0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
He is a temp.not here for the long run.
He seems to have 2 differently modes. In some games he’s the perfect bench spark, hitting threes and defending attentively. Then for no reason in particular, he takes it upon himself to play like Kobe (without the freakish ability) on one end and Harden on the other. Very polarising player
Real Plus-Minus is meant to be predictive. It’s interested in how well a player will perform in the future, rather than what he did in the past. RPM’s emphasis on prediction explains why it uses some of the tricks it does.For instance, I mentioned earlier that RPM uses data from previous seasons in its priors. If my primary goal is to evaluate how well a player did this season, it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to use data from other seasons. However, if I want to predict what will happen in the future, the older numbers can help me differentiate between players who have been consistently good (and will likely keep being good) and players who are merely going through a hot streak (and will likely regress to their mean).This has a number of implications. One is that RPM tends to be skeptical of player improvements (or regressions) that exceed what is expected for a player that age. This season, Anthony Davis improved much faster than most 20-21 year old playes. People who watch basketball know that Davis is super talented and accelerated growth is expected from him. However, Real Plus-Minus doesn’t understand this and suspects that Davis’ numbers might be a random blip. As a result, Real Plus-Minus is liable to underestimate Davis’s impact this season9.On a less technical note, RPM’s focus on prediction makes it a poor way to determine who should get end-of-season awards. I think this is an important point to emphasize because ESPN does exactly this in its introduction to RPM, using it to argue that Taj Gibson is a better candidate than Jamal Crawford for 6th Man of the Year. RPM is optimized to predict the future, not evaluate the past.
Junk “stat”. The formula includes height, age, prior year statistics, etc. It’s not really meant to measure day to day production, despite ESPN mispromoting it.
Quote from: Roy H. on February 10, 2018, 10:43:16 PMJunk “stat”. The formula includes height, age, prior year statistics, etc. It’s not really meant to measure day to day production, despite ESPN mispromoting it.Not a junk stat, quite a good one.Horford and Kyrie are the top two on our team in plus and minus.
Quote from: Chris22 on February 11, 2018, 12:03:21 AMQuote from: Roy H. on February 10, 2018, 10:43:16 PMJunk “stat”. The formula includes height, age, prior year statistics, etc. It’s not really meant to measure day to day production, despite ESPN mispromoting it.Not a junk stat, quite a good one.Horford and Kyrie are the top two on our team in plus and minus.Did you just not read all rebuttals above? It is a junk stat. Any stat that factors in your height and previous season's stats are thrash and cannot be relied upon.
Quote from: Chris22 on February 11, 2018, 12:03:21 AMQuote from: Roy H. on February 10, 2018, 10:43:16 PMJunk “stat”. The formula includes height, age, prior year statistics, etc. It’s not really meant to measure day to day production, despite ESPN mispromoting it.Not a junk stat, quite a good one.Horford and Kyrie are the top two on our team in plus and minus.This is horribly fallacious reasoning.RPM has been well-discussed here and elsewhere. Its flaws are not something one can dispute, unless you think Tyus Jones and Robert Covington are better than Lebron James, and those two plus Spencer Dinwiddie, Gary Harris and Fred Van Vleet are better than Kevin Durant.