Lakers 9-1 last 10 games

[thedangerouskitchen]

Au contraire...it's a VERY reliable and consistent picture over large data sets. Very, very reliable.

Wrong.

+/- yields a result that's a function of the caliber of teammates a given player has around him while he's on the floor vs. the caliber of teammates on the floor when said player is on bench.

If that (alone) doesn't tell you why +/- it's so heavily flawed (especially if you want to use this stat to compare players on different teams and/or from different eras) then I don't know what to tell ya.

You're not thinking very logically, TDK. If your team is really good around you, it makes it difficult for your on/off to be higher relative to other players. In other words, if said player leaves the floor, and the supposed "good team" is still out there maintaining or increasing the lead, said player's on/off numbers are going to drop.

You're not particularly intelligent, are you?

Let me try to dumb-it-down for you, robTot: +/- involves too many factors that are out of the player's control, therefore the rating is woefully flawed.

That's an irrefutable fact to any astute hoops fan.

[Bush4Ever.]

Let me try to dumb-it-down for you, robTot: +/- involves too many factors that are out of the player's control, therefore the rating is woefully flawed.

That's an irrefutable fact to any astute hoops fan.

EPM addresses "many factors beyond the player's control" (see methodology):

Lebron is 7th this year.

Another pure coincidence that just happens to line up on the side of Lebron in the eternal war of TDK vs. Lebron that Lebron doesn't even know is taking place, right?

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Let me try to dumb-it-down for you, robTot: +/- involves too many factors that are out of the player's control, therefore the rating is woefully flawed.

That's an irrefutable fact to any astute hoops fan.

EPM addresses "many factors beyond the player's control" (see methodology):

Lebron is 7th this year.

Another pure coincidence that just happens to line up on the side of Lebron in the eternal war of TDK vs. Lebron that Lebron doesn't even know is taking place, right?

It is pretty amusing. The basic stats are flattering to LeBron. The advanced stats are flattering to LeBron. Over his career, the won-loss when he played versus when he didn't are legendarily flattering. But, no matter what, if they are flattering, they are meaningless or misleading to TDK. You can't make this shit up.

[Bush4Ever.]

Interestingly, the best five year RAPM (heavily correlated to EPM) peaks since 1997 are associated with Lebron, KG, and Duncan to a pretty serious degree (something like the top eight or so five-year periods, although they overlap).

[Robceltsfan]

How's this for an "empty stat" TDK. Up to and including December 26, 2016, in his last 3 season with the Cavs in his second run with them, when LeBron played, the team was 129-43. When he missed, the team was 4-17. I'm sure it's a coincidence.

The numbers were even more startling in his first go around after his first few seasons. The team was absolute dogshit without him. For example, in 2007-2008, LeBron played 75 games. They were 45-30 when he played. They were 0-7 when he didn't. The following season, they won 66 games. They lost the only game LeBron didn't play that season. In his final season, they won 61 of the 76 games he played. They were 1-5 without him. So, for his last 3 seasons before heading to Miami, they were 171-60 when he played, and 1-13 when he didn't. Another coincidence I'm sure.

When LeBron left for Miami, the team went from 61 wins and 66 wins to 21 wins and 19 wins. There were other minor changes, but by far the biggest change was LeBron leaving. The impact was staggering. Same when he came back. They went from 33 wins to 53 wins. Yeah, there were other changes there too, but by far the biggest was adding LeBron. And when LeBron left to go to the Lakers, the team went from 50 wins to 19.

You can try to suck and whistle at the same time all you want TDK, but those are hard numbers. Your single minded obsession with LeBron because he somehow threatens your ego and its affiliation with MJ and the 90s Bulls just prevents you from seeing or acknowledging them.

**YAAAAAAAWN**

Great job of highlighting one (1) side of the story while ignoring many other factors involved in the success (lack thereof) from those teams, pre/present/post LeFraud:

- The 2008 Cavs won just 45 games with LeFraud... in 2009 they won 66 games and the ONLY change was the addition of All Star Mo Williams. The next year the Cavs added Shaq AND a 20-PPG Scorer mid season (Jamison) and the team won 61 games. The following year (after LeFraud ran chicken to the Heat) Shaq left, while Mo, Jamison and Varejao missed 123 games combined.

But of course it's just a "minor" setback when your team loses its three (3) best players for huge chunks of the season (not to mention a HOF Center).

I guess you're serious....so, here goes!

The 07-08 Cavs saw SEVENTEEN different players start a game and ELEVEN different players start at least 13 games.

