legit did not know the answer

Simmons is basically that but he just doesn't do outrageous hot takes and is a pop culture savant.

I stopped listening to him for a while but started up again, and to his defense he actually tries to understand basketball. Like he talks about watching Coach Nick from Bballbreakdown a lot. To me that's indicative of someone trying to understand the game, and I personally think Coach Nick is one of the better breakdown channels out there; especially from a production standpoint.


I think he understands the game at a macro level, like a spiritual understanding of it. He has really high EQ imo and like he just gets how teams and players feel and will react at certain junctures and how the flow of a series goes and when momentum gets shifted. But he is what he is. A Celtics fan. They have a strange complex towards LeBron as a fanbase because to them he's basically the kid they used to pick on but one day he grew up and started beating their ass and never looked back. On top of that he joined their eternal rival and has an outside shot at dragging them past the Celtics in terms of the title total.

I don't think his bball IQ is particularly high beyond a surface level understanding of schemes and whatnot, and he'll never be able to look at LeBron objectively again after that Game 6 back in 2012. Bron's lived rent-free in his head ever since.

[JordansBulls]

I know the situations were different, but anyone else find it hilarious that the Clips gave up more for PG than the Lakers did for AD?

Oh it always was.

In the Clippers' defense, that appears to have been the only way to get Kawhi, and it appears that the trading partner (OKC) absolutely understood they had the Clippers over a barrel.

Right at this time I find myself really knocking Kawhi hard specifically because it doesn't seem like he was even interested in George specifically, he just wanted another superstar, and the way George played last year made him qualify. He doesn't have done an evaluation of what he actually needed in order to thrive. He seems to have thought that playing for Pop and Nurse was normal, and that if he had another superstar next to him things would only be easier. He plays the game as individualist, he leads like an individualist, and evaluates team needs like an individualist, and it absolutely burned him here.

I've been very critical of LeBron at various points in his career and do not consider the Laker F.O. to be all that competent so I don't want to be too rosy here, but it really seems to me that LeBron had a good sense of why AD would be a great fit for him, and now that seems to be making all the difference.

Of course, it's entirely possible that different match ups would've yielded very different results. The Clippers can absolutely be argued to have been built to take on LeBron, and so maybe in another universe they do so and win and we see things differently.

What's undeniable though is that the Clippers' fit looked clunky out there, and guys seemed uncertain and unconfident. The Lakers by contrast are getting malcontents to look their best again. That stuff matters.

I also think the Clippers guys didn't keep themselves in shape either. Lou and Montrell were gone most of the bubble. It is also why they probably could get big leads and then blow them since they couldn't keep up the pace. It is probably why there defense was virtually non existent as well.

[Joey Wheeler]

You're responding to us showing you're not listening to the basic point.

You're entire argument is essentially that anyone who thought the Lakers wouldn't win is an idiot.

You have no idea how immature you come across when you do this.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Being wrong is normal, happens to everyone in all areas, let alone sports debate, I'm proven wrong about sports many times every year. But intelligent people change their views once new evidence comes in.

It was clear to me as soon as the trade was made that the Lakers were going to waltz the playoffs (no hindsight, I said it on this very website), it wasn't so clear for many other people. That's ok, I was higher on AD and his synergy with Lebron than most people; but then the games happened and surely by now it became clear that yeah the Lakers are clearly superior to the rest of the league and Lebron winning isn't some hero overcoming all odds story? In fact "Lebron winning" is a very questionable narrative in itself at best, since AD's role in that victory is an enormous one.

Pre-season, many people thought the Clippers would win and the Lakers were going to be a low seed in the West. Ok. But this has proven to be completely off base and based on very faulty premises (Kawhi being untouchable, AD a stat padding loser...), so why would credit be attributed to Lebron on the basis of this assessment?

Again, you're not realizing that everyone here has already perfectly diagnosed what you're doing. You keep saying "No, I'm not" and then doing it again.

That's lovely you knew the Lakers would waltz through the playoffs, I hope you bet a million bucks on it ahead of time because obviously to the rest of the world it was not so obvious. If you believed as you did and came to the right conclusion because you're so smart, then be smart enough to listen to us as we try to explain something obvious to everyone but you.

This discussion is being severely hindered by your combativeness/need to be right. I concede: you know 1000x about basketball than I do and I'm an idiot. Do you want a list of all my wrong basketball takes to corroborate this? Now maybe we can get this unnecessary dick measuring contest out of the way and focus more on substance?

