Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Big man analysis using +/- stats

  1. #1

    Default Big man analysis using +/- stats

    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.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Big man analysis using +/- stats

    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.

  3. #3
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: Big man analysis using +/- stats

    Quote Originally Posted by 31711 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If he really has so much upside why would Golden State get rid of him?
    In order to get out of two mistake contracts.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  4. #4

    Default Re: Big man analysis using +/- stats

    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.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  5. #5
    The light, not the lie. kester99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Disgusta, GA
    Posts
    8,832
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Big man analysis using +/- stats

    What does Danny Granger's -63 rating (worst on the team) tell us?
    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  6. #6

    Default Re: Big man analysis using +/- stats

    Quote Originally Posted by kester99 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  7. #7

    Default Re: Big man analysis using +/- stats

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •