The ONE AND ONLY Luka Doncic discussion thread
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
- Status
I wouldn’t reference BPM and WS as if they were some proof he’s not a net negative.
First of all, BPM is heavily reliant on counting stats which is Doncic’s specialty (points, rebounds, assists, etc.). It gives somewhat arbitrary weights to these stats in an effort to attribute a teams performance to a player based on those counting stats. That’s not a very strong stat to use.
Secondly, WS is a top down metric which tends to favor players who happen to be on a team with a lot of wins. For offensive WS (as an example), they calculate the number of win shares the team has 1st. Then they use a players points to distribute that across a team. I think we can all agree that there’s a lot more that goes into offense than points. Don’t you?
I pointed out a flawed stat in on/off but that stat is not biased by counting stats. It simply looks at how the team performs when he’s on the floor and how the team performs when he’s off the floor. Things like quality of teammates when on/off the floor and quality of opponents when on/off the floor are not controlled for but it at least deemphasizes counting stats and focuses on team performance.
And don’t take this as an anti Doncic post. I’m as mad as a lot of you here and I still think he’ll be a very special player in this league. I just thought it was interesting that a player who is putting up so many triple doubles and has like a 60% TS% has a negative on/off. His team literally is 11 points per 100 possessions better when he’s off the floor. It’s a smaller sample size so we’ll see how it progresses.
And the guy is a sophomore. He has plenty of time to develop into that high impact player. I surely wouldn’t bet against him.
First of all, BPM is heavily reliant on counting stats which is Doncic’s specialty (points, rebounds, assists, etc.). It gives somewhat arbitrary weights to these stats in an effort to attribute a teams performance to a player based on those counting stats. That’s not a very strong stat to use.
Secondly, WS is a top down metric which tends to favor players who happen to be on a team with a lot of wins. For offensive WS (as an example), they calculate the number of win shares the team has 1st. Then they use a players points to distribute that across a team. I think we can all agree that there’s a lot more that goes into offense than points. Don’t you?
I pointed out a flawed stat in on/off but that stat is not biased by counting stats. It simply looks at how the team performs when he’s on the floor and how the team performs when he’s off the floor. Things like quality of teammates when on/off the floor and quality of opponents when on/off the floor are not controlled for but it at least deemphasizes counting stats and focuses on team performance.
And don’t take this as an anti Doncic post. I’m as mad as a lot of you here and I still think he’ll be a very special player in this league. I just thought it was interesting that a player who is putting up so many triple doubles and has like a 60% TS% has a negative on/off. His team literally is 11 points per 100 possessions better when he’s off the floor. It’s a smaller sample size so we’ll see how it progresses.
And the guy is a sophomore. He has plenty of time to develop into that high impact player. I surely wouldn’t bet against him.
Last edited:
Well put. I think the counting stats emphasis is especially misleading on defense. In the case of Doncic, he plays continuously on the weakside but never rotates to help or looks to block a shot at the rim. I literally watched players drive towards the basket while Doncic instead of moving to stop the drive moved in position to get a rebound should the player miss because other teammates rotated.
I just pull it from basketball reference: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2020/on-off/
So it's down to -14.6 after last night. Only Porzingis, Lee, & Curry are worse in this stat right now.
Off On/Off = -4.6
Def On/Off = +9.9
Tot On/Off = -14.6
Last years numbers...
Off On/Off = 0.0
Def On/Off = +3.6
Tot On/Off = -3.7
So it's down to -14.6 after last night. Only Porzingis, Lee, & Curry are worse in this stat right now.
Off On/Off = -4.6
Def On/Off = +9.9
Tot On/Off = -14.6
Last years numbers...
Off On/Off = 0.0
Def On/Off = +3.6
Tot On/Off = -3.7
On/off has so big "flaws" in it (those that you pointed out) that IMO you should never call someone a "net negative" soley based on that. Especially when advanced metrics seem to indicate that the player is actually very productive.
