Player The restricted-age video store section of Dylan Harper

[Chinook]

Of course there is one for Kon, exactly in the place I provided direct instructions on how to find

This one is free, next one you're on your own.

View attachment 1051

I appreciate your effort, and due to you restating that you had provided guidance on how to get the charts, I was able to reread your post with that goal and find the charts you were posting. Thank you.

 

[kxs783]

I'm fine agreeing to disagree. No one is changing anyone's mind here. I still stand on my opinions the same way most stand on theirs. I haven't said anything to prove that I'm right, the same way no one has shown me anything to prove that they're right. It's all opinions and assumptions at the end of the day until proven and only time will tell that. Fun debate for me nonetheless. And I'm still glad that I'm watching a great team play.

 

[scott]

I agree that stats need context and understanding to really make sense of them. However, you don't typically see bench players leading in on-off stats. You can find a list here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2026_play-by-play.html There are very few players at the top of that list that haven't started the vast majority of games for their teams.

The reason for that is that on-off aren't plus-minus numbers. Backups who do well against benches don't dominate the list, because they're usually not more impactful players than their starting counterpart. Like Kornet is a very talented player who's done a good (though not great) job this year. He's probably a top five backup center in the league. But he gets absolutely rinsed in on-off because his "off" minutes are when Wemby's on the court, and Wemby is second-best player in terms of on-offs in the entire league. in fact, Wemby and Kornet probably hurt each other's performance in that stat. If either had an average counterpart, they'd score much better.

Both Castle and Fox score out better with Harper than they do in general (plus 6.5 per 100 for Steph and plus 1.1 for De'Aaron) or each other (plus 8.7 and plus 3.9). Harper having great numbers with all of the starters (plus 34.8 with Wemby, plus 17.8 with Vassell and plus 14.4 with Champagnie, which are better than their average stats and better than any other pairing them have except with Victor) seems to indicate that Harper has a lot of success against starter-level lineups. Ignoring that the Spurs' staggering of guards means they all get time against starters and bench players, Harper's numbers are more an excuse for Fox and Castle than they are a sign that he's getting inflated stats.

Teams don't normally perform better with their backups in the team than their starters. I know Manu made that seem normal, but it's actually quite rare, even for sixth-man candidates. Monk was negative the two years he was a 6MOY candidate. Naz Reid was negative when he won in 2024 (though positive last year when he placed fifth). As much as I love Bobby Portis, he had negative on/offs during his sixth-man candidacy. What Harper's doing is not normal, and his bench role doesn't explain it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here, but Fox and Harper are actually better without each other than with each other (though they are still very good with each other) both from an individual and offensively from a team perspective.






Castle and Harper there is a clearer case of how the team is better overall with the two together, and Castle's individual game is enhanced next to Harper (at the expense of Harper's individual stats)

 

[Chinook]

As practice, this is hopefully the ratings shift chart covering Tre Jones' impact in 2023/2024. Out of the few I've looked up, this is the most similar to Harper's from this year. If folks remember who the other PGs were on the team that season (hint: We'll see one of them during the game tomorrow), it should be apparent what circumstances normally bring out that dramatic of a shift.

 

[scott]

And then closing the loop and looking at Fox and Castle together...




I want to make sure that I state that none of these are to say that any of these guys are incompatible or that we should look to stagger them differently... there is of course additional context to these that isn't included (the overlap with Wemby, specifically).

What matters most to me is that all three of these combinations are quite successful - as are each of these players individually. The main takeaway that I'd hope everyone could take away is that we are extremely fortunate to have these three guys and be able to have at least one of them on the court for all 48 minutes.

 

[scott]

As practice, this is hopefully the ratings shift chart covering Tre Jones' impact in 2023/2024. Out of the few I've looked up, this is the most similar to Harper's from this year. If folks remember who the other PGs were on the team that season (hint: We'll see one of them during the game tomorrow), it should be apparent what circumstances normally bring out that dramatic of a shift.

Great pull.

I think you'll have a lot of fun playing around on that site. Also play around with DataBallr if you haven't before. I used to really love the DARKO explorer and BBIndex, but both have been surpassed by these two sites (though BBIndex is trying to up their game and keep up with the competition).

