Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

588Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: the Bad Team Effect

Expand Messages
  • Michael K. Tamada
    Feb 5, 2002
      On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, mikel_ind wrote:

      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Obviously there are a lot of contaminating factors with plus-minus
      > > ratings: who were Greg's teammates on the floor? Which 5 players
      > were
      > > they facing? And compared to Payton, just about any PG is going to
      > be
      > > looking relatively bad.
      > This may be a good example of why the +/- value is sometimes screwy.
      > Payton was carrying the Sonics, basically. The team wasn't the same
      > without him. Unless his backup was pretty good (capable of
      > starting), there would be a pronounced difference.

      It's true that Payton was (and still is) a PG of paramount importance to
      his team. But not quite as much as you seem to be implying here.
      Remember, in 1998 the Sonics won 61 games. (Actually, I did not remember
      this stuff, I had to look it up.) They were therefore not like the Sonics
      of 2002 and 2001 who are/were a slightly-above .500 team WITH Payton, and
      much worse than .500 without him. One-man teams do not win 61 games.

      The 1998 Sonics had a second-team all-NBA power forward, Vin Baker.
      Detlef Schrempf was just one year off his last all-star year. Dale Ellis,
      Hersey Hawkins, and Sam Perkins provided role-playing long-distance
      bombing support.

      So with any kind of decent backup PG, the Sonics were not a team that
      would fall one point per minute behind its opposition. In fact, I'd say
      that without Payton, but with a decent backup PG they were a team that was
      probably around .500 level, and therefore a backup PG should have about a
      zero plus/minus rating. Certainly not -1 point per minute, as Greg
      Anthony had early on.

      > Put another way: without Payton, the Sonics sucked; and Anthony was

      That's an accurate description of the Sonics in 2002 and 2001 and for that
      matter 2000 and 1999 (the year that Baker went bust). But not accurate in
      1998, when Anthony was there. A more accurate description would be that
      without Payton, the Sonics were mediocre -- or should have been. But
      Anthony early in the season was making them suck at a point per minute.

      > the one guy that was always in when Payton was out.

      There's more to it than that: that's the way the Sonics (and Anthony)
      played in the first half of the season, but in the second half Anthony was
      highly productive. I didn't keep plus/minus stats then but I wouldn't be
      surprised if he was close to 0 in the second half of the season.

    • Show all 10 messages in this topic