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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Digest Number 439

Expand Messages
  • Robert Bellotti
    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
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 11 11:52 AM
    • 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 24-lead in the remaining 7+
      minutes of a regulation game to lose--and 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 must-read 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 plus-minus rating and
      call KG's 24.4. Then call around -- call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
      Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (T-Mac: 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 93-94 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/
    • Michael Tamada
      Excellent observation; those ESPN figures cannot possibly be correct, for the reason you cite. Someone probably misquoted the definition or units of
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 11 12:16 PM
      • 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 all-star 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
        off-season).

        -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
        5-7 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 24-lead in the remaining 7+
        minutes of a regulation game to lose--and 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 must-read 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 plus-minus rating and
        call KG's 24.4. Then call around -- call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
        Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (T-Mac: 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 93-94 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_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • aaronkoo
        DeanL s play-by-play 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
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 11 1:24 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          DeanL's play-by-play 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
          > 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 all-star 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
          > off-season).
          >
          > -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
          > 5-7 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
          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 24-lead in the
          remaining 7+
          > minutes of a regulation game to lose--and 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@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 must-read 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 plus-minus rating and
          > call KG's 24.4. Then call around -- call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
          > Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (T-Mac: 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@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 93-94
          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]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          ______________________________________________________________________
          __
          >
          ______________________________________________________________________
          __
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Theron Skyles
          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
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 11 1:35 PM
          • 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 T-wolves without him. This is quite different from the NHL's +/-
            stat.

            For example, if the T-Wolves 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 24-lead in the
            remaining 7+
            minutes of a regulation game to lose--and 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 must-read 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 plus-minus rating and
            call KG's 24.4. Then call around -- call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
            Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (T-Mac: 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 93-94 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_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • aaronkoo
            ... well be ... defense ... compared ... +/- ... 104.1 ... assumes ... numbers ... certainly ... That would make him the most valuable player this side of MJ
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 11 5:36 PM
            • 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.
              >
              > 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 T-wolves without him. This is quite different from the NHL's
              +/-
              > stat.
              >
              > For example, if the T-Wolves 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. 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
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Robert Bellotti" <rbellotti@c...>
              >
              > 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 24-lead in the
              > remaining 7+
              > minutes of a regulation game to lose--and 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@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 must-read 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 plus-minus rating and
              > call KG's 24.4. Then call around -- call L.A. (Kobe: 11.1), call
              > Jersey (Jason: 13.0), call Orlando (T-Mac: 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@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 93-94
              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]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              ______________________________________________________________________
              __
              >
              ______________________________________________________________________
              __
              >
              >
              >
              > 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_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Kevin Pelton
              ... well be ... defense ... compared ... +/- ... 15.4 (offense), 10.5 (defense), and 25.9 (total) according to the numbers I m looking at. . . . These numbers
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 11 11:40 PM
              • 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.
                >
                > 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 T-wolves 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 league-wide 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/SEA-shooting.html

                Actually, he does the Pistons as well:

                http://hammer.prohosting.com/~dragomil/nba/Reports/DET-shooting.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 mis-listed as out of
                field goals made on the sheet).
              • Gary Collard
                ... What I think you are forgetting here is that this is per 48 minutes, not a plus-minus. Using Theron s hypothetical numbers above, if Garnett averages 40
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 12 8:41 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 T-wolves without him. This is quite different from the NHL's
                  > +/-
                  > > stat.
                  > >
                  > > For example, if the T-Wolves 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
                  plus-minus. 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
                  SABR-L 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
                • aaronkoo
                  ... game (48 ... NHL s ... minutes ... and ... Space ... kind of ... minutes, not a ... averages ... in the ... +24.4 ... I m somehow missing the math here
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 12 9:00 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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 T-wolves without him. This is quite different from the
                    NHL's
                    > > +/-
                    > > > stat.
                    > > >
                    > > > For example, if the T-Wolves 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
                    > plus-minus. 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.
                  • aaronkoo
                    ... minutes, not a ... averages ... in the ... +24.4 ... Looking at KevinP s pdf file helped a lot. Page 8 spells out the details of the numbers. KG and Dirk
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 12 9:14 AM
                    • 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
                      > plus-minus. 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 long-standing problems of correlation with it, problems
                      associated with pace (Jason Kidd is seen as a major defensive
                      liability), but a useful indicator.

                      DeanO
                    • Gary Collard
                      ... 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,
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 12 9:43 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        aaronkoo wrote:
                        >
                        > --- 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 T-wolves without him. This is quite different from the
                        > NHL's
                        > > > +/-
                        > > > > stat.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > For example, if the T-Wolves 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
                        > > plus-minus. 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.

                        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?

                        --
                        Gary Collard
                        SABR-L 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
                      • Gary Collard
                        ... Sorry, missed this, where is this file? -- Gary Collard SABR-L Moderator collardg@earthlink.net If you embrace containment, you must accept proliferation,
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 12 9:44 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          aaronkoo wrote:
                          >
                          > --- 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
                          > > plus-minus. 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.

                          Sorry, missed this, where is this file?

                          --
                          Gary Collard
                          SABR-L 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
                        • Theron Skyles
                          ... From: Gary Collard ... he ... is ... thing ... Sounds right to me, but I m really just making an educated guess myself. ... The
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 12 10:12 AM
                          • 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 T-Wolves game notes linked here:

                            http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/notes.pdf

                            Theron
                          • Daniel Dickey
                            ... 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
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 14 5:43 PM
                            • 0 Attachment


                              >>Actually, he does the Pistons as well:
                              >>
                              >>http://hammer.prohosting.com/~dragomil/nba/Reports/DET-shooting.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.
                            • ankurvdesai
                              ... Hoops ... system, ... when he ... team is ... for 8 ... when he is ... The thing ... he ... anybody ... I m not sure if this is how the system works
                              Message 14 of 14 , Apr 29, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >
                                > 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?

                                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.