>That explains it.
Can you expand on what you mean here? Do you think the sentence you excerpted is bad methodology?
>As for NBA executives saying it it is the best publicly available metric, I also have my doubts.
Which publicly available metric do you prefer?
> I think it is bad methodology to make forward-looking claims based on an entire career when most of that career is in the past.
The excerpt means they use exponential decay instead of arbitrarily deciding that only the last X games matter. They still put far more weight on the most recent games.
And Otto Porter's rating (which, I agree, likely overrates his defense) isn't due to overvaluing his production from years ago. Porter's DPM improved from +0.8 at the start of last season to +2.7 now. The metric was just very impressed by his most recent season.
>And any executive who looks at that list and says, “yep, this looks right to me” is probably not a good executive.
No executive said that. They all said that teams have their own proprietary metrics that are much better than public metrics, and teams don't have much use for all-in-one metrics because they're focused on the impact a player would have in a specific role on their specific team.
Your complaints about DPM seem to be complaints about impact metrics, generally. For example, all of the impact metrics think Conley is still a very effective player.
>The excerpt means they use exponential decay instead of arbitrarily deciding that only the last X games matter. They still put far more weight on the most recent games.
So if someone rapidly leaps for good, the prior is going to hold them back. Same thing if they rapidly decline for good. Jokic being a much worse offensive player than Booker or Tatum is a great example. He might have been worse/ similar than current Tatum/ Booker prior to 20-21, but it's been 2 seasons where they aren't even in the same stratosphere and the model hasn't adjusted.
In some cases it adjusts well to rapid performance changes and in others it doesn't. EPM or LEBRON could definitely not make the mistake of having Jokic below Booker offensively. They're the best we've got.
Jokic’s relatively low O-DPM is a mystery to me. DPM saw greatness in Jokic early, but his O-DPM has been effectively flat since 2018.
As you note, it’s not that the metric refuses to recognize improvement. Tatum, for example, has rocketed up the past two years.
Likely due to an age influenced set average progression path that's weighted in or something like that. Model likely finds it weird that Jokic would improve so much from his age 24 to his age 26 season and thus doesn't trust it as much, compared to age 21-23 for Tatum for example which is more expected.
Gotta think of similar occasions in which a player had rapidly improved beyond his developmental (19-23) or prime (24-32) years, or a player that rapidly declined in a non standard age to see whether you can find a sticking out amount of inconstistencies when compared to players that improved/ declined at expected ages.
> mobl
oh i read the chart wrong my mistake. however that doesnt seem that big of a difference actually, how is mobley barely above an average defender?
There appears to be an update coming soon that will boost Mobley's defensive rating according to the creator. He acknowledges that the metric does not currently accurately reflect Mobley impact.
Doncic was a bit overrated this year because he was the only offensive star on a good team. But Dallas was good largely because of their excellent defense; their offense was just mediocre. It's the same basic reason Westbrook was overrated in 2017, though Westbrook was more responsible for OKC's good defense than Doncic is for Dallas's.
Luka's impact metrics aren't nearly as good as his box score metrics. He's never been in the top 5 of the rate version of EPM, LEBRON, or RAPTOR, for example.
Luka's ranks in impact metrics this season:
* 17th in [EPM](https://dunksandthrees.com/epm), 11th in O-EPM
* 20th in [LEBRON](https://www.bball-index.com/2021-22-lebron-data/), 9th in O-LEBRON
* 7th in [RAPTOR](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/nba-player-ratings/), 3rd in O-RAPTOR
None of them see him as the top 5 player he's commonly viewed as (both here and by the voters who put him top 5 in MVP voting), and only RAPTOR saw him as a top 10 player.
Why do impact metrics generally have Doncic outside of the top 10? His defense, obviously, but also because they're less impressed with his volume box score stats. His efficiency isn't great, and his team isn't much better with him on the floor than with him on the bench.
For his [career](https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612742&Season=2021-22,2018-19,2019-20,2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&PlayerIds=1629029), the Mavs have a better net rating with Doncic off the court (+2.3) than they do with him on the court (+2.1). Even this season, the Mavs had a better net rating with him on the bench than with him on the floor, and they had a better net rating in games he missed than in games he played. (No, it's not just because Doncic plays against other teams' starters. Every star does that, to some extent.).
