- 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?

MonĂ©

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

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. >

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.