Advanced metrics guys!

[Peoriabird]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Not shockingly, nobody on the Hawks is having a standout year by their metrics except for JJ. 

Name                                             2022 +/-                                        2023+/-

Jalen Johnson                                +.2                                                  -.2.7

 

So which year shows outstanding advanced metrics again?

[SalvorMallow]

28 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Name                                             2022 +/-                                        2023+/-

Jalen Johnson                                +.2                                                  -.2.7

 

So which year shows outstanding advanced metrics again?

+/- isn't really considered an advanced stat.

Look at the advanced stats of 12 vs JJ this season. JJ is beating him significantly in almost every stat

[Peoriabird]

7 minutes ago, SalvorMallow said:

+/- isn't really considered an advanced stat.

Look at the advanced stats of 12 vs JJ this season. JJ is beating him significantly in almost every stat

Again if advanced Metrics don't translate to win or embarrassing loses to the Wizard at home...What do they really mean?

[AHF]

11 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Name                                             2022 +/-                                        2023+/-

Jalen Johnson                                +.2                                                  -.2.7

 

So which year shows outstanding advanced metrics again?

We’ve already discussed plus minus is not a metric.  Come on.

 

10 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Again if advanced Metrics don't translate to win or embarrassing loses to the Wizard at home...What do they really mean?

They generally reflect the quality of people’s play in the games they’ve played.  If the next game is a stinker for them their number goes down.  It doesn’t guarantee that their next game will be good or bad or that they won’t get hurt or that their backup won’t have an amazing game or anything like that.

[Peoriabird]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

We’ve already discussed plus minus is not a metric.  Come on.

 

They generally reflect the quality of people’s play in the games they’ve played.  If the next game is a stinker for them their number goes down.  It doesn’t guarantee that their next game will be good or bad or that they won’t get hurt or that their backup won’t have an amazing game or anything like that.

So are the wizard players a bunch of positive advanced metrics player? Are their individual advanced metrics better than the Hawk players?

[Gray Mule]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

So are the wizard players a bunch of positive advanced metrics player? Are their individual advanced metrics better than the Hawk players?

I don't know, overall.  For one game they were!

Hawks came into that game, dead on their feet, always just a bit late about everything and the scoreboard proved it..

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

So are the wizard players a bunch of positive advanced metrics player? Are their individual advanced metrics better than the Hawk players?

If you ran their metrics based on that game then yes they would be and by a huge margin.  If you look at the full season numbers then no because they have been terrible most games this season.

Metrics reflect performance.  This isn't hard or complicated at least at a basic level.

If a player defends his man effectively, goes 10 for 10 from the floor, grabs a dozen rebounds, 8 assists, no turnovers, 3 steals and 3 blocks but his team loses by 20 points and he ends up with a +/- of -8 his metrics will look great because he played great.  His +/- will look bad because his team was bad despite his efforts (maybe they lose by >40 in this hypothetical if you replace his game with an average performance from someone else).  Season long +/- stats tell you how a team performed while a player was on the floor as compared to how it performed when he was not on the floor.  It doesn't directly tell you anything about how he played when he was on the floor although if you look at a large sample size you would expect there to be some relationship there.  +/- requires lots of context and a lot of data to be meaningful.

Lineup +/- has a more direct relationship between the positivity or negativity of the number and the lineups' performance but even then needs context.  How was the lineup used?  Are you comparing +/- of one lineup against starters with the +/- of another lineup against bench players?  Etc. 

Because the Wizards are a bad team most of the players have bad metrics.  But you will have variability between players based on how they perform.  Daniel Gafford and Tyus Jones have played some pretty effective minutes this season, for example.  Not anything to write home about but they stand out in a good way.  Most of the team looks like hot garbage like Jordan Poole for example.  But if they performed all season like they did against us they would look much better because they played lots of effective minutes against us unfortunately.  Likewise, our metrics would be almost straight garbage for the season if we played every game like we did against Washington.  And, in fact, in general our metrics got worse from that game and their metrics got better because they beat the crap out of us and we didn't put up a fight.  That is how it is supposed to work.