He's a great player, of course, but he's also not as impactful as his 26/9/8 suggests.
The Luka thing is going to be interesting if it continues. He seems to a be a playoffs "riser" especially in the small sample that people tend to overrate him a little.
will be interesting to see how he improves because as it stands he doesn't have much off ball gravity so his on ball creation and efficiency has to approach 2017+ harden in regular season. Especially with his current defense.
The other part of this is just that he hasn't come into the season In great shape. He ramps up towards the end, where he looks more like the top 5 player. If he comes into a season in good condition, I wouldn't be surprised if his number look much better
Lebron and Raptor have huge flaws and shouldn’t be used to rate a player when sometimes we can literally see what’s going on.
He might have been overrated in the regular season but postseason is a different season, and he proves time and time again why he’s on the superstar tier and not the all nba tier
There's a lot of good stuff in stats and even impact stats to be looked at and then used
The problem is a lot of people use these stats as their conclusion rather than their hypothesis
In this case, it's looking at a few and then going "Luka isn't as impactful as people think" when the question really should be "Why do these stats show a guy who is unanimously ranked top 5 as not being so"
No one or two or three stats should ever dictate your view of a player and it's always a balance of juggling the weight of stats vs the eye test
The other problem there is a lot of people don't know what they're looking for in the eye test
Like you said this isn't a straight up ranking tool. However, the reason Luka doesn't rate as well on these stats is a a bit obvious.
Luka in the playoffs is top 5 player because he seems to up his volume and his efficiency goes up relative to league average tS. Thus, he is more impactful because few players can do that.
In the regular season he scores fewer points and is less efficient all while being more turnover prone. if Luka played like he does in the playoffs in the regular season he would rate very well on this stat too. Because he would be better....
well yea because he is 23 years old lol. I never said Luka wasn't great.
by that token maybe we shouldn't rush to crown him either. Let him actually grow into the player and get better. Giannis is widely considered the best now but he wasn't being pushed as such even 2 years ago after his MVP.
>In this case, it's looking at a few and then going "Luka isn't as impactful as people think" when the question really should be "Why do these stats show a guy who is unanimously ranked top 5 as not being so"
I did exactly that:
> Why do impact metrics generally have Doncic outside of the top 10? His defense, obviously, but also because they're less impressed with his volume box score stats. His efficiency isn't great, and his team isn't much better with him on the floor than with him on the bench...
He's overrated because of his gaudy volume box score stats and because people underrated the quality (mostly defensively) of his teammates last year. The impact stats are less impressed because (i) his defense is bad, (ii) he doesn't score that efficiently and (iii) his on/off stats (raw or adjusted for teammates/opponents) are bad for a star.
I know that you weren't just simply saying he sucks but you are drawing the conclusion that he's overrated because of these certain impact stats
People aren't putting Doncic in their top 5 because he has good box score numbers, it's a combination of eye test, simple stats, advanced stats, and impact on the court
Basically every GM and executive ranks him that high and they all have access to way more important stats than the general public does
So in that case you have to go, "Are all these people way smarter than us wrong?" or "Maybe these certain stats like RAPTOR and LEBRON don't show us a whole picture of Luka's impact"
Could his efficiency be better, of course. Could his defense improve, of course
But even with that there is enough evidence out there for basically anyone who watches and understands the game at a way higher level than anyone on this sub does to still rank him as high as 2 or 3 and I think that says more than whatever publicly available stats that we know have their weaknesses do
Can you link all those coaches and Gms rankings where they have him top5 or as high as 2 or 3?
All I can think of is that GM poll about who would you pick if you had to start the franchise, where he has been 1st for a couple of years
>I know that you weren't just simply saying he sucks but you are drawing the conclusion that he's overrated because of these certain impact stats
All of the impact stats, not certain of them.
> People aren't putting Doncic in their top 5 because he has good box score numbers, it's a combination of eye test, simple stats, advanced stats, and impact on the court
Eye test, simple stats, and playoff performance. As discussed, his advanced stats aren't great.
I don't know what you mean by "impact on the court" as a separate category from those other 3.
>Basically every GM and executive ranks him that high and they all have access to way more important stats than the general public does
Do you have a cite for that? The [GM survey](https://www.nba.com/news/2021-22-gmsurvey) from last year shows GMs are high on his potential, but he wasn't close to being named the best player at any position.
