Player The Lifelong Residency of the Ever-Important Heart and Soul of the Spurs, Keldon Johnson

[scott]

I think we just need to come to grips with the fact that we don’t have a capable starting modern PF on the roster, unless Lunch Landy’s body is able to fill that role.

It’s not the end of the world though, we just need schemes and a game plan built around that hole in the roster. Wemby + two guards + two wings ain’t the worst thing in the world.

 

[scott]

(And KJ’s doing great, btw)

 

[The_Second_Coming_of_VY65]

The dude fucking sucked as a top-3 or so option on the team. But coming off the bench and also being a heart/soul type player is perfect for him. He reminds me a lot of Udonis Haslem, not in terms of play, but as a secondary/tertiary guy who maintains culture and expectations. That’s worth a lot. Couldn’t be happier for him.

 

[Chinook]

Mathematically, NetRtg is literally +/- per 100 possessions.

No. That's not how it's calculated for individual players. Otherwise it would be the same as on/off.

EDIT: To save time on a back-and-forth, here's BBRef's article on ORtg and DRtg. https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

NetRtg is the difference between those two and not the plus-minus adjusted for 100 possessions. That's on/off.

When looking at team stats, my understanding is that Net Rtg is just points for minus points against adjusted per 100. That's just not the case for individual players. The confusion is understandable, but they aren't the same thing.

 

[OK Computer]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1982574811202375774

https://twitter.com/x/status/1982557273412284622

 

[bozhemoi]

He's a great bench player. Can really impact the game with his strength and activity and especially when he's hitting from deep.

 

[The_Second_Coming_of_VY65]

Will obviously need to live up to it, but is his ceiling millionaire-Patty Mills in terms of impact?

 

[Maddog]

He's a great bench player. Can really impact the game with his strength and activity and especially when he's hitting from deep.

He keeps hitting from 3 and he's a keeper.
In addition he's hitting the boards. I definitely feel being a bit bigger is better.
Perfect energy guy off the bench.
2022 he @ .398 on 5.3 threes a game.

 

[ambchang]

that’s what’s been said for at least a few years, the coaching staff has failed the players the last two years, where they were stuffed into roles they are not equipped to play, and often on a whim.

Keldon can actually do a lot of things other than just energizer bunny. He’s a finisher and a chaos merchant, as long as he doesn’t have to create and can be stuck in some guy who is not a cutter, he can do well.

 

[scott]

No. That's not how it's calculated for individual players. Otherwise it would be the same as on/off.

EDIT: To save time on a back-and-forth, here's BBRef's article on ORtg and DRtg. https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

NetRtg is the difference between those two and not the plus-minus adjusted for 100 possessions. That's on/off.

When looking at team stats, my understanding is that Net Rtg is just points for minus points against adjusted per 100. That's just not the case for individual players. The confusion is understandable, but they aren't the same thing.

Directly from NBA.com:

Stat Glossary | Stats | NBA.com

An official glossary of all the NBA stat terms

www.nba.com

Stat Glossary | Stats | NBA.com

An official glossary of all the NBA stat terms

www.nba.com

Stat Glossary | Stats | NBA.com

An official glossary of all the NBA stat terms

www.nba.com

OffRtg​

NameOffensive RatingDefinitionMeasures a team's points scored per 100 possessions. On a player level this statistic is team points scored per 100 possessions while they are on court
Formula100*((Points)/(POSS)TypeAdvanced

DEFRTG​

NameDefensive RatingDefinitionThe number of points allowed per 100 possessions by a team. For a player, it is the number of points per 100 possessions that the team allows while that individual player is on the court
Formula100*((Opp Points)/(Opp POSS))

NetRtg​

NameNet RatingDefinitionMeasures a team's point differential per 100 possessions. On player level this statistic is the team's point differential per 100 possessions while they are on court.
FormulaOFFRTG - DEFRTG

BBRef and NBA.com calculate ORtg, DRtg, NetRtg differently (for example, Jokic's official NBA ORtg last year was 125.6, but BBRef's was 133). But the NBA's official statistics are literally just +/- per 100.

 

[Seventyniner]

that’s what’s been said for at least a few years, the coaching staff has failed the players the last two years, where they were stuffed into roles they are not equipped to play, and often on a whim.

