PDA

View Full Version : Interesting +/- info



Dr. Goldfoot
11-21-2006, 01:39 AM
I've never been a believer in the stat. I just recently checked last years +/- stats for the Pacers and decided to check all the other teams. I realize how unfair it is to judge a player on a crappy team by their overall number but I found it interesting to see who was last on their respective teams. I found it even more interesting to find so many players with Pacers ties at the bottom of the lists. Al Harrington,Orien Greene,Primoz Brezec,Rawle Marshall & Peja Stojakovic & obviously our own players all rounded out the bottom. Some other notables Joe Johnson,Chris Duhon, Andres Nocioni, Earl Boykins, Mickael Pietrus, Troy Murphy, Rafer Alston, Juwan Howard, Maurice Williams, Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, Chris Paul, Desmond Mason, Chris Webber, Jarrett Jack, Zach Randolph, Rashard Lewis, Luke Ridnour & Moorris Peterson. It's obvious some players were at a disadvantage due to their teams overall poor play so look at the names not the numbers.

Hawks: Al & Joe Johnson tied w/ -363
Celtics: Orien Greene -90 & Al Jefferson -124
Bobcats: Jumaine Jones -239 & Primoz -364
Bulls: Chris Duhon -63 & Andres Nocioni -69
Cavs: Alan Henderson -43 & Luke Jackson -49
Mavs: Rawle Marshall 2 & D.J. Mbenga -5
Nuggets: Reggie Evans -68 & Earl Boykins -161
Pistons: Darko -78 & Jason Maxiell -92
Warriors: Mickael Pietrus -109 & Troy Murphy -131
Rockets: Rafer "Skip To My Lou" Alston -107 & Juwan Howard -285
Pacers: Samaki Walker -16 & David Harrison -23
Lakers: Andrew Bynum -36 & Devin Green -37
Clippers:Vladimir Radmanovic -53 & Zeljko Rebraca -133
Grizz: Hakim Warrick -85 & Dahntay Jones -135
Heat: Michael Doleac -81 & Jason Kapono -110
Bucks: Maurice Williams -110 & Jiri Welsch -168
Wolves: Rashad McCants -130 & Eddie Griffin -145
Nets: Scott Padgett -97 & Jeff McInnis -148
Knicks: Jamal Crawford -353 & Eddy -381
Hornets: Chris Paul -157 & Desmond Mason -250
Magic: Tony Battie -120 & DeShawn Stevenson -221
76ers: John Salmons -208 & Chris Webber -233
Suns: Nikoloz Tskitishvili --30 & Pat Burke -49
Blazers:Jarrett Jack-391 & Zach Randolph -493
Kings: Ronnie Price -38 & Peja -99
Spurs: Fabricio Oberto -22 & Sean Marks -32
Sonics: Rashard Lewis -216 & Luke Ridnour -265
Raptors: Matt Bonner -165 & Mo Pete -230
Jazz: Keith McLeod-125 & Devin Brown -173
Wiz: Calvin Booth -20 & Chucky Atkins -70

Beowulfas
11-21-2006, 06:29 AM
If the team constantly loses - the more minutes You play, the worse +/- You gonna get.

But if You take a .500 team, You will need some stronger arguments to prove, that guards, having -75 and -49 are really better than the one who has +10.

Seed
11-21-2006, 07:08 AM
I found it even more interesting to find so many players with Pacers ties at the bottom of the lists.
Darn.
And I was telling DW all along, man your'e holding the page upside down!
The guy just wouldn't listen. :(

ChicagoJ
11-21-2006, 09:39 AM
If the team constantly loses - the more minutes You play, the worse +/- You gonna get.

But if You take a .500 team, You will need some stronger arguments to prove, that guards, having -75 and -49 are really better than the one who has +10.

I think its easy to prove that individual plus/ minus, in isolation, is even less meaningful than "points per game" for determining who is the "better" player.

(PS, the guy with plus-10 is only plus-10 because he's played so few minutes. Leave him on the court for Tinsley's minutes and we'll see him get to -200 in a hurry. The coach, for all his flaws (and he has plenty of flaws, IMO), does seem to recognize when to get the plus-10 guy off the court.)

Dr. Goldfoot
11-21-2006, 10:13 AM
If the team constantly loses - the more minutes You play, the worse +/- You gonna get.

But if You take a .500 team, You will need some stronger arguments to prove, that guards, having -75 and -49 are really better than the one who has +10.


I agree, partially why I said look at the names not the numbers. I thought it was interesting to see so many players who are/were integral to their teams success falling into the two worst +/- positions on the team. I thought it just further disproved the worth of the stat when comparing players. When someone makes the statement this player should be starting or sitting because their +/- is better/worse than this guys etc... I think it's safe to assume that Al Harrington and Joe Johnson gave the Hawks the best chance to win last year as Chris Paul gave the Hornets the best chance to win. According to this stat though they were all last or second to last in +/- for their teams last year. That means the rest of the guys in the regular rotation were performing better? Kirk Snyder and Speedy Claxton both had + and played significant minutes but we both know they shouldn't ever play a second more than Chris Paul. I just threw these numbers out to check some other teams for comparison since so many seem to be harping on the Pacers +/- this year.

