Real Plus/Minus - Where Do the Celtics Rank?

[ThePaintedArea]

League Rank   Player      Avg Mins.   Off      Def      Net

23         Al Horford      32.4      1.17      2.09      3.26
30         Jae Crowder   29.7      1.69      1.09      2.78
58         Amir Johnson   19.8      0.29      1.15      1.44
78         Isaiah Thomas   33.3      3.83      -2.86   0.97
93         Kelly Olynyk   21.6      -0.52   1.13      0.61
123         Marcus Smart   30.6      -1.00   0.92      -0.08
133         Jonas Jerebko   17.0      -0.83   0.64      -0.19
190         Jaylen Brown   14.6      -1.36   0.53      -0.83
204         James Young   5.8      -1.44   0.47      -0.97
216         Avery Bradley   35.5      1.53      -2.60   -1.07
217         Tyler Zeller   13.1      -2.09   1.02      -1.07
238         Terry Rozier   19.2      -0.91   -0.38   -1.29
305         Demetrius      4.3      -1.04   -0.72   -1.76
360         Gerald Green   10.0      -1.57   -0.81   -2.38
363         Jordan Mickey   7.6      -1.99   -0.42   -2.41


Of all the "one size fits all" stats, I think that Real Plus/Minus is the most useful.  Having said that, I also think that how "good" a player is, is only one aspect of his value to a team.  Case in point: Evan Turner; last year Brad Stevens made a really interesting comment about how he helps the team despite the fact that "advanced stats" didn't like him.

(By the way, Celtics fans will be interested to know that in the latest compilation of Real Plus/Minus brother Evan has climbed out of his dismal status of worst in the league (#429) to a less pathetic #427.  Fwiw, Buddy Hield is now #429, and - also of interest to Celtics fans - #428 is being held down by Brandon Ingram.)

Regarding the table above, a couple of caveats: 

1) The players who have minutes below 10 a game cannot be considered to have strongly meaningful numbers, and Gerald Green has a bunch of DNP-CD's so he's in that group, too.  Brown and Zeller are getting consistent low rotation minutes, so their numbers by this metric can be considered meaningful.

2) It's still early, and what we've seen the past two seasons is that two players in particular will predictably improve their numbers as the season progresses: Kelly Olynyk and Jonas Jerebko. Kelly, I think it's obvious, is working out the consequences of surgery and its aftermath.  Jonas, for his part, is not having to chase small forwards around as he did a year ago, and has added some nice stuff off the dribble.

A word about Marcus Smart is in order here.  This is the first season where he's showing a positive number on the defensive end.  That's great news, but it might surprise the casual fan who sees him as always having been a good defensive player.  Consider that his awesome on-ball defense has not been matched by his off-ball defense up to this season - his tendency to ball-watch and "help one pass away" has been a deficit for the team defense, even as his ball-hawking has been splendid from the beginning.  He's getting smarter, erm, on the defensive end.

His offensive number here is still negative, though it, too, is an improvement.  My prediction is that he'll be above league average by the end of the season.  Here's why: so far this season he has done more distributing and more shooting.  Assist% is up, but so is Turnover%.  eFG% is up marginally, but FTrate and FT% are way down. 

Translation: he's not getting into the paint as much, and he's not making his free throws.  Interpretation: he's embraced his expanded role in creating shots for teammates, and he's trying to fulfill on the jumpshot work he did over the summer - BUT neglected the contribution he was making at the line last year.

Probable future: he'll settle back toward his stellar turnover number, excellent FTrate and very good FT% of last year.

There's plenty to debate about here, and some of the Amir and Kelly detractors are likely to question the value of the stat.  Just consider, if you will, that it's a team game, and where you are on the floor is possibly the most important thing in the game - but by the same token the least likely to impact anything in the box score.

As the late great Chuck Daly said, "Offense is spacing, and spacing is offense."

A word about minutes, and how Brad Stevens is allocating them in this context:  the two outliers are Avery and Terry Rozier. 

Rozier makes a lot of sense: in his second year, he's getting a lot of what amount to developmental minutes, and his coach is living with the inevitable mistakes.  There's plenty to be optimistic about - the turnover numbers are super low, for example.  His upside is 3-and-D point guard if he can't translate his D-league playmaking numbers - and that's great - but it looks like a bigger game is a good bet.  To be continued!

Uh... Bradley... Discuss.

[nickagneta]

Not sure what makes real plus minus any more or less useful as a stat to judge players overall games than other stats. I respect all stats and think they all should be used, to some extent, to judge a player but not all by itself. Stats like these tend to show some whacky results when you look at players rankings in them across the league.

https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

[ThePaintedArea]

Not sure what makes real plus minus any more or less useful as a stat to judge players overall games than other stats. I respect all stats and think they all should be used, to some extent, to judge a player but not all by itself. Stats like these tend to show some whacky results when you look at players rankings in them across the league.

https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

What makes Real Plus/Minus useful is that it's measuring a player's whole contribution.  Why it's better than the raw Plus/Minus that you find in the box scores is that it controls for who else is on the floor.