 

[Chinook]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here, but Fox and Harper are actually better without each other than with each other (though they are still very good with each other) both from an individual and offensively from a team perspective.

I do not know what databallr means when it reports offensive or defensive rating. As we've discussed before, that stat doesn't always mean points scored per 100 possessions or points allowed per 100 possessions. According to BBall Ref, Fox's On number (points scored per 100 minus points allowed per 100 while Fox is on the court) is plus 6.6, whereas his net points per 100 with Harper is plus 7.7. Therefore, with Harper next to him, Fox is 1.1 points better than he is in general. That does imply that with some algebra, it should show that Fox's net points per 100 in his Harper-less minutes would be below his general plus 6.6. Without know what the ratings numbers mean on that site, I don't know if the information is contradictory or if there is nuance to look at.

If I had to suspect, their definition of ORtg and DRtg would be closer to how BBRef uses it rather than NBA.com. Basically it's an advanced stat that adds in box score stats to the plus-minus numbers to try to measure individual performance. There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's the case it means it's focusing more on whether Castle and Fox perform better statistically with Harper rather than if their pairings with Dylan leads to the team performing against their opponents than it does in the minutes they aren't paired with him. Like Fox might put up better numbers without Harper, but the Spurs are better able to outscore their opponents with Fox and Harper together than with Fox alone.

 

[Sugus]

I get that Castle had a stretch in the season that was poor. He’s improved since then, and is often the player getting Wemby passes that others can’t do and shifting the game’s momentum that way. Speaking of improvement, we praise CB (including myself, who was critical of him) for his improvement over the course of season - why can we look past his previous blunders and can’t do the same for Castle?

It wasn't just poor, it was terrible - but I get your point, and I'm not crucifying Castle or anything here. Just saying he's been deliberately forced into the PG role by coaching (as said in interviews) at the expense of Fox, and floundered greatly before reaching an acceptable level of play again - which still isn't really the PG of the team in the nominal sense (a feature of Spurs offense, I know). I'm obviously focusing on his PG skills for the discussion here, love his game otherwise.

“Whenever Harper has a stretch like that…” also sounds like you think he hasn’t had one this season? Maybe it’s just the wording. If not, this is false. There was a stretch where he was just bad and had missed shot after missed shot, with turnovers. People are just more willing to overlook that because it’s against other bench players and there’s usually less at stake. But herein lies the problem: we inflate his success against lesser players and look past his problems when they occur. I get it - it’s because he’s flashy and “different”. But I don’t like to count my chickens before they hatch. Harper has to prove a lot more (and I’m rooting for him) before he should be crowned as the de facto guard of the future. We’re already worried about how the contracts will fit years from now because we’re assuming he will be a max contract player. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Like the Spurs themselves say, “we don’t skip steps” - I don’t think fans should either, as far as crowning players. A lot can change.

No, I don't think he's had a stretch "like that" this season - I wasn't talking about missing shots or turning it over, but fundamentally looking like he couldn't play the role at hand. I have not yet seen a game from Harper where he's looked completely out of depth at the PG position - and whether it's against starters or bench players has little to do with it. I'm thinking back to Castle barreling into 3 defenders - with no play to call, no plan to execute, just brute-forcing the drive - and getting stuffed... Several times in a game. Harper simply doesn't do that (and if he did, please link highlights or something, I might have just missed it).

I don't doubt Harper would/will struggle against starter players some day. But I also don't doubt that he'll still be able to make the passes he does, the reads that he does, play with bigs like he does, because that's the PG attributes that IMO Castle doesn't have at that level. It's not a slight to Castle -- but it would be a slight to Harper to not recognize, and praise, this trait of his.

 

[Sugus]

Both Castle and Fox score out better with Harper than they do in general (plus 6.5 per 100 for Steph and plus 1.1 for De'Aaron) or each other (plus 8.7 and plus 3.9). Harper having great numbers with all of the starters (plus 34.8 with Wemby, plus 17.8 with Vassell and plus 14.4 with Champagnie, which are better than their average stats and better than any other pairing them have except with Victor) seems to indicate that Harper has a lot of success against starter-level lineups. Ignoring that the Spurs' staggering of guards means they all get time against starters and bench players, Harper's numbers are more an excuse for Fox and Castle than they are a sign that he's getting inflated stats.