Pre-season, the Clippers were favorites to win and the lakers were expected to be a low seed, ok, we've established this. Do you believe these expectations were realistic or grounded in solid premises/reality? Conversely, do you think this should be the baseline to judge Lebron and other players and teams? The Utah Jazz were expected to outperform the Lakers this season, is this seriously the baseline we're going to use to evaluate players? Or should we maybe adjust expectations based on what transpired on the court?

Are we really going to stick with "Clippers were the favorites and Lakers overcame the odds to win" as a huge achievement by Lebron narrative?

Let's go with a different example: the Warriors in 2015 weren't expected to win by almost anyone. Then they won and began a run; what would be the appropriate reaction? 1) Wow, they totally defied the odds, Curry GOAT and better than Lebron (who was expected to win) now or 2) Hmm ok looking back with new evidence available, we should have seen this coming?

[MisterHibachi]

It's a good point actually.

The thing is that what he's doing is BPM, just as much as bkref's is. As such calling it something fundamentally different would be confusing. What do you do when you're doing something in the same family of algorithm but you think your particular flourish is better? I ask not rhetorically, I think it's a hard thing to know.

Maybe he could call it BBPM. Do you think that would be better?

I didn't know it was meant as an improvement on old BPM, but even if it's meant to be an improvement on old BPM, it still results in a different stat. Perhaps he should call it BPMx or BBPM or something. Either would be fine, just to differentiate it. FG% and eFG% are both measuring made shots, but they're different stats and are named differently.

So I'll explain as best I can, with the caveat that I haven't seriously thought about this stuff in a long time so I may say something wrong.

BPM is something that has given weights to various box score categories, or combinations of categories, based upon the apparent impact of those stats league-wide. So if the league-wide regression says that steals are valuable, then steals will get a heavier weight in the actual metric.

And this is where it becomes a problem where we don't actually have things like "Attempted Steals" in the box score. Every time you successfully get a steal it's a big deal, but that doesn't mean guys who gun for steels are overall good defenders. They are gambling and the traditional box score is basically rewarding them for any success they have without dinging them for the problems they cause their team.

Anyhow, once you get those weights, BPM basically operates like PER, WS, WP, etc.

If memory serves, what ElGee has done is create weights by regressing on the game tracking he's personally done, and connections with stats he's created from that such as Opportunities Created.

All good points. To be clear, I wasn't commenting on the efficacy of Elgee's BPM, but making a comment on the acronym itself. I'm not informed enough about basketball stats to make a judgement on the former.

[MisterHibachi]

I know the situations were different, but anyone else find it hilarious that the Clips gave up more for PG than the Lakers did for AD?

Oh it always was.

In the Clippers' defense, that appears to have been the only way to get Kawhi, and it appears that the trading partner (OKC) absolutely understood they had the Clippers over a barrel.

Right at this time I find myself really knocking Kawhi hard specifically because it doesn't seem like he was even interested in George specifically, he just wanted another superstar, and the way George played last year made him qualify. He doesn't have done an evaluation of what he actually needed in order to thrive. He seems to have thought that playing for Pop and Nurse was normal, and that if he had another superstar next to him things would only be easier. He plays the game as individualist, he leads like an individualist, and evaluates team needs like an individualist, and it absolutely burned him here.

I've been very critical of LeBron at various points in his career and do not consider the Laker F.O. to be all that competent so I don't want to be too rosy here, but it really seems to me that LeBron had a good sense of why AD would be a great fit for him, and now that seems to be making all the difference.

Of course, it's entirely possible that different match ups would've yielded very different results. The Clippers can absolutely be argued to have been built to take on LeBron, and so maybe in another universe they do so and win and we see things differently.

What's undeniable though is that the Clippers' fit looked clunky out there, and guys seemed uncertain and unconfident. The Lakers by contrast are getting malcontents to look their best again. That stuff matters.

Funny thing is, with the way the Bucks season has gone and Giannis's recent comments about his agents putting him in the best place to win, either in Milwaukee or on another team, there's a chance he asks for a trade, and if the Clippers hadn't unloaded the clip for PG, they could have put together the best package in the league for Giannis.

But even now, they could probably put together a PG/Zubac/Shamet etc package for Embiid, but might be hesitant given how much importance Kawhi placed on getting PG.