Q-was-here wrote:Refreshing to see the Wolves win a game where we were handily outshot beyond the arc. That being said, we just aren't going to win a lot of games this year if we don't figure out how to make more 3s and stop more 3s. Frustrating to watch game after game.
- 33 last night.
It's not sustainable.
I wasn't able to stay awake long enough for any sort of late night DVR review... it made for a very interesting viewing experience. I fell asleep when the Wolves were up about 20, woke up to a close game, woke up again down 8, and woke up again at the very end.
Looks like Russell and Gobert brought the team home.
I know steals aren't always the best measure of defensive prowess... but 17 steals in the past 3 games for Edwards is impressive any way you slice it. Going for 25+ in 6 straight games is a nice touch, too.
Yup, been to the line 6 or more times for five straight games. May be he's finally making the vaunted "third year leap". Or may be it's a peak in a season full of peaks and valleys and he'll have a few duds take the air out of his sails.
Camden wrote:I'm not a big fan of using ESPN's Real Plus-Minus (RPM) as the go-to catch-all statistic, and I still maintain that using a plethora of measures is the best way to capture an individual player's impact, but RPM is at least better than traditional -- and often misused -- plus-minus in that regard because it at least tries to incorporate the context within the game, such as who Player X shares the court with and who they're playing against, as well as other various uncontrollable factors. For instance, playing against starting-level talent is much different (and more difficult) than playing against bench-level talent, and it should be accounted for in some way, and so on. If you're a big fan of plus-minus stats, like many seem to be here, then I would assume you would also value RPM to some degree because basic plus-minus is the core of the stat itself, but it attempts to adjust for context, which is certainly appreciated.
With that said, the polarizing D'Angelo Russell currently ranks 16th in the NBA for players classified as point guards with a 1.97 value and positive marks in both ORPM (offense) and DRPM (defense). He currently ranks 63rd in RPM among all NBA players. That singular statistic paints a much different picture than the narrative that has been presented here repeatedly despite using essentially the same accumulation of data. Is RPM a perfect stat? Absolutely, positively NOT, but neither is traditional plus-minus when gauging an individual player's contributions in various five-man lineup combinations. This is just a different perspective through a similar-yet-flawed lens.
As of December 8th, Timberwolves' players rank as follows--
RPM: Player's estimated on-court impact on team performance, measured in net point differential per 100 offensive and defensive possessions. RPM takes into account teammates, opponents and additional factors
PS: Some things look very different through the scope of RPM, BPM, RAPTOR, VORP, LEBRON, etc., which is why we should typically try to look at everything zoomed out to form some sort of conclusion about a player and their impact rather than rely heavily on one or two measures.
The thing that is frustrating about this is that nearly everyone is playing below their historical rankings in this metric. Ant, Gobert, KAT. So far the whole is bringing down the sum of the parts! Or something like that....
Camden wrote:I'm not a big fan of using ESPN's Real Plus-Minus (RPM) as the go-to catch-all statistic, and I still maintain that using a plethora of measures is the best way to capture an individual player's impact, but RPM is at least better than traditional -- and often misused -- plus-minus in that regard because it at least tries to incorporate the context within the game, such as who Player X shares the court with and who they're playing against, as well as other various uncontrollable factors. For instance, playing against starting-level talent is much different (and more difficult) than playing against bench-level talent, and it should be accounted for in some way, and so on. If you're a big fan of plus-minus stats, like many seem to be here, then I would assume you would also value RPM to some degree because basic plus-minus is the core of the stat itself, but it attempts to adjust for context, which is certainly appreciated.
With that said, the polarizing D'Angelo Russell currently ranks 16th in the NBA for players classified as point guards with a 1.97 value and positive marks in both ORPM (offense) and DRPM (defense). He currently ranks 63rd in RPM among all NBA players. That singular statistic paints a much different picture than the narrative that has been presented here repeatedly despite using essentially the same accumulation of data. Is RPM a perfect stat? Absolutely, positively NOT, but neither is traditional plus-minus when gauging an individual player's contributions in various five-man lineup combinations. This is just a different perspective through a similar-yet-flawed lens.
As of December 8th, Timberwolves' players rank as follows--
RPM: Player's estimated on-court impact on team performance, measured in net point differential per 100 offensive and defensive possessions. RPM takes into account teammates, opponents and additional factors
PS: Some things look very different through the scope of RPM, BPM, RAPTOR, VORP, LEBRON, etc., which is why we should typically try to look at everything zoomed out to form some sort of conclusion about a player and their impact rather than rely heavily on one or two measures.
The thing that is frustrating about this is that nearly everyone is playing below their historical rankings in this metric. Ant, Gobert, KAT. So far the whole is bringing down the sum of the parts! Or something like that....
Yeah, surprising to see those three, specifically, outside of the top-50, especially Rudy Gobert considering he typically shines in nearly every advanced statistic one could find. And the same can be said for Karl-Anthony Towns, at least offensively.
At the least, it could serve as a source of optimism because I don't envision those three staying where they're at as low as they are, which probably means they have much better basketball ahead of them... Does that translate to wins? That's the question.
