Ricky is Awesome

[TeamRicky [enjin:6648771]]

Doper the NBA.com is faulty. It is almost the opposite of what I have found at Basketball Reference.com a great site for advanced stats and ESPN. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2017.html
Ricky's on court stats look very good to me.

[thedoper]

Doper the NBA.com is faulty. It is almost the opposite of what I have found at Basketball Reference.com a great site for advanced stats and ESPN. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2017.html
Ricky's on court stats look very good to me.

No I think the official NBA site is fine Ricky.

[TeamRicky [enjin:6648771]]

Doper, please explain what you think the NBA.com number means as I am very curious what you think that number represents? I'm a math/stats guy so, let me know what the formula is as I can handle complex formulas. I'm aware what the actual box score plus minus numbers are for Ricky and it was barely negative for the year (slightly better than -1) despite the team playing so poorly. He has historically done very well with this number and I'll say this is his worst year in the plus/minus department, but he ranks well compared to his teammates in most of the advanced stats on court impact stats like Real Plus Minus, Box Score Plus Minus, Win Shares, and OffensiveRating/Def Rating.

[thedoper]

Doper, please explain what you think the NBA.com number means as I am very curious what you think that number represents? I'm a math/stats guy so, let me know what the formula is as I can handle complex formulas. I'm aware what the actual box score plus minus numbers are for Ricky and it was barely negative for the year (slightly better than -1) despite the team playing so poorly. He has historically done very well with this number and I'll say this is his worst year in the plus/minus department, but he ranks well compared to his teammates in most of the advanced stats on court impact stats like Real Plus Minus, Box Score Plus Minus, Win Shares, and OffensiveRating/Def Rating.

Here's the equations to help you understand net rating per NBA's official website.
http://stats.nba.com/help/glossary/

I think the easiest reference is compared to last year where Ricky was tops on the team of players getting significant minutes at 1.1. I don't think they switched their math over the year.

[TeamRicky [enjin:6648771]]

Doper, please explain what you think the NBA.com number means as I am very curious what you think that number represents? I'm a math/stats guy so, let me know what the formula is as I can handle complex formulas. I'm aware what the actual box score plus minus numbers are for Ricky and it was barely negative for the year (slightly better than -1) despite the team playing so poorly. He has historically done very well with this number and I'll say this is his worst year in the plus/minus department, but he ranks well compared to his teammates in most of the advanced stats on court impact stats like Real Plus Minus, Box Score Plus Minus, Win Shares, and OffensiveRating/Def Rating.

Here's the equations to help you understand net rating per NBA's official website.
http://stats.nba.com/help/glossary/

I think the easiest reference is compared to last year where Ricky was tops on the team of players getting significant minutes at 1.1. I don't think they switched their math over the year.

But that's not a formula which is what I asked for. Why don't you use RPM, Win Shares, Box Score Plus Minus or Net of OffensiveRating/Defensive Rating at Basketball-reference.com? Box Score Plus Minus is really straight forward number without any strange tweaks. Ricky is doing fine by that number. RPM is a derivative of Box Score Plus Minus that tries to take out the impact of who you play with and who you play against. Ricky fares well in that number too and in most years he has been elite in RPM. Basketball Reference is a very reputable stats site and they give Ricky a favorable Net Rating. Why is NBA.Com and Basketball Reference showing very different numbers. All I'm saying is that the hit job on Ricky based on only one of several advanced stats was completely unwarranted and I've done my own calculations and Ricky did ok (and in fact decently compared to his teammates) , but not great like he's often done in the past.

[thedoper]

Doper, please explain what you think the NBA.com number means as I am very curious what you think that number represents? I'm a math/stats guy so, let me know what the formula is as I can handle complex formulas. I'm aware what the actual box score plus minus numbers are for Ricky and it was barely negative for the year (slightly better than -1) despite the team playing so poorly. He has historically done very well with this number and I'll say this is his worst year in the plus/minus department, but he ranks well compared to his teammates in most of the advanced stats on court impact stats like Real Plus Minus, Box Score Plus Minus, Win Shares, and OffensiveRating/Def Rating.

Here's the equations to help you understand net rating per NBA's official website.
http://stats.nba.com/help/glossary/

I think the easiest reference is compared to last year where Ricky was tops on the team of players getting significant minutes at 1.1. I don't think they switched their math over the year.

But that's not a formula which is what I asked for. Why don't you use RPM, Win Shares, Box Score Plus Minus? Box Score Plus Minus is really straight forward number without any strange tweaks. Ricky is doing fine by that number. RPM is a derivative of Box Score Plus Minus that tries to take out the impact of who you play with and who you play against. Ricky fares well in that number too and in most years he has been elite in RPM. Basketball Reference is a very reputable stats site and they give Ricky a favorable Net Rating. Why is NBA.Com and Basketball Reference showing very different numbers. All I'm saying is that the hit job on Ricky based on only one of several advanced stats was completely unwarranted and I've done my own calculations and Ricky did ok (and in fact decently compared to his teammates) , but not great like he's often done in the past.

