The Rubio effect

[cliffdawg]

Ricky Rubio: I want to return to Europe, but don't know when or where​

Ricky Rubio talked about the possibility of playing again in Europe. ‘I’d like to return to Europe, but I don’t know when or where. Right now I only think about my recovery and I’m enjoying


Don’t sound like a guy looking for a return…….

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

The quote above is based on dubious reasoning. From the above quoted numbers we can infer that Rubio's on/off differential on the floor without Garland was less than +5.4, but it does not necessarily imply that it was negative. We need more information to make that inference.
Edit: I see as Douglar already said below your post.

Let's say Garland and Rubio both start and play the entire first half and the Cavs lead by 16 at halftime. In the locker room Garland comes down with a case of food poisoning and sits out the rest of the game. Rubio plays the entire second half and the Cavs win by 5.

Rubio/Garland is a +16. Rubio for the entire game is a +5. Rubio without Garland, therefore, is a -11. Show me how that math doesn't work.

 

[gaitano]

Let's say Garland and Rubio both start and play the entire first half and the Cavs lead by 16 at halftime. In the locker room Garland comes down with a case of food poisoning and sits out the rest of the game. Rubio plays the entire second half and the Cavs win by 5.

Rubio/Garland is a +16. Rubio for the entire game is a +5. Rubio without Garland, therefore, is a -11. Show me how that math doesn't work.

The additional information you supplied to make your conclusion is the time Rubio+Garland played together vs. the time Rubio played without Garland. So if, for an extreme example, if Rubio+Garland went 46 minutes together and then Rubio played the last two minutes then Rubio +/- would still be easily positive.

 

[Douglar]

Let's say Garland and Rubio both start and play the entire first half and the Cavs lead by 16 at halftime. In the locker room Garland comes down with a case of food poisoning and sits out the rest of the game. Rubio plays the entire second half and the Cavs win by 5.

Rubio/Garland is a +16. Rubio for the entire game is a +5. Rubio without Garland, therefore, is a -11. Show me how that math doesn't work.

Rubio played 970 minutes. If Rubio only played 200 minutes with Garland @ +16.2, it would mean that he must have played 770 minutes without Garland @ +2.6 to reach the +5.4. So you see, doesn't have to be negative if you don't know the minutes played.

So I looked up howe many minutes he played with Garland:

LINEUPS	MIN	OFFRTG	DEFRTG	NETRTG
.R. Rubio, .D. Garland	512​	112.8​	96.6​	16.1​
.R. Rubio, .C. Osman	416​	111.1​	98.7​	12.5​
.R. Rubio, .D. Windler	108​	105.9​	93.8​	12.1​
.R. Rubio, .K. Love	429​	108.6​	96.7​	11.9​
.R. Rubio, .L. Stevens	125​	113.4​	103.1​	10.3​
.R. Rubio, .E. Mobley	477​	104.8​	94.7​	10.1​
.R. Rubio, .J. Allen	469​	109​	98.9​	10.1​
.R. Rubio, .L. Markkanen	380​	109.9​	102.3​	7.5​
.R. Rubio, .D. Wade	294​	101.9​	98.4​	3.6​
.R. Rubio, .I. Okoro	341​	102.9​	100.1​	2.8​
.R. Rubio, .E. Davis	69​	104.2​	105.5​	-1.4​
.R. Rubio, .C. Sexton	135​	94.3​	98.6​	-4.3​
.R. Rubio, .D. Valentine	85​	91.2​	101.6​	-10.4​

Since Rubio played 512 minutes with Garland, you are correct, his +/- without Garland were negative ( -6.7) The off hand observation is that his early season numbers with Sexton and his garbage minutes with Valentine did it in.

Here's some random factoids from this time period: (Oct, Nov, Dec)

• Garland had better player pair numbers with K Love that he did with Rubio: +19.4 in 256 minutes,
• Garland had a worse pairing with Sexton than Rubio did: -6.3 in 187 minutes
• While Rubio had a negative +/- without Garland, Garland also had negative +/- without Rubio: -0.5 in 548 minutes. That's a contrapositive, yes?

The simplified way to look the season was that Ricky Rubio was the 6th or 7th best player on a team that was maybe 8 guys deep. Once Ricky got injured, it was really hard for Coach to keep an NBA rotation on the floor for 48 minutes a game.

