View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tox Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015 Posts: 17835
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
greenfrog wrote: | tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
How do you explain Porzingis's high number on the crappy Knicks though? |
Pretty easily.
1) He was better than Russell & Booker. Pretty simple. Especially defensively.
2) He has an easier "role" to fill. In the same way LNJ had a higher RPM than Russell and Anthony Brown(!) had a comparable one, Porzingis had a higher number due to fewer responsibilities. He didn't have to create for teammates, and instead relied on his teammates. Russell & Booker were both expected to create, and a rookie will do worse in that role than in a cleanup role.
3) He was in a better situation. Similar to the above point, he didn't have a partner who inherently hampered one of his strengths (i.e. Hibbert for Russell), the entire KFT fiasco, or Byron Scott coaching. The former two RPM should account for somewhat, but it doesn't do it that well due to its reliance on box score stats (this is why I prefer the non-ESPN flavor, RAPM).
Last edited by tox on Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tox Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015 Posts: 17835
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: | tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
Thanks for the info.
And as you said these stats don't use other flaws on the team, I mean what would RPM be for Russell in the SL? It's diffinitely more positive then negative. |
Well yes, but it's summer league as well.
But I do expect the RPM gap to tighten up this year, though I expect Porky to still come out with a pretty big advantage. I don't think RPM will ever like Russell's defense (it's part of how RPM is calculated; you'll almost never see a guard with a high DRPM number). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46492
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tox wrote: | greenfrog wrote: | tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
How do you explain Porzingis's high number on the crappy Knicks though? |
Pretty easily.
1) He was better than Russell & Booker. Pretty simple. Especially defensively.
2) He has an easier "role" to fill. In the same way LNJ had a higher RPM than Russell and Anthony Brown(!) had a comparable one, Porzingis had fewer responsibilities. He didn't have to create for teammates, and instead relied on his teammates. Russell & Booker were both expected to create, and a rookie will do worse in that role than in a cleanup role.
3) He was in a better situation. Similar to the above point, he didn't have a partner who inherently hampered one of his strengths (i.e. Hibbert for Russell), the entire KFT fiasco, or Byron Scott coaching. The former two RPM should account for somewhat, but it doesn't do it that well due to its reliance on box score stats (this is why I prefer the non-ESPN flavor, RAPM). |
So basically your point is that these stats by RPM is pointless. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tox Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015 Posts: 17835
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: | tox wrote: | greenfrog wrote: | tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
How do you explain Porzingis's high number on the crappy Knicks though? |
Pretty easily.
1) He was better than Russell & Booker. Pretty simple. Especially defensively.
2) He has an easier "role" to fill. In the same way LNJ had a higher RPM than Russell and Anthony Brown(!) had a comparable one, Porzingis had fewer responsibilities. He didn't have to create for teammates, and instead relied on his teammates. Russell & Booker were both expected to create, and a rookie will do worse in that role than in a cleanup role.
3) He was in a better situation. Similar to the above point, he didn't have a partner who inherently hampered one of his strengths (i.e. Hibbert for Russell), the entire KFT fiasco, or Byron Scott coaching. The former two RPM should account for somewhat, but it doesn't do it that well due to its reliance on box score stats (this is why I prefer the non-ESPN flavor, RAPM). |
So basically your point is that these stats by RPM is pointless. |
No, it means RPM is limited and, like all stats, you need to know its limitations in order to make judgments based on it.
Give me any stat and I can come up with weaknesses of it --- in fact, almost every stat has the issue of not being able to account for the KFT, Hibbert being the center, Byron coaching, etc. RPM is actually better in the sense that it at least tries to account for the KFT and Hibbert. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46492
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: | tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
Thanks for the info.
And as you said these stats don't use other flaws on the team, I mean what would RPM be for Russell in the SL? It's diffinitely more positive then negative. |
Well yes, but it's summer league as well.
But I do expect the RPM gap to tighten up this year, though I expect Porky to still come out with a pretty big advantage. I don't think RPM will ever like Russell's defense (it's part of how RPM is calculated; you'll almost never see a guard with a high DRPM number). |
Essentially it favors big man over guards right? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46492
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: | tox wrote: | greenfrog wrote: | tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
How do you explain Porzingis's high number on the crappy Knicks though? |
Pretty easily.
1) He was better than Russell & Booker. Pretty simple. Especially defensively.
2) He has an easier "role" to fill. In the same way LNJ had a higher RPM than Russell and Anthony Brown(!) had a comparable one, Porzingis had fewer responsibilities. He didn't have to create for teammates, and instead relied on his teammates. Russell & Booker were both expected to create, and a rookie will do worse in that role than in a cleanup role.
3) He was in a better situation. Similar to the above point, he didn't have a partner who inherently hampered one of his strengths (i.e. Hibbert for Russell), the entire KFT fiasco, or Byron Scott coaching. The former two RPM should account for somewhat, but it doesn't do it that well due to its reliance on box score stats (this is why I prefer the non-ESPN flavor, RAPM). |
So basically your point is that these stats by RPM is pointless. |
No, it means RPM is limited and, like all stats, you need to know its limitations in order to make judgments based on it.
Give me any stat and I can come up with weaknesses of it --- in fact, almost every stat has the issue of not being able to account for the KFT, Hibbert being the center, Byron coaching, etc. RPM is actually better in the sense that it at least tries to account for the KFT and Hibbert. |
You have really helped me with these stuff, thanks a lot. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tox Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015 Posts: 17835
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: |
Essentially it favors big man over guards right? |
Broadly speaking, I would say it does. Especially defensively. That's a broad generalization though.
Quote: |
You have really helped me with these stuff, thanks a lot. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: | tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: | tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
Thanks for the info.
And as you said these stats don't use other flaws on the team, I mean what would RPM be for Russell in the SL? It's diffinitely more positive then negative. |
Well yes, but it's summer league as well.
But I do expect the RPM gap to tighten up this year, though I expect Porky to still come out with a pretty big advantage. I don't think RPM will ever like Russell's defense (it's part of how RPM is calculated; you'll almost never see a guard with a high DRPM number). |
Essentially it favors big man over guards right? |
Some favor guards over bigman. Kevin Pelton's WARP, which I think you need an Insider account to access, IIRC does that.
I just used RPM because it's easily accessible and was free. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arbitrary Star Player
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 5788
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kobe_4_mvp Star Player
Joined: 13 Apr 2008 Posts: 3798
|
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
embarassing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|