RPM isn't the magic wonder-stat that you seem to think it is. Contrary to the purpose, it very clearly does not wash out team and usage effects and it is positionally sensitive (means and distributions for each of the positions are very different). There are several good papers you can find with google that discuss it's shortcomings. So using it so casually for comparisons is misleading. There is also the problem of ranking relevance: The huge number of players lumped in the middle exaggerates the span in ranking between people on the opposite ends of the distribution, beyond what the real relevance of the difference is. Another way of saying that is, the actual real world (in game, per-possession) significance of the RPM score for the 100th player is not meaningfully different from the 200th player, yet they are separated by 99 players ranked in between them.
Which is irrelevant, because both of these guys play the same positions...and their ranks within the league are not even close to the median - one is FAR on the positive, one is FAR on the negative.
So not much of what you just said really does a lot to discredit these statistics.
There are some things that you do have to note by observation in order to provide context, else the numbers are meaningless. The Magic were, clearly, measurably and to the naked eye, a horrible defensive team that was horribly coached. I would be very leary of drawing too firm of a negative conclusion about the defensive chops of any individual based on stats. The stats for the team are overwhelmingly negative. Was Harris part of the problem? Possibly. The problem is, he was present on all their most-used 5-man lineups. Both the few that posted relatively good defensive numbers and also those that posted bad defensive numbers. Was the latter his fault? Or the fault of some other players that were only on those lineups? But conversely, were the former to his credit? Or the credit only to the other players that were only on those lineups? All that suggests that Harris was probably not moving the needle far up OR down on defense.
Subjective observation -- the eye test -- would tend to correlate with that. He had his strong points on defense (rebounding, size) and his weak points (lateral quicks) and overall was sort of average. The question is left begging: Would his defensive performance have been better on a better defensive team? That has held true for many players in the past, so it's a reasonable question to ask.
I translate all of this to:
"No, I cannot provide a single objective statistic that would disprove the conclusion (from the DRPM numbers) that Tobias Harris is a significantly below average defensive player. The only argument I can make otherwise is based on pure subjective analysis."
Next.
To suggest that he's "More than" just a 3PT shooter by noting that 40% of his shots came from the most inefficient range, mid-range jump shots, is not really selling his offensive versatility. All we've established is that he's overwhelmingly a spot-up jump shooter on offense. At least he's decent at all those shots. But he does little to help create points in the offense.
I really don't care about all this garbage about midrange shots being the most inefficient range - the entire argument is only partially relevant.
Lets say you have Player A who shoots 44% from 10-16 feet and Player B who shoots 35% from outside the three point line. Both these guys are on the same time. You're in the playoffs - game 7, down by 1 points, inbounding the ball with 8 seconds left.
Statistics would tell you that you should give the ball to player B to take the last shot, because statistically a midrange jumper is the most 'inefficient shot in basketball'. However the defence has clogged the paint, and the only options they are really giving up are Player A for a midrange jumper, or Player B for a three.
Who do you pass to?
The answer is, you pass to Player A. Why? Because Player A has a higher chance of making that midrange jumper than Player B has of making that three...and all you need is one point to win, so the extra points from that three point shot are irrelevant. You take the shot that has a higher chance of going in. If you can get a layup or a dunk, then you take that. If not, then the next best bet is a midrange jumper. In that scenario a three is the last thing you want to be taking.
How many playoff games and playoff series did we win off a mid range jumper from Pierce or KG?
Now try again to convince me that it's not valuable having a guy who has a deadly midrange jumper.
in the process you can also try to tell me that KG was not a valuable offensive player for us during the big three era, since his offensive game was almost entirely composed of mid-range jump shots from about 2010 onwards.
That is dubious logic. Aside from the dubious usage of FG% as a measure of efficiency, the obvious counter statement is: Another concern is that even though Middleton shot a fantastic 39.8% from 3PT range, his overall scoring efficiency (TS%) wasn't really any better than Harris.
FG% misses the extra point value of 3PT shots and it also misses the value of FT shots earned from drawn fouls. Harris takes far more shots in contested zones. the 3-10 foot range is the most contested area of the court. That will tend to decrease FG%, though it can boost FTr (free-throw rate) for players that can draw fouls and thus show payoff in TS%.
The net net of things on offense is that both players were roughly equally efficient (TS% of 55-56%) at scoring, but Harris was much, much more versatile in his scoring. This gives the offense more ways to exploit opposing match-ups. He also created more pressure on the defense in terms of drawn fouls. It's also notable that even though he played far more often in the 'traffic' areas of the court, his TO rates were no higher than Middleton's.
If Harris took around 30% of his shots at a near 70% FG percentage...and yet he shot only 46% from the field overall...then what does that tell you about the percentages he shot
everywhere else?
The answer is, they were entirely medicore.
He shot 38.6% from 3-10 feet
He shot 36.7% from 10-16 feet
He shot 38.8% from 16 feet to 3 Point
So he can post up, he can shot threes (at a pretty average percentage, mind you) and..that's pretty much about it.
When you add in the fact of his Harris' superior rebounding, I again, see no basis for your assertion, to which I originally responded, that Middleton was a "far, far superior option".
Well that all depends on how you view his defensive contribution, and it seems we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
Because the way I see it, he's "on par" with Middleton as an offensive player, but FAR inferior as a defensive player...and that makes Middleton a "far, far superior option".
You assert that the fact that the Cs were so woeful at 3PT (4th worst 3PT%) shooting makes Middleton more attractive. Well, one can easily counter with the fact that the Cs were even more woeful at getting to the FT line (3rd worst FTrate) and also well below average in rebounding makes Harris more attractive.
I disagree, because we already have one guy who is a very good rebounder (Sullinger) and one guy who gets to the line very well (Thomas). .
We don't really have a single guy however who is a "lights out" shooter - just a bunch of average ones.
Hence adding an average three point shooter to a team that's already full of average three pint shooters...not really that bit a deal.
Adding a slightly above average rebounder (Harris averaged 6.5 Rebounds Per 36 last year - hardly mind blowing) on a team that has many slightly above average rebounders...not a big deal.
Adding an elite shooter to a team who has no elite shooters - that is more of a big deal. It adds a dimension that your team doesn't already have.
Of course if you would love to add rebounders and guys to attack the rim, and shooters, but we probably can't do all of that. So if you can add a shooter and fill a major gap in your team, then that's (to me) a priority.
Middleton is also a better fit in an offensive system that pushes ball movement, because Harris has non-existent skills as a passer.
Plus there is some (not necessarily high, but some) chance that we can add Greg Monroe via free agency and I we can do that then he will sold both of your reported problems (rebounding and getting to the line) far better then Harris would.
Honestly, I'd still rather get Crowder than Harris given he would cost probably half the money according to the statistics (which you don't believe in) he'd potentially help us just as much.
But hey, all the RPM numbers are misleading.
We absolutely DID NOT start winning last year just right around the time we started Smart and traded for Isaiah Thomas / Jonas Jerebko (the three of the four guys on our roster who had a positive RPM last year) and traded out Rondo and Green (the two guys on our team with the worst RPM last year).
That is definitely, without a doubt NOT what happened.
Anyway as I said we will have to agree to disagree on the 'stat vs subjective voodoo' argument, because I don't think either of us is going to be convinced to change stance on that!
We will see if we can get Harris, and if we do then we will see who proves to be right and who proves to be wrong - until then we'll just have to wait!
Topic: Tobias Harris started following Marcus Smart on Twitter, C's players follow him (Read 40636 times)