Teams don't normally perform better with their backups in the team than their starters. I know Manu made that seem normal, but it's actually quite rare, even for sixth-man candidates. Monk was negative the two years he was a 6MOY candidate. Naz Reid was negative when he won in 2024 (though positive last year when he placed fifth). As much as I love Bobby Portis, he had negative on/offs during his sixth-man candidacy. What Harper's doing is not normal, and his bench role doesn't explain it.

By God, some numbers, finally! Thanks Chinook

And it proves exactly what the eye test told me - Harper's success is absolutely not related to playing against bench players. He is truly next-level. I don't mind him coming off the bench for however many years is necessary, but to dismiss the kid's talent as just normal PG/primary initiator play is crazy. Dude has the "it" factor written all over him.

 

[scott]

I do not know what databallr means when it reports offensive or defensive rating. As we've discussed before, that stat doesn't always mean points scored per 100 possessions or points allowed per 100 possessions. According to BBall Ref, Fox's On number (points scored per 100 minus points allowed per 100 while Fox is on the court) is plus 6.6, whereas his net points per 100 with Harper is plus 7.7. Therefore, with Harper next to him, Fox is 1.1 points better than he is in general. That does imply that with some algebra, it should show that Fox's net points per 100 in his Harper-less minutes would be below his general plus 6.6. Without know what the ratings numbers mean on that site, I don't know if the information is contradictory or if there is nuance to look at.

If I had to suspect, their definition of ORtg and DRtg would be closer to how BBRef uses it rather than NBA.com. Basically it's an advanced stat that adds in box score stats to the plus-minus numbers to try to measure individual performance. There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's the case it means it's focusing more on whether Castle and Fox perform better statistically with Harper rather than if their pairings with Dylan leads to the team performing against their opponents than it does in the minutes they aren't paired with him. Like Fox might put up better numbers without Harper, but the Spurs are better able to outscore their opponents with Fox and Harper together than with Fox alone.

Databallr uses the definition of ORTG and DRTG = the points scored/allowed per 100 possessions. To my knowledge, BBall Ref is the only place that uses their method, which personally I am not a fan of, but everyone can have their own individual preferences.

That's the reason I posted two different images for each pairing. The first is how the players individual stats shift next to the other player, the second is how the team performs with selected players on/off. The BBall Ref individual ORTG/DRTG methodology attempts (at least that's what it appears to me) to synthesize the two into a concise single metric, but for my tastes I don't want or need that. I can see how player individual stats shift but ultimately I don't really care about those because I ultimately just care about one stat: that we have outscored the other team when no time is left.

With that said, I understand you like the BBall Ref methodology, and that's fine... but I think it's worth an asterisks that the claim is only backed up with that one particular set of stats, and looking at it another way leads to a different conclusion.

 

[O_V]

The only reasoning why I haven't seen much of Harper is because he can't get the minutes above Fox or Castle. Which is crazy to have your #2 pick on the bench that much. And I only mentioned ROTY because DAS86 did.

So he can't get minutes above two fucking all-stars, and you think that makes him unworthy somehow? Jesus. Do you even watch basketball or do you just read the box scores?

 

[O_V]

Well right now Castle is operating as the PG of the future, so that's what I'm going by and I don't see that changing anytime soon. And Harper is just as big as Castle, so therefore he can play small forward by your logic.

No, actually right now Stefan Castle is operating as a point guard of the present.

 

[kxs783]

So he can't get minutes above two fucking all-stars, and you think that makes him unworthy somehow? Jesus. Do you even watch basketball or do you just read the box scores?

You ok youngin? Seems you're getting a little zesty because you can't control your feelings chick. Calm down. It's not worth you having a stroke lol

 

[kxs783]

No, actually right now Stefan Castle is operating as a point guard of the present.

And future. Sorry you can't change that with your rants lol. I let it go lady and you should too. Just move on.

 

[Guru of Nothing]

Let's go chase some squirrels, guys.

 

[OK Computer]

By God, some numbers, finally! Thanks Chinook

And it proves exactly what the eye test told me - Harper's success is absolutely not related to playing against bench players. He is truly next-level. I don't mind him coming off the bench for however many years is necessary, but to dismiss the kid's talent as just normal PG/primary initiator play is crazy. Dude has the "it" factor written all over him.

