ESPN article

[Carlos Danger]

I don't use RPM much, but I don't hate it. To me, what's more interesting is the analysis of why. For instance, when we see something that obviously looks like an anomaly to their formula, I want to know what causes it. I know Rubio ranks high and Wiggins ranks low in RPM. Now I need somebody to explain why. And it explain it like you would to a two year old - because this stuff makes my head spin sometimes.

[AbeVigodaLive]

RPM is a decent stat and has its limitations, just like all other advanced stats. This guy is the co-creator of the stat so OF COURSE he's going to push it.

As for Jokic, he actually has been really damn good. Similar to Towns, no matter what advanced stat you use - PER, WS/48, etc. - he is really good. The big caveat is his minutes. He has not played full-time minutes and that is a legitimate beef when trying to compare him to Towns. Things like PER, WS/48, and RPM normalize things based on a per minute or per possession basis.

My conclusions are as follows:

1. Jokic is really damn good in the minutes he's played.
2. Jokic doesn't play a ton of minutes, therefore limiting his overall impact.
3. Towns is also really damn good AND plays a lot more minutes, therefore, advantage Towns.

My question is this - If Jokic played full time starter minutes (30 or more), how would that affect his stats and overall impact on the game? Would he keep up similar per minute numbers or would he falter?

It depends.

Am I the creator of the single metric I'm using and sharing it on the site of my employer who pays me to tout that stat?


[Note: My beef is that the marketing of the stat is too transparent. Of course, he's going to push for it. But if ESPN considers itself a viable news/journalistic entity (which it does) are they doing so at a disservice to everything else?]

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Fair point Abe. My argument is that the stat isn't useless - it's a data point to be used with others. Your angle on how ESPN shamelessly plugs it is legitimate.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

I don't use RPM much, but I don't hate it. To me, what's more interesting is the analysis of why. For instance, when we see something that obviously looks like an anomaly to their formula, I want to know what causes it. I know Rubio ranks high and Wiggins ranks low in RPM. Now I need somebody to explain why. And it explain it like you would to a two year old - because this stuff makes my head spin sometimes.

Heh, reminds me of this scene from the movie Margin Call: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHl7hKlVj4

[thedoper]

I don't use RPM much, but I don't hate it. To me, what's more interesting is the analysis of why. For instance, when we see something that obviously looks like an anomaly to their formula, I want to know what causes it. I know Rubio ranks high and Wiggins ranks low in RPM. Now I need somebody to explain why. And it explain it like you would to a two year old - because this stuff makes my head spin sometimes.

The funny thing is Espn used to have a page explaining the minutiae of it and they took it down as of about a month ago presumably because it was too easy to point out the shortcomings of the stat. I think Q has got it here, it is another advanced stat that can be one tool. But certainly should be used in isolation when handing out awards.

[TRKO [enjin:12664595]]

I hate ESPN and ignore their made up stats. ESPN has ruined their brand by making everything about them and not about sports.