Dr. Goldfoot
11-21-2006, 10:47 AM
Wait a minute, I didn't read Beowulfas' post correctly. I disagree with that. The numbers are all relative to team play. If you're at the bottom you're at the bottom. Just because one guy is at the top doesn't make him any more instrumental to winning and I think by pointing out who was at the bottom last year proves that. Chris Paul is better than Kirk Snyder is both personal performance and ability to help his team win but had a lower +/-. I think it's harder to prove your point with these numbers on the table.

Pitons
11-21-2006, 11:36 AM
Wait a minute, I didn't read Beowulfas' post correctly. I disagree with that. The numbers are all relative to team play. If you're at the bottom you're at the bottom. Just because one guy is at the top doesn't make him any more instrumental to winning and I think by pointing out who was at the bottom last year proves that. Chris Paul is better than Kirk Snyder is both personal performance and ability to help his team win but had a lower +/-. I think it's harder to prove your point with these numbers on the table.

To see who are the best players regarding team play as a unit, you need to glance at most time played players with highest +/- IMO. It would be about 30 minutes or more PT (because these players play in almost all units and who come with high +/-, it's most believable they are the best (not the best individually, but have the most impact to teams' victories)). Pacers best players right now are IMO: JO, DG, Jax.

The players who don't play much (let's say about 10-20 minutes) and have a good +/- are - dunno how to describe it better - maybe players with whom the whole team as a unit performs better in those 10-20 minutes. While Saras don't have a very high +/-, but it's still +, the most effective player is DA without competition - his +37 is just outstanding in his limited minutes.

For example we see that JO and Al don't compliment each other well. When Al and JO is on the court, JO is almost out of the game. Yes, Al have nice stats, but JO not very.And overall +/- is not high. And when JO plays in other unit, he plays much better and that he has a much better +/- than Al means JO plays much better with other units, while Al plays, the team and the unit in which he plays don't play well, despite the fact Al plays well. But he plays only alone, and others don't play very good with him. It's better to have 5 average players in one unit, than to have one very good and others, who can't play near him.

Bad +/- means, that when the player is on the court, other players with him also have an equal +/- rating. If he has -10 in 10 minutes, other players who played with him, also have -10 in those 10 minutes.

But of course, when a player plays only 15 minutes, we don't know, if his +/- would be higher or lower playing more time. But if a team has good +/- when he plays, that's not so bad. And if a player, who plays much, has -2, that doesn't mean he plays bad, because maybe he's the only one, who can have the highest +/- in the team playing 35 minutes.

Pitons
11-21-2006, 12:06 PM
And BTW, Chris Paul is the best player in Hornets team so far.
Wade is the best Heat player.
Nowitzki best Mavericks player.
Yao best Rockets player.
Iverson best 76-ers player.
Howard best Orlando player.
Duncan best Spurs player.
Pierce best Boston player and so on.

Dr. Goldfoot
11-21-2006, 02:53 PM
According to NBA.com , the Pacers starting five is the best 5 man unit we have. JO, Jack, Al, Mel Mel & Danny have a plus 15. I'm not sure how current their +/- stats are but that's what their site says.


Scenario:

Scot Pollard plays his tail off for 43 minutes. He collects 17 boards, 7 assists, 14 blocks, scores 35 points on a perfect shooting night. His play has single handedly kept his team within five points. With five minutes to go while attempting to take a charge he fouls out. Over the next five minutes the other team self-destructs and turns it over a few times, misses a few shots and his team ends up winning by one point. Pollard ends up with a -5 on the +/- stat. Explain please.......

Look at the Hawks +/- from last year Joe Johnson and Al Harrington had the worst +/- for them. Explain please.....

The +/- isn't a barometer for individual play.

Jasikevicius vs Boston.

Enters game w/ 2:58 to go in the 1st down by seven.
Missed shot @ :30
assist @ 10:27 2nd
T/O @ 9:50
T/O @ 8:20
missed shot @ 7:57
T/O @ 7:56
assist @ 7:34
replaced by Tinsley @ 7:22 down by four.

Runi gets a plus 3. He played a little under 8 minutes missed two shots, got two assists and turned it over 3 times. The reason the Pacers cut into the Celtics lead had nothing to do with Runi but everything to do with the fact that Pierce went out with :54 to go in the first and returned @ the 8:25 mark in the second. So Pierce was out for 5 of the 8 minutes he played that's how we cut into the lead.

Slick Pinkham
11-21-2006, 03:11 PM
The +/- isn't a barometer for individual play.


That sums it up neatly. It's an almost completely worthless stat, and I generally pay attention to statistical analyses.

