PDA

View Full Version : Big man analysis using +/- stats



high school hero
11-28-2007, 02:13 PM
Since its +/-, the number of games you've played shouldn't really matter, though playing against easier teams should yield better +/- stats for our guys. JOB said he believes in the stat, and I do too, to an extent. If anything, it might be the best thing we have to capturing "intangibles." The results are interesting to say the least, and some of you will probably just use the results as evidence that the +/- stat doesn't tell us anything, but here are the results:
Murphy in 11 games, overall, is -49
Diogu in 3 games, overall, is -29
O'Neal, in 10 games, overall, is -24
Foster in 15 games, overall, is -15
Harrison in 15 games, overall, is +28

Least surprising is probably that Murphy is -49. Maybe give him a slight break as he was coming back from injury, but we've suspected his offense does not outweigh his defensive liabilities, at least at this point in the season.

Most surprising is that Harrison is our only big in the positive for the year, and by a decent margin- by 43 points over Foster, who I'm not surprised to see as our 2nd highest at -15. Harrison's stats in some games don't seem to be overwhelming, but the +/- stat seems to indicate that his presence is benefitting the team, whether its deflecting passes, altering shots, playing good help defense, or maybe the offense flows better with him in the game, for whatever reason.

Also surprising are Diogu's stats (everyone's pet). In 3 games he was in the negative each game, for -29 overall. Everyone loves his offensive abilities but do those abilities compensate for his defensive liabilities? (A better version of Murphy?) He's listed at 6'8", but I'd guess he's only about 6'6" or so, which is pretty small for a 4.

I'm as big a fan of offense as the next guy, but you have to give me some D too. Ike can't guard 3s, and he's going to be undersized against every 4 he goes up against.

Defense wins championships, and if I had to pick the two worst defenders out of our bigs, it would be Murphy and Diogu, in that order. The +/- stats support that conclusion.

For those who think Ike is one of our "untouchables" when it comes to trades, along with Shawne and Danny, I disagree. Harrison's issues in the past have been well documented, but his temper and foul situation have improved quite a bit, considering the BS calls he gets against him, which are also well-documented.

I'm not saying Harrison should be one of the "untouchables" along with Shawne and Danny. However, I like the thought of Danny-Shawne-Harrison along with a stud PG free agent 2 years down the line, and a formidable shooting guard. If the two guards could play good D, that could be one hell of a defensive team, especially if David continues progressing, keeps his cool, and the refs call less fouls based on reputation. He could easily average 18/10/3 blocks/2 steals a game, along with Danny Shawne and a stud PG, I think that's a team that could contend two years down the line. I think the early results this year support such a prognostication. As hard as it is to find good all-around centers, I think some of us are a bit too itchy with the trigger finger when it comes to David.

31711
11-28-2007, 09:49 PM
I'm not buying into the Diogu hype yet. If he really has so much upside why would Golden State get rid of him? He does have some offensive skills though. Could be a solid contributor but prob not someone to build a team around, and I think Diogu is def tradable.
As for DH, he didn't show us a whole lot last year, though he has shown some promise this year. It would be great if it all clicked for him. We will see.

JayRedd
11-28-2007, 10:19 PM
If he really has so much upside why would Golden State get rid of him?

In order to get out of two mistake contracts.

Putnam
11-28-2007, 10:34 PM
The team's +/- is -34. Altogether, the opponent have scored 34 more points than the Pacers in 15 games. So Murphy is the only big man whose personal +/- is below that of the team.

kester99
11-28-2007, 10:53 PM
What does Danny Granger's -63 rating (worst on the team) tell us?

Putnam
11-29-2007, 09:11 AM
What does Danny Granger's -63 rating (worst on the team) tell us?


I was hoping you would tell the answer to this. But I'll take a shot at it.

Granger's appalling, team-worst +/- rating of -63 -- coupled with the fact that he has the most minutes of anyone -- tells us that he's usually on the floor when the other team makes its runs. As a defensive-minded coach, O'Brien wants to stop the other team's runs rather than match them with offense. And as the team's putative best defender, Granger is always out there when we're getting Kobe'd or LeBron'd or Hibachi'd.

Granger's -63 -- coupled with figures on scoring by starters versus scoring by the benches in most games -- tells us that the Pacers' starters aren't able to match the starters on most other teams, and that the relative contribution of the 6th, 7th and 8th guys (versus their bench) is vital on most nights.

Admittedly, the +/- doesn't "tell us" much at all. It tells us that the Pacers did not outscore their first 15 opponents while Granger was on the floor. But that's it.

The +/- is a fact, but it must be coupled with other facts and with good observations before right conclusions can be drawn.

How's that?

high school hero
11-29-2007, 06:51 PM
I was hoping you would tell the answer to this. But I'll take a shot at it.

Granger's appalling, team-worst +/- rating of -63 -- coupled with the fact that he has the most minutes of anyone -- tells us that he's usually on the floor when the other team makes its runs. As a defensive-minded coach, O'Brien wants to stop the other team's runs rather than match them with offense. And as the team's putative best defender, Granger is always out there when we're getting Kobe'd or LeBron'd or Hibachi'd.

Granger's -63 -- coupled with figures on scoring by starters versus scoring by the benches in most games -- tells us that the Pacers' starters aren't able to match the starters on most other teams, and that the relative contribution of the 6th, 7th and 8th guys (versus their bench) is vital on most nights.

Admittedly, the +/- doesn't "tell us" much at all. It tells us that the Pacers did not outscore their first 15 opponents while Granger was on the floor. But that's it.

The +/- is a fact, but it must be coupled with other facts and with good observations before right conclusions can be drawn.

How's that?

I'll buy that explanation Putnam. Maybe its other factors as well, but that is a well reasoned theory.

I'd also like to point out that Diogu was the only big to be in the negative each of the first 3 games of the season (his only 3 games). I just really don't see why everyone gets so excited about him. We'll see if the trend continues when he gets back (which should be coming in the next couple weeks?)

As for the comment about David not showing anything last year, people forget he was injured most of the year, and even when he played, he was playing through the injury, as evidenced by the fact he had surgery right after the season's end.