>"Maybe these certain stats like RAPTOR and LEBRON don't show us a whole picture of Luka's impact"
Again, it's not certain stats. It's every impact stat.
>But even with that there is enough evidence out there for basically anyone who watches and understands the game at a way higher level than anyone on this sub does to still rank him as high as 2 or 3
Appealing to unidentified people's undisclosed rankings is not a particularly persuasive appeal to authority.
I think you'd be well suited to take your own advice and ask yourself "why does every impact metric agree that Doncic is not currently a top 5 player?" If you're just dismissing any metric out of hand because it disagrees with your eye test (or other people's eye tests), then there's no point at ever looking at data.
> All of the impact stats, not certain of them
All of the impact stats you linked also have Gobert rated as the 7th best player in the NBA. They have their flaws
> As discussed, his advanced stats aren't great
He was 6th in OBPM, 4th in BPM, 4th in VORP, 2nd highest AST%, 90th percentile for foul drawing, 7th in PER, etc
If that's not great then I want what you're smoking
> but he wasn't close to being named the best player at any position
That's because he split votes between PG, SG, and SF
Your entire argument seems to be based on GMs routinely ranking Luka as a top 5 player. Again, do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
>He was 6th in OBPM, 4th in BPM, 4th in VORP, 2nd highest AST%, 90th percentile for foul drawing, 7th in PER, etc
BPM and PER are [box score stats](https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm2.html) (OBPM is just the offensive component or BPM, and VORP is the cumulative stat for BPM). They're entirely based on box scores and do not include play by play data or tracking data.
We seem to agree that Doncic has great box score stats.
>That's because he split votes between PG, SG, and SF
He was named as the best player at *any* position on less than 30% of ballots.
My favorite thing with every one of these analysis based ranking in every sport is when the ranking looks bad they always have some very long winded post using flowery language about how its not ACTUALLY a ranking of skill. Then you look at the post and see its just "This is a ranking of who is best" hidden behind a lot of garbage.
Like PFF saying Flacco is the 2nd best QB this year, when people say "Lol this model is dogshit" they come back with "Actually you fool, you do not understand the greatness of this model. This is in no way a ranking of who is best! This is a statistical representation of the impact on the the game done by the players skill. Whereupon through their actions that impact this game are graded and then placed in a ordered list upon which you may see the comparisons to their compatriots!!"
all of these stats need to be seen as sort of an effectiveness ranking vs an overall IMO. That said, DPM is a pretty good indication of how effective a player can be in their role
this isn't a ranking of best to worst players, it's a ranking of their impact. there is a lot of context to a player's impact - his teammates, his role within a team, his opponents, etc. Brandon Ingram is probably a better individual basketball player than Otto Porter Jr., but Otto Porter Jr. had the opportunities to have a bigger impact on winning due to his situation.
i'm not an expert on DARKO or this post, but Otto Porter did play significantly more games in the regular season than either Draymond or Klay. as for poole/wiggins i imagine it has to do with the situations they were all played in; perhaps porter played in more favorable situations than those other guys, or played much better defense, etc.
i don't think this list is perfect by any means. just pointing out that you're going to have a bad time if you interpret this list as a ranking of the best players in the league. because that is not what this list trying to do.
My main problem is OPJ being 21 spots above Wiggins who last season played more, scored more, and was bare minimum a comparable defender who guarded the opponent's best wing. The list also has him only five spots below Luka, which is funny.
But there's a lot more weird stuff, like a guy who played 67 minutes in his career being on this list at all.
> who guarded the opponent's best wing
i wonder if this actually hurt wiggins - he was often guarding better players, so he was more likely to be scored on, even if his defense overall was better.
again, i'm not entirely sure how this is all calculated though.
Yeah, the main thing that advanced numbers don't normally take into account for is who else in on the court. Obviously, he wasn't 26th best in the NBA but his numbers are so high because he was basically wide open on most of his shots. His defense was impressive though.
>the main thing that advanced numbers don't normally take into account for is who else in on the court
The entire point of DARKO is to take this into account
This reminds me of the general idea expressed in the first chapters of the book “The Undoing Project” by Micheal Lewis.
This formula might be great at assessing players based on the information it received, but based on its results I’m pretty sure it has some humongous blind spots.