You're right, BPM is not the best possible metric in this situation. RPM is probably better than BPM and a simple on/off number. Last year as a rookie Luka had a positive RPM so that too would imply that he isnt a "net negative". PIPM is also a lot better indicator on wether he is a net negative. This year he is 23rd in the whole league so to me everything says that Luka is definetly not a net negative.
BPM is more of support to the argument when that stat says that his level of play is very top level atm.
To me these metrics very clearly imply hes already a positive impact to his team and I trust those metrics a lot more than simple on/off stats that dont take into account these several important factors.
Obviously its interesting to think about why his simple on/off doesnt look great. Considering what the metrics say its probably some of one of those things you mentioned as flaws of the number but I dont watch Mavs games closely enough to have a strong opinion.
Well to me that number isnt so important and above I explained why I think that. Its interesting but there are another metrics that I care about a lot more.
You're right, BPM is not the best possible metric in this situation. RPM is probably better than BPM and a simple on/off number. Last year as a rookie Luka had a positive RPM so that too would imply that he isnt a "net negative". PIPM is also a lot better indicator on wether he is a net negative. This year he is 23rd in the whole league so to me everything says that Luka is definetly not a net negative.
BPM is more of support to the argument when that stat says that his level of play is very top level atm.
To me these metrics very clearly imply hes already a positive impact to his team and I trust those metrics a lot more than simple on/off stats that dont take into account these several important factors.
Obviously its interesting to think about why his simple on/off doesnt look great. Considering what the metrics say its probably some of one of those things you mentioned as flaws of the number but I dont watch Mavs games closely enough to have a strong opinion.
Well to me that number isnt so important and above I explained why I think that. Its interesting but there are another metrics that I care about a lot more.
PIPM I was unaware of. I just did some reading up on it and it's intriguing. I'll have to go through Jacob's calculations in more detail, but early indications is that it seems like a good stat to use. I'd group it with RAPM & RPM as perhaps the trio I'll cross reference going forward.
However, I can't find his 2018-19 PIPM stats? I see 2017-18 on bball-index but when you select 2018-19, it brings up the 2019-20 PIPM. Any idea where you can find 2018-19?
I think we're both in agreement that BPM & WS are pretty weak to use in regards to measuring a players impact. I'd rank On/Off above them, but it doesn't mean that On/Off is "right." RPM & RAPM are unavailable right now so I defaulted to On/Off in interim.
Last year's Doncic's stats were:
PIPM = ??? (can't find the 2018-19 stats)
RPM = +1.29 (better than 83% of the league)
RAPM = -0.01 (better than 53% of the league)
Early research tells me that PIPM and RPM are fairly similar so I would expect Doncic's 2018-19 PIPM to be somewhat close to RPM which begs the question if I really should be using both of them or is it like saying Player A is a good scorer because he scores X PPG and Y Total Points on the season. It doesn't make the case stronger, it's just redundant, but we'll see if I feel the same way after reading more about it.
However, I can't find his 2018-19 PIPM stats? I see 2017-18 on bball-index but when you select 2018-19, it brings up the 2019-20 PIPM. Any idea where you can find 2018-19?
I think we're both in agreement that BPM & WS are pretty weak to use in regards to measuring a players impact. I'd rank On/Off above them, but it doesn't mean that On/Off is "right." RPM & RAPM are unavailable right now so I defaulted to On/Off in interim.
Last year's Doncic's stats were:
PIPM = ??? (can't find the 2018-19 stats)
RPM = +1.29 (better than 83% of the league)
RAPM = -0.01 (better than 53% of the league)
Early research tells me that PIPM and RPM are fairly similar so I would expect Doncic's 2018-19 PIPM to be somewhat close to RPM which begs the question if I really should be using both of them or is it like saying Player A is a good scorer because he scores X PPG and Y Total Points on the season. It doesn't make the case stronger, it's just redundant, but we'll see if I feel the same way after reading more about it.
