+/-

[Rastapopoulos]

First of all, there are those among us who scorn this stat. Well, fuck off then.

Second, yes, it is exponentially less useful the smaller the sample size. So - just like every other stat, right?

With that in mind, here are the Blazers ranked by +/- per minute on this day, 11th November, the year of our Lord two thousand and nine:

Top Individual Players
Player 1 	Team 	         + 	- 	+/- 	Min 	[COLOR="Red"]+/-/Min[/COLOR] G
G. Oden 	Trail Blazers 	318 	-275 	43 	155:35 	.276 	7
J. Bayless 	Trail Blazers 	63 	-57 	6 	26:39 	.225 	3
T. Outlaw 	Trail Blazers 	335 	-304 	31 	157:15 	.197 	7
S. Blake 	Trail Blazers 	395 	-360 	35 	195:07 	.179 	7
M. Webster 	Trail Blazers 	288 	-264 	24 	147:57 	.162 	7
B. Roy   	Trail Blazers 	521 	-481 	40 	254:34 	.157 	7
A. Miller 	Trail Blazers 	412 	-386 	26 	195:40 	.132 	7
L. Aldridge 	Trail Blazers 	485 	-470 	15 	241:38 	.062 	7
R. Fernandez 	Trail Blazers 	326 	-318 	8 	151:40 	.052 	7
J. Przybilla 	Trail Blazers 	267 	-264 	3 	130:36 	.022 	7
J. Howard 	Trail Blazers 	38 	-42 	-4 	16:58 	-.235 	2 
D. Cunningham 	Trail Blazers 	17 	-19 	-2 	6:17 	-.318 	1

 

[Mediocre Man]

First of all, there are those among us who scorn this stat. Well, fuck off then.

Second, yes, it is exponentially less useful the smaller the sample size. So - just like every other stat, right?

With that in mind, here are the Blazers ranked by +/- per minute on this day, 11th November, the year of our Lord two thousand and nine:

Top Individual Players
Player 1 	Team 	         + 	- 	+/- 	Min 	[COLOR="Red"]+/-/Min[/COLOR] G
G. Oden 	Trail Blazers 	318 	-275 	43 	155:35 	.276 	7
J. Bayless 	Trail Blazers 	63 	-57 	6 	26:39 	.225 	3
T. Outlaw 	Trail Blazers 	335 	-304 	31 	157:15 	.197 	7
S. Blake 	Trail Blazers 	395 	-360 	35 	195:07 	.179 	7
M. Webster 	Trail Blazers 	288 	-264 	24 	147:57 	.162 	7
B. Roy   	Trail Blazers 	521 	-481 	40 	254:34 	.157 	7
A. Miller 	Trail Blazers 	412 	-386 	26 	195:40 	.132 	7
L. Aldridge 	Trail Blazers 	485 	-470 	15 	241:38 	.062 	7
R. Fernandez 	Trail Blazers 	326 	-318 	8 	151:40 	.052 	7
J. Przybilla 	Trail Blazers 	267 	-264 	3 	130:36 	.022 	7
J. Howard 	Trail Blazers 	38 	-42 	-4 	16:58 	-.235 	2 
D. Cunningham 	Trail Blazers 	17 	-19 	-2 	6:17 	-.318 	1

I can't believe Roy and Aldridge start over Travis and Martell.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I can't believe Roy and Aldridge start over Travis and Martell.

What part of "fuck off" didn't you get?

(Or, less confrontationally, yes, you're right, +/- has its limitations. But many of us get the impression that Oden really contributes positively (last night's game was an obvious example) and this appears to be reflected in the stats. Of course, practically nobody will like to see Travis and Blake so high, because we've all got our pet trades where their expiring contracts are what sells it to other teams.)

 

[jlprk]

Rasta, I posted, "Just give them the site" with the link, then I belatedly saw that you had underlined the word "here" and linked already. So never mind.

 

[jlprk]

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusm...omb=1&season=22009&split=9&team=Trail Blazers

 

[Mediocre Man]

What part of "fuck off" didn't you get?