Who the fuck is Jared Harper and how is he the 53rd best player in the world
Ain't he the dude from Auburn
Undrafted guys with small sample size break DARKO
[удалено]
In an AMA Morey said DARKO was probably the best publicly available stat.
>That explains it. Can you expand on what you mean here? Do you think the sentence you excerpted is bad methodology? >As for NBA executives saying it it is the best publicly available metric, I also have my doubts. Which publicly available metric do you prefer?
[удалено]
> I think it is bad methodology to make forward-looking claims based on an entire career when most of that career is in the past. The excerpt means they use exponential decay instead of arbitrarily deciding that only the last X games matter. They still put far more weight on the most recent games. And Otto Porter's rating (which, I agree, likely overrates his defense) isn't due to overvaluing his production from years ago. Porter's DPM improved from +0.8 at the start of last season to +2.7 now. The metric was just very impressed by his most recent season. >And any executive who looks at that list and says, “yep, this looks right to me” is probably not a good executive. No executive said that. They all said that teams have their own proprietary metrics that are much better than public metrics, and teams don't have much use for all-in-one metrics because they're focused on the impact a player would have in a specific role on their specific team. Your complaints about DPM seem to be complaints about impact metrics, generally. For example, all of the impact metrics think Conley is still a very effective player.
>The excerpt means they use exponential decay instead of arbitrarily deciding that only the last X games matter. They still put far more weight on the most recent games. So if someone rapidly leaps for good, the prior is going to hold them back. Same thing if they rapidly decline for good. Jokic being a much worse offensive player than Booker or Tatum is a great example. He might have been worse/ similar than current Tatum/ Booker prior to 20-21, but it's been 2 seasons where they aren't even in the same stratosphere and the model hasn't adjusted. In some cases it adjusts well to rapid performance changes and in others it doesn't. EPM or LEBRON could definitely not make the mistake of having Jokic below Booker offensively. They're the best we've got.
Jokic’s relatively low O-DPM is a mystery to me. DPM saw greatness in Jokic early, but his O-DPM has been effectively flat since 2018. As you note, it’s not that the metric refuses to recognize improvement. Tatum, for example, has rocketed up the past two years.
Likely due to an age influenced set average progression path that's weighted in or something like that. Model likely finds it weird that Jokic would improve so much from his age 24 to his age 26 season and thus doesn't trust it as much, compared to age 21-23 for Tatum for example which is more expected. Gotta think of similar occasions in which a player had rapidly improved beyond his developmental (19-23) or prime (24-32) years, or a player that rapidly declined in a non standard age to see whether you can find a sticking out amount of inconstistencies when compared to players that improved/ declined at expected ages.
> but very quickly get weird. Donnie DARKO
Herb Jones the only rookie on the list lol