Comparing that to just the 08-09 Cavs, only eleven different players started a game, and 6 players started at least FIFTY games. That level of team consistency alone is enough to make an incredible difference.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

How's this for an "empty stat" TDK. Up to and including December 26, 2016, in his last 3 season with the Cavs in his second run with them, when LeBron played, the team was 129-43. When he missed, the team was 4-17. I'm sure it's a coincidence.

The numbers were even more startling in his first go around after his first few seasons. The team was absolute dogshit without him. For example, in 2007-2008, LeBron played 75 games. They were 45-30 when he played. They were 0-7 when he didn't. The following season, they won 66 games. They lost the only game LeBron didn't play that season. In his final season, they won 61 of the 76 games he played. They were 1-5 without him. So, for his last 3 seasons before heading to Miami, they were 171-60 when he played, and 1-13 when he didn't. Another coincidence I'm sure.

When LeBron left for Miami, the team went from 61 wins and 66 wins to 21 wins and 19 wins. There were other minor changes, but by far the biggest change was LeBron leaving. The impact was staggering. Same when he came back. They went from 33 wins to 53 wins. Yeah, there were other changes there too, but by far the biggest was adding LeBron. And when LeBron left to go to the Lakers, the team went from 50 wins to 19.

You can try to suck and whistle at the same time all you want TDK, but those are hard numbers. Your single minded obsession with LeBron because he somehow threatens your ego and its affiliation with MJ and the 90s Bulls just prevents you from seeing or acknowledging them.

**YAAAAAAAWN**

Great job of highlighting one (1) side of the story while ignoring many other factors involved in the success (lack thereof) from those teams, pre/present/post LeFraud:

- The 2008 Cavs won just 45 games with LeFraud... in 2009 they won 66 games and the ONLY change was the addition of All Star Mo Williams. The next year the Cavs added Shaq AND a 20-PPG Scorer mid season (Jamison) and the team won 61 games. The following year (after LeFraud ran chicken to the Heat) Shaq left, while Mo, Jamison and Varejao missed 123 games combined.

But of course it's just a "minor" setback when your team loses its three (3) best players for huge chunks of the season (not to mention a HOF Center).

I guess you're serious....so, here goes!

The 07-08 Cavs saw SEVENTEEN different players start a game and ELEVEN different players start at least 13 games.

Comparing that to just the 08-09 Cavs, only eleven different players started a game, and 6 players started at least FIFTY games. That level of team consistency alone is enough to make an incredible difference.

Let's not forget that the team that won 45 games, also was 0-7 in the 7 games LeBron missed that year. So suggesting the improvement was 16 games is pretty disingenuous. It is more like 11 wins or so.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Au contraire...it's a VERY reliable and consistent picture over large data sets. Very, very reliable.

Wrong.

+/- yields a result that's a function of the caliber of teammates a given player has around him while he's on the floor vs. the caliber of teammates on the floor when said player is on bench.

If that (alone) doesn't tell you why +/- it's so heavily flawed (especially if you want to use this stat to compare players on different teams and/or from different eras) then I don't know what to tell ya.

You're not thinking very logically, TDK. If your team is really good around you, it makes it difficult for your on/off to be higher relative to other players. In other words, if said player leaves the floor, and the supposed "good team" is still out there maintaining or increasing the lead, said player's on/off numbers are going to drop.

You're not particularly intelligent, are you?

Let me try to dumb-it-down for you, robTot: +/- involves too many factors that are out of the player's control, therefore the rating is woefully flawed.

That's an irrefutable fact to any astute hoops fan.

[Robceltsfan]

Wrong.

+/- yields a result that's a function of the caliber of teammates a given player has around him while he's on the floor vs. the caliber of teammates on the floor when said player is on bench.

If that (alone) doesn't tell you why +/- it's so heavily flawed (especially if you want to use this stat to compare players on different teams and/or from different eras) then I don't know what to tell ya.

You're not thinking very logically, TDK. If your team is really good around you, it makes it difficult for your on/off to be higher relative to other players. In other words, if said player leaves the floor, and the supposed "good team" is still out there maintaining or increasing the lead, said player's on/off numbers are going to drop.

You're not particularly intelligent, are you?

Let me try to dumb-it-down for you, robTot: +/- involves too many factors that are out of the player's control, therefore the rating is woefully flawed.

That's an irrefutable fact to any astute hoops fan.

No....it doesn't. It is SPECIFICALLY how a team performs when said player is on the court. Isn't that the ENTIRE POINT of playing basketball? For your team to win when you're on the floor?

[thedangerouskitchen]

Let me try to dumb-it-down for you, robTot: +/- involves too many factors that are out of the player's control, therefore the rating is woefully flawed.

