 APBR_analysis

 Restricted Group,
 455 members
Re: [APBR_analysis] Digest Number 439
Expand Messages
 0 Attachment
The Garnett stat is not true, and the other players' figures probably aren't
either. Since Garnett averages of 40.6 minutes per game, if it were true
Minnesota would have to squander an average of a 24lead in the remaining 7+
minutes of a regulation game to loseand they've lost 24 games.
Guys who are on the floor a lot almost always have Plus/Minus ratings that
are close to the team's overall Plus/Minus, which in the Wolves' case is
+2.2 per game. I would guess that Garnett's rating is above +2.2 because
he's a great player, but not much above it.
Bob Bellotti
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:24:19 0000
From: "monepeterson" <mone@...>
Subject: Anyone have NBA Insider?
An interesting tidbit from Eric Neel's column on ESPN:
"The most impressive stat I've heard all year (courtesy of Chad
Ford's mustread NBA Insider column last week) is this: when Kevin is
on the floor, Minnesota scores 14.3 more points per game than when
he's on the pine. And they hold the opposition to 10.1 fewer points
when he's out there, too. Call it the NBA's plusminus rating and
call KG's 24.4. Then call around  call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (TMac: 10.7)  you won't find
anyone close."
Who's keeping track of these numbers? Where are they?
Moné
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:31 EST
From: bchaikin@...
Subject: Re: Anyone have NBA Insider? Plus/Minus...
i've seen plus/minus numbers for every NBA player in the league in harvey
pollack's (76ers stats guru) annual media guide since the 9394 season
(actually that first season he showed stats for just players with > 750 min,
but later editions had all players). don't know if he was keeping track of
it
or the league but his lists appear complete...
bob chaikin
bchaikin@...
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 0 Attachment
Excellent observation; those ESPN figures cannot possibly be correct,
for the reason you cite. Someone probably misquoted the definition
or units of measurement somewhere.
On the other hand, there have been some players with +/ stats
that are huge in magnitude. As I've mentioned here or maybe it
was in APBR, when Greg Anthony backed up Gary Payton a few years
back, Anthony literally was at 1 point per minute for the
games that I watched. After the allstar break however he improved
considerably and he was one of the better backup PGs in the league
by the end of the season (and got snatched up by Portland in the
offseason).
1 per minute would come out to 48 per 48 minutes; Anthony of course
was not playing anywhere near that number of minutes but even in the
57 minutes that he did play, he was digging holes that the Sonics
would have to climb out of when Payton came back in.
MKT
Original Message
From: Robert Bellotti [mailto:rbellotti@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:52 AM
To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] Digest Number 439
The Garnett stat is not true, and the other players' figures probably aren't
either. Since Garnett averages of 40.6 minutes per game, if it were true
Minnesota would have to squander an average of a 24lead in the remaining 7+
minutes of a regulation game to loseand they've lost 24 games.
Guys who are on the floor a lot almost always have Plus/Minus ratings that
are close to the team's overall Plus/Minus, which in the Wolves' case is
+2.2 per game. I would guess that Garnett's rating is above +2.2 because
he's a great player, but not much above it.
Bob Bellotti
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:24:19 0000
From: "monepeterson" <mone@...>
Subject: Anyone have NBA Insider?
An interesting tidbit from Eric Neel's column on ESPN:
"The most impressive stat I've heard all year (courtesy of Chad
Ford's mustread NBA Insider column last week) is this: when Kevin is
on the floor, Minnesota scores 14.3 more points per game than when
he's on the pine. And they hold the opposition to 10.1 fewer points
when he's out there, too. Call it the NBA's plusminus rating and
call KG's 24.4. Then call around  call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (TMac: 10.7)  you won't find
anyone close."
Who's keeping track of these numbers? Where are they?
Moné
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:31 EST
From: bchaikin@...
Subject: Re: Anyone have NBA Insider? Plus/Minus...
i've seen plus/minus numbers for every NBA player in the league in harvey
pollack's (76ers stats guru) annual media guide since the 9394 season
(actually that first season he showed stats for just players with > 750 min,
but later editions had all players). don't know if he was keeping track of
it
or the league but his lists appear complete...
bob chaikin
bchaikin@...