The more complicated view is that the lack of a floor general off the bench hurt the team even more than the loss of Rubio's over all ability, and that was probably also true.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

Rubio played 970 minutes. If Rubio only played 200 minutes with Garland @ +16.2, it would mean that he must have played 770 minutes without Garland @ +2.6 to reach the +5.4. So you see, doesn't have to be negative if you don't know the minutes played.

So I looked up howe many minutes he played with Garland:

LINEUPS	MIN	OFFRTG	DEFRTG	NETRTG
.R. Rubio, .D. Garland	512​	112.8​	96.6​	16.1​
.R. Rubio, .C. Osman	416​	111.1​	98.7​	12.5​
.R. Rubio, .D. Windler	108​	105.9​	93.8​	12.1​
.R. Rubio, .K. Love	429​	108.6​	96.7​	11.9​
.R. Rubio, .L. Stevens	125​	113.4​	103.1​	10.3​
.R. Rubio, .E. Mobley	477​	104.8​	94.7​	10.1​
.R. Rubio, .J. Allen	469​	109​	98.9​	10.1​
.R. Rubio, .L. Markkanen	380​	109.9​	102.3​	7.5​
.R. Rubio, .D. Wade	294​	101.9​	98.4​	3.6​
.R. Rubio, .I. Okoro	341​	102.9​	100.1​	2.8​
.R. Rubio, .E. Davis	69​	104.2​	105.5​	-1.4​
.R. Rubio, .C. Sexton	135​	94.3​	98.6​	-4.3​
.R. Rubio, .D. Valentine	85​	91.2​	101.6​	-10.4​

Since Rubio played 512 minutes with Garland, you are correct, his +/- without Garland were negative ( -6.7) The off hand observation is that his early season numbers with Sexton and his garbage minutes with Valentine did it in.

Here's some random factoids from this time period: (Oct, Nov, Dec)

• Garland had better player pair numbers with K Love that he did with Rubio: +19.4 in 256 minutes,
• Garland had a worse pairing with Sexton than Rubio did: -6.3 in 187 minutes
• While Rubio had a negative +/- without Garland, Garland also had negative +/- without Rubio: -0.5 in 548 minutes. That's a contrapositive, yes?

The simplified way to look the season was that Ricky Rubio was the 6th or 7th best player on a team that was maybe 8 guys deep. Once Ricky got injured, it was really hard for Coach to keep an NBA rotation on the floor for 48 minutes a game.

The more complicated view is that the lack of a floor general off the bench hurt the team even more than the loss of Rubio's over all ability, and that was probably also true.

I appreciate the work you put in but there is a complicating variable; in many of those minutes that Garland and Osman were on the floor together when they were a +12.5, Garland was on the floor as well. The same goes for all the other players.

But I think it's significant that the Cavs outscored their opponents every time Rubio was on the floor except when he was in with Ed Davis, Valentine, or Sexton. Since I don't expect Davis or Valentine to be on the team next year, that leaves Sexton as the only player in the negative when Rubio was in the game.

The fact that the Cavs were outscored by 6.3 points when Garland and Sexton were in together really points up why the Cavs are wondering if Sexton's skills lead to winning games. If he was in the negative both with Garland and Rubio, who had the two highest individual on/off numbers on the team, what unit is there that includes Sexton that can outscore the opponents? Is there one?

The more complicated view is that the lack of a floor general off the bench hurt the team even more than the loss of Rubio's over all ability, and that was probably also true.

I agree with this; Rubio's effective field goal percentage of 43.9% was worst on the team, but his +/- was second highest. His steal percentage was in the 90th percentile league-wide among point guards and his defensive rebound percentage was in the 84th percentile. His assists per usage ratio was in the 82nd percentile. He excelled in assists, steals, and rebounding.

He also played great defense - when Rubio was on the floor the Cavs were 5.1 points per 100 possessions better than when he was off. This was the highest on the team among rotation players - higher than Allen, Mobley, Mark...all of them except Dean Wade who wasn't in the rotation when everybody was healthy.

When Rubio went down the Cavs lost a lot. One think Bickerstaff was able to do was put Rubio and Garland on the floor together in the fourth quarter when the game was hanging in the balance and that was very effective as they were in the top 1% in the league in +/- as a pair.

 

[dms]

The fact that the Cavs were outscored by 6.3 points when Garland and Sexton were in together really points up why the Cavs are wondering if Sexton's skills lead to winning games. If he was in the negative both with Garland and Rubio, who had the two highest individual on/off numbers on the team, what unit is there that includes Sexton that can outscore the opponents? Is there one?