Camden wrote:I'm not a big fan of using ESPN's Real Plus-Minus (RPM) as the go-to catch-all statistic, and I still maintain that using a plethora of measures is the best way to capture an individual player's impact, but RPM is at least better than traditional -- and often misused -- plus-minus in that regard because it at least tries to incorporate the context within the game, such as who Player X shares the court with and who they're playing against, as well as other various uncontrollable factors. For instance, playing against starting-level talent is much different (and more difficult) than playing against bench-level talent, and it should be accounted for in some way, and so on. If you're a big fan of plus-minus stats, like many seem to be here, then I would assume you would also value RPM to some degree because basic plus-minus is the core of the stat itself, but it attempts to adjust for context, which is certainly appreciated.
With that said, the polarizing D'Angelo Russell currently ranks 16th in the NBA for players classified as point guards with a 1.97 value and positive marks in both ORPM (offense) and DRPM (defense). He currently ranks 63rd in RPM among all NBA players. That singular statistic paints a much different picture than the narrative that has been presented here repeatedly despite using essentially the same accumulation of data. Is RPM a perfect stat? Absolutely, positively NOT, but neither is traditional plus-minus when gauging an individual player's contributions in various five-man lineup combinations. This is just a different perspective through a similar-yet-flawed lens.
As of December 8th, Timberwolves' players rank as follows--
RPM: Player's estimated on-court impact on team performance, measured in net point differential per 100 offensive and defensive possessions. RPM takes into account teammates, opponents and additional factors
PS: Some things look very different through the scope of RPM, BPM, RAPTOR, VORP, LEBRON, etc., which is why we should typically try to look at everything zoomed out to form some sort of conclusion about a player and their impact rather than rely heavily on one or two measures.
The thing that is frustrating about this is that nearly everyone is playing below their historical rankings in this metric. Ant, Gobert, KAT. So far the whole is bringing down the sum of the parts! Or something like that....
Yeah, all three of our Big 3 are playing below their historical rankings in almost every metric out there. Is it an indictment of the trade, or merely a team trying to figure out how they are going to play going forward? Time will tell, but the Indy game was encouraging for Rudy and Ant.
I've never been a big fan of this ESPN metric and some of it may be that I don't understand how it is calculated. I will say that any metric that has Bryn Forbes more valuable than SloMo and Prince doesn't match my eye test!
Camden wrote:I'm not a big fan of using ESPN's Real Plus-Minus (RPM) as the go-to catch-all statistic, and I still maintain that using a plethora of measures is the best way to capture an individual player's impact, but RPM is at least better than traditional -- and often misused -- plus-minus in that regard because it at least tries to incorporate the context within the game, such as who Player X shares the court with and who they're playing against, as well as other various uncontrollable factors. For instance, playing against starting-level talent is much different (and more difficult) than playing against bench-level talent, and it should be accounted for in some way, and so on. If you're a big fan of plus-minus stats, like many seem to be here, then I would assume you would also value RPM to some degree because basic plus-minus is the core of the stat itself, but it attempts to adjust for context, which is certainly appreciated.
With that said, the polarizing D'Angelo Russell currently ranks 16th in the NBA for players classified as point guards with a 1.97 value and positive marks in both ORPM (offense) and DRPM (defense). He currently ranks 63rd in RPM among all NBA players. That singular statistic paints a much different picture than the narrative that has been presented here repeatedly despite using essentially the same accumulation of data. Is RPM a perfect stat? Absolutely, positively NOT, but neither is traditional plus-minus when gauging an individual player's contributions in various five-man lineup combinations. This is just a different perspective through a similar-yet-flawed lens.
As of December 8th, Timberwolves' players rank as follows--
RPM: Player's estimated on-court impact on team performance, measured in net point differential per 100 offensive and defensive possessions. RPM takes into account teammates, opponents and additional factors
PS: Some things look very different through the scope of RPM, BPM, RAPTOR, VORP, LEBRON, etc., which is why we should typically try to look at everything zoomed out to form some sort of conclusion about a player and their impact rather than rely heavily on one or two measures.
The thing that is frustrating about this is that nearly everyone is playing below their historical rankings in this metric. Ant, Gobert, KAT. So far the whole is bringing down the sum of the parts! Or something like that....
Yeah, all three of our Big 3 are playing below their historical rankings in almost every metric out there. Is it an indictment of the trade, or merely a team trying to figure out how they are going to play going forward? Time will tell, but the Indy game was encouraging for Rudy and Ant.
I've never been a big fan of this ESPN metric and some of it may be that I don't understand how it is calculated. I will say that any metric that has Bryn Forbes more valuable than SloMo and Prince doesn't match my eye test!
Yeah, RPM is definitely one you don't want to look at in isolation. You start scanning down the list of top performers and after nodding your head at the first few names you see, someone pops up that makes you spit out your coffee.
As for our Big 3 underperforming, at some point the Coach has to be held accountable even if he's not 100% at fault. It's just totally unacceptable for literally every guy to be playing below their expected value. Finch deserves the benefit of the doubt for now, but the rope he has is getting shorter.
