Collin Sexton | The Young Bull

[Alec]

I'm heavily favoring the eye test at this point. Sexton has already shown improvement on a nearly game by game basis. We were talking bust in the first 5 games. I mean, he'll clearly never be a floor general. It just isn't in the cards. But he's learning how to harness his dynamic abilities to score and learning what he can and can't do on the court.

 

[I'mWithDan]

0.0 VORP is exactly replacement level, as the name suggests.

Part of the VORP calculation is [BPM – (-2.0)], so 0.0 VORP can't be replacement level as it is defined.....because it is a player calculation based on % of minutes and games......it wouldn't make sense that an average player could produce a 0 result as we all understand +/-.

As I described above, a replacement level VORP player is loosely deemed a -2 per 100 possessions.....it varies for position type (the offensive and defensive split that contributes to that number) but they do use a per 100 "negative" calculation for a replacement level player......which makes sense in the context of per 100......average guys aren't producing at a neutral level.

 

[AllforOne]

This guy obviously never read Ozymandias right @Randolphkeys ?

Any excuse to post this is a good excuse:


Chills.

 

[Nathan S]

Part of the VORP calculation is [BPM – (-2.0)], so 0.0 VORP can't be replacement level as it is defined.....because it is a player calculation based on % of minutes and games......it wouldn't make sense that an average player could produce a 0 result as we all understand +/-.

As I described above, a replacement level player is loosely deemed a -2 per 100 possessions.....it varies for position type (the offensive and defensive split that contributes to that number) but they do use a per 100 "negative" calculation for a replacement level player......which makes sense in the context of per 100......average guys aren't producing at a neutral level.

Not sure I follow what you're saying...

An "average" player has BPM 0.0, so that factor in BPM comes out to [0.0 - (-2.0)] = 2.0, indicating that an average player is indeed generating value over replacement level as expected.

A replacement level player has BPM -2.0, so that factor in BPM comes out to [-2.0 - (-2.0)] = 0.0, indicating that a replacement level player doesn't generate any value over replacement level, also as expected.

then -.4 VORP is below rp and I believe he's like -5.8bpm

Oh yeah, Sexton's well below replacement level no doubt.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Not sure I follow what you're saying...

An "average" player has BPM 0.0, so that factor in BPM comes out to [0.0 - (-2.0)] = 2.0, indicating that an average player is indeed generating value over replacement level as expected.

A replacement level player has BPM -2.0, so that factor in BPM comes out to [-2.0 - (-2.0)] = 0.0, indicating that a replacement level player doesn't generate any value over replacement level, also as expected.

BPM does have a 0.0 baseline but it ignores minutes played......VORP is a minutes based calculation of BPM, so they're trying to get the most accurate baseline for that average. Tango made that assessment (-2.0) when defining what an average player contributes on a per minute basis over 100 possessions. I'm not trying to preach to you specifically, just explaining this so the thread generally understands why (-2.0) makes any sense as the baseline. -2 relative to average is replacement level.

Advanced stats are hard.....even for people who generally understand them. I get these things confused all the time. Or maybe I am also confused here.

Here is the paragraph stating the -2.0 VORP explanation:

"The conclusion was to establish -2.0 as replacement level for the NBA, measured in terms of points above or below average per 100 possessions. Unlike in major league baseball, players below replacement level do frequently play, primarily for development purposes. Rookies are frequently below replacement level, but there are no formal minor leagues to act as a development system like major league baseball has, so they end up getting playing time in the NBA in order to develop. Also, some teams tank, and trade for Byron Mullens to help that effort."

Am I interpreting this wrong? I read that as they make that negative adjustment to a minutes based calculation because of the dynamics at work in the NBA vs MLB (where this originated).

 

[Nathan S]

BPM does have a 0.0 baseline but it ignores minutes played......VORP is a minutes based calculation of BPM, so they're trying to get the most accurate baseline for that average. Tango made that assessment (-2.0) when defining what an average player contributes on a per minute basis over 100 possessions. I'm not trying to preach to you specifically, just explaining this so the thread generally understands why (-2.0) makes any sense as the baseline. -2 relative to average is replacement level.

Advanced stats are hard.....even for people who generally understand them. I get these things confused all the time. Or maybe I am also confused here.

Here is the paragraph stating they -2.0 VORP explanation:

"The conclusion was to establish -2.0 as replacement level for the NBA, measured in terms of points above or below average per 100 possessions. Unlike in major league baseball, players below replacement level do frequently play, primarily for development purposes. Rookies are frequently below replacement level, but there are no formal minor leagues to act as a development system like major league baseball has, so they end up getting playing time in the NBA in order to develop. Also, some teams tank, and trade for Byron Mullens to help that effort."