[Peoriabird]

30 minutes ago, AHF said:

If you ran their metrics based on that game then yes they would be and by a huge margin.  If you look at the full season numbers then no because they have been terrible most games this season.

Metrics reflect performance.  This isn't hard or complicated at least at a basic level.

If a player defends his man effectively, goes 10 for 10 from the floor, grabs a dozen rebounds, 8 assists, no turnovers, 3 steals and 3 blocks but his team loses by 20 points and he ends up with a +/- of -8 his metrics will look great because he played great.  His +/- will look bad because his team was bad despite his efforts (maybe they lose by >40 in this hypothetical if you replace his game with an average performance from someone else).  Season long +/- stats tell you how a team performed while a player was on the floor as compared to how it performed when he was not on the floor.  It doesn't directly tell you anything about how he played when he was on the floor although if you look at a large sample size you would expect there to be some relationship there.  +/- requires lots of context and a lot of data to be meaningful.

Lineup +/- has a more direct relationship between the positivity or negativity of the number and the lineups' performance but even then needs context.  How was the lineup used?  Are you comparing +/- of one lineup against starters with the +/- of another lineup against bench players?  Etc. 

Because the Wizards are a bad team most of the players have bad metrics.  But you will have variability between players based on how they perform.  Daniel Gafford and Tyus Jones have played some pretty effective minutes this season, for example.  Not anything to write home about but they stand out in a good way.  Most of the team looks like hot garbage like Jordan Poole for example.  But if they performed all season like they did against us they would look much better because they played lots of effective minutes against us unfortunately.  Likewise, our metrics would be almost straight garbage for the season if we played every game like we did against Washington.  And, in fact, in general our metrics got worse from that game and their metrics got better because they beat the crap out of us and we didn't put up a fight.  That is how it is supposed to work.

I am still not convinced that advanced metrics either mean a lot or are predictor of future success.  Delon Wright was a perfect example of these meaningless stats. When he was with the Hawks, his metrics indicated that he was one of the best players in the league and certainly the best player on the Hawks team by far. We all know now how much of a farce that turned out to be.

[NBASupes]

8 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I am still not convinced that advanced metrics either mean a lot or are predictor of future success.  Delon Wright was a perfect example of these meaningless stats. When he was with the Hawks, his metrics indicated that he was one of the best players in the league and certainly the best player on the Hawks team by far. We all know now how much of a farce that turned out to be.

It wasn't a total farce. Delon does add winning value. He's just limited 

[Peoriabird]

4 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

It wasn't a total farce. Delon does add winning value. He's just limited 

@AHF argument is that the advanced metrics tell you how good a player is and Wright is not even an average NBA starter but yet his metrics indicated that he was the best player on the Hawks team that year which is a farce!

[Peoriabird]

On top of that, Wright is a back up player on a 7 win Wizards team.

[AHF]

13 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

@AHF argument is that the advanced metrics tell you how good a player is and Wright is not even an average NBA starter but yet his metrics indicated that he was the best player on the Hawks team that year which is a farce!

Where do you come up with this stuff?  Please tell me how his metrics: 
"indicated that he was the best player on the Hawks team that year"

 

Delon Wright is a very effective player who can only sustain a limited role.  He has given every team he plays for good minutes in that limited role and he did that for us.  It is why a lot of would have liked to see him back here as a backup.  He has been a positive but limited player for his entire career.  Supes is correct on this.

 

[Peoriabird]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

Where do you come up with this stuff?  Please tell me how his metrics: 
"indicated that he was the best player on the Hawks team that year"

 

Delon Wright is a very effective player who can only sustain a limited role.  He has given every team he plays for good minutes in that limited role and he did that for us.  It is why a lot of would have liked to see him back here as a backup.  He has been a positive but limited player for his entire career.  Supes is correct on this.

 

Ok I got swept up in the @benhillboy mania and exaggerated a little but still wasn't the 4th best player on the team.  He isn't even the 4th best player on a 7 win Wizards team.

