Report: Spurs May Look To Trade Tiago Splitter

Espn's version of WAR appears on the same espn page linked above that lists RPM, ORPM, and DRPM

"WAR: The estimated number of team wins attributable to each player, based on RPM"

espn(dot)go(dot)com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/9

Here's more criticism of RPM, with a bit of support for the stat that RPM is based on:

So what is new here? ESPN again:

"RPM reflects enhancements to RAPM by Engelmann, among them the use of Bayesian priors, aging curves, score of the game and extensive out-of-sample testing to improve RPM's predictive accuracy."
Which sounds an awful lot like slapping a binding on someone else's science fair project and selling it as a textbook. RAPM is already used by hardcore NBA heads, so it's more than a little odd to see ESPN roll this out without explaining what it's doing differently. We will presumably hear a little more about what's gone into RPM at some point, maybe at next year's Sloan, maybe as the playoffs ramp up. But as NBA analysis gets more observational and, therefore, contextual, the need for this sort of reverse-engineered testing should fall away, at least a little bit. For now, though, this isn't a bad way at all to judge how important (or harmful) a player is to his team.

regressing(dot)deadspin(dot)com/just-what-the-hell-is-real-plus-minus-espns-new-nba-s-1560361469

That article says that specific lineup stats are more en vogue among NBA bigwig datacrunchers. The link didn't work for me though, but I found it here:

stats(dot)nba(dot)com/league/lineups/#!/advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612738

It's probably not very productive to dig into too many intangible, less than proven stats, or even many of the provable stats, because our current roster was only together for what, 25-30 regular season games?

With all the tumult of the roster changes, Rondo and Green playing with one foot out the door, and Stevens experimenting with lineups most of the season, there's probably not a whole lot to really learn from digging into advanced stats.

Rambone,

Ironically, the MORE minutes someone plays, the more likely he is to take on the statistical output characteristics of the entire team.  If simple +/- had been calculated for Russell and Wilt, they would have been very similar to the respective W/L margins for their teams.

As for this stat, a little too much estimating and assuming for me.  I'm well aware of the statistical power of multivariate statistical methods; but they're only as valid as the independent and contextual factors on which they're based.  That is much of the problem I find with Hollinger's work.  In an effort to address flaws in some of his work, he adds yet additional variables and estimations that simply exacerbate the questionable validity.

Once a given basketball statistical calculation reaches the point of complexity where proponents say something like, "It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got," I tend to be very wary of it.  I prefer basic stats because, limited though they may be, I'm relatively certain of their degree of applicability to what I'm working on.  Otherwise, I tend to default to good old observation.

But, as I suggested earlier, to each his/her own.

Sam