Pitons
11-21-2006, 03:46 PM
According to NBA.com , the Pacers starting five is the best 5 man unit we have. JO, Jack, Al, Mel Mel & Danny have a plus 15. I'm not sure how current their +/- stats are but that's what their site says.

It's only one 5 man unit. They have played in different units too.



Scenario:

Scot Pollard plays his tail off for 43 minutes. He collects 17 boards, 7 assists, 14 blocks, scores 35 points on a perfect shooting night. His play has single handedly kept his team within five points. With five minutes to go while attempting to take a charge he fouls out. Over the next five minutes the other team self-destructs and turns it over a few times, misses a few shots and his team ends up winning by one point. Pollard ends up with a -5 on the +/- stat. Explain please.......

Yes, he had nice stats and was a beast when he was on the court, but other 4 players in a unit didn't play very good as we see all teams play when Scot played.


Look at the Hawks +/- from last year Joe Johnson and Al Harrington had the worst +/- for them. Explain please.....

Hawks ***** last year. To find out best players on the team you have to glance at players, who have played the most and had the highest +/- (about 30 min or more).


The +/- isn't a barometer for individual play.

No, it's not. Individual play is individual play. This is to show how the team played as a unit.



Runi gets a plus 3. He played a little under 8 minutes missed two shots, got two assists and turned it over 3 times. The reason the Pacers cut into the Celtics lead had nothing to do with Runi but everything to do with the fact that Pierce went out with :54 to go in the first and returned @ the 8:25 mark in the second. So Pierce was out for 5 of the 8 minutes he played that's how we cut into the lead.

So the only reason Pacers cut into the lead was Pierce was out for 5 of the 8 minutes and not the Pacers team playing better at the that unit was in?

Dr. Goldfoot
11-21-2006, 06:00 PM
Okay.
The best 5 man unit we have is the starting unit. Not another unit. Just that one. You can look up 5 man , 4man, 3man, 2man or individual +/- stats on the internet. The starting unit has performed better than any other 5 players on the court at any given time. Regardless of whether a starter is part of one of those other units.

The Scot Pollard thing was a hypothetical. My point was a player can be the best on the floor and still come up negative. If that player is the only reason his team is still alive how does that make sense?

There is no argument to who the best players on the Hawks were last year. It was Al & Johnson. Yet they still had the worst +/- stats on the team.

My point is...it's a bogus stat.

I would say yes the only reason the Pacers cut into the Celtics lead was Pierce's absence. Not stellar play by the Pacers. When Pierce came back in they were only up by 2. The next time Pierce sat down he'd scored 19 points and grabbed four rebounds and his team was up by 16.

Beowulfas
11-21-2006, 06:23 PM
Who are the best players of Pacers by +/-?
Team leader JO.
Team players Runi-Armstrong-Foster-Granger.

All black holes and bad basketball players (yes, Tinsley and Daniels are just bad basketball players) are the last.
Jackson, Daniels, Tinsley and Al.

Too hard to admit, or again - co-insidence?

If a player is good on 1-on-1 street basketball, it does not mean he is a good fit to NBA.

Kestas
11-21-2006, 06:43 PM
If a player is good on 1-on-1 street basketball, it does not mean he is a good fit to NBA.

I'd disagree.. NBA is ruled by some extremely good streetballers. even the champions are led by a streetballer.. teamplay is irrelevant as long as players can create wins simply out of improvisation and personal skill. NBA is primitive by nature and it rarely relies on teamplay both on deffense and on offense...

Pitons
11-22-2006, 07:14 AM
Okay.
The best 5 man unit we have is the starting unit. Not another unit. Just that one. You can look up 5 man , 4man, 3man, 2man or individual +/- stats on the internet. The starting unit has performed better than any other 5 players on the court at any given time. Regardless of whether a starter is part of one of those other units.

I don't know, but Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-Harrington-O'Neal wasn't so effective so far according to http://www.82games.com/0607/0607IND2.HTM -

Min played 121, points scored 229, points allowed 229, margin 0, wins 3, losses 6, win % 0.333.


The Scot Pollard thing was a hypothetical. My point was a player can be the best on the floor and still come up negative. If that player is the only reason his team is still alive how does that make sense?

Yes, he can be the best on the floor, but with him the team losses, because other players don't play very well with him as a unit. He can score 50 points, take 25 rebounds, but still the team losses, because he plays only one. A player, who have a very bad +/- compared to his teammates, who play as much as him (30 min or more), is not useful to the team, because that means, that other players can't play with him good. You can be the best in stats. But you play alone. Not with a team. Separately.


There is no argument to who the best players on the Hawks were last year. It was Al & Johnson. Yet they still had the worst +/- stats on the team.

I would want to see other players' +/-, who have played as much as they. I don't believe any such player had a very good +/-, because Hawks lost game after game. It's impossible to have a good +/- on that team for a player who played much time.


