According to RAPM Millsap was the 7th best player in the league

[Jazz4ever]

https://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/2013.html

In 2011/12 he was 11th best
https://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/2012.html

In 2010/2011 he was 21st best
https://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/2011.html

This is one of the more respected advanced stats, similar to adjusted +/-. No one on the Jazz came close to Sap's 5.4 rating last year, with Favors being next closest at 1.9
If you were to put a filter of 5000 possessions to weed out low minute anomalies, like Chris Anderson, Millsap is nearly 100% in the company of all star level players. With only Amir Johnson at 14th best who makes you scratch your head a little. However, Amir Johnson does not appear in the top 20 in 2012 like Millsap does.

There is no real point to this, not taking a jab at those who said he was a below average PF or anything, Millsap could be an anomaly as well. Just passing time of the last month before camp.

 

[dogtoucher]

Millsap is a good person and a good player and I'm going to vomit when you all boo him at the ESA next season

 

[dipship31]

Millsap is a good person and a good player and I'm going to vomit when you all boo him at the ESA next season

Sap won't get boo'd

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I won't scratch my scratch over this.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Millsap is da ****. We shoulda re-signed him.

 

[zbone]

All stats are just a guide to eyeball test and Millsap failed miserably last year after underwhelming performance year before. All the good wishes to him but both the Jazz and Millsap grew out of each other some time ago.

 

[NUMBERICA]

All stats are just a guide to eyeball test and Millsap failed miserably last year after underwhelming performance year before.

Failed miserably at the eye test? You still got *** in yours? Good luck with that.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Millsap is da ****. We shoulda re-signed him.

No but resigning him in three years as a 6th man could be a very interesting option depending where our team is contending wise.

 

[zbone]

Failed miserably at the eye test? You still got *** in yours? Good luck with that.

Go **** yourself, please.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

All stats are just a guide to eyeball test and Millsap failed miserably last year after underwhelming performance year before. All the good wishes to him but both the Jazz and Millsap grew out of each other some time ago.

Horse****

 

[GVC]

All stats are just a guide to eyeball test

Yikes.

 

[Scorpjazz]

All stats are just a guide to eyeball test and Millsap failed miserably last year after underwhelming performance year before. All the good wishes to him but both the Jazz and Millsap grew out of each other some time ago.

Agree, and this quote will be used by those who hate it now, when it helps their point. At least its an equal opportunity quote

 

[Getting Traded]

I think Sap grew disenchanted after Big Al took precedence over him while at the same time, everyone was saying that Favors should be playing ahead of him, or at least was on the verge of taking away his place as a starter. So, he was feeling he was getting squeezed out, so to speak. I think he probably felt his time in Utah had passed, and the Jazz felt likewise.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Go **** yourself, please.

Aw.

 

[b_line]

All stats are just a guide to eyeball test and Millsap failed miserably last year after underwhelming performance year before. All the good wishes to him but both the Jazz and Millsap grew out of each other some time ago.

So ugly wins don't count?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Very done with Millsap. It'll be nicer to see him perform in a weaker conference-- to see if he struggles with as much inconsistency in a starting role as he did over here in the NW.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Millsap would have been an awesome pick up at 3/24-- and Im sure he regrets not taking it. I'm just stoked that this means that Favors and Kanter will get the start.

 

[One Brow]

This is one of the more respected advanced stats, similar to adjusted +/-.

It's adjusted +/- with Bayesian inferences, being they pre-adjust the statistics based in part on what they think the statistics should look like. Not something I would put much faith in.

 

[moevillini]

It's adjusted +/- with Bayesian inferences, being they pre-adjust the statistics based in part on what they think the statistics should look like. Not something I would put much faith in.

that should go without saying!

 

[GVC]

It's adjusted +/- with Bayesian inferences, being they pre-adjust the statistics based in part on what they think the statistics should look like. Not something I would put much faith in.

I don't think this is correct. The prior they use is not subjective ("what they think"), but rather obtained from prior year statistics (IIRC, the stats are calculated using ridge regression, rookies are usually given a very poor prior).