That's an irrefutable fact to any astute hoops fan.

EPM addresses "many factors beyond the player's control" (see methodology):

Lebron is 7th this year.

Another pure coincidence that just happens to line up on the side of Lebron in the eternal war of TDK vs. Lebron that Lebron doesn't even know is taking place, right?

EPM = "Estimate".



Next

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Let me try to dumb-it-down for you, robTot: +/- involves too many factors that are out of the player's control, therefore the rating is woefully flawed.

That's an irrefutable fact to any astute hoops fan.

EPM addresses "many factors beyond the player's control" (see methodology):

Lebron is 7th this year.

Another pure coincidence that just happens to line up on the side of Lebron in the eternal war of TDK vs. Lebron that Lebron doesn't even know is taking place, right?

EPM = "Estimate".



Next

A pretty clear surrender there TDK. Smart. Quit while you're behind.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Let me try to dumb-it-down for you, robTot: +/- involves too many factors that are out of the player's control, therefore the rating is woefully flawed.

That's an irrefutable fact to any astute hoops fan.

EPM addresses "many factors beyond the player's control" (see methodology):

Lebron is 7th this year.

Another pure coincidence that just happens to line up on the side of Lebron in the eternal war of TDK vs. Lebron that Lebron doesn't even know is taking place, right?

It is pretty amusing. The basic stats are flattering to LeBron. The advanced stats are flattering to LeBron. Over his career, the won-loss when he played versus when he didn't are legendarily flattering. But, no matter what, if they are flattering, they are meaningless or misleading to TDK. You can't make this shit up.

For every "flattering" accomplishment/feat or stat of LeBron's there is one that showcases flaws and failures.

Waaaaaaay too many black-eyes, *asterisk* worthy feats, and under-achieving moments throughout his entire career to justify LeBron being placed as high up on the pedestal as you/others put him.

[thedangerouskitchen]

How's this for an "empty stat" TDK. Up to and including December 26, 2016, in his last 3 season with the Cavs in his second run with them, when LeBron played, the team was 129-43. When he missed, the team was 4-17. I'm sure it's a coincidence.

The numbers were even more startling in his first go around after his first few seasons. The team was absolute dogshit without him. For example, in 2007-2008, LeBron played 75 games. They were 45-30 when he played. They were 0-7 when he didn't. The following season, they won 66 games. They lost the only game LeBron didn't play that season. In his final season, they won 61 of the 76 games he played. They were 1-5 without him. So, for his last 3 seasons before heading to Miami, they were 171-60 when he played, and 1-13 when he didn't. Another coincidence I'm sure.

When LeBron left for Miami, the team went from 61 wins and 66 wins to 21 wins and 19 wins. There were other minor changes, but by far the biggest change was LeBron leaving. The impact was staggering. Same when he came back. They went from 33 wins to 53 wins. Yeah, there were other changes there too, but by far the biggest was adding LeBron. And when LeBron left to go to the Lakers, the team went from 50 wins to 19.

You can try to suck and whistle at the same time all you want TDK, but those are hard numbers. Your single minded obsession with LeBron because he somehow threatens your ego and its affiliation with MJ and the 90s Bulls just prevents you from seeing or acknowledging them.

**YAAAAAAAWN**

Great job of highlighting one (1) side of the story while ignoring many other factors involved in the success (lack thereof) from those teams, pre/present/post LeFraud:

- The 2008 Cavs won just 45 games with LeFraud... in 2009 they won 66 games and the ONLY change was the addition of All Star Mo Williams. The next year the Cavs added Shaq AND a 20-PPG Scorer mid season (Jamison) and the team won 61 games. The following year (after LeFraud ran chicken to the Heat) Shaq left, while Mo, Jamison and Varejao missed 123 games combined.

But of course it's just a "minor" setback when your team loses its three (3) best players for huge chunks of the season (not to mention a HOF Center).

I guess you're serious....so, here goes!

The 07-08 Cavs saw SEVENTEEN different players start a game and ELEVEN different players start at least 13 games.

Comparing that to just the 08-09 Cavs, only eleven different players started a game, and 6 players started at least FIFTY games. That level of team consistency alone is enough to make an incredible difference.

So all it took was the addition of Mo Williams (in 09) to stabalize and solidify the Cavs' rotation, eh... which begs the question: Why couldn't LeBron do that in 2008???



PS: Don't you dare point to injuries either (in 2008) because you LeTots won't accept that reasoning to explain the drop-off of the 2015 Heat and 2019 Cavs (after LeBron left).