Hello,
I am new here, but I have read some older posts and I was fascinated by some of the ideas here.
Has anyone done any rapm/plus-minus studies showing the distribution of orapm by position, more specifically in the 2000s.
The reason I bring this up is because would you guys agree with the concept of a +5 offensive center being much greater offensively than a +5 offensive guard, all else being equal, due to the scarcity of that center and how it allows a higher offensive ceiling from it easier to find impactful offensive players at the other positions. I think of this concept with players like Jokic, Shaq, and even Dirk when he played the center position. These players are probably the worst offensive floor raisers due to certain ball handling issues but are the ultimate offensive ceiling raisers.
I feel like in 2000s, the most dominant teams by net rtg are those usually with really talented offensive bigs and the only exception I can think of would be LeBron cavs, although Varejo seems to have been pretty good on the glass
Positional Value/Scarcity
Re: Positional Value/Scarcity
Dubs were a dynasty without any real scoring centers: Bogut, Pachulia, Ezeli, Looney... Generally 5-6 ppg in the season and less in playoffs.
Bucks, Raptors, Heat (twice), Mavs, Celtics (Perk!), Pistons. Roughly half of this century's champs have done OK without much offense from C.
Bucks, Raptors, Heat (twice), Mavs, Celtics (Perk!), Pistons. Roughly half of this century's champs have done OK without much offense from C.
Re: Positional Value/Scarcity
Hello,
Obviously, teams have won without offensively slanted centers and offense isn’t the only way teams can win. My initial post was about positional scarcity and how that expands a roster. Comparing the relative value of a +5 offensive center to a +5 offensive guard.
Warriors did run Draymond at the 5 a decent bit in the ps but those teams were pretty dominant defensively as well. A lot of those teams you cited were pretty dominant defensively as well, although, Marc was a pretty good play connecting big and Heat had their most on court success when they went small with LeBron leading the team.
Obviously, teams have won without offensively slanted centers and offense isn’t the only way teams can win. My initial post was about positional scarcity and how that expands a roster. Comparing the relative value of a +5 offensive center to a +5 offensive guard.
Warriors did run Draymond at the 5 a decent bit in the ps but those teams were pretty dominant defensively as well. A lot of those teams you cited were pretty dominant defensively as well, although, Marc was a pretty good play connecting big and Heat had their most on court success when they went small with LeBron leading the team.
Re: Positional Value/Scarcity
Welcome.
Jerry Engelmann and Justin Jacobs probably have the data to construct such a position distribution study from the decade of 2000s. Could ask for help. If the positions aren't there, you could add them & sort.
There could be an academic study out there with position distributions but hard to say if it would be the right time period. Could look via google scholar or just google. There are several sites that archive rapm sets our there. I'd have to dig to recall but if you really want it, you can probably find with one or more searches
More often you get position averages.
Probably still have to do it yourself, but a current year or timeperiod study would have easier to get data from nbarapm.com or other and would support your thought. Scarcity by position is being challenged some these days but remains a factor.
Scarcity and pay (actual and justifiable) has gotten some recent attention.
Skill level and position could use historical study. People talk about bigs on average as being more skilled than in the past but would be good to see some data on progression of certain averages (assist rate, 3ptm) and / or distributions.
The trend is likely continue. Impression of more available in prospect pool. In college, europe or European in college. The degree to which it is still scarce is not known clearly until the work is done.
Position distributions are available readily for some metrics. CraftedPM's player database can quickly give you position distributions for its blend or BPM, Darko, Drip. Other sites have search tools for EpM and LeBron, free and paid.
There could be somethings useful in back pages here. On this topic or other interests. Browse if you want.
Maybe others will chime in. But few do these days.
Jerry Engelmann and Justin Jacobs probably have the data to construct such a position distribution study from the decade of 2000s. Could ask for help. If the positions aren't there, you could add them & sort.
There could be an academic study out there with position distributions but hard to say if it would be the right time period. Could look via google scholar or just google. There are several sites that archive rapm sets our there. I'd have to dig to recall but if you really want it, you can probably find with one or more searches
More often you get position averages.
Probably still have to do it yourself, but a current year or timeperiod study would have easier to get data from nbarapm.com or other and would support your thought. Scarcity by position is being challenged some these days but remains a factor.
Scarcity and pay (actual and justifiable) has gotten some recent attention.
Skill level and position could use historical study. People talk about bigs on average as being more skilled than in the past but would be good to see some data on progression of certain averages (assist rate, 3ptm) and / or distributions.
The trend is likely continue. Impression of more available in prospect pool. In college, europe or European in college. The degree to which it is still scarce is not known clearly until the work is done.
Position distributions are available readily for some metrics. CraftedPM's player database can quickly give you position distributions for its blend or BPM, Darko, Drip. Other sites have search tools for EpM and LeBron, free and paid.
There could be somethings useful in back pages here. On this topic or other interests. Browse if you want.
Maybe others will chime in. But few do these days.
Re: Positional Value/Scarcity
Center carries more than 1/5 of the defensive load, most of the time. If we make that assumption, then yes: Equal offense should favor the center....the relative value of a +5 offensive center to a +5 offensive guard.
What do we mean by +5? At b-r.com we can see Offensive BPM, and here are the +4 players listed as C (or top 3 in a season) for the last 6.2 seasons:
Code: Select all
2026
Jokic 12.7
Sengun 4.5
Duren 4.4
2025
Jokic 9.9
Sabonis 4.2
Davis 3.9
2024
Jokic 9.0
Sabonis 4.0
Porzingis 3.5
2023
Jokic 8.5
Embiid 6.8
Davis 4.6
Sabonis 4.1
2022
Jokic 9.2
Embiid 7.2
LeBron ? 6.9
Towns 4.5
Love 4.4
2021
Jokic 9.1
Embiid 6.3
Vucevic 4.9
Towns 4.3
2020
Towns 7.0
Jokic 5.5
Embiid 3.7
Vucevic 3.7
Most of these are not known for their defense. Davis is about it.
Re: Positional Value/Scarcity
Hello,
I have not done any positional scarcity research anytime recently.
When using lineup data (on/off) to assess player value, the data is inherently assessing relative to position or at least to what player would replace you.
Now, at the end of the positional spectrum, this leads to a fairly clear shift. Pure centers show up as slanting to defense with on-off data because on average they are replaced more by offensive players, such as power forwards. And the reverse is the case for true point guards at the other end of the positional spectrum. On off data shows them as offensively slanted.
And when we think about it, that makes sense. The on/off data is capturing some of what is really true about offensive/defensive slant across the positional spectrum and also simultaneously somewhat curving players based on their positional expectations.
So in my extended Bayesian RAPM data sets, you see that elite defensive bigs tend to have a higher upside defensively than any wings, and ball dominant primary creators have the highest offensive upside (that is regardless of listed position)
I have not done any positional scarcity research anytime recently.
When using lineup data (on/off) to assess player value, the data is inherently assessing relative to position or at least to what player would replace you.
Now, at the end of the positional spectrum, this leads to a fairly clear shift. Pure centers show up as slanting to defense with on-off data because on average they are replaced more by offensive players, such as power forwards. And the reverse is the case for true point guards at the other end of the positional spectrum. On off data shows them as offensively slanted.
And when we think about it, that makes sense. The on/off data is capturing some of what is really true about offensive/defensive slant across the positional spectrum and also simultaneously somewhat curving players based on their positional expectations.
So in my extended Bayesian RAPM data sets, you see that elite defensive bigs tend to have a higher upside defensively than any wings, and ball dominant primary creators have the highest offensive upside (that is regardless of listed position)