PDA

View Full Version : Why Donít Coaches Give More Credence To Plus-Minus?



Raskolnikov
03-23-2006, 01:03 PM
<TABLE borderColor=#003366 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=90 align=left bgColor=#ffcc00 border=2><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>http://www.nba.com/media/pacers/conrad_brunner.jpg QUESTION
OF THE DAY
Conrad Brunner</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Q. If the Plus-Minus chart is indeed a tool used by the coaches, why are (David) Harrison and (Danny) Granger getting so many minutes when they lounge around the bottom of the charts? Sarunas (Jasikevicius) is at the top of these charts and he is getting no minutes. If this team was in "rebuilding mode" these minutes distributions would make more sense. But this team is on the verge of slipping out of the playoffs! Shouldn't the coaches take a hint from the Plus-Minus chart and play the fellows who are more consistent? (From Matthew in Kailua-Kona Hawaii)

A. It's not the only tool in the box. The coaches chart dozens of categories that don't show up in the box score every game and Plus-Minus is one of them. I am, of course, a big believer in Plus-Minus. I started tracking it for the Pacers in the early '90s and found it a particularly interesting way to quantify the value of players like Derrick McKey and Dale Davis, who didn't show up large in the box scores but were extremely important to the team's success. But neither do I believe it to be, on its own, a conclusive statistic. It's an indicator, another way to gauge a player's performance as a complement to, not a replacement for, the box score.

That said, the trends in Plus-Minus support the increase in minutes for Granger and the decrease for Jasikevicius. Granger got off to a terrible start; he was minus-70 in his first 14 games. Ever since, he's been plus-42, a solid number. Jasikevicius has gone the other way. After an excellent start he has tailed off, going minus-46 in his last 11 games.

Harrison's Plus-Minus figures, like his season in general, have been up and down but he has been playing regularly out of both need for size in the rotation as well as the importance of developing his skills. With injuries to Jermaine O'Neal and Scot Pollard, Harrison became the only true big body on the roster, at times. And he is a skilled player who could play a major role in the team's future, so it's important to put him in a situation where he can best improve.

Based purely on Plus-Minus statistics, the Pacers' best lineup would be Jasikevicius at the point, Anthony Johnson at shooting guard, Peja Stojakovic at small forward, Jeff Foster at power forward and Jermaine O'Neal at center. Whether that would be a successful group on the court remains to be seen, because it's doubtful that group will see much, if any time together.

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question.html

Raskolnikov
03-23-2006, 01:03 PM
:innocent:

Ragnar
03-23-2006, 01:18 PM
There are some serious flaws to the Pacers.com plus minus. They seem to take away from a players plus/minus if they are out of the lineup. Both Jamaal and Jermaine saw thier plus ranking go down while they were out.

The better solution would be a 5 man +/- which over the last few games would have to be

Tins/AJ/Peja/Granger/Foster.

Kegboy
03-23-2006, 01:25 PM
I question if the Pacers.com +/- is even accurate. The update before this last one, they had Austin having a -9 for the game when he didn't play. A couple weeks ago, I saw something similar with Fred.

That said, I really hoped that Cabbage's benching would be the kick in the pants he needed and he'd play well against Memphis. When he didn't, I thought "Well, at least we won't have to hear *****ing about him leading the +/- anymore."

Seed
03-23-2006, 01:55 PM
There are some serious flaws to the Pacers.com plus minus. They seem to take away from a players plus/minus if they are out of the lineup. Both Jamaal and Jermaine saw thier plus ranking go down while they were out.


Ron Artest is still the +- leader. It didn't seem to affect him...
What you say is usually true if the team wins during the time these players are out.

+- is an important tool. I liked the explanation about Granger's minutes Vs Saras minutes trends lately.

Chauncey
03-23-2006, 02:27 PM
Because anyone that thinks Saras should be getting minutes instead of Granger is a fricking crackhead.

Beowulfas
03-23-2006, 04:15 PM
Midseason. Saras leads Pacers in +/-.
Granger, Harrison leads from the bottom :)
Everybody agrees all this +/- thing is a crap, Saras is 3rd string PG and Granger+Harrison rules the earth.