I'm with you on the point you make about using a range of stats, rather than getting seduced by a single one. 

As for "wacky" results: do you have any examples, and an argument as to why they do or don't make sense?

Amir, Kelly, Marcus, and Zeller are typically lightning rods on this board; there's a certain amount of tension for a lot of posters between how highly they value those guys vs. how highly Brad does.  In general, this stat tends to confirm Brad's choices - with the exceptions of Rozier and Bradley.

[nickagneta]

Not sure what makes real plus minus any more or less useful as a stat to judge players overall games than other stats. I respect all stats and think they all should be used, to some extent, to judge a player but not all by itself. Stats like these tend to show some whacky results when you look at players rankings in them across the league.

https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

What makes Real Plus/Minus useful is that it's measuring a player's whole contribution.  Why it's better than the raw Plus/Minus that you find in the box scores is that it controls for who else is on the floor.

I'm with you on the point you make about using a range of stats, rather than getting seduced by a single one. 

As for "wacky" results: do you have any examples, and an argument as to why they do or don't make sense?

Amir, Kelly, Marcus, and Zeller are typically lightning rods on this board; there's a certain amount of tension for a lot of posters between how highly they value those guys vs. how highly Brad does.  In general, this stat tends to confirm Brad's choices - with the exceptions of Rozier and Bradley.

Whacky results?

How about Steph Curry isnt in the top 10 in RPM?
How about Patty Mills is 24th right behind Al Horford?
Lucas Nogueira is 31st?
Otto Porter higher than John Wall and is 21st in the league?

Sounds pretty whacky to me to use as an all around gauge of player performance.

[PhoSita]

RPM numbers continue to look unreliable, noisy, and often nonsensical in anything but a very large (one full season or more) sample.

The Bradley numbers are a great example of that.

[BitterJim]

Not sure what makes real plus minus any more or less useful as a stat to judge players overall games than other stats. I respect all stats and think they all should be used, to some extent, to judge a player but not all by itself. Stats like these tend to show some whacky results when you look at players rankings in them across the league.

https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

What makes Real Plus/Minus useful is that it's measuring a player's whole contribution.  Why it's better than the raw Plus/Minus that you find in the box scores is that it controls for who else is on the floor.

I'm with you on the point you make about using a range of stats, rather than getting seduced by a single one. 

As for "wacky" results: do you have any examples, and an argument as to why they do or don't make sense?

Amir, Kelly, Marcus, and Zeller are typically lightning rods on this board; there's a certain amount of tension for a lot of posters between how highly they value those guys vs. how highly Brad does.  In general, this stat tends to confirm Brad's choices - with the exceptions of Rozier and Bradley.

Whacky results?

How about Steph Curry isnt in the top 10 in RPM?
How about Patty Mills is 24th right behind Al Horford?
Lucas Nogueira is 31st?
Otto Porter higher than John Wall and is 21st in the league?

Sounds pretty whacky to me to use as an all around gauge of player performance.

Adding to that, reining DPOY winner Kawhi Leonard has a DPM of 0.56, fitting him between Jonas Jerebko and Jaylen Brown (and only 0.09 above elite defender James Young)

Not sure what makes real plus minus any more or less useful as a stat to judge players overall games than other stats. I respect all stats and think they all should be used, to some extent, to judge a player but not all by itself. Stats like these tend to show some whacky results when you look at players rankings in them across the league.

https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

What makes Real Plus/Minus useful is that it's measuring a player's whole contribution.  Why it's better than the raw Plus/Minus that you find in the box scores is that it controls for who else is on the floor.

I'm with you on the point you make about using a range of stats, rather than getting seduced by a single one. 

As for "wacky" results: do you have any examples, and an argument as to why they do or don't make sense?

Amir, Kelly, Marcus, and Zeller are typically lightning rods on this board; there's a certain amount of tension for a lot of posters between how highly they value those guys vs. how highly Brad does.  In general, this stat tends to confirm Brad's choices - with the exceptions of Rozier and Bradley.

It attempts to control for who else is on the floor.  It doesn't do a very good job of this, though, especially defensively, which gives a lot of wacky results.  It also has issues with properly correcting for who comes off the bench for them (so having a good defender like AB backed up by a good defender like Smart downplays their defensive abilities)

It's a stat that can be useful when paired with the eye test and a bunch of other advanced stats, but using it on its own to compare players' impacts isn't really useful

[DefenseWinsChamps]

RPM numbers continue to look unreliable, noisy, and often nonsensical in anything but a very large (one full season or more) sample.