Am I interpreting this wrong? I read that as they make that negative adjustment to a minutes based calculation because of the dynamics at work in the NBA vs MLB (where this originated).

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you have it mixed up. -2.0 BPM is replacement level, which is why [BPM – (-2.0)] appears in the formula for VORP. There's nothing special about -2.0 VORP (except that the rare player who accumulates -2.0 VORP in a season could be derisively described as "special" )

 

[I'mWithDan]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you have it mixed up. -2.0 BPM is replacement level, which is why [BPM – (-2.0)] appears in the formula for VORP. There's nothing special about -2.0 VORP (except that the rare player who accumulates -2.0 VORP in a season could be derisively described as "special" )

Haha, jesus......My head hurts.

(-2-(-2))*0.5* 82/82

In my head, think I was mixing BPM / VORP as replacement level is described.

But yes, as that is explained, the above calculation is zero. This is why I have spreadsheets that do the math for me.

The language used on BBREF is still very confusing for VORP rollover in their columns:

"A box score estimate of the points per 100 TEAM possessions that a player contributed above a replacement-level (-2.0) player, translated to an average team and prorated to an 82-game season. Multiply by 2.70 to convert to wins over replacement."

It would be less confusing if they didn't have the (-2.0) reference, as the - BPM is washed out by the calculation.

 

[I'mWithDan]

So the summation of @Nathan S explaining how I need to hit the center for kids who can't read good.....

VORP to date:

Collin: Slightly below replacement level
SGA: Slightly above replacement level

 

[Nathan S]

So the summation of @Nathan S explaining how I need to hit the center for kids who can't read good.....

VORP to date:

Collin: Slightly below replacement level
SGA: Slightly above replacement level

Don't self-deprecate too much...you're definitely right to say basketball advanced stats are much trickier to work with than baseball ones. It's a bit too early in the season to take these numbers seriously anyway.

 

[Cavatt]

Stop summoning the olds gods for nothing.



There is a chance Ainge holding on to his picks and Jaylen Brown will bite him in the ass. I feel like the Eastern teams just got much stronger and they should have capitalized on their assets when they had high value. Brown and even Tatum (yeah), could prove to just be role players. hinge is too clingy, and I get where he is coming from, but sometimes you just gotta trade for a superstar. Now they have too many cooks and other than Kyrie none of them is very good.

Not trading for Leonard was Dumb Dumb Dumb.

 

[Ozone]

I love Sexton's shooting accuracy so far, but is it wrong to want a PG who can notch more than 2 assists per night? Granted, it's still early, but his AST% is microscopic. If I had time to look up the rookie AST%'s for the top 30 passing PGs in the league, I'm fairly certain that few or none had such a low output. Not trying to rain on the love fest in here -- just thought this should be discussed more.

I mean, he is a point guard, after all.

Yeah it's not all on him either though/ players have to make their shots and it's not like he isn't seeing the floor

 

[TitleTown]

Not trading for Leonard was Dumb Dumb Dumb.

Totally agree. Leonard + Kyrie + B.Stevens + Celtics depth is at least as good as 2016 Cavs.

And given how fractured the Warriors are emotionally, they’d have a legit shot at a ship this year. They wouldn’t be favorites, but they’d be significantly better than the Cavs the last 2 years.

 

[InBoobieWeTrust]

Totally agree. Leonard + Kyrie + B.Stevens + Celtics depth is at least as good as 2016 Cavs.

And given how fractured the Warriors are emotionally, they’d have a legit shot at a ship this year. They wouldn’t be favorites, but they’d be significantly better than the Cavs the last 2 years.

"At least as good as the 2016 Cavs?"

Nah man, LeBron was at his absolute APEX. Leonard is a top 5 player, but LeBron is so far and away #1 come money time...

I'd take the 2016 Cavs against anyone except a healthy Warriors with Durant. We were that good. One of the best teams and playoff runs of all time. 2017 we were pretty much a juggernaut too.

 

[Cavatt]

"At least as good as the 2016 Cavs?"

Nah man, LeBron was at his absolute APEX. Leonard is a top 5 player, but LeBron is so far and away #1 come money time...

I'd take the 2016 Cavs against anyone except a healthy Warriors with Durant. We were that good. One of the best teams and playoff runs of all time. 2017 we were pretty much a juggernaut too.

Better defensively I think

 

[TitleTown]

"At least as good as the 2016 Cavs?"

Nah man, LeBron was at his absolute APEX. Leonard is a top 5 player, but LeBron is so far and away #1 come money time...

I'd take the 2016 Cavs against anyone except a healthy Warriors with Durant. We were that good. One of the best teams and playoff runs of all time. 2017 we were pretty much a juggernaut too.

I’m not so sure. Can someone run a simulation to test this?