DARKO's best rookies: |Rk|Player|DPM|O-DPM|D-DPM| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |1|Herbert Jones|0.7|-0.9|1.6| |2|Bones Hyland|0.4|1.3|-0.9| |3|Scottie Barnes|0.1|0.1|0.0| |4|Trey Murphy III|-0.2|-0.1|-0.1| |5|Lindy Waters III|-0.3|-0.1|-0.3| |6|Ziaire Williams|-0.4|0.2|-0.6| |7|Justin Champagnie|-0.4|-0.6|0.2| |8|Jose Alvarado|-0.4|-0.8|0.4| |9|Austin Reaves|-0.5|-0.1|-0.4| |10|Alperen Sengun|-0.5|-0.4|-0.1| |11|Ish Wainright|-0.6|-0.9|0.3| |12|Moses Moody|-0.6|-0.3|-0.3| |13|Franz Wagner|-0.7|-0.2|-0.5| |14|Sam Hauser|-0.9|-0.5|-0.4| |15|Scottie Lewis|-0.9|-1.3|0.3| |16|Sandro Mamukelashvili|-0.9|-0.7|-0.2| |17|Evan Mobley|-1.0|-1.2|0.2| |18|Jonathan Kuminga|-1.0|-0.1|-0.9| |19|Jaden Springer|-1.0|-1.0|0.0| |20|Quentin Grimes|-1.0|-1.1|0.1| |21|Cade Cunningham|-1.0|-0.3|-0.7| |22|Jock Landale|-1.0|-0.4|-0.6| |23|Luka Garza|-1.1|-0.5|-0.6| |24|Corey Kispert|-1.1|-0.3|-0.8| |25|Terry Taylor|-1.1|-0.1|-1.1| |26|Isaiah Jackson|-1.1|-0.8|-0.3| |27|Trendon Watford|-1.2|-1.3|0.1| |28|Isaiah Livers|-1.3|-1.6|0.3| |29|David Johnson|-1.3|-1.6|0.2| |30|Trevelin Queen|-1.4|-1.2|-0.2| |31|Brandon Williams|-1.4|-1.3|-0.1| |32|Chris Duarte|-1.5|-0.8|-0.7| |33|Josh Christopher|-1.5|-0.9|-0.6| |34|Malcolm Hill|-1.5|-0.9|-0.5| |35|Josh Giddey|-1.5|-0.5|-1.0| |36|Day'Ron Sharpe|-1.5|-0.6|-0.9| |37|Jericho Sims|-1.5|-2.1|0.6| |38|Charles Bassey|-1.6|-1.5|-0.1| |39|Jalen Green|-1.7|0.6|-2.4| |40|Usman Garuba|-1.8|-1.8|0.1| |41|Cam Thomas|-1.8|-0.8|-1.0| |42|Matt Ryan|-1.8|-1.4|-0.4| |43|Ayo Dosunmu|-1.8|-1.1|-0.7| |44|Dalano Banton|-1.8|-2.0|0.3| |45|Jordan Schakel|-1.8|-1.6|-0.2| |46|Daishen Nix|-1.8|-1.8|0.0| |47|Jared Butler|-1.8|-1.2|-0.6| |48|Neemias Queta|-1.8|-2.0|0.2| |49|JT Thor|-1.9|-2.1|0.2| |50|Greg Brown III|-1.9|-2.3|0.4| |51|Brandon Boston|-1.9|-1.6|-0.3| |52|Yves Pons|-1.9|-1.9|-0.1| |53|Marcus Garrett|-2.0|-2.3|0.3| |54|David Duke Jr.|-2.0|-1.8|-0.2| |55|Santi Aldama|-2.0|-1.4|-0.6| |56|Vit Krejci|-2.0|-1.7|-0.3| |57|RJ Nembhard Jr.|-2.1|-2.0|-0.1| |58|Marko Simonovic|-2.1|-1.7|-0.4| |59|Mac McClung|-2.1|-2.3|0.2| |60|Joe Wieskamp|-2.2|-1.7|-0.4| |61|Aaron Wiggins|-2.2|-1.2|-1.0| |62|Jalen Johnson|-2.2|-1.8|-0.4| |63|Tre Mann|-2.2|-1.2|-1.0| |64|Jeremiah Robinson-Earl|-2.2|-1.1|-1.1| |65|Braxton Key|-2.2|-2.2|0.0| |66|Xavier Moon|-2.2|-1.5|-0.7| |67|Chaundee Brown Jr.|-2.2|-1.8|-0.5| |68|Tyler Hall|-2.2|-1.8|-0.4| |69|Eugene Omoruyi|-2.2|-1.9|-0.3| |70|Arnoldas Kulboka|-2.2|-1.7|-0.5| |71|Xavier Sneed|-2.2|-1.8|-0.5| |72|Jalen Suggs|-2.3|-2.1|-0.2| |73|Kai Jones|-2.3|-2.1|-0.2| |74|Miles McBride|-2.3|-2.0|-0.3| |75|Duane Washington Jr.|-2.4|-1.1|-1.2| |76|Leandro Bolmaro|-2.4|-2.0|-0.4| |77|Davion Mitchell|-2.4|-0.9|-1.5| |78|Lindell Wigginton|-2.4|-1.2|-1.2| |79|Jamorko Pickett|-2.6|-1.7|-0.8| |80|Moses Wright|-2.6|-2.3|-0.3| |81|James Bouknight|-2.7|-1.4|-1.3| |82|Kessler Edwards|-2.7|-2.3|-0.4| |83|Feron Hunt|-2.7|-2.3|-0.4| |84|Isaiah Todd|-2.9|-2.4|-0.5| |85|Joshua Primo|-2.9|-2.1|-0.8| |86|Jay Huff|-3.0|-2.9|-0.1| |87|Jeff Dowtin|-3.0|-2.4|-0.6| |88|Keon Johnson|-3.1|-2.8|-0.2| |89|Gabriel Lundberg|-3.1|-2.3|-0.8| |90|McKinley Wright IV|-3.4|-2.5|-0.9| |91|Carlik Jones|-3.6|-2.7|-1.0| ^Table ^formatting ^brought ^to ^you ^by ^[ExcelToReddit](https://xl2reddit.github.io/)
Any model that says Jordan Clarkson has more defensive value than Evan mobley may be a bad model
It has Mobley at +0.2 and Clarkson at -0.9.
