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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Digest Number 439

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Mar 11, 2003
    • 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 2 of 14 , Mar 11, 2003
      • 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 3 of 14 , Mar 11, 2003
        • 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 4 of 14 , Mar 12, 2003
          • 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 5 of 14 , Mar 12, 2003
            • 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 6 of 14 , Mar 12, 2003
              • 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 7 of 14 , Mar 12, 2003
                • 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 8 of 14 , Mar 12, 2003
                  • 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 9 of 14 , Mar 12, 2003
                    • 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 10 of 14 , Mar 14, 2003
                      • 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 11 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.