Last edited:
Since this context is going to matter to some, Bagley's:
RPM = -3.65 (better than 7% of the league)
I spent most of last year trying to ignore that difference, because rookies are expected to improve a lot, and stats can be deceiving. I hope I won't have to keep that up a whole lot longer. I like Bagley, and usually like what he contributes to a game, but that is a really depressing stat gap.
RPM = -3.65 (better than 7% of the league)
I spent most of last year trying to ignore that difference, because rookies are expected to improve a lot, and stats can be deceiving. I hope I won't have to keep that up a whole lot longer. I like Bagley, and usually like what he contributes to a game, but that is a really depressing stat gap.
Here is an interesting analysis on RealGM
Looking at on-court and on-off numbers in tandem can be very informative, especially with context regarding lineups/rotations. The 1st number takes a player's total +/- and averages it out over 100 possessions; the 2nd number compares his team's production with him versus without him and averages it out over 100 possessions.
These data points generate 4 general categories that players can fall into:
Positive-Positive
When the first number is positive, we know the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court. Maybe the player was vital to that success or maybe he was riding the coattails of his teammates, but at a minimum the positive number demonstrates the player can be part of a winning recipe.
When the second number is positive, we know that the team's average +/- was better with the player than without him. "But that depends on lineups/rotations" you might say, and you would be right. It's possible the player is benefitting from a more favorable position in the rotation. That said, if a player is regarded as being the clear best on his team, there really isn't an excuse for that player to have a negative on/off. Especially knowing that every NBA team staggers their rotations.
In sum, 2 positives show us the player (a) won more possessions than he lost while on the court and (b) his team produced more efficiently when he was on the court than off the court. Maybe he lucked his way into the best lineups on a great team, but it's much more likely the player provides positive impact of his own. It's no coincidence the top 16 players from RealGM's top 25 project all fall into this category. As for the 17th player, he lands in our next category...
Negative-Positive
A negative-positive tells us the player's team was outscored while he was on the court, but that the team played better with him than without him. Enter #17 ranked Bradley Beal. The Wizards were really bad last year, so it should come as no surprise that Beal had a negative +/- on the season. It's still not the highest praise given that only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative +/-, but at least he demonstrated positive impact on his own team. The same can't be said for our next example...
Positive-Negative
A positive-negative tells us the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court, but that they produced even more efficiently without him. The highest ranked player in this group would be Philly's own, Ben Simmons at #22. As the 3rd best player on last year's Sixers, many of Ben's minutes were staggered against 2 better players in Embiid and Butler. It makes sense that Simmons/Embiid or Simmons/Butler combos might not perform as well as Butler/Embiid. It's not an inditement on Ben, but it does provide further evidence that he's not the best player on the team (nor the 2nd best in last year's case). Only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative on/off, who also happens to be Beal's lone companion with a negative +/-. That player falls into our final category...
Negative-Negative
Opposite to the positive-positive distinction, the negative-negative shows us the player (a) lost more possessions than he won while on the court and (b) his team performed more efficiently without him than with him. Because there was only 1 negative-negative in the top 25 list, I wanted to see how far I could make it before finding another. Using SI's top 100, I made it all the way to #62 before I found another negative-negative. That's kind of telling, I think. In the rare cases that a star puts up a negative +/-, we should be able to say "yeah but the rest of the team was that bad." With a negative on/off however, that argument doesn't fly. If a true star can't demonstrably improve the production of a bad team, then maybe the player isn't as impactful as we believe him to be.
By now you might realize who I'm referring to. The only player in SI's top 61 players to sport a negative-negative last season was the European wonder: Luka Doncic. By rookie standards, it's really not that worrisome. In fact, the negative-negative at #62 was another rookie: Trae Young. Fast forward to this year though, and Trae has a firmly positive on/off, while Doncic is still a negative-negative 10 games into the season. So what's the deal? His box numbers have been incredible, but his impact just isn't there. Not yet at least. Is there any context Mavs fans can provide to explain what we're seeing? You can laugh off +/- and on/off numbers, but when he's the only player in the top 61 with 2 negatives, it's fair to assume his impact doesn't match his reputation. It's one thing to call him a future superstar, but a current superstar? I'm not convinced. His defense is only one part of the equation because the Mavs' offense has produced -4.6 less points per 100 possessions when Luka is on the court.