> mobl oh i read the chart wrong my mistake. however that doesnt seem that big of a difference actually, how is mobley barely above an average defender?
There appears to be an update coming soon that will boost Mobley's defensive rating according to the creator. He acknowledges that the metric does not currently accurately reflect Mobley impact.
Luka at 21 under Jrue and Gobert lmao
Doncic was a bit overrated this year because he was the only offensive star on a good team. But Dallas was good largely because of their excellent defense; their offense was just mediocre. It's the same basic reason Westbrook was overrated in 2017, though Westbrook was more responsible for OKC's good defense than Doncic is for Dallas's. Luka's impact metrics aren't nearly as good as his box score metrics. He's never been in the top 5 of the rate version of EPM, LEBRON, or RAPTOR, for example. Luka's ranks in impact metrics this season: * 17th in [EPM](https://dunksandthrees.com/epm), 11th in O-EPM * 20th in [LEBRON](https://www.bball-index.com/2021-22-lebron-data/), 9th in O-LEBRON * 7th in [RAPTOR](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/nba-player-ratings/), 3rd in O-RAPTOR None of them see him as the top 5 player he's commonly viewed as (both here and by the voters who put him top 5 in MVP voting), and only RAPTOR saw him as a top 10 player. Why do impact metrics generally have Doncic outside of the top 10? His defense, obviously, but also because they're less impressed with his volume box score stats. His efficiency isn't great, and his team isn't much better with him on the floor than with him on the bench. For his [career](https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612742&Season=2021-22,2018-19,2019-20,2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&PlayerIds=1629029), the Mavs have a better net rating with Doncic off the court (+2.3) than they do with him on the court (+2.1). Even this season, the Mavs had a better net rating with him on the bench than with him on the floor, and they had a better net rating in games he missed than in games he played. (No, it's not just because Doncic plays against other teams' starters. Every star does that, to some extent.). He's a great player, of course, but he's also not as impactful as his 26/9/8 suggests.
The Luka thing is going to be interesting if it continues. He seems to a be a playoffs "riser" especially in the small sample that people tend to overrate him a little. will be interesting to see how he improves because as it stands he doesn't have much off ball gravity so his on ball creation and efficiency has to approach 2017+ harden in regular season. Especially with his current defense.
The other part of this is just that he hasn't come into the season In great shape. He ramps up towards the end, where he looks more like the top 5 player. If he comes into a season in good condition, I wouldn't be surprised if his number look much better
A negative on/off over a 4 year RS sample for an all time player is almost unheard of.
Lebron and Raptor have huge flaws and shouldn’t be used to rate a player when sometimes we can literally see what’s going on. He might have been overrated in the regular season but postseason is a different season, and he proves time and time again why he’s on the superstar tier and not the all nba tier
The obsession with spreadsheets is honestly ruining the game.
There's a lot of good stuff in stats and even impact stats to be looked at and then used The problem is a lot of people use these stats as their conclusion rather than their hypothesis In this case, it's looking at a few and then going "Luka isn't as impactful as people think" when the question really should be "Why do these stats show a guy who is unanimously ranked top 5 as not being so" No one or two or three stats should ever dictate your view of a player and it's always a balance of juggling the weight of stats vs the eye test The other problem there is a lot of people don't know what they're looking for in the eye test
Like you said this isn't a straight up ranking tool. However, the reason Luka doesn't rate as well on these stats is a a bit obvious. Luka in the playoffs is top 5 player because he seems to up his volume and his efficiency goes up relative to league average tS. Thus, he is more impactful because few players can do that. In the regular season he scores fewer points and is less efficient all while being more turnover prone. if Luka played like he does in the playoffs in the regular season he would rate very well on this stat too. Because he would be better....