End of the season. Saras goes down to 4th place
Everybody agrees with some kind of expert, who belives, that Saras is firstly a shooter :confused: , that +/- shows slump of Saras and progress of Granger. Saras stays 3rd string PG, Granger still rulez the earth :laugh:

Beowulfas
03-23-2006, 04:22 PM
Because anyone that thinks Saras should be getting minutes instead of Granger is a fricking crackhead.

Saras has better +/- than Granger, because he makes his teammates better.
This is what no other Pacer does.

SoupIsGood
03-23-2006, 04:24 PM
Midseason. Saras leads Pacers in +/-.
Granger, Harrison leads from the bottom :)
Everybody agrees all this +/- thing is a crap, Saras is 3rd string PG and Granger+Harrison rules the earth.

End of the season. Saras goes down to 4th place
Everybody agrees with some kind of expert, who belives, that Saras is firstly a shooter :confused: , that +/- shows slump of Saras and progress of Granger. Saras stays 3rd string PG, Granger still rulez the earth :laugh:


:confused:

Raskolnikov
03-23-2006, 04:29 PM
:confused:
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19661

Knucklehead Warrior
03-23-2006, 04:31 PM
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.
-- Birch Bayh

Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics

Ragnar
03-23-2006, 05:04 PM
Ron Artest is still the +- leader. It didn't seem to affect him...
What you say is usually true if the team wins during the time these players are out.

+- is an important tool. I liked the explanation about Granger's minutes Vs Saras minutes trends lately.

For some reason since he was not on the roster they stopped updating him.

As somone noticed before Austin got a -9 for just one game he did not play.

Seed
03-23-2006, 05:34 PM
For some reason since he was not on the roster they stopped updating him.

I think you might be mis-interpreting the index.
Of course the plus-minus of a player that is not playing is not updated.. (except Cro who gets updated in any case ;) ).

This doesn't prevent him at all from being rated first, assuming the rest of the guys do not perform well in the next games. That's the normal behavior of this index. It does not matter whether the player is injured or out of the roster.

Kestas
03-23-2006, 06:29 PM
Because anyone that thinks Saras should be getting minutes instead of Granger is a fricking crackhead.

you should consider changing your nick to Mr. Provocation or Mr. Dirtmouth, or something.. nobody ever wrote anything like that.
besides, your comments are simply way off line sometimes for someone with such an ambitious nick.

and you should not be so sensitive about Plus-Minus. relax.

:rolleyes:

Evan_The_Dude
03-23-2006, 11:21 PM
So some are pretty much saying they'd rather see Sarunas play - and slump, rather than see Granger come up with a double double and some timely shots, block a few shots, and help us win? I question if the Saras fans that are soooo high on using +/- are actually seeing the games. I don't tknow why people are so upset about Harrison and Granger getting minutes over Saras. None of them even play the same position!

Part of me wants to see Saras traded in the offseason so we can put these Saras threads to rest. I like him, but these Saras this Saras that, play Saras, I hope you lose if Saras doesn't play, Saras is God threads are quite annoying for a guy that's a ROOKIE. How about judging him next season if he's here. Judging him this season is unfair.

sarikas
03-23-2006, 11:43 PM
So some are pretty much saying they'd rather see Sarunas play - and slump, rather than see Granger come up with a double double and some timely shots, block a few shots, and help us win? I question if the Saras fans that are soooo high on using +/- are actually seeing the games. I don't tknow why people are so upset about Harrison and Granger getting minutes over Saras. None of them even play the same position!

Part of me wants to see Saras traded in the offseason so we can put these Saras threads to rest. I like him, but these Saras this Saras that, play Saras, I hope you lose if Saras doesn't play, Saras is God threads are quite annoying for a guy that's a ROOKIE. How about judging him next season if he's here. Judging him this season is unfair.

My friend. I saw 90% of P's games this year-Saras does not belong to this team, nobody is accepting him as a leade and first PG ( anywhere elese he sucks-he never was SG or his shooting was great), so expect Cavs, Suns, Spurs or any european team trading for him-i simply don't see him in Pacers unifors next year ( unless rick is fired ).

Evan_The_Dude
03-23-2006, 11:58 PM
My friend. I saw 90% of P's games this year-Saras does not belong to this team, nobody is accepting him as a leade and first PG ( anywhere elese he sucks-he never was SG or his shooting was great), so expect Cavs, Suns, Spurs or any european team trading for him-i simply don't see him in Pacers unifors next year ( unless rick is fired ).