I would say yes the only reason the Pacers cut into the Celtics lead was Pierce's absence. Not stellar play by the Pacers. When Pierce came back in they were only up by 2. The next time Pierce sat down he'd scored 19 points and grabbed four rebounds and his team was up by 16.

Me personally don't think that was the only reason, but if Pierce was the only reason the Boston could play, then ask first squad, what they have done to neutralize him. Pierce most of the time played against our best players. And he owned them alone.

Fool
11-22-2006, 01:15 PM
I'd disagree.. NBA is ruled by some extremely good streetballers. even the champions are led by a streetballer.. teamplay is irrelevant as long as players can create wins simply out of improvisation and personal skill. NBA is primitive by nature and it rarely relies on teamplay both on deffense and on offense...

Then you are wrong. There are plenty of examples of streetballers who can't make it in the NBA. And your disdain for the NBA is already clear, you don't need to keep pointing it out.

Naptown_Seth
11-24-2006, 02:06 AM
Yes, he had nice stats and was a beast when he was on the court, but other 4 players in a unit didn't play very good as we see all teams play when Scot played.
As Goldfoot mentioned there are TWO TEAMS ON THE COURT.

If Scot faces Dwight Howard and his backup faces the 12th man NBADL call-up with the game out of hand, and the Magic scrubs then give up 10 points of the 25 point lead, Scot's replacement who didn't see a minute of PT till the game was "over" now has a +10 and Scot (with the pretend numbers that Goldfoot posted) has a -25.


I said this at Star and I'll say it here too for all the people that are clinging to the one stat that supports Sarunas (since the others are mostly pretty ugly...gee, wonder why +/- got popular lately):

BEN WALLACE = WORST BULLS PLAYER (other than 2 guys who've each played 5 total minutes all year).

Now go ahead, defend that Big Ben makes his team worse when he's on the court. Tell me how the Bulls know it and would gladly trade him for Baston and his better +/-.

Until you sincerely think that Ben Wallace shouldn't get off the bench for the Bulls and in NO WAY helped them beat the Pacers earlier this year you aren't allowed to use the +/- stat as the ONLY MEANS of discussing a player's ability.


Plus-Minus ignores matchups, ignores situations, ignores if you are riding Jordan's jock or forced to help his backup not blow the game when he turns the ball over 10 times in 5 minutes...

Like all stats, Plus-Minus requires context and additional statistical analysis. It is also extremely important that you pair it with actual viewings of the games. Best yet is to look at a +/- and then review the game with that in mind. Rick uses this and many other stats, but then he's also at the games, knows what plays were intended vs executed, and sees the players during practice. He doesn't just take one of his stats (any of the many he keeps) and use it to make a lineup, and there is a very good reason for that.

Reviewing the game with this stat in mind can help a person identify hidden trends, such as the mythical "makes others better even though his stats aren't good" or "hurts the team despite filling the box score". Both cases are rare, but it could be that a crappy PG doesn't get to be involved in plays and that THIS helps the other 4 more than his actual play.

I already listed a sequence where this did occur for Sarunas. It happens with players you dislike as well, including Jack, Tinsley, Al, Foster, JO...all of them have moments where their +/- does not reflect their actual impact on the game.

The assumption is that over the long haul it does. But that is because the "long haul" implies a VARIETY of matchups, situations and roles for the player. You assume that over many minutes, say 15-20 games, that all main players (15-20 mpg+) end up being asked to face similar situations. Hot bench guys get to replace struggling starters, for example, and if they can't hack it any better then their +/- drops due to the increase in opponents talent when they are playing.


BTW, the "bad team" thing is typically "avoided" (it's not because of the flaws I listed, but its an attempt to fix it) by doing the +/- as an ON-COURT/OFF-COURT differential.

So Joe Johnson could have a big negative +/- since the Hawks stink, but they could be even worse when he isn't on the court which gives him a DIFFERENTIAL in the positive, meaning they don't stink as much with him as without him. 82Games posts this as a main version of the individual +/-.


And I like the stat, just like I like many other stats. I just think like any other it is easily abused when context and contradictory stats are ignored.

Naptown_Seth
11-24-2006, 02:20 AM
I'd disagree.. NBA is ruled by some extremely good streetballers. even the champions are led by a streetballer.. teamplay is irrelevant as long as players can create wins simply out of improvisation and personal skill. NBA is primitive by nature and it rarely relies on teamplay both on deffense and on offense...
Could you at least PRETEND to watch some NBA games?

For example - Battie hit 2 jumpers in the first the other night. Why? The Magic ran a high PnR with Howard/Nelson, Battie in the low post. Al on Battie, Tins/JO on the PnR.

Well JO is forced to help as Nelson rolls to the lane (normal move, Howard is a solid pick and Tins must go over to respect the shot) and Al then must defend Howard when he slips to the paint. Tinsley follows Nelson with the understanding that once JO cuts off dribble he will rotate back to Howard which in turn frees Al.