[AHF]

33 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Ok I got swept up in the @benhillboy mania and exaggerated a little but still wasn't the 4th best player on the team.  He isn't even the 4th best player on a 7 win Wizards team.

If you asked me which Wizard I would want to add, he would be fairly high on the list for me.  He isn't expensive, plays solid minutes in a limited role, and doesn't push outside of what he can do.  We would absolutely be a better team with him playing backup minutes in our rotation while we would be worse if we gave someone like Jordan Poole big minutes instead of giving them to DM or Bogi, etc.  Even though Poole is the highest paid and the biggest name on the team this year, he has actively made them worse when he plays most nights.  The whole reason that team is so bad is because their two biggest players both suck.  Combined they have a negative WS number this season which is amazing for as many minutes as they have played but makes sense for a team that is tanking.

The metrics largely match my eye test for Delon's place on that team. FWIW, Delon ranks #6 by WS, #5 in WS/48, #7 by BPM, #7 by VORP, etc. the metrics don't say he is crushing even on that team.  He would rank #12 on the Celtics by Win Shares for comparison's sake.  He is a role player having a down year by his own standards.  So the metrics again seem validated once again by this sanity check. 

As for the Hawks team, feel free to take it with a grain of salt given that he played a limited role.  His metrics would be much worse if he was asked to be the lead scorer for a team or do things outside of his strengths but for his career he has been quite effective at what he does.

[Peoriabird]

22 minutes ago, AHF said:

If you asked me which Wizard I would want to add, he would be fairly high on the list for me.  He isn't expensive, plays solid minutes in a limited role, and doesn't push outside of what he can do.  We would absolutely be a better team with him playing backup minutes in our rotation while we would be worse if we gave someone like Jordan Poole big minutes instead of giving them to DM or Bogi, etc.  Even though Poole is the highest paid and the biggest name on the team this year, he has actively made them worse when he plays most nights.  The whole reason that team is so bad is because their two biggest players both suck.  Combined they have a negative WS number this season which is amazing for as many minutes as they have played but makes sense for a team that is tanking.

The metrics largely match my eye test for Delon's place on that team. FWIW, Delon ranks #6 by WS, #5 in WS/48, #7 by BPM, #7 by VORP, etc. the metrics don't say he is crushing even on that team.  He would rank #12 on the Celtics by Win Shares for comparison's sake.  He is a role player having a down year by his own standards.  So the metrics again seem validated once again by this sanity check. 

As for the Hawks team, feel free to take it with a grain of salt given that he played a limited role.  His metrics would be much worse if he was asked to be the lead scorer for a team or do things outside of his strengths but for his career he has been quite effective at what he does.

So I don't know what advanced metrics says about a player if you can give him a limited role to alter them. Is he good? Don't know. Can you make him look good or bad? Sounds like it. It honestly sounds like a coaching metric vs a player metric.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

So I don't know what advanced metrics says about a player if you can give him a limited role to alter them. Is he good? Don't know. Can you make him look good or bad? Sound like it. It honestly sounds like a coaching metric vs a player metric.

Simplistically, the metrics will tell you whether a player plays good minutes or not.  Some metrics are rate based so limited players who show out in limited roles look great.  Some metrics are not rate based so limited players get limited credit for their high per minute productivity but guys who post volume numbers get more rewarded (as long as they aren't too terribly inefficient).  

And of course if you give someone a role they are well suited for their numbers will be better than if you ask them to do things they are bad at.  If you ask Trae to post up the opposing center and ask Capela to shoot 3's you will make them and by extension their metrics look terrible.  If you ask someone like Bogi to take only open shots, his efficiency will go through the roof.  If you ask Bogi to take the opposing team's best wing defender one-on-one every possession his efficiency will suffer.  Of course players can look better or worse based on their roles and production in those roles.

The metrics reflect the player's productivity.  You look at a broad range of metrics since they measure things a bit differently and you look beyond just the numbers to take in the context of things like role, system, etc.  But the metrics are still great tools and highly meaningful which is why every team uses them and all work to develop non-public proprietary metrics because they believe that data will give them an edge on their competitors.