I put that more on the front office than the coaching staff. Keldon and Vassell have the potential to be high level role players, but they were the best players on the team at one point and someone had to lead the team in scoring.

 

[Neuromancer]

As long as he can keep his shooting up he's valuable in his role, though he obviously shouldn't be off the table in trade talks. He's definitely become a big "Spurs culture" guy so I don't see the Spurs looking to just dump him unless it's something too good to pass up. Him and Vassell have been pleasantly surprising to start the season

 

[Chinook]

Directly from NBA.com:

Stat Glossary | Stats | NBA.com

An official glossary of all the NBA stat terms

www.nba.com

Stat Glossary | Stats | NBA.com

An official glossary of all the NBA stat terms

www.nba.com

Stat Glossary | Stats | NBA.com

An official glossary of all the NBA stat terms

www.nba.com

OffRtg​

NameOffensive RatingDefinitionMeasures a team's points scored per 100 possessions. On a player level this statistic is team points scored per 100 possessions while they are on court
Formula100*((Points)/(POSS)TypeAdvanced

DEFRTG​

NameDefensive RatingDefinitionThe number of points allowed per 100 possessions by a team. For a player, it is the number of points per 100 possessions that the team allows while that individual player is on the court
Formula100*((Opp Points)/(Opp POSS))

NetRtg​

NameNet RatingDefinitionMeasures a team's point differential per 100 possessions. On player level this statistic is the team's point differential per 100 possessions while they are on court.
FormulaOFFRTG - DEFRTG

BBRef and NBA.com calculate ORtg, DRtg, NetRtg differently (for example, Jokic's official NBA ORtg last year was 125.6, but BBRef's was 133). But the NBA's official statistics are literally just +/- per 100.

You literally cited BBall Ref when you said they were the same, not NBA.com. They're different stats with the same name, not the an "official" and "unofficial" version of the same stat. That distinction doesn't even make sense in this case. The NBA is the official judge of counting stats. They determine what's a block and who gets credit, for example. They don't determine what calculations folks do with their stats are official.

The only stat that could have that argument isTS%, which has a true counted version that accounts for the number of and-ones and technicals a shooter actually takes and an estimated quick version that uses a standard coefficient in place of counting. There, you have a difference in fast versus accurate and both versions are trying to say the same thing. BBall Ref's ratings are not a quick or short-hand version of the NBA's. They do the NBA's calculation too and call it on/off. Then they do a more complex calculation for Net Rtg that they think better reflects a player's impact. Does it? I don't know. As I said, they're archaic stats.

 

[scott]

You literally cited BBall Ref when you said they were the same, not NBA.com. They're different stats with the same name, not the an "official" and "unofficial" version of the same stat. That distinction doesn't even make sense in this case. The NBA is the official judge of counting stats. They determine what's a block and who gets credit, for example. They don't determine what calculations folks do with their stats are official.

The only stat that could have that argument isTS%, which has a true counted version that accounts for the number of and-ones and technicals a shooter actually takes and an estimated quick version that uses a standard coefficient in place of counting. There, you have a difference in fast versus accurate and both versions are trying to say the same thing. BBall Ref's ratings are not a quick or short-hand version of the NBA's. They do the NBA's calculation too and call it on/off. Then they do a more complex calculation for Net Rtg that they think better reflects a player's impact. Does it? I don't know. As I said, they're archaic stats.

I did not cite BBRef when I said they were the same. The context to my reference to BBRef was how they were individual stats and not just team stats. Please leave your habit of making shit up behind at the old forum.

There are clearly two different ways to calculate ORtg, DRtg, NetRtg. The NBA’s way is literally just +/- per 100. The BBRef way is more detailed. But the real point remains: they’re individual stats.

 

[scott]

I agree. Like all stats, it's not perfect, but it's a really good initial indicator and it does perfectly explain the thing it is intended to. It's especially useful when you use it with different Wowy combinations.

It's funny that people criticize +/- but are okay with NETRTG, which is the exact same thing, just over 100 possessions.

NetRtg is also an individual stat. If you go to BBRef, every player page has ORtg and DRtg. NetRtg is just the delta between the two.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Chinook]

I did not cite BBRef when I said they were the same. The context to my reference to BBRef was how they were individual stats and not just team stats. Please leave your habit of making shit up behind at the old forum.