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
APBR_analysisunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 0 Attachment
DeanL's playbyplay stuff should help get at some of this.
There is a site on the web that has Seattle +/ data. I'll have to
find that at home.
I've been having conversations with other people in the league who
also may be able to get this.
 In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
wrote:> Excellent observation; those ESPN figures cannot possibly be
correct,
> for the reason you cite. Someone probably misquoted the definition
course
> or units of measurement somewhere.
>
> On the other hand, there have been some players with +/ stats
> that are huge in magnitude. As I've mentioned here or maybe it
> was in APBR, when Greg Anthony backed up Gary Payton a few years
> back, Anthony literally was at 1 point per minute for the
> games that I watched. After the allstar break however he improved
> considerably and he was one of the better backup PGs in the league
> by the end of the season (and got snatched up by Portland in the
> offseason).
>
> 1 per minute would come out to 48 per 48 minutes; Anthony of
> was not playing anywhere near that number of minutes but even in the
probably aren't
> 57 minutes that he did play, he was digging holes that the Sonics
> would have to climb out of when Payton came back in.
>
>
> MKT
>
>
> Original Message
> From: Robert Bellotti [mailto:rbellotti@c...]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:52 AM
> To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] Digest Number 439
>
>
> The Garnett stat is not true, and the other players' figures
> either. Since Garnett averages of 40.6 minutes per game, if it were
true
> Minnesota would have to squander an average of a 24lead in the
remaining 7+
> minutes of a regulation game to loseand they've lost 24 games.
ratings that
>
> Guys who are on the floor a lot almost always have Plus/Minus
> are close to the team's overall Plus/Minus, which in the Wolves'
case is
> +2.2 per game. I would guess that Garnett's rating is above +2.2
because
> he's a great player, but not much above it.
______________________________________________________________________
>
> Bob Bellotti
>
>
__>
______________________________________________________________________
__>
is
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:24:19 0000
> From: "monepeterson" <mone@s...>
> Subject: Anyone have NBA Insider?
>
> An interesting tidbit from Eric Neel's column on ESPN:
>
> "The most impressive stat I've heard all year (courtesy of Chad
> Ford's mustread NBA Insider column last week) is this: when Kevin
> on the floor, Minnesota scores 14.3 more points per game than when
______________________________________________________________________
> he's on the pine. And they hold the opposition to 10.1 fewer points
> when he's out there, too. Call it the NBA's plusminus rating and
> call KG's 24.4. Then call around  call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
> Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (TMac: 10.7)  you won't find
> anyone close."
>
> Who's keeping track of these numbers? Where are they?
>
> Moné
>
>
>
>
__>
______________________________________________________________________
__>
harvey
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:31 EST
> From: bchaikin@a...
> Subject: Re: Anyone have NBA Insider? Plus/Minus...
>
>
> i've seen plus/minus numbers for every NBA player in the league in
> pollack's (76ers stats guru) annual media guide since the 9394
season
> (actually that first season he showed stats for just players with >
750 min,
> but later editions had all players). don't know if he was keeping
track of
> it
______________________________________________________________________
> or the league but his lists appear complete...
>
> bob chaikin
> bchaikin@b...
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>
__>
______________________________________________________________________
__>
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> APBR_analysisunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
 0 Attachment
I believe you're misinterpreting Neel's stat, but it could very well be
me.
I think what Neel is saying is that Minnesota's offense per game (48
minutes) is 14.3 points better when Garnett is playing and the defense
is 10.1 points better. So Garnett is +24.4 per 48 minutes when compared
to the Twolves without him. This is quite different from the NHL's +/
stat.
For example, if the TWolves average 100 PF and 94 PA per 48 minutes
when Garnett is on the floor, they would have to be at 85.7 PF and 104.1
PA per 48 minutes for the time when Garnett isn't playing (this assumes
no OTs and only 48 minutes per game) to come out to their actual numbers
of 97.8 PF and 95.6 PA. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly
sounds possible.
Theron
 Original Message 
From: "Robert Bellotti" <rbellotti@...>
The Garnett stat is not true, and the other players' figures probably
aren't
either. Since Garnett averages of 40.6 minutes per game, if it were true
Minnesota would have to squander an average of a 24lead in the
remaining 7+
minutes of a regulation game to loseand they've lost 24 games.