I agree that stats need context and understanding to really make sense of them. However, you don't typically see bench players leading in on-off stats. You can find a list here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2026_play-by-play.html There are very few players at the top of that list that haven't started the vast majority of games for their teams.

The reason for that is that on-off aren't plus-minus numbers. Backups who do well against benches don't dominate the list, because they're usually not more impactful players than their starting counterpart. Like Kornet is a very talented player who's done a good (though not great) job this year. He's probably a top five backup center in the league. But he gets absolutely rinsed in on-off because his "off" minutes are when Wemby's on the court, and Wemby is second-best player in terms of on-offs in the entire league. in fact, Wemby and Kornet probably hurt each other's performance in that stat. If either had an average counterpart, they'd score much better.

Both Castle and Fox score out better with Harper than they do in general (plus 6.5 per 100 for Steph and plus 1.1 for De'Aaron) or each other (plus 8.7 and plus 3.9). Harper having great numbers with all of the starters (plus 34.8 with Wemby, plus 17.8 with Vassell and plus 14.4 with Champagnie, which are better than their average stats and better than any other pairing them have except with Victor) seems to indicate that Harper has a lot of success against starter-level lineups. Ignoring that the Spurs' staggering of guards means they all get time against starters and bench players, Harper's numbers are more an excuse for Fox and Castle than they are a sign that he's getting inflated stats.

Teams don't normally perform better with their backups in the team than their starters. I know Manu made that seem normal, but it's actually quite rare, even for sixth-man candidates. Monk was negative the two years he was a 6MOY candidate. Naz Reid was negative when he won in 2024 (though positive last year when he placed fifth). As much as I love Bobby Portis, he had negative on/offs during his sixth-man candidacy. What Harper's doing is not normal, and his bench role doesn't explain it.

It wasn't just poor, it was terrible - but I get your point, and I'm not crucifying Castle or anything here. Just saying he's been deliberately forced into the PG role by coaching (as said in interviews) at the expense of Fox, and floundered greatly before reaching an acceptable level of play again - which still isn't really the PG of the team in the nominal sense (a feature of Spurs offense, I know). I'm obviously focusing on his PG skills for the discussion here, love his game otherwise.


No, I don't think he's had a stretch "like that" this season - I wasn't talking about missing shots or turning it over, but fundamentally looking like he couldn't play the role at hand. I have not yet seen a game from Harper where he's looked completely out of depth at the PG position - and whether it's against starters or bench players has little to do with it. I'm thinking back to Castle barreling into 3 defenders - with no play to call, no plan to execute, just brute-forcing the drive - and getting stuffed... Several times in a game. Harper simply doesn't do that (and if he did, please link highlights or something, I might have just missed it).

I don't doubt Harper would/will struggle against starter players some day. But I also don't doubt that he'll still be able to make the passes he does, the reads that he does, play with bigs like he does, because that's the PG attributes that IMO Castle doesn't have at that level. It's not a slight to Castle -- but it would be a slight to Harper to not recognize, and praise, this trait of his.

To Sugus: I think you’re jumping a little too far with what the numbers actually prove. None of this dismisses the idea that Harper’s metrics can look special while coming off the bench. What it proves is that he’s doing something very effective in that role. That’s different from proving he would automatically produce the same impact as a full-time starter just because the lineup numbers look great.

Those metrics don’t tell you who the opposing lineup is when he’s on the floor. They don’t separate whether those minutes are against starters, mixed units, or bench-heavy groups. So assuming that strong numbers with starters automatically means he’s driving success against starter-level competition is a stretch. Context still matters, and role still matters.

There’s also a real difference between setting the tone from tip-off versus coming in later when the flow of the game is already established. That’s a different responsibility and a different type of pressure. I’m not saying Harper can’t do it, I’m saying we haven’t actually seen enough to declare it a solved question.

And on the Castle comparison, I just don’t agree that his PG skills are far behind. I think people are overlooking a lot of advanced reads and passes he’s already making because they focus more on the rough possessions. Harper has had his own PG blunders too, and I’ll point some out next game thread. To me this is less about tearing down Harper and more about being fair to Castle. We’re probably just valuing different things, which is fine, but I don’t think the gap is as big as people are making it out to be.