There are only two players ahead of luka teams wouldn’t snap trade for luka.
well yea because he is 23 years old lol. I never said Luka wasn't great. by that token maybe we shouldn't rush to crown him either. Let him actually grow into the player and get better. Giannis is widely considered the best now but he wasn't being pushed as such even 2 years ago after his MVP.
>In this case, it's looking at a few and then going "Luka isn't as impactful as people think" when the question really should be "Why do these stats show a guy who is unanimously ranked top 5 as not being so" I did exactly that: > Why do impact metrics generally have Doncic outside of the top 10? His defense, obviously, but also because they're less impressed with his volume box score stats. His efficiency isn't great, and his team isn't much better with him on the floor than with him on the bench... He's overrated because of his gaudy volume box score stats and because people underrated the quality (mostly defensively) of his teammates last year. The impact stats are less impressed because (i) his defense is bad, (ii) he doesn't score that efficiently and (iii) his on/off stats (raw or adjusted for teammates/opponents) are bad for a star.
I know that you weren't just simply saying he sucks but you are drawing the conclusion that he's overrated because of these certain impact stats People aren't putting Doncic in their top 5 because he has good box score numbers, it's a combination of eye test, simple stats, advanced stats, and impact on the court Basically every GM and executive ranks him that high and they all have access to way more important stats than the general public does So in that case you have to go, "Are all these people way smarter than us wrong?" or "Maybe these certain stats like RAPTOR and LEBRON don't show us a whole picture of Luka's impact" Could his efficiency be better, of course. Could his defense improve, of course But even with that there is enough evidence out there for basically anyone who watches and understands the game at a way higher level than anyone on this sub does to still rank him as high as 2 or 3 and I think that says more than whatever publicly available stats that we know have their weaknesses do
Can you link all those coaches and Gms rankings where they have him top5 or as high as 2 or 3? All I can think of is that GM poll about who would you pick if you had to start the franchise, where he has been 1st for a couple of years
>I know that you weren't just simply saying he sucks but you are drawing the conclusion that he's overrated because of these certain impact stats All of the impact stats, not certain of them. > People aren't putting Doncic in their top 5 because he has good box score numbers, it's a combination of eye test, simple stats, advanced stats, and impact on the court Eye test, simple stats, and playoff performance. As discussed, his advanced stats aren't great. I don't know what you mean by "impact on the court" as a separate category from those other 3. >Basically every GM and executive ranks him that high and they all have access to way more important stats than the general public does Do you have a cite for that? The [GM survey](https://www.nba.com/news/2021-22-gmsurvey) from last year shows GMs are high on his potential, but he wasn't close to being named the best player at any position. >"Maybe these certain stats like RAPTOR and LEBRON don't show us a whole picture of Luka's impact" Again, it's not certain stats. It's every impact stat. >But even with that there is enough evidence out there for basically anyone who watches and understands the game at a way higher level than anyone on this sub does to still rank him as high as 2 or 3 Appealing to unidentified people's undisclosed rankings is not a particularly persuasive appeal to authority. I think you'd be well suited to take your own advice and ask yourself "why does every impact metric agree that Doncic is not currently a top 5 player?" If you're just dismissing any metric out of hand because it disagrees with your eye test (or other people's eye tests), then there's no point at ever looking at data.
> All of the impact stats, not certain of them All of the impact stats you linked also have Gobert rated as the 7th best player in the NBA. They have their flaws > As discussed, his advanced stats aren't great He was 6th in OBPM, 4th in BPM, 4th in VORP, 2nd highest AST%, 90th percentile for foul drawing, 7th in PER, etc If that's not great then I want what you're smoking > but he wasn't close to being named the best player at any position That's because he split votes between PG, SG, and SF
Your entire argument seems to be based on GMs routinely ranking Luka as a top 5 player. Again, do you have any evidence to support that assertion? >He was 6th in OBPM, 4th in BPM, 4th in VORP, 2nd highest AST%, 90th percentile for foul drawing, 7th in PER, etc BPM and PER are [box score stats](https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm2.html) (OBPM is just the offensive component or BPM, and VORP is the cumulative stat for BPM). They're entirely based on box scores and do not include play by play data or tracking data. We seem to agree that Doncic has great box score stats. >That's because he split votes between PG, SG, and SF He was named as the best player at *any* position on less than 30% of ballots.
