In a trench coat while doing black faces

Aha seriously wtf. Been around wayyyy longer

Say it again.

For me and for you the world is a ghetto

That’s weird to hear

And Rush Hour came out 28 years after that song was released.

Cafilka fish?

Hmm, do you think it’s because I sound like a karate movie ?

And covering up files that you don’t want released.

I dont think anyone is saying that.

But by impact, its hard to say that OG isnt one of the best players in the league.

This but unironically

Both really

Depends how you want to use the statistic. As a predictor of future performance in the finals I’d say punishing, since that situation isn’t that likely to recur in that span (Fox could retweak his ankle I guess, but we know what to expect if that happens). 

As a judgement of past performance I’d use accounting for. Players go in and out. If that has such high leverage on a guy I’d want to down weight them.

Punishing because you can leave this metric out entirely snd still paint an accurate picture of his impact. Pretty much exactly the same as a lot of metrics created in the last 20 years or so.

WAR is wins above replacement so the fact that those teams have the most wins in the post season to distribute among their players might be affecting things. Apparently his LAKER stat is an estimation of RAPTOR which relies on +/- so the knicks and the spurs, winning the most games, probably also have the highest +/- of all the teams in the playoffs.

edit: actually digging into how the metric is calculated:

1. Net Rating Contribution = (Minutes / (Team Total Minutes / 4.5)) × Total RAPTOR

2. WAR/82 = (Minutes / Team Total Minutes) × 27.769 + 2.519 × NRC

3. WAR = “Team Schedule” × (WAR/82 ÷ 82)

“Team schedule” from the read me seems to be games played (and the arithmetic works out if read that way), so WAR is explicitly biased towards teams that have more games played, which in the current playoffs will be the spurs, okc, and knicks. It’s also biased towards teams with large point differentials because of RAPTOR so knicks is getting a serious boost for blowing out teams and their starters getting the most minutes are getting the greatest share of that boost. Because the cavss had a lot of close wins and bad losses their players are being down weighted despite the boost they get from having many games played.

wait, I don’t have the time or energy to research the stat, but are you saying the longer you play (in the post season) the higher your stat is, holding other things equal?

this is what us junkies do when we go three days without basketball

Thanks, makes sense then. Though I don’t really see the value in it for such a small sample size.

We’ve got the Spurs starting 5, Knicks starting 5 and OKC starting 3 + first 2 rotations (due to injures their starting 5 has been inconsistent anyway).

The teams who won their conferences are essentially the top 10, the one team who lost all their CF are barely represented. I’m not really sure this is telling me a whole lot. Unless you’re absolutely terrible (cough Dort), you’d make this list being a starting player on a team who won some games deep into the playoffs.

Is there also WAR per 36 or per game?

According to the other person who replied, and ChatGPT, it is a cumulative metric. That makes sense now and why the Spurs+Knicks starting 5 almost round out the top 10, followed by OKC’s starting 5, and then the Cavs barely represented as they got swept.

I’m not seeing the value here personally.

Oh yea 100%, I’m just saying these ones named after teams and players, them shits too new and niche for me.

They are all built around confirmation bias anyway.

Any “advanced model” that doesn’t end up confirming shit we already know is just tweaked until it does.

That’s the problem. There is no difference in using advanced stats as opposed to box score stats except the fact that they are extremely contrived and pretentious and an absolute waste of fucking time at this point trying to keep up with everyones “expert analysis” just regurgitating WAR and LEBRON and VORP and all this meaningless shit instead of going in depth on anything that actually happens on the court leading to the stats that actually do mean something.

Now everyone wants to be “Thinking Basketball” and completely drowns out any legitimate thought provoking analysis with their “I built a model 🤓” decimal point filled useless trash

Where do you see that? All I see specified is that it’s schedule-adjusted based on playoff ELO (which seems to have been added in an edit a couple of minutes ago), and that just runs into the same problem, because how do you calculate an accurate ELO for teams with that kind of sample size?

[deleted]

Right, but since that ELO is playoff-only, your sample size is very limited – and runs into the same problem since you (presumably) weigh wins over deeply flawed rosters like Detroit and Boston more heavily than ought be appropriated, doubly so given the kinds of wins seen in the West.

…This proves my point about the flawed nature of this ELO-based approach, if anything. You really think Cleveland should carry the relative weight of a team that can sweep the Spurs just because they beat the Spurs twice in the dead days of December, once without Wemby and once on December 29th, less than a week after the Spurs scored double dubs on OKC in back-to-back games?

If we’re not going to use context and critical thinking in our analyses then the whole exercise is moot IMO.