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

Re: Digest Number 439

Expand Messages
  • aaronkoo
    ... well be ... defense ... compared ... +/- ... 104.1 ... assumes ... numbers ... certainly ... That would make him the most valuable player this side of MJ
    Message 1 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 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.

        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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.