There are clearly two different ways to calculate ORtg, DRtg, NetRtg. The NBA’s way is literally just +/- per 100. The BBRef way is more detailed. But the real point remains: they’re individual stats.

The two ratings aren't different ways to calculate the same stat. They're just different stats fundamentally. It's not like how 2 and 3 add up to be five and 1 and 4 also add up to five. It's like if the sum of 2 and 2 and the sum of 2 and 3 were both called the same thing. The NBA's rating stats are entirely different from those of BBall Ref, in the same way that plus-minus is a completely different kind of stat than any of the adjusted plus-minuses. The NBA.com's is basically counting stats with a simple multiplier on them. They lack nuance but are basically objective. BBall Ref's stats are an actual argument. The formula makes claims for what actions make "good offense" or "good defense", and people disagreeing with those claims means those stats can lose favor with the general population. That's what happened with DRtg and Carlos Boozer if you recall.

So could you have meant specifically the NBA.com version of the stat when you claimed that folks don't get mad at Net Rtg? Yeah, sure I can give you that. I don't know what you were thinking, and you do. Do I think it makes sense to read that exchange and assume you were talking about the BBall Ref version given that you brought up that site and didn't bring up the site you apparently actually meant? Yes. If you go to BBall Ref, you'll see the ratings as individual stats. What you won't see is the ratings as proportional to plus-minus, the whole point you were making. Because, you know, you can go to NBA.com and also see rating stats by player. If I were specifically using that stat as the stat I am complaining about people not having a problem with, I would have used it. That would have been clear and not confusing.

You could have conceded the point that you shouldn't have brought up BBall Ref. You didn't know they have a complex calculation of their individual rating stats. We all live and learn. Hell, you could have even been neutral and said, "Oh, yeah, I can see how that's confusing, but no, I meant the NBA.com's version. My bad that wasn't clear." Instead you went the route of both pretending the site you hadn't brought up was the "official Net Rtg" and then inking your way out of that bad rebuttal by pulling insult stuff.

Thank you for whatever role you played in giving us a forum better than ST. But speaking of things to leave on the old site, this juvenile streak where you can't go more than two rounds of disagreement before you have to pull out insults or personal attacks should have been dropped a decade ago. We both understand our points now. We understand why we were on two different tracks. We should be able to resolve the disagreement pretty tamely. Can you do that?

 

[spurraider21]

The dude fucking sucked as a top-3 or so option on the team. But coming off the bench and also being a heart/soul type player is perfect for him. He reminds me a lot of Udonis Haslem, not in terms of play, but as a secondary/tertiary guy who maintains culture and expectations. That’s worth a lot. Couldn’t be happier for him.

I dno if its worth the 17.5 he's getting this season or will be getting next season, but yes this version of Keldon is useful.

 

[Paramore]

 

[scott]

The two ratings aren't different ways to calculate the same stat. They're just different stats fundamentally. It's not like how 2 and 3 add up to be five and 1 and 4 also add up to five. It's like if the sum of 2 and 2 and the sum of 2 and 3 were both called the same thing. The NBA's rating stats are entirely different from those of BBall Ref, in the same way that plus-minus is a completely different kind of stat than any of the adjusted plus-minuses. The NBA.com's is basically counting stats with a simple multiplier on them. They lack nuance but are basically objective. BBall Ref's stats are an actual argument. The formula makes claims for what actions make "good offense" or "good defense", and people disagreeing with those claims means those stats can lose favor with the general population. That's what happened with DRtg and Carlos Boozer if you recall.

So could you have meant specifically the NBA.com version of the stat when you claimed that folks don't get mad at Net Rtg? Yeah, sure I can give you that. I don't know what you were thinking, and you do. Do I think it makes sense to read that exchange and assume you were talking about the BBall Ref version given that you brought up that site and didn't bring up the site you apparently actually meant? Yes. If you go to BBall Ref, you'll see the ratings as individual stats. What you won't see is the ratings as proportional to plus-minus, the whole point you were making. Because, you know, you can go to NBA.com and also see rating stats by player. If I were specifically using that stat as the stat I am complaining about people not having a problem with, I would have used it. That would have been clear and not confusing.