(Or, less confrontationally, yes, you're right, +/- has its limitations. But many of us get the impression that Oden really contributes positively (last night's game was an obvious example) and this appears to be reflected in the stats. Of course, practically nobody will like to see Travis and Blake so high, because we've all got our pet trades where their expiring contracts are what sells it to other teams.)

I actually think +/- has it's merits, but there are always exceptions. Last night Travis went 1-9 and still had a +1. Regardless of his + rating, I think it's fair to say he played like shit.

 

[andalusian]

I actually think +/- has it's merits, but there are always exceptions. Last night Travis went 1-9 and still had a +1. Regardless of his + rating, I think it's fair to say he played like shit.

I actually disagree. I think he did mostly OK last night except from scoring. He grabbed 5 rebounds, his defense on Gay was far from horrible and other than 2 shots that were questionable - he took good shots - just did not convert them.

Bad shooting night? No doubt. Great game - not even close - but he did not play like shit last night. He was just misfiring - but playing within the offense, running after balls and most of the time his defense looked OK there.

There are times you look at Travis and wonder what he is doing out there - I did not think it was the case last night. He drove to the rim hard instead of settling for off-balance jump-shots, he went for rebounds, he paid attention to his man. Just a bad shooting night.

I thought he was just pressing out there with his shots trying to put a show for his friends and family. Wish it was better - but overall, not even close to playing like shit, imho.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I actually think +/- has it's merits, but there are always exceptions. Last night Travis went 1-9 and still had a +1. Regardless of his + rating, I think it's fair to say he played like shit.

To Travis's credit (or maybe you have to credit covariance and autocorrelation) he played OK defense on Mayo et al -- or at least the team played good defense and covered up for his horrific shooting. This is why you have to look at adjusted plus/minus and look at who he was matched up against on a per possession basis to get a better feel for what his real impact on the game was.

My gut feeling is that he hurt more than he helped with those fugly jumpers that weren't falling, but I don't really feel like watching the game again to analyze what he did on the court.

 

[magnifier661]

There are times you look at Travis and wonder what he is doing out there - I did not think it was the case last night. He drove to the rim hard instead of settling for off-balance jump-shots, he went for rebounds, he paid attention to his man. Just a bad shooting night.

I thought he was just pressing out there with his shots trying to put a show for his friends and family. Wish it was better - but overall, not even close to playing like shit, imho.

Not to single you out, but I didn't see it that way at all. I saw him have a wide open shot of a couple dribbles, but he choose to dribble into the strong defense to score. Also, some of his plays like at the end of the quarter, instead of passing to a wide open blake, he dribbled into traffic and tossed a crazy ass prayer. Sometimes I see him on the court and say, if the dude ain't scoring, take his ass out cause he's worthless...

 

[andalusian]

Not to single you out, but I didn't see it that way at all. I saw him have a wide open shot of a couple dribbles, but he choose to dribble into the strong defense to score. Also, some of his plays like at the end of the quarter, instead of passing to a wide open blake, he dribbled into traffic and tossed a crazy ass prayer. Sometimes I see him on the court and say, if the dude ain't scoring, take his ass out cause he's worthless...

You know - I kind of think that there are things we do not see happening behind the curtains when we comment on them, like Nate taking Greg out with 2 fouls and not playing him the entire half - and then you find out that they had the 1 foul per quarter thing going on.

I am looking at Travis this year - and I like the fact he is driving hard - even if some of these jump shots might have happened. I suspect someone like Monte talked to him about driving hard, absorbing contact and getting to the foul line. Some nights it will work, some it will not - but overall, this is a positive production for Travis. Even with his miserable night last night, so far, this year, his production (PER) is more efficient than it was before.

With this grand look at things - I do not think it was bad. If you put people in position they can not succeed - I agree that it's bad - but I think Travis has the speed, has the length, has the jump and to a degree has the handle to attack the rim a lot more than take jump shots. It's a good thing he is doing it - even if you are going to have some ugly games out there. Sooner or later he will master that - and it will make him a much more valuable player.

 

[Mediocre Man]

You know - I kind of think that there are things we do not see happening behind the curtains when we comment on them, like Nate taking Greg out with 2 fouls and not playing him the entire half - and then you find out that they had the 1 foul per quarter thing going on.