Battie though slips out to his mid-range jumper distance and gets the pass back from Nelson. It's a set play that forces GOOD DEFENSE into a tough spot. How? TEAM PLAY. It wasn't luck, it was a set that they ran and then ran some more.

This is TYPICAL of winning NBA ball. Winning, not all. You see AI or Wade break guys down and think that's what it's all about. Try watching a few Jazz games instead.

Maybe the NBA sets are just run to fast for you or something, because they are being run even if you think they aren't (and I obviously get tired of the "NBA stinks" insults). Few teams even settle for ONLY the PnR, most sets use the low post, give and go and PnR as PART of the bigger play, the first option that leads to something else.

When defense blows a play up, or a mishandle or bad pass does, then you will see teams panic and force one on one action to save the end of the clock. A strong PG/ball control leader will reset for another set, even if it has to go quick due to the shot clock situation (like getting at least a screen and pop set up).

NBA defense is too good for teams that don't do these things. The Pacers get almost nothing from 1 on 1 plays on winning nights. Guys aren't "just open", action away from the ball made it happen.

Dr. Goldfoot
11-24-2006, 02:37 AM
Thanks Seth. I think Pitons is only baiting me at this point. I don't see how I could be any more clear on my points.

This (http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo/lenovo_sort.jsp?pcomb=5&season=22006&split=9&team=Pacers) is where it says the unit of Tins,JO, Jack,Granger & Al have the best +/- as a 5 man group.

Without the Pollard performance his team isn't in a position to take the lead at the end.

Every other player who saw the court as a Hawk last year had better +/- stats than Al & Johnson. It didn't matter whether they played 4 seconds or 48 minutes a game all Hawks performed better than Al & Johnson on the +/- stat.

Pierce owns everybody he plays. He was held under 20 points 13 times last year and never held under 15 in 79 games. In fact the last time he was held under 15 points was in game one of round one in the '04-'05 playoffs by the Pacers. He scored 12 in a 102-82 Celtics win.

Pitons
11-24-2006, 06:08 AM
As Goldfoot mentioned there are TWO TEAMS ON THE COURT.

If Scot faces Dwight Howard and his backup faces the 12th man NBADL call-up with the game out of hand, and the Magic scrubs then give up 10 points of the 25 point lead, Scot's replacement who didn't see a minute of PT till the game was "over" now has a +10 and Scot (with the pretend numbers that Goldfoot posted) has a -25.

So I'm asking and not first time: Where's the problem? Scrubs, who usually beat other teams scrubs, or starters, who have -25 against other teams' starters? With those things I could even ask a question - maybe scrubs wouldn't be so worse than starters and would have -27 playing against other teams' starters. Not much of difference between starters and "scrubs". Starters, who can't play against other starters. Very nice.

And as I said and will repeat - +/- is useful in a longer period.



BEN WALLACE = WORST BULLS PLAYER (other than 2 guys who've each played 5 total minutes all year).

Actually he's 4th best player in Bulls. Deng, Hinrich and Gordon play better. 4th, not 12th. I said, that to see who are the best, you must glance only at players, who play much time, not 5 or 15 minutes (about 30 min or more).


Now go ahead, defend that Big Ben makes his team worse when he's on the court. Tell me how the Bulls know it and would gladly trade him for Baston and his better +/-.

Baston played only 4 games 3 min average. Too less PT to say he would play better than Big Ben. And 2 more important thing - the teams are different, so they can't be compared with +/-. I mentioned that earlier too.


Until you sincerely think that Ben Wallace shouldn't get off the bench for the Bulls and in NO WAY helped them beat the Pacers earlier this year you aren't allowed to use the +/- stat as the ONLY MEANS of discussing a player's ability.

The stat maybe useless in one game. It is useful in a longer term. I explained that when I talked about bad DG game and his +/-.





Plus-Minus ignores matchups, ignores situations, ignores if you are riding Jordan's jock or forced to help his backup not blow the game when he turns the ball over 10 times in 5 minutes...

Yes, that's why it's players stat regarding team play. If a player with good +/- is the worst player in the world and is only the liability, so why other players, when they play without him, have worse +/- stat? They should play 10 times better without him and just smash other teams with ease and should have far better +/-. But I don't see this happen for now.
I don't say, that player, who plays 15 minutes, is the best player in the team, but if after more games he has good +/-, that means he helps the team somehow, despite his very ugly 3 turnovers.


Like all stats, Plus-Minus requires context and additional statistical analysis. It is also extremely important that you pair it with actual viewings of the games. Best yet is to look at a +/- and then review the game with that in mind. Rick uses this and many other stats, but then he's also at the games, knows what plays were intended vs executed, and sees the players during practice. He doesn't just take one of his stats (any of the many he keeps) and use it to make a lineup, and there is a very good reason for that.