The only time any team in the NBA will accept a rookie point guard as a leader right away is if that team doesn't have anybody else to turn to. [see the Hornets and Chris Paul]. If he's an offense first point guard as you've stated before, how do you see him fitting with defensive oriented Mike Brown and the Cavs? You see how well Damon Jones is fitting in there....

He'd be a perfect fit for the Suns... as a backup! Hell, knowing the Suns, you might see him playing some SF there! Spurs have Tony Parker. If you don't think he plays enough here, you'd be a fool to think he's gonna see much more time with the Spurs.

If I know Larry & Donnie's tendencies well enough, Saras will be here next season. Tinsley might not [as much as I don't like the idea of letting him go]. I also question whether or not Carlisle will still be here too [as much as I'm 50/50 on that idea].

History doesn't show us letting go of a player after their rookie year - Erick Dampier is the exception - but he sucks...

Give Saras time, he isn't going anywhere, and I don't think many people want him to either. I expect the team to add some pieces that will end up working to his advantage if Bird truely wants us to have more of a European style. Besides, Bird didn't scout him for so many years just to let him go after one year.

Jermaniac
03-24-2006, 12:00 AM
My friend. I saw 90% of P's games this year-Saras does not belong to this team, nobody is accepting him as a leade and first PG ( anywhere elese he sucks-he never was SG or his shooting was great), so expect Cavs, Suns, Spurs or any european team trading for him-i simply don't see him in Pacers unifors next year ( unless rick is fired ).Good luck to him in another uniform.

ChicagoJ
03-24-2006, 12:02 AM
1) Nobody is accepting him as a leader because he hasn't shown any leadership ability. He's shown bossy-ness and the ability to point out where other people are missing their defensive assignments while leaving his man wide open. And he's had plenty of bad things to say to the European press.

If that's what you call a leader then the Pacers should just cut his butt right now.

He's going to have to come back next season with an "I'll shut up, pay my dues, and do whatever the coach asks" approach with whatever team he is with.

2) Nobody is accepting him as a first PG (presumably you mean starting PG?) because he hasn't even been able to beat out our much-maligned backup PG for a spot in the rotation, let alone Tinsley.

If Saras wants to play in the NBA, he's gonna have to learn how to be a "combo" guard. He gives up way too much dribble penetration to make it as a full-time PG.

rabid
03-24-2006, 12:02 AM
I know how the plus-minus stats are done for the site, and it is a very accurate system, unless a typo or something is made. They are definitely not punishing players who don't play in the game.

Anthem
03-24-2006, 12:02 AM
:laugh: Man, I think I might actually have missed Chauncey.

Knucklehead Warrior
03-24-2006, 04:34 AM
:laugh: Man, I think I might actually have missed Chauncey.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You're only remembering the good :laugh: times.

DeS
03-24-2006, 11:41 AM
I question if the Pacers.com +/- is even accurate.
I think, that Pacers.com are calculating it manualy (by hand), because they update it not regulary. But it's not a big deal to make automatic calculation if they have access to the play-by-play db table and these could be updated even during the game.

Raskolnikov
03-24-2006, 12:01 PM
I think, that Pacers.com are calculating it manualy (by hand), because they update it not regulary. But it's not a big deal to make automatic calculation if they have access to the play-by-play db table and these could be updated even during the game.
By hand? Really? Can't be. That would be so strange. So unprofessional. And most of all: so much more trouble than needed. It should indeed not be difficult to write an algorithm that gives you Plus-Minus automatically. I'm not an expert programmer or anything but hell, even I could do it!

Rabid?

Fool
03-24-2006, 12:55 PM
Midseason. Saras leads Pacers in +/-.
Granger, Harrison leads from the bottom :)
Everybody agrees all this +/- thing is a crap, Saras is 3rd string PG and Granger+Harrison rules the earth.

End of the season. Saras goes down to 4th place
Everybody agrees with some kind of expert, who belives, that Saras is firstly a shooter :confused: , that +/- shows slump of Saras and progress of Granger. Saras stays 3rd string PG, Granger still rulez the earth :laugh:

There are like 4 posts in the thread before you wrote this and basically all of them question whether the stats are even correct.