If you don't like the NBA's definition of net rating that is your perogative. It doesn't make it faulty or a bad stat. I am failing to see the strange tweaks. You have always loved RPM based on how positively it favors Ricky and there's no published formula. Now a good stat from a reputable statistical source shows Ricky's bad year and your up in arms making claims about your calculations. It's kind of funny. It's been an off year for Ricky. We all have seen it, I'm glad you still believe and have a method for doing so. I hope you're right and that despite our record and us being one of the worst teams in the league at defending point guards, Ricky is actually always a positive to our team.

[TeamRicky [enjin:6648771]]

If you go through the box scores and add up all the pluses and minuses, you find that LaVine has the worst plus minus on the team, Dunn is the next worst among rotation players. Mikkeman didn't mention that in his post criticizing Ricky. OK, 80% of the on impact advanced stats are positive regarding Ricky this year. If you and Mikkeman want to put more credence in the one out of 5 numbers that is the only one negative on Ricky's impact, then that's your prerogative.

The only point I agree with is that Ricky by his historical standards is having an off year, but he's been only average (maybe slightly above average) in his on court impact. Prior to this year Ricky led the Wolves every year but 2012 in Plus Minus among rotation players.

[thedoper]

If you go through the box scores and add up all the pluses and minuses, you find that LaVine has the worst plus minus on the team, Dunn is the next worst among rotation players. Mikkeman didn't mention that in his post criticizing Ricky. OK, 80% of the on impact advanced stats are positive regarding Ricky this year. If you and Mikkeman want to put more credence in the one out of 5 numbers that is the only one negative on Ricky's impact, then that's your prerogative.

The only point I agree with is that Ricky by his historical standards is having an off year, but he's been only average (maybe slightly above average) in his on court impact. Prior to this year Ricky led the Wolves every year but 2012 in Plus Minus among rotation players.

I am only maintaining that NBA.com's stat is not faulty and that people citing it are not in the wrong for doing so. It is a different advanced stat coming from a source with likely very unique access to data sets. You are right to point out it is one method of assessment.

The majority of my personal criticism of Ricky this year has been about his man D, which I don't feel is accurately assessed by current advanced stats. His shooting will always be awful. Beyond that that are some (not all) advanced stats that are starting to point to him not having a great team impact either (like the NBA net rating). All this together makes me feel his overall contributions to a team and to our ability to scheme has taken a hit.

[MikkeMan]

Doper the NBA.com is faulty. It is almost the opposite of what I have found at Basketball Reference.com a great site for advanced stats and ESPN. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2017.html
Ricky's on court stats look very good to me.

NBA.com is not faulty. There is small difference how net rating is calculated in basketball-reference and in NBA.com but it is really minor. I guess that Basketball-Reference counts free throw points after substitutions still against the player that was subbed out, which seems to be better approach.

Rubio had net rating -3.8 in basketball reference compared to -4.0 in NBA.com. You find real corresponding net rating from basketball reference under play-by-play section from column +/- Per 100 Poss. OnCourt. That has Ricky with -3.8 which was worst of all Wolves players in regular rotation. After Houston game Ricky will pass Lavine and will be second worst Wolves rotation player in net rating. Same information can be found also from team on/off page. See the link below:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2017/on-off/Wolves players on/off numbers

Typically Ricky has performed really good in this stat category. It is really noisy stat, so it cannot be trusted with small sample size but since almost half of the season has already passed, this has already some real merit. We can argue whether Ricky's poor performance has been because of Thibs has played him more off the ball or not but in the end he has still been really bad this year. Hopefully this will however change and he continues to perform better as he has done in last couple of games.

I have already told this maybe five times here but since some people doesn't seem to remember it, I will write it once again. Ortg and Drtg as well as offensive and defensive win shares in Basketball-Reference are pretty misleading advanced stats. They don't take account on how well team performs when certain player is on the court. They are based just on how well team performs in offense and defense in general and how well each player performs offensively and defensively in individual statistic categories. They won't also reward much scoring volume but just efficiency, which explains why players like Rudy Gobert, Tristan Thompson and Patrick Beverley rank higher in Ortg than Stephen Curry, LeBron James and James Harden.

Why they have created those bad stats in basketball-reference? I don't know but I can guess that they have made them mainly that you could somehow compare players in different eras. Before 2000-01 season they have not play by play data available, so real individual offensive and defensive ratings can't be used. I guess that they have not wanted to change the formula even for seasons that has play-by-play data available that numbers would be somehow better comparable with data from past seasons.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Good breakdown Mikkeman.

I think what is confusing is that Basketball Reference uses Ortg and Drtg in two different contexts: 1) The per 100 possessions individual stats breakdown, and 2) The On/Off stats section. Yet they have two completely different formulas, which makes it confusing. I think they should change the Ortg and Drtg labels to something different in the Per 100 Possession section in order to avoid confusion.

Whenever I use the term "net rating", "Ortg", or "Drtg", I am using the more conventional definition of how the team performs while the player is on the court. That's how NBA.com captures it and that's how the On/Off section of b-ball reference captures it, with some subtle differences as Mikkeman mentioned.