Exactly. Maybe RC thinks Saras can play only 15 min. Maybe that's true. And all stats are useful, every little thing in the game too.
I just wanted to prove, that +/- is not absolutely useless when I saw many people saying +/- stat is BS.


Reviewing the game with this stat in mind can help a person identify hidden trends, such as the mythical "makes others better even though his stats aren't good" or "hurts the team despite filling the box score". Both cases are rare, but it could be that a crappy PG doesn't get to be involved in plays and that THIS helps the other 4 more than his actual play.

If his crappy play helps others to play better (to be more responsible let's say, more active), I say, way to go. :)
Good leader doesn't work. He makes others to work for him. And to work very good. He just somehow makes them do it better. That's a very good leadership.
It's better to have that type of leader than a very "clever" leader , who wants to do all work alone and others aren't involved as they should and the team losses.



I already listed a sequence where this did occur for Sarunas. It happens with players you dislike as well, including Jack, Tinsley, Al, Foster, JO...all of them have moments where their +/- does not reflect their actual impact on the game.

Yea, like I said, Saras is not the best player and don't know if he could be on this team.

And if JO, Al, Tins have bad +/- in their 30-35 minutes of play, it means they aren't so good and the team losses.


So Joe Johnson could have a big negative +/- since the Hawks stink, but they could be even worse when he isn't on the court which gives him a DIFFERENTIAL in the positive, meaning they don't stink as much with him as without him. 82Games posts this as a main version of the individual +/-.

Joe Johnson is 1-2 best player in his team with Childress. I say 1st, because he plays 12 min longer.



And I like the stat, just like I like many other stats. I just think like any other it is easily abused when context and contradictory stats are ignored.

Agree 100 %. That's what I'm talking about. +/- don't say everything. Other stats also. But if there's a player, who can force somehow others play better when he plays crap, it's not so bad.

And all this **** started when I saw everyone claim +/- is absolutely BS and is a joke not a stat.

Pitons
11-24-2006, 06:28 AM
Thanks Seth. I think Pitons is only baiting me at this point. I don't see how I could be any more clear on my points.

This (http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo/lenovo_sort.jsp?pcomb=5&season=22006&split=9&team=Pacers) is where it says the unit of Tins,JO, Jack,Granger & Al have the best +/- as a 5 man group.

+15 in 10 games? Come on, man...

Btw, glance at http://www.82games.com/0607/0607IND2.HTM.


Every other player who saw the court as a Hawk last year had better +/- stats than Al & Johnson. It didn't matter whether they played 4 seconds or 48 minutes a game all Hawks performed better than Al & Johnson on the +/- stat.

I would want to see those stats. How many players played around 30 min and more and how many minutes played Al and Johnson?

If Al and other guy played 35 min and other guy had a far better (not by 5 points in 82 games) than yes, I would think Al was the worst player regarding the team (that means he played alone and other players just watched how he scores his points) on the team amongst who played much time.
Better to have 5 average players, who play good with each other than 1 very good individually and others only look how he play alone.


Pierce owns everybody he plays. He was held under 20 points 13 times last year and never held under 15 in 79 games. In fact the last time he was held under 15 points was in game one of round one in the '04-'05 playoffs by the Pacers. He scored 12 in a 102-82 Celtics win.

He scored 50 points 5 times in a row, he never scored less than 10 points and so on and so on. But we are talking about team play, how the team competes as a unit and the most important thing - the team should win. Better to have 10 players score 10 points each and the team wins, than 1 players scores 50 points, others score 20 points and the team losses.

Btw, I don't know how about last season, but this season he's the best Celtics player.

Dr. Goldfoot
11-24-2006, 04:09 PM
10 games ....that's all they've played. The 82games stats are also derived from 10 games. I don't see how that discredits the Lenova +/- but not the 82games stats. On a side note, the 82games stats you are citing are not +/- but a stat developed to decipher who wins the game within the game. According to the stats you're linking to, a group of players can lose by 1, then the next time lose by 1 and then win by 3 and have a winning % of .333 . +/- stats would show a +1 not a winning %. They're two different statistical outcomes based on the same formula, one shows who wins more and one shows who scores more. One is a per appearance basis and the other is a running tally.

The Atlanta stats, which are here (http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo/lenovo_sort.jsp?pcomb=1&season=22005&split=9&team=Hawks) by the way, include the whole team. Who played how many minutes doesn't affect where Al Harington and Joe Johnson fall on the list. Every other player is above them Zaza(31.4 mpg),Josh Smith(31.8 mpg)Josh Childress(30.4) even Tony Delk who only played 7 minutes as a Hawk. The Hawks were outscored more when Al & Johnson were in the game than any other player. Of course they also had 5 guys who averaged 25 or more minutes a game that performed better in the +/- stat. Due to the fact Atlanta was a horrible team, all of the guys who logged major minutes have major negatives but not as negative as Al & Joe.