Guys who are on the floor a lot almost always have Plus/Minus ratings
that
are close to the team's overall Plus/Minus, which in the Wolves' case is
+2.2 per game. I would guess that Garnett's rating is above +2.2 because
he's a great player, but not much above it.
Bob Bellotti
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:24:19 0000
From: "monepeterson" <mone@...>
Subject: Anyone have NBA Insider?
An interesting tidbit from Eric Neel's column on ESPN:
"The most impressive stat I've heard all year (courtesy of Chad
Ford's mustread NBA Insider column last week) is this: when Kevin is
on the floor, Minnesota scores 14.3 more points per game than when
he's on the pine. And they hold the opposition to 10.1 fewer points
when he's out there, too. Call it the NBA's plusminus rating and
call KG's 24.4. Then call around  call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (TMac: 10.7)  you won't find
anyone close."
Who's keeping track of these numbers? Where are they?
Moné
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:31 EST
From: bchaikin@...
Subject: Re: Anyone have NBA Insider? Plus/Minus...
i've seen plus/minus numbers for every NBA player in the league in
harvey
pollack's (76ers stats guru) annual media guide since the 9394 season
(actually that first season he showed stats for just players with > 750
min,
but later editions had all players). don't know if he was keeping track
of
it
or the league but his lists appear complete...
bob chaikin
bchaikin@...
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
APBR_analysisunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 0 Attachment
 In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Theron Skyles" <tgs3@c...>
wrote:> I believe you're misinterpreting Neel's stat, but it could very
well be
> me.
defense
>
> I think what Neel is saying is that Minnesota's offense per game (48
> minutes) is 14.3 points better when Garnett is playing and the
> is 10.1 points better. So Garnett is +24.4 per 48 minutes when
compared
> to the Twolves without him. This is quite different from the NHL's
+/
> stat.
104.1
>
> For example, if the TWolves average 100 PF and 94 PA per 48 minutes
> when Garnett is on the floor, they would have to be at 85.7 PF and
> PA per 48 minutes for the time when Garnett isn't playing (this
assumes
> no OTs and only 48 minutes per game) to come out to their actual
numbers
> of 97.8 PF and 95.6 PA. I don't know if this is true, but it
certainly
> sounds possible.
That would make him the most valuable player this side of MJ in Space
Jam. No player in history has been even close to making that kind of
difference in points scored and points allowed. I think the closest
I can remember is when David Robinson got hurt for the Spurs,
allowing them to plummet and get Tim Duncan. But it was more than
Robinson getting hurt. He was replaced by bad players and I think
Elliott was also hurt and replaced by a bad player and...
Garnett's backups aren't great, but such a spread is unrealistic.
> Theron
probably
>
>  Original Message 
> From: "Robert Bellotti" <rbellotti@c...>
>
> The Garnett stat is not true, and the other players' figures
> aren't
true
> either. Since Garnett averages of 40.6 minutes per game, if it were
> Minnesota would have to squander an average of a 24lead in the
ratings
> remaining 7+
> minutes of a regulation game to loseand they've lost 24 games.
>
> Guys who are on the floor a lot almost always have Plus/Minus
> that
case is
> are close to the team's overall Plus/Minus, which in the Wolves'
> +2.2 per game. I would guess that Garnett's rating is above +2.2
because
> he's a great player, but not much above it.
______________________________________________________________________
>
> Bob Bellotti
>
>
__>
______________________________________________________________________
__>
is
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:24:19 0000
> From: "monepeterson" <mone@s...>
> Subject: Anyone have NBA Insider?
>
> An interesting tidbit from Eric Neel's column on ESPN:
>
> "The most impressive stat I've heard all year (courtesy of Chad
> Ford's mustread NBA Insider column last week) is this: when Kevin
> on the floor, Minnesota scores 14.3 more points per game than when
______________________________________________________________________
> he's on the pine. And they hold the opposition to 10.1 fewer points
> when he's out there, too. Call it the NBA's plusminus rating and
> call KG's 24.4. Then call around  call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
> Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (TMac: 10.7)  you won't find
> anyone close."
>
> Who's keeping track of these numbers? Where are they?
>
> Moné
>
>
>
>
__>
______________________________________________________________________
__>
season
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:31 EST
> From: bchaikin@a...
> Subject: Re: Anyone have NBA Insider? Plus/Minus...
>
>
> i've seen plus/minus numbers for every NBA player in the league in
> harvey
> pollack's (76ers stats guru) annual media guide since the 9394
> (actually that first season he showed stats for just players with >
750
> min,
track
> but later editions had all players). don't know if he was keeping
> of
______________________________________________________________________
> it
> or the league but his lists appear complete...
>
> bob chaikin
> bchaikin@b...
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>
__>
______________________________________________________________________
__>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> APBR_analysisunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 0 Attachment
 In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Theron Skyles" <tgs3@c...>
wrote:> I believe you're misinterpreting Neel's stat, but it could very
well be
> me.
defense
>
> I think what Neel is saying is that Minnesota's offense per game (48
> minutes) is 14.3 points better when Garnett is playing and the
> is 10.1 points better. So Garnett is +24.4 per 48 minutes when
compared
> to the Twolves without him. This is quite different from the NHL's
+/
> stat.
15.4 (offense), 10.5 (defense), and 25.9 (total) according to the
numbers I'm looking at. . . .
These numbers are not coming from any leaguewide database, but
instead the Timberwolves' PR department. They are quoted in their
media game notes (happened to see them last Tuesday when the Wolves
were in town):
http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/notes.pdf
As I mentioned before on this list, the Wolves are one of two teams I
know of that officially track their +/ figures on their team
websites. Also, as DeanO mentioned, a reader of mine has been
tracking it for the Sonics. To save him the trouble of finding the
link, I'll post it:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~dragomil/nba/Reports/SEAshooting.html
Actually, he does the Pistons as well:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~dragomil/nba/Reports/DETshooting.html
Hadn't looked at that before, but the number for Michael Curry is
interesting in the context of a discussion of his value as a
defensive stopper. . . .
Also, DeanO, I should mention to you that in case you're interested,
those same Sonics/Pistons reports include unassisted field goals made
(as a percentage of field goals attempted; it's mislisted as out of
field goals made on the sheet). 0 Attachment
aaronkoo wrote:>
What I think you are forgetting here is that this is per 48 minutes, not a
>  In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Theron Skyles" <tgs3@c...>
> wrote:
> > I believe you're misinterpreting Neel's stat, but it could very
> well be
> > me.
> >
> > I think what Neel is saying is that Minnesota's offense per game (48
> > minutes) is 14.3 points better when Garnett is playing and the
> defense
> > is 10.1 points better. So Garnett is +24.4 per 48 minutes when
> compared
> > to the Twolves without him. This is quite different from the NHL's
> +/
> > stat.
> >
> > For example, if the TWolves average 100 PF and 94 PA per 48 minutes
> > when Garnett is on the floor, they would have to be at 85.7 PF and
> 104.1
> > PA per 48 minutes for the time when Garnett isn't playing (this
> assumes
> > no OTs and only 48 minutes per game) to come out to their actual
> numbers
> > of 97.8 PF and 95.6 PA. I don't know if this is true, but it
> certainly
> > sounds possible.
>
> That would make him the most valuable player this side of MJ in Space
> Jam. No player in history has been even close to making that kind of
> difference in points scored and points allowed.
plusminus. Using Theron's hypothetical numbers above, if Garnett averages
40 minutes is it possible that they average a +5 points when he is in the
game and 3 when he is not? That's all it takes to get to this +24.4
figure.

Gary Collard
SABRL Moderator
collardg@...
"If you embrace containment, you must accept proliferation, and
proliferation  not just unchecked but accelerated  will make the
violent century just passed seem an era of remarkable tranquility in
comparison."  Senator John McCain 0 Attachment
 In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
wrote:> aaronkoo wrote:
game (48
> >
> >  In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Theron Skyles" <tgs3@c...>
> > wrote:
> > > I believe you're misinterpreting Neel's stat, but it could very
> > well be
> > > me.
> > >
> > > I think what Neel is saying is that Minnesota's offense per
> > > minutes) is 14.3 points better when Garnett is playing and the
NHL's
> > defense
> > > is 10.1 points better. So Garnett is +24.4 per 48 minutes when
> > compared
> > > to the Twolves without him. This is quite different from the
> > +/
minutes
> > > stat.
> > >
> > > For example, if the TWolves average 100 PF and 94 PA per 48
> > > when Garnett is on the floor, they would have to be at 85.7 PF
and
> > 104.1
Space
> > > PA per 48 minutes for the time when Garnett isn't playing (this
> > assumes
> > > no OTs and only 48 minutes per game) to come out to their actual
> > numbers
> > > of 97.8 PF and 95.6 PA. I don't know if this is true, but it
> > certainly
> > > sounds possible.
> >
> > That would make him the most valuable player this side of MJ in
> > Jam. No player in history has been even close to making that
kind of
> > difference in points scored and points allowed.
minutes, not a
>
> What I think you are forgetting here is that this is per 48
> plusminus. Using Theron's hypothetical numbers above, if Garnett
averages
> 40 minutes is it possible that they average a +5 points when he is
in the
> game and 3 when he is not? That's all it takes to get to this
+24.4
> figure.
I'm somehow missing the math here and/or a clear understanding of
what the numbers being quoted mean. 0 Attachment
 In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
wrote:> What I think you are forgetting here is that this is per 48
minutes, not a
> plusminus. Using Theron's hypothetical numbers above, if Garnett
averages
> 40 minutes is it possible that they average a +5 points when he is
in the
> game and 3 when he is not? That's all it takes to get to this
+24.4
> figure.
Looking at KevinP's pdf file helped a lot. Page 8 spells out the
details of the numbers. KG and Dirk Nowitzki have major team
impacts. Not sure if the addition/subtraction is appropriate, but
there is some sense of correctness to it.
Still has the longstanding problems of correlation with it, problems
associated with pace (Jason Kidd is seen as a major defensive
liability), but a useful indicator.
DeanO 0 Attachment
aaronkoo wrote:>
I could be misunderstanding the system, but will try.
>  In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
> wrote:
> > aaronkoo wrote:
> > >
> > >  In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Theron Skyles" <tgs3@c...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I believe you're misinterpreting Neel's stat, but it could very
> > > well be
> > > > me.
> > > >
> > > > I think what Neel is saying is that Minnesota's offense per
> game (48
> > > > minutes) is 14.3 points better when Garnett is playing and the
> > > defense
> > > > is 10.1 points better. So Garnett is +24.4 per 48 minutes when
> > > compared
> > > > to the Twolves without him. This is quite different from the
> NHL's
> > > +/
> > > > stat.
> > > >
> > > > For example, if the TWolves average 100 PF and 94 PA per 48
> minutes
> > > > when Garnett is on the floor, they would have to be at 85.7 PF
> and
> > > 104.1
> > > > PA per 48 minutes for the time when Garnett isn't playing (this
> > > assumes
> > > > no OTs and only 48 minutes per game) to come out to their actual
> > > numbers
> > > > of 97.8 PF and 95.6 PA. I don't know if this is true, but it
> > > certainly
> > > > sounds possible.
> > >
> > > That would make him the most valuable player this side of MJ in
> Space
> > > Jam. No player in history has been even close to making that
> kind of
> > > difference in points scored and points allowed.
> >
> > What I think you are forgetting here is that this is per 48
> minutes, not a
> > plusminus. Using Theron's hypothetical numbers above, if Garnett
> averages
> > 40 minutes is it possible that they average a +5 points when he is
> in the
> > game and 3 when he is not? That's all it takes to get to this
> +24.4
> > figure.
>
> I'm somehow missing the math here and/or a clear understanding of
> what the numbers being quoted mean.
Let me try a hypothetical with round numbers for convenince. Harry Hoops
plays 40 minutes a game, and he is a stud who has a +20 by that system,
broken down to +10 per 48 minutes when he is in the game and 10/48 when he
is out. Since he plays 40 minutes and his team is +10/48, then his team is
10 * 40/48 = +8.33 points per game while he is in. Since he sits for 8
minutes and his team is 10/48, they are 10 * 8/48 = 1.67 ppg when he is
out, thus the team is +6.67 points overall, not +20 or even +10. The thing
is that the positive contrbution far outweighs the negative because he
plays so many more minutes than he sits.