Total complete hogwash. The sample size this year was so small that it should already be considered ridiculous, but when you consider that Sexton was playing hurt 2/3 of those games it makes your thesis laughable.
Sexton got his shoulder mauled early in the game against the Lakers and was clearly not the same player afterwards. Prior to that he had played 4, YES 4, games with Garland this year. In those 4 games Sexton was shooting 36-65 from the field or 55%. The Cavs had just crushed both the Nuggets and the Clippers on the road with Sexton bring a +27 over the 2 games. Outside of the Bucks game in January, this was probably the best the Cavs looked all year against full strength teams. Then came the Lakers game and his shoulder injury. Sexton went from shooting 55% in games that Garland played to 27-72 or 37% over the next 6 games. It was obvious the shoulder was bothering him and a Sexton who can't shoot and score is a liability on the floor, and it showed as he was a -42 over those games.
Sexton's value with an injured shoulder is very questionable. Sexton's value as he showed those few games he was healthy shouldn't be questioned.

 

[mAo_mAo]

The cavalanche we had with the Rubio and DG backcourt makes me want to draft Dyson.

 

[Douglar]

Total complete hogwash. The sample size this year was so small that it should already be considered ridiculous, but when you consider that Sexton was playing hurt 2/3 of those games it makes your thesis laughable.

Quite true that if the player pair has less than 500 minutes, what you are seeing could be background noise from a couple bad games.

My concern is that last season, it appeared that Garland does best when paired with a guard that can do some of the heavy lifting on defense as well as keep the ball moving when it is out of Garland's hands. Rubio was great there. Rondo looked good on paper but didn't work out in practice. Not super optimistic that Sexton can step in and fill that role next fall, but it looks like Bickerstaff is going to give it a shot.

 

[Dr. Claw]

The cavalanche we had with the Rubio and DG backcourt makes me want to draft Dyson.

This is also why I want Daniels as well. I may have typed it elsewhere, but Dyson is "Rubio Insurance". Brings a lot of the same stuff to the table, and most importantly, will be available for the Cavs before Rubio comes back for real.

 

[Douglar]

This is also why I want Daniels as well. I may have typed it elsewhere, but Dyson is "Rubio Insurance". Brings a lot of the same stuff to the table, and most importantly, will be available for the Cavs before Rubio comes back for real.

Dyson seems like a quality glue guy that can help stitch together a lineup of 7 footers + Garland, but he also doesn't turn 20 until next March. Hard to expect the kid to replace the vet savvy that Rubio brought. Sometimes it takes young guys awhile to adjust to the NBA.

Still, as the expression goes, cream rises to to the top and players that are going to be good in the NBA are more likely to show it early rather than later.

 

[MrX]

Rubio's impact on Garland's development was likely more important then his huge impact he had on the court.

 

[CavsKermit]

Let's say Garland and Rubio both start and play the entire first half and the Cavs lead by 16 at halftime. In the locker room Garland comes down with a case of food poisoning and sits out the rest of the game. Rubio plays the entire second half and the Cavs win by 5.

Rubio/Garland is a +16. Rubio for the entire game is a +5. Rubio without Garland, therefore, is a -11. Show me how that math doesn't work.

There are times when neither is on the floor. There are bench players who were more negative than Rubio. You can't just use two players.

 

[CavsKermit]

So I looked it up and according to Spotrac this guy is a FA, Tyus Jones would be someone I’d like to kick the tires on. He may ask for a decent amount of money, but he’s young at 26 and Memphis played really good basketball with him at PG with Ja Morant being out.

Ricky is a fun player to watch but with 2 knee injuries, I worry about his effectiveness. Or we could go the draft route but not super keen on Ty Ty.

He reportedly wants to start.

 

[Douglar]

Hollinger used a formula to put a value on Rubio's next contract--

• Ricky Rubio, PG, Indiana: $15,475,962 — Rubio didn’t play a game for the Pacers last year; he was traded there by Cleveland after tearing his left ACL in late December. While he’ll likely return at some point this coming season, he turns 32 this fall, and it’s his second ACL tear in the same knee.

 

[The Oi]

Do you like Tricky Ricky aka El Niño Mopa?

Perfecto.

Find out how he features as a key piece of our team’s makeup even as he rests his rodilla on episode 1 of season 2 of the Rubber Rim Job podcast.

Hint: it involves el araña


Prefer to see RCF tumble into a morally and educationally bankrupt post-apocalyptic abyss infested with mechanical robot spiders that harvest its posters of their virtual organs so that they can move on to other websites that you love in order to do the same?

Ignore the pod.

You sick individual.