The Pierce debate is about how he affects the other team. I don't care if he's a ball hogging shot chucker. He's unstoppable. If you get to face the Celtics when he's out of the game you'll likely get a better +/- than the guys who had to face him. Just like when Iverson is out or KG or Wade or Lebron, the teams are truely built around those players that's why they log so many minutes because they can't win without them. If you get to face their teams when the team objective goes from "get the ball to Paul" to "just don't screw this up while Paul takes a 5 minute breather" you will more times than not get a +. If you go out when these guys come back in his abilty to carry his team will never affect your numbers.

I'm sure coaches across the land refer to the +/- stats and a variety of other statistical compositions to help them in their quest to win. I know of no stats that measures how a guy who never sees the court affects his teams play. I know of no stat that measures how a guy can keep the other teams sparkplug from ever igniting and getting his team to rally. Sometimes a game plan is based solely on doing that. "Keep Jordan from beating us" make Steve Kerr or Randy Brown or Ron Harper prove that they can. "Sure Odom is gonna get his but if we can stop Kobe from getting this team on his shoulders and running away with it we'll be there at the end with a chance to win." Every once in a while those role players do get it going and that can eliminate somebody completely shutting down a star player.

Pitons
11-24-2006, 05:59 PM
I'm sure coaches across the land refer to the +/- stats and a variety of other statistical compositions to help them in their quest to win.

That's all I wanted to hear. Not that +/- is absolutely BS.

Pitons
11-24-2006, 06:28 PM
And about Al. I see now those +/- on http://www.82games.com/0506/0506ATL1.HTM.

Actually, all first players played crap and the +/- is very close in 1 game. Smith had even worse in 48 min than Al and Joe. Even some scrubs had a worse stat.

You have to see +/- in 48 min, not overall like showed at Lenovo stat. Of course, if the team losses and the more minutes player plays, the worse +/- he has.

speakout4
11-24-2006, 07:02 PM
The only stats I care about are individual stats-not +/- or 48 minute or anything else.I rate players by their ability to do more than one thing. For example Howard is now becoming a 20-20 guy in points and rebounds which is unheard of. To be a superstar at PF, 20-10 is required. A great PG not only has to have close to double digit assists but double digit points. someone like Kidd could be a triple double on any night. IMO guys who stand out must do so in at least 2 categories and if not in two categories must be really excellent in one such as AI who can put up 30 points a game or Kobe who can do the same.

So on the Pacers JO is really the only star we have. Artest was good for points and even better in taking away points from the other team. No one has to look at all the other stuff. If you get 10 assists, 10 rebounds, or 5-6 blocked shots a game you are helping the team period.

Pitons
11-24-2006, 07:10 PM
The only stats I care about are individual stats-not +/- or 48 minute or anything else.I rate players by their ability to do more than one thing. For example Howard is now becoming a 20-20 guy in points and rebounds which is unheard of. To be a superstar at PF, 20-10 is required. A great PG not only has to have close to double digit assists but double digit points. someone like Kidd could be a triple double on any night. IMO guys who stand out must do so in at least 2 categories and if not in two categories must be really excellent in one such as AI who can put up 30 points a game or Kobe who can do the same.

So on the Pacers JO is really the only star we have. Artest was good for points and even better in taking away points from the other team. No one has to look at all the other stuff. If you get 10 assists, 10 rebounds, or 5-6 blocked shots a game you are helping the team period.

Maybe it's helping him, but not teamplay. Maybe other guys are playing worse with that guy than they could and the team losses.
Individual stats are useful, but there are more things in the game than only individual stats.

speakout4
11-24-2006, 07:15 PM
Maybe it's helping him, but not teamplay. Maybe other guys are playing worse with that guy than they could and the team losses.
Individual stats are useful, but there are more things in the game than only individual stats.


How can points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocked shots not help the team????

Dr. Goldfoot
11-24-2006, 07:17 PM
Speakout has a great point.

+/- is far too complicated and can make a mediocre player seem better than he is or a bonafide star seems less than.

Per 48 is a fantasy stat. If Armstong had to play 48 minutes would he hit the ground running like he does when he's only getting 5-15 minutes.

I too would take a 20-10 guy or 35 a night guy or a 15 boards 5 blocks guy or a 10 assists 10 points guy or a triple double threat or an excellent defender over what any of those other stats say.

Pitons
11-24-2006, 07:30 PM
How can points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocked shots not help the team????

It helps, I didn't say it doesn't, but maybe with that player others can't play that good that they are able. Maybe he plays alone and the team losses despite his 50 points.
The team should be a strong unit, the players must understand each other to make each other better.

Pitons
11-24-2006, 07:32 PM
Speakout has a great point.

+/- is far too complicated and can make a mediocre player seem better than he is or a bonafide star seems less than.

Per 48 is a fantasy stat. If Armstong had to play 48 minutes would he hit the ground running like he does when he's only getting 5-15 minutes.