The Bradley numbers are a great example of that.

I agree with this. I think the RPM is a mostly effective tool at ascertaining the value of a player on the court. It often shows what we already know about some players - that their numbers are bloated or that their value goes beyond numbers.

But I think CBS plays by a different set of rules/stats that somehow are not reflected in the RPM.

On the one hand, there are players that the RPM seems to like and then we get them (Horford, Johnson, Crowder), but there are other times where we sign or draft someone, when the numbers that we have (RPM, PER, ORTG, DRTG, etc.) don't indicate we should.

There are times when CBS puts someone in the game and I would have literally done the opposite based on the numbers and flow of the game. There are other times when he stays with a guy who is struggling for way longer than I would. It really is weird.

But I trust CBS's basketball mind and the advanced stats gurus that the Celtic organization have put together. I just think they have a different formula that they use to determine value. Sometimes that formula communicates the same thing as the RPM, but sometimes it doesn't.

[ThePaintedArea]

Not sure what makes real plus minus any more or less useful as a stat to judge players overall games than other stats. I respect all stats and think they all should be used, to some extent, to judge a player but not all by itself. Stats like these tend to show some whacky results when you look at players rankings in them across the league.

https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

What makes Real Plus/Minus useful is that it's measuring a player's whole contribution.  Why it's better than the raw Plus/Minus that you find in the box scores is that it controls for who else is on the floor.

I'm with you on the point you make about using a range of stats, rather than getting seduced by a single one. 

As for "wacky" results: do you have any examples, and an argument as to why they do or don't make sense?

Amir, Kelly, Marcus, and Zeller are typically lightning rods on this board; there's a certain amount of tension for a lot of posters between how highly they value those guys vs. how highly Brad does.  In general, this stat tends to confirm Brad's choices - with the exceptions of Rozier and Bradley.

Whacky results?

How about Steph Curry isnt in the top 10 in RPM?
How about Patty Mills is 24th right behind Al Horford?
Lucas Nogueira is 31st?
Otto Porter higher than John Wall and is 21st in the league?

Sounds pretty whacky to me to use as an all around gauge of player performance.

First the obvious caveat:  we're at the quarter pole of the season, and there are bound to be outliers.

Curry: 11th is still pretty good; notice that he's 3rd in offensive RPM, and his slightly negative number on defense is neither surprising given his history, nor given the fact that the Warriors are only 10th in defensive efficiency so far.  They have not had to lock in too tight to win games, since their juggernaut offense has mostly been enough to win comfortably.  He was #1 in this stat last year, by the way, with a slightly positive defensive RPM.

Patty Mills: you can be forgiven for not noticing his breakout season - as usual the Spurs are under the radar, and as usual they're just winning; with Tony Parker declining (you would agree, I take it?), Mills has stepped up - he's shooting like .439 from three, for example.

Lucas Nogueira: His block % is 8.3!  His FG% is .783!  He's shooting .842 at the rim! He plays within himself and is extremely effective in his narrow role.  Think they miss Bismack Biyombo?  This guy's better.  Now it's an open question whether opponents can make his lack of versatility enough of an offensive liability to negate his defensive contribution.  We need a bigger sample size, so stay tuned.  Toronto has exceeded everyone's expectations, and the questions need to be: how is this happening?  Who exactly is making this happen? Nogueira is part of the answer (so is Norman Powell - #56 - as Brad was pointing to the other night).

Otto Porter: a real surprise here, given his uninspiring - and uninspired! - early career.  Just a couple of things: he's rebounding like a power forward, gets steals like a starting shooting guard, and his true shooting percentage is .620.  Maybe he's justifying his high draft status.

[The Oracle]

Andre Drummond Defensive rating 105.3 in 746 minutes, without Drummond on the floor the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 93.7 in 502 minutes.

Aron Baynes Def. Rat. of 95.2 in 423 minutes, without Baynes the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 103.4 in 825 minutes.

Polar opposites as far as on court results and yet RPM has Drummond ranked 13th overall defensively at +2.67 and has Baynes ranked 18th at +2.32.  Drummond is not a good defender by any stretch, never has been.  Baynes on the other hand busts his butt, works hard all the time and is a good defender.  How RPM comes up with those numbers is baffling.

Also LOL at Gorgui Dieng being 15th ranked defensively, he is just terrible.  RPM is a trainwreck as a metric as most all of these advanced metrics are.

[CelticGuardian]

Andre Drummond Defensive rating 105.3 in 746 minutes, without Drummond on the floor the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 93.7 in 502 minutes.

Aron Baynes Def. Rat. of 95.2 in 423 minutes, without Baynes the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 103.4 in 825 minutes.

