"No team has a drop off like Portland when Lillard, Aldridge sit"

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/01/03/lillard-tops-list-of-biggest-offensive-difference-makers/

Points, rebounds and assists are nice, but plus-minus is the most