But, as I said, I could be misunderstanding the system  Theron or anybody
else, do you know if this is correct?

Gary Collard
SABRL Moderator
collardg@...
"If you embrace containment, you must accept proliferation, and
proliferation  not just unchecked but accelerated  will make the
violent century just passed seem an era of remarkable tranquility in
comparison."  Senator John McCain 0 Attachment
aaronkoo wrote:>
Sorry, missed this, where is this file?
>  In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
> wrote:
> > What I think you are forgetting here is that this is per 48
> minutes, not a
> > plusminus. Using Theron's hypothetical numbers above, if Garnett
> averages
> > 40 minutes is it possible that they average a +5 points when he is
> in the
> > game and 3 when he is not? That's all it takes to get to this
> +24.4
> > figure.
>
> Looking at KevinP's pdf file helped a lot.

Gary Collard
SABRL Moderator
collardg@...
"If you embrace containment, you must accept proliferation, and
proliferation  not just unchecked but accelerated  will make the
violent century just passed seem an era of remarkable tranquility in
comparison."  Senator John McCain 0 Attachment
 Original Message 
From: "Gary Collard" <collardg@...>
>
> aaronkoo wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm somehow missing the math here and/or a clear understanding of
> > what the numbers being quoted mean.
>
> I could be misunderstanding the system, but will try.
>
> Let me try a hypothetical with round numbers for convenince. Harry Hoops
> plays 40 minutes a game, and he is a stud who has a +20 by that system,
> broken down to +10 per 48 minutes when he is in the game and 10/48 when
he
> is out. Since he plays 40 minutes and his team is +10/48, then his team
is
> 10 * 40/48 = +8.33 points per game while he is in. Since he sits for 8
> minutes and his team is 10/48, they are 10 * 8/48 = 1.67 ppg when he is
> out, thus the team is +6.67 points overall, not +20 or even +10. The
thing
> is that the positive contrbution far outweighs the negative because he
> plays so many more minutes than he sits.
>
> But, as I said, I could be misunderstanding the system  Theron or anybody
> else, do you know if this is correct?
Sounds right to me, but I'm really just making an educated guess myself.
> > Looking at KevinP's pdf file helped a lot.
>
> Sorry, missed this, where is this file?
The TWolves game notes linked here:
http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/notes.pdf
Theron 0 Attachment
>>Actually, he does the Pistons as well:
>>http://hammer.prohosting.com/~dragomil/nba/Reports/DETshooting.html
>>
Interesting.... Curry is supposed to be a defensive stopper  yet looking at the lineup stats (halfway down the sheet)  the two most common lineups with Curry in them gave up a Shooting % of .440 and .444 respectively  while the other top 5 lineups without him ALL gave up lower shooting %'s (.411,.404,.426,.421, .415). So much for his defensive impact.The top 2 lineups with him:844 min 40 sec, 1 +/Top 5 without him:772 min 45 sec, +191 +/ (+11.9 per game)So the Pistons seem to be a very GOOD team without Curry  a slightly below average team with him.This helps show what I have always thought  you CANNOT put a player in that is worthless offensively and give him good minutes just because he's supposed to be good defensively. It's NOT worth it. At least find a player that is decent offensively and solid defensively. 0 Attachment
>
Hoops
> Let me try a hypothetical with round numbers for convenince. Harry
> plays 40 minutes a game, and he is a stud who has a +20 by that
system,
> broken down to +10 per 48 minutes when he is in the game and 10/48
when he
> is out. Since he plays 40 minutes and his team is +10/48, then his
team is
> 10 * 40/48 = +8.33 points per game while he is in. Since he sits
for 8
> minutes and his team is 10/48, they are 10 * 8/48 = 1.67 ppg
when he is
> out, thus the team is +6.67 points overall, not +20 or even +10.
The thing
> is that the positive contrbution far outweighs the negative because
he
> plays so many more minutes than he sits.
anybody
>
> But, as I said, I could be misunderstanding the system  Theron or
> else, do you know if this is correct?
I'm not sure if this is how the system works either, but i do have a
minor quibble with your math. your hypothetical player should
probably be credited for the team's negative margin when he's on the
bench. so it should be (8.33  (1.67), rather than 8.33 + (1.67),
making him a +10 asset.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.