I am looking at Travis this year - and I like the fact he is driving hard - even if some of these jump shots might have happened. I suspect someone like Monte talked to him about driving hard, absorbing contact and getting to the foul line. Some nights it will work, some it will not - but overall, this is a positive production for Travis. Even with his miserable night last night, so far, this year, his production (PER) is more efficient than it was before.

With this grand look at things - I do not think it was bad. If you put people in position they can not succeed - I agree that it's bad - but I think Travis has the speed, has the length, has the jump and to a degree has the handle to attack the rim a lot more than take jump shots. It's a good thing he is doing it - even if you are going to have some ugly games out there. Sooner or later he will master that - and it will make him a much more valuable player.

That thing with Greg is assinine. No problem taking him out after 2 fouls, but he should put him in to the game in the second period at some point. Greg, the officials, and Greg's teammates need to learn how to react when GO has 3 fouls.

 

[RR7]

Yeah, it seems all last year, people complained about jacking up terrible jump shots, I don't think there should be any complaints about him trying to get to the hoop.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Yeah, it seems all last year, people complained about jacking up terrible jump shots, I don't think there should be any complaints about him trying to get to the hoop.

It seems from the SA game on Travis has made more of an effort to get to the rim for sure.

 

[andalusian]

That thing with Greg is assinine. No problem taking him out after 2 fouls, but he should put him in to the game in the second period at some point. Greg, the officials, and Greg's teammates need to learn how to react when GO has 3 fouls.

I do not agree with you, frankly, especially since Greg's 2 early fouls were very avoidable and were both Greg's fault. Holding him accountable is not a bad thing, imho. If you can correct these problems early in his career - you should - and I think that's why they went this way.

It will pay off in the long run.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I do not agree with you, frankly, especially since Greg's 2 early fouls were very avoidable and were both Greg's fault. Holding him accountable is not a bad thing, imho. If you can correct these problems early in his career - you should - and I think that's why they went this way.

It will pay off in the long run.

I think we will end up with a center who is more timid on defense because he knows if he fouls he will get pulled.

 

[magnifier661]

I am looking at Travis this year - and I like the fact he is driving hard - even if some of these jump shots might have happened. I suspect someone like Monte talked to him about driving hard, absorbing contact and getting to the foul line. Some nights it will work, some it will not - but overall, this is a positive production for Travis. Even with his miserable night last night, so far, this year, his production (PER) is more efficient than it was before.

Okay I concede on this issue, since it always bothered me in the past that Outlaw wouldn't take it to the paint. If that means a few turn overs, then so be it. The sooner the majority of our players realize taking the ball in the paint will help the outcome of our games, the better. If that's really what's happening with Outlaw, then I embrace it.

I am not one that wants one of the Blazers to fail, in order to give another some burn or anything. I always want the best for every player.

 

[andalusian]

I think we will end up with a center who is more timid on defense because he knows if he fouls he will get pulled.

He did not seem timid to me in the 2nd half. He seemed in control. The 3 fouls he got in the 2nd half I was ok with - they were either smart ones, unavoidable or refs being a bit trigger happy. The 2 early fouls he got were stupid and well deserved. Just my opinion.

 

[Nikolokolus]

That thing with Greg is assinine. No problem taking him out after 2 fouls, but he should put him in to the game in the second period at some point. Greg, the officials, and Greg's teammates need to learn how to react when GO has 3 fouls.

I do not agree with you, frankly, especially since Greg's 2 early fouls were very avoidable and were both Greg's fault. Holding him accountable is not a bad thing, imho. If you can correct these problems early in his career - you should - and I think that's why they went this way.

It will pay off in the long run.

My initial reaction was similar to MM's when I heard about it, but after thinking about it a little bit, I'm convinced this is actually a good thing. A lot of Greg's fouls seem to come from a lapse in concentration, not just getting jobbed by the officials. And if this helps him become more court aware and more aware of his importance to staying on the floor then I'm all for letting it run its course until (or if) he gets it under control.