Polar opposites as far as on court results and yet RPM has Drummond ranked 13th overall defensively at +2.67 and has Baynes ranked 18th at +2.32.  Drummond is not a good defender by any stretch, never has been.  Baynes on the other hand busts his butt, works hard all the time and is a good defender.  How RPM comes up with those numbers is baffling.

Also LOL at Gorgui Dieng being 15th ranked defensively, he is just terrible.  RPM is a trainwreck as a metric as most all of these advanced metrics are.

dude, no chill. You know Dieng drop 20-and 10 on these Celtics right? You know what Michael Smith err, I mean Olynyk do that game?!

[The Oracle]

Andre Drummond Defensive rating 105.3 in 746 minutes, without Drummond on the floor the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 93.7 in 502 minutes.

Aron Baynes Def. Rat. of 95.2 in 423 minutes, without Baynes the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 103.4 in 825 minutes.

Polar opposites as far as on court results and yet RPM has Drummond ranked 13th overall defensively at +2.67 and has Baynes ranked 18th at +2.32.  Drummond is not a good defender by any stretch, never has been.  Baynes on the other hand busts his butt, works hard all the time and is a good defender.  How RPM comes up with those numbers is baffling.

Also LOL at Gorgui Dieng being 15th ranked defensively, he is just terrible.  RPM is a trainwreck as a metric as most all of these advanced metrics are.

dude, no chill. You know Dieng drop 20-and 10 on these Celtics right? You know what Michael Smith err, I mean Olynyk do that game?!

I hope my sarcasm meter is functioning correctly today and that is indeed sarcasm??  I sure hope so.....

[CelticGuardian]

Andre Drummond Defensive rating 105.3 in 746 minutes, without Drummond on the floor the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 93.7 in 502 minutes.

Aron Baynes Def. Rat. of 95.2 in 423 minutes, without Baynes the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 103.4 in 825 minutes.

Polar opposites as far as on court results and yet RPM has Drummond ranked 13th overall defensively at +2.67 and has Baynes ranked 18th at +2.32.  Drummond is not a good defender by any stretch, never has been.  Baynes on the other hand busts his butt, works hard all the time and is a good defender.  How RPM comes up with those numbers is baffling.

Also LOL at Gorgui Dieng being 15th ranked defensively, he is just terrible.  RPM is a trainwreck as a metric as most all of these advanced metrics are.

dude, no chill. You know Dieng drop 20-and 10 on these Celtics right? You know what Michael Smith err, I mean Olynyk do that game?!

I hope my sarcasm meter is functioning correctly today and that is indeed sarcasm??  I sure hope so.....

Nah, it's functioning properly, check your common sense though. Gorgui is a beast.

[Ilikesports17]

RPM is a really cool stat and the math behind it is really interesting, but ultimately it is one of the more flawed advanced stats.

[The Oracle]

Andre Drummond Defensive rating 105.3 in 746 minutes, without Drummond on the floor the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 93.7 in 502 minutes.

Aron Baynes Def. Rat. of 95.2 in 423 minutes, without Baynes the Pistons have a Def. Rat. of 103.4 in 825 minutes.

Polar opposites as far as on court results and yet RPM has Drummond ranked 13th overall defensively at +2.67 and has Baynes ranked 18th at +2.32.  Drummond is not a good defender by any stretch, never has been.  Baynes on the other hand busts his butt, works hard all the time and is a good defender.  How RPM comes up with those numbers is baffling.

Also LOL at Gorgui Dieng being 15th ranked defensively, he is just terrible.  RPM is a trainwreck as a metric as most all of these advanced metrics are.

dude, no chill. You know Dieng drop 20-and 10 on these Celtics right? You know what Michael Smith err, I mean Olynyk do that game?!

I hope my sarcasm meter is functioning correctly today and that is indeed sarcasm??  I sure hope so.....

Nah, it's functioning properly, check your common sense though. Gorgui is a beast.

Just one example.  According to the NBA's tracking data Dieng is among the very worst centers at defending FGA.  Opposing players are shooting 52% against him this year, also last year at 50.3%, in 14-15 also at 51.9.

[jpotter33]

I was literally just reading about how funky this stat is last night.

It also seems biased towards bigs, especially defensively.

What's interesting is that IT and Smart rank 14th and 15th respectively for point guards, iirc.

Another example is to look at the significant difference between Paul and all other point guards in DRPM. He's at 3.17, which is 2.25 higher than Smart at number 2, who is at 0.92. Are we really going to say that Paul is having three times the effect on the defense as Smart? Or is it more to do with the fact that he plays with great defenders in DJ/Reddick/LMAM and is usually replaced by either Felton, Rivers, or Crawford, all of whom are terrible defenders?

I don't think it does nearly as good of a job on factoring out the contextualities as it claims.