Looking at on-court and on-off numbers in tandem can be very informative, especially with context regarding lineups/rotations. The 1st number takes a player's total +/- and averages it out over 100 possessions; the 2nd number compares his team's production with him versus without him and averages it out over 100 possessions.
These data points generate 4 general categories that players can fall into:
Positive-Positive
When the first number is positive, we know the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court. Maybe the player was vital to that success or maybe he was riding the coattails of his teammates, but at a minimum the positive number demonstrates the player can be part of a winning recipe.
When the second number is positive, we know that the team's average +/- was better with the player than without him. "But that depends on lineups/rotations" you might say, and you would be right. It's possible the player is benefitting from a more favorable position in the rotation. That said, if a player is regarded as being the clear best on his team, there really isn't an excuse for that player to have a negative on/off. Especially knowing that every NBA team staggers their rotations.
In sum, 2 positives show us the player (a) won more possessions than he lost while on the court and (b) his team produced more efficiently when he was on the court than off the court. Maybe he lucked his way into the best lineups on a great team, but it's much more likely the player provides positive impact of his own. It's no coincidence the top 16 players from RealGM's top 25 project all fall into this category. As for the 17th player, he lands in our next category...
Negative-Positive
A negative-positive tells us the player's team was outscored while he was on the court, but that the team played better with him than without him. Enter #17 ranked Bradley Beal. The Wizards were really bad last year, so it should come as no surprise that Beal had a negative +/- on the season. It's still not the highest praise given that only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative +/-, but at least he demonstrated positive impact on his own team. The same can't be said for our next example...
Positive-Negative
A positive-negative tells us the player's team outscored their opponents while he was on the court, but that they produced even more efficiently without him. The highest ranked player in this group would be Philly's own, Ben Simmons at #22. As the 3rd best player on last year's Sixers, many of Ben's minutes were staggered against 2 better players in Embiid and Butler. It makes sense that Simmons/Embiid or Simmons/Butler combos might not perform as well as Butler/Embiid. It's not an inditement on Ben, but it does provide further evidence that he's not the best player on the team (nor the 2nd best in last year's case). Only 1 other player in the top 25 had a negative on/off, who also happens to be Beal's lone companion with a negative +/-. That player falls into our final category...
Negative-Negative
Opposite to the positive-positive distinction, the negative-negative shows us the player (a) lost more possessions than he won while on the court and (b) his team performed more efficiently without him than with him. Because there was only 1 negative-negative in the top 25 list, I wanted to see how far I could make it before finding another. Using SI's top 100, I made it all the way to #62 before I found another negative-negative. That's kind of telling, I think. In the rare cases that a star puts up a negative +/-, we should be able to say "yeah but the rest of the team was that bad." With a negative on/off however, that argument doesn't fly. If a true star can't demonstrably improve the production of a bad team, then maybe the player isn't as impactful as we believe him to be.
By now you might realize who I'm referring to. The only player in SI's top 61 players to sport a negative-negative last season was the European wonder: Luka Doncic. By rookie standards, it's really not that worrisome. In fact, the negative-negative at #62 was another rookie: Trae Young. Fast forward to this year though, and Trae has a firmly positive on/off, while Doncic is still a negative-negative 10 games into the season. So what's the deal? His box numbers have been incredible, but his impact just isn't there. Not yet at least. Is there any context Mavs fans can provide to explain what we're seeing? You can laugh off +/- and on/off numbers, but when he's the only player in the top 61 with 2 negatives, it's fair to assume his impact doesn't match his reputation. It's one thing to call him a future superstar, but a current superstar? I'm not convinced. His defense is only one part of the equation because the Mavs' offense has produced -4.6 less points per 100 possessions when Luka is on the court.
- Status