Furthermore, I think there's something to be said for him getting 18+ minutes in the second half of a game where he can come in and be the extra crack that finally busts the damn open. There was something about the way he came in to the third and fourth quarter and absolutely took it to the Grizz that you could see visibly demoralized guys like Gasol and Zach when they realized there was nothing they could to stop him unless they doubled hard.

 

[MARIS61]

I actually disagree. I think he did mostly OK last night except from scoring. He grabbed 5 rebounds, his defense on Gay was far from horrible and other than 2 shots that were questionable - he took good shots - just did not convert them.

Bad shooting night? No doubt. Great game - not even close - but he did not play like shit last night. He was just misfiring - but playing within the offense, running after balls and most of the time his defense looked OK there.

There are times you look at Travis and wonder what he is doing out there - I did not think it was the case last night. He drove to the rim hard instead of settling for off-balance jump-shots, he went for rebounds, he paid attention to his man. Just a bad shooting night.

I thought he was just pressing out there with his shots trying to put a show for his friends and family. Wish it was better - but overall, not even close to playing like shit, imho.

Yep.

 

[Idog1976]

Furthermore, I think there's something to be said for him getting 18+ minutes in the second half of a game where he can come in and be the extra crack that finally busts the damn open. There was something about the way he came in to the third and fourth quarter and absolutely took it to the Grizz that you could see visibly demoralized guys like Gasol and Zach when they realized there was nothing they could to stop him unless they doubled hard.

I loved this part. They really did look demoralized it was awesome

 

[Boob-No-More]

The problem with +/- is it isn't an individual stat, but people try to use it like it is. It's highly dependent on the other four players who are on the court with you, as well as your five opponents.

Anderson Varejao has a significantly better +/- (46 vs. 31) and a much better +/-/min (.237 vs. .135) than LeBron James. Who is the better player? Who contribute more to Cleveland's success?

Ron Artest +/- = 64, +/-/min = 0.290
Kobe Bryant +/- = 32, +/-/min = 0.134

Is Ron Artest really more than twice as good as Kobe Bryant?

I'm probably going to be told to fuck off for pointing out this obvious flaw, but tough shit. It's threads like this that propogate the incorrect interpretation of this stat. It's NOT an individual stat. Even with an infinitely large sample size, there will always be a dependancy on the other 9 players who are on the court. So, while it is possible to spot general trends using a large enough sample size, this stat is so universally mis-used that it's pretty much useless for discussing individual player performance (even if nine out of ten people involved in the discussion understand the proper interpretation of the +/- stat, the 10th one will screw up the discussion).

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

First of all, there are those among us who scorn this stat. Well, fuck off then.

It's not the stat I scorn, it's the near iniversal mis-use of the stat that drives me nuts.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Anderson Varejao has a significantly better +/- (46 vs. 31) and a much better +/-/min (.237 vs. .135) than LeBron James. Who is the better player? Who contribute more to Cleveland's success?

Ron Artest +/- = 64, +/-/min = 0.290
Kobe Bryant +/- = 32, +/-/min = 0.134

Is Ron Artest really more than twice as good as Kobe Bryant?

In terms of raw data, when on the floor, Varajejo and Artest are part of units that are performing better than James or Bryant as an aggregate. This is indisputable.

I'm probably going to be told to fuck off for pointing out this obvious flaw, but tough shit.

You really think so? Other than the OP, who is insulting people in this thread, I haven't seen a single poster return a "f**k you" for "pointing out this obvious flaw".

It's threads like this that propogate the incorrect interpretation of this stat. It's NOT an individual stat. Even with an infinitely large sample size, there will always be a dependancy on the other 9 players who are on the court. So, while it is possible to spot general trends using a large enough sample size, this stat is so universally mis-used that it's pretty much useless for discussing individual player performance (even if nine out of ten people involved in the discussion understand the proper interpretation of the +/- stat, the 10th one will screw up the discussion).

BNM

Reading this, I have to assume that you view +/- as a useless statistic. I, on the other hand, think it does show which players are part of successful units. A sum is made of individual parts, so there can be some positives individually derived from this stat.