You could have conceded the point that you shouldn't have brought up BBall Ref. You didn't know they have a complex calculation of their individual rating stats. We all live and learn. Hell, you could have even been neutral and said, "Oh, yeah, I can see how that's confusing, but no, I meant the NBA.com's version. My bad that wasn't clear." Instead you went the route of both pretending the site you hadn't brought up was the "official Net Rtg" and then inking your way out of that bad rebuttal by pulling insult stuff.

Thank you for whatever role you played in giving us a forum better than ST. But speaking of things to leave on the old site, this juvenile streak where you can't go more than two rounds of disagreement before you have to pull out insults or personal attacks should have been dropped a decade ago. We both understand our points now. We understand why we were on two different tracks. We should be able to resolve the disagreement pretty tamely. Can you do that?

To be quite clear, I was referring to the one (NBA's) that is quite literally what I said it was: +/- per 100. I've hosted a multi-season thread about the effectiveness of lineup combinations whereby I list NetRtg/ORtg/DRtg specifically because of what they are (by the NBA's definitions). They are quite perfect statistics in what they intend to convey. There is no nuance, alien technology, or art of understanding them. And on a per-game basis, the weighted average aggregate of individual player +/- is perfectly correlated with the statistic I care about the most: Wins v Losses (yes, I'm purposely being cute with the wording here).

But, you are right. I shouldn't have brought up BBRef. And I'll also say I don't care for their calculation of ORtg/DRtg. So for the permanent record... when I talk about NetRtg/ORtg/DRtg, I'm talking about NBA.com's definition.

To the main point of the entire conversation... +/- (and NetRtg) are very much individual stats (and team stats, and group stats), but so are pretty much all stats. Even W/L can be very much an individual stat. A lot of stats get thrown out with the bathwater, but +/- shouldn't merely be dismissed as a team stat masquerading as an individual stat. It tells a perfectly accurate story, each and every time. Does it tell the entire story? Of course not. Does it leave out nuance? Of course it does... especially on an individual game level... but over time, those things tend to get smoothed out quite nicely. I sense that you're maybe in agreement with this? Idk... and I guess it doesn't really matter, since the conversation was with someone else.

And I didn't insult you or personally attacked you. I called you out for making a false statement. You didn't say "I inferred that you were talking about BBRef because you mentioned it in a subsequent post"... you said:

You literally cited BBall Ref when you said they were the same, not NBA.com.

No, I didn't. If you take being called out for attributing false statements as an insult... maybe just stop doing that?

With that said, point taken, and next time I'll just say "You are misstating what you read, but I can see where you're confused, allow me to clarify". If you start making a habit of this, however, I'll resume calling you out more directly.

 

[Exstatic]

He keeps hitting from 3 and he's a keeper.
In addition he's hitting the boards. I definitely feel being a bit bigger is better.
Perfect energy guy off the bench.
2022 he @ .398 on 5.3 threes a game.

Don’t tease scott.

 

[spurraider21]

im just gonna go ahead and say that i had no idea there were 2 separate net rating stats, and i never bothered to look up that bbref's version was not simply a +/- stat adjusted for 100 possessions.

and when i read scott's initial comment, i would have assumed that he was referring to bbref's stat, which i assumed (and was somewhat affirmed by his comment) that it was a pure +/- extrapolation

with that said, i tend to use the on/off figures on bbref anyway, not really the net ratings

 

[scott]

Don’t tease scott.

You have successfully whispered Keldon back to usefulness... but please don't jinx it by talking about him in relation to traffic landmarks

 

[scott]

im just gonna go ahead and say that i had no idea there were 2 separate net rating stats, and i never bothered to look up that bbref's version was not simply a +/- stat adjusted for 100 possessions.

and when i read scott's initial comment, i would have assumed that he was referring to bbref's stat, which i assumed (and was somewhat affirmed by his comment) that it was a pure +/- extrapolation

with that said, i tend to use the on/off figures on bbref anyway, not really the net ratings

I do give @Chinook credit for bringing to light BBRef's stupid and unnecessary computation of NetRtg. As Chinook himself states, it's archaic. No one should use it.

Whenever I quote NetRtg/ORtg/DRtg I will always be using NBA.com's definitions and quoting from either NBA.com or pbpstats.com (which are also on/off stats using the NetRtg/ORtg/DRtg terminology)