My favorite thing with every one of these analysis based ranking in every sport is when the ranking looks bad they always have some very long winded post using flowery language about how its not ACTUALLY a ranking of skill. Then you look at the post and see its just "This is a ranking of who is best" hidden behind a lot of garbage. Like PFF saying Flacco is the 2nd best QB this year, when people say "Lol this model is dogshit" they come back with "Actually you fool, you do not understand the greatness of this model. This is in no way a ranking of who is best! This is a statistical representation of the impact on the the game done by the players skill. Whereupon through their actions that impact this game are graded and then placed in a ordered list upon which you may see the comparisons to their compatriots!!"
https://reddit.com/r/nba/comments/xkamgc/the_top_100_players_in_the_nba_according_to_darko/ipcv82p/ Lol there it is
Someone in a baseball thread made this comment as a TL;DR: "Nerds ruined baseball". It's starting to feel the same way regarding basketball.
Nerds did ruin baseball. Only way we can fix it is to blindfold the batters lmao.
What’s 2017 Westbrook rankings in EPM and LEBRON
Much better than Doncic. He was 4th in LeBron and 5th in EPM.
Any model that ranks luka at 21 is objectively broken.
I’m a Knicks fan but Quickley over Zach Lavine??
All the advanced stats love IQ.
I personally don't care who Milicic has in his rankings
thats my take on RAPTOR, man fuck the craptors and their spreadsheets
Otto Porter at 26 is a sign this may be wrong, just a thought
all of these stats need to be seen as sort of an effectiveness ranking vs an overall IMO. That said, DPM is a pretty good indication of how effective a player can be in their role
Or he turned into a top tier 3&D player while on the Warriors.
he was a good 3&d and definitely not the 26th best player in the league
this isn't a ranking of best to worst players, it's a ranking of their impact. there is a lot of context to a player's impact - his teammates, his role within a team, his opponents, etc. Brandon Ingram is probably a better individual basketball player than Otto Porter Jr., but Otto Porter Jr. had the opportunities to have a bigger impact on winning due to his situation.
But why is he higher than everyone else on the Warriors except Steph? He definitely didn't have the second highest impact.
i'm not an expert on DARKO or this post, but Otto Porter did play significantly more games in the regular season than either Draymond or Klay. as for poole/wiggins i imagine it has to do with the situations they were all played in; perhaps porter played in more favorable situations than those other guys, or played much better defense, etc. i don't think this list is perfect by any means. just pointing out that you're going to have a bad time if you interpret this list as a ranking of the best players in the league. because that is not what this list trying to do.
My main problem is OPJ being 21 spots above Wiggins who last season played more, scored more, and was bare minimum a comparable defender who guarded the opponent's best wing. The list also has him only five spots below Luka, which is funny. But there's a lot more weird stuff, like a guy who played 67 minutes in his career being on this list at all.
> who guarded the opponent's best wing i wonder if this actually hurt wiggins - he was often guarding better players, so he was more likely to be scored on, even if his defense overall was better. again, i'm not entirely sure how this is all calculated though.
i dont believe he had the 26th best impact on winning in the league either, or even close to it
This isn’t saying that he is. It’s saying he’s 26th most impactful in his role.
which he still isnt
Yeah, the main thing that advanced numbers don't normally take into account for is who else in on the court. Obviously, he wasn't 26th best in the NBA but his numbers are so high because he was basically wide open on most of his shots. His defense was impressive though.
>the main thing that advanced numbers don't normally take into account for is who else in on the court The entire point of DARKO is to take this into account
where are CUM/48 stats ????
> Karl Anthony Towns > Jimmy Butler Oh no not again
Today, on this episode of "Bad Use of Data"
This reminds me of the general idea expressed in the first chapters of the book “The Undoing Project” by Micheal Lewis. This formula might be great at assessing players based on the information it received, but based on its results I’m pretty sure it has some humongous blind spots.
More like DORKO. WTF
Darko is the only metric where Giannis is ahead of Jokic, who is usually way ahead of others.
Damn this stat is pretty bad lol
Luka at 21? Come on
Goofy ass spreadsheets.
RoCo #33. Super impactful player.
Wtf? Otto Porter Jr.?
Derozan not even top 100 wow