I too would take a 20-10 guy or 35 a night guy or a 15 boards 5 blocks guy or a 10 assists 10 points guy or a triple double threat or an excellent defender over what any of those other stats say.

Yes, +/- is more a team stat.

You can take 20-10 guy, but you can never have a TEAM which wins. A team is more than individual stats.

Arcadian
11-24-2006, 08:28 PM
That's all I wanted to hear. Not that +/- is absolutely BS.

I think that there might be a language barrier here. I never got the impression that anyone said it was BS. Dr. Goldfoot most likely doesn't thinkthey are absolutely BS or he wouldn't have posted them in the first place. Some of our European posters seem so defensive about certain players that they misread the point.

Maybe on both sides of the Atlantic need to check first what the other is saying before sending another thread into a nitpicking debate. These debates get tiring after a while.

Pitons
11-24-2006, 08:35 PM
I think that there might be a language barrier here. I never got the impression that anyone said it was BS. Dr. Goldfoot most likely doesn't thinkthey are absolutely BS or he wouldn't have posted them in the first place. Some of our European posters seem so defensive about certain players that they misread the point.

Maybe on both sides of the Atlantic need to check first what the other is saying before sending another thread into a nitpicking debate. These debates get tiring after a while.

Point understood.

Naptown_Seth
12-18-2006, 02:52 AM
The stat maybe useless in one game. It is useful in a longer term. I explained that when I talked about bad DG game and his +/-.
In the spirit of this I figured the Euros that were so outraged about Saras would want to revisit the +/- down the road.

Hmm, Sarunas is falling off, Granger is the 2nd worst player on the team to only Tinsley and what do you know, Jackson is pretty good relative to most of the team. He's on the verge of catching Saras in this stat.

Will it then prove the point that Saras SHOULDN'T start? Of course not. It will prove that it's an interesting, sometimes informative, but also quirky stat, just like I said last month. I will say the per48 version looks somewhat like the impact I've seen on the court. DA has been less of an impact than he was to start the year, but otherwise it's not way off.


It's just funny to me because fans that would throw Tins under the bus would typically want to promote Danny, but their +/- are about the same. And then on the other end the case for Saras looks about the same as the case for Jackson.

Seed
12-18-2006, 07:13 AM
In the spirit of this I figured the Euros that were so outraged about Saras would want to revisit the +/- down the road.

Hmm, Sarunas is falling off, Granger is the 2nd worst player on the team to only Tinsley and what do you know, Jackson is pretty good relative to most of the team. He's on the verge of catching Saras in this stat.

Will it then prove the point that Saras SHOULDN'T start? Of course not. It will prove that it's an interesting, sometimes informative, but also quirky stat, just like I said last month. I will say the per48 version looks somewhat like the impact I've seen on the court. DA has been less of an impact than he was to start the year, but otherwise it's not way off.


It's just funny to me because fans that would throw Tins under the bus would typically want to promote Danny, but their +/- are about the same. And then on the other end the case for Saras looks about the same as the case for Jackson.
I think the +- is an important tool, and I actually think your points are very valid. Danny & Saras, while scoring well lately, have been less productive for the team.
Personally I don't think that if Saras / Danny were having good +- it means they should start. It rather means they were good for the team in their current roles.
As for the starting PG having horrible +- figures, this is a bad sign for the team. Nevertheless, I was watching the stat lately, and judging by the numbers, Tins was doing quite well in the last 7 games or so.

Putnam
12-18-2006, 12:39 PM
Personally I don't think that if Saras / Danny were having good +- it means they should start. It rather means they were good for the team in their current roles.



Sheer profundity!!!

Naptown_Seth
12-23-2006, 06:29 PM
Sheer profundity!!!
I agree!

I really like it to gauge long term situations, especially between guys in similar roles (like the starters, or 25-30+ mpg).

Anyway, I'm just making this the general +/- talk thread for the season I guess. Following up from a few games ago, and I think I'll start posting the current +/- so it's easier to watch trends rather than just the current total (maybe weekly I guess). Don't let my previous post fool you, I obviously do follow this stat just like any of the others. I hate that you can't see it by month or anything at Pacers.com.

The big bump here is that JO moved to the top, and that Jackson moved ahead of Sarunas and is 3rd total for the team (and per minute).

Dec 22 (pre Atlanta game - Atl numbers not posted yet)
Let's have total and per 48:

45 (2.7) JO
33 (4.9) Armstrong
5 (0.3) Jack
0 (0.0) Saras
-6 (-6.9) Shawne

-14 (-1.1) Foster
-17 (-4.8) Baston
-26 (-32.0) Greene
-28 (-17.9) Harrison
-29 (-21.8) Powell

-42 (-14.0) Rawle
-46 (-2.7) Danny
-46 (-2.7) Tinsley
-49 (-2.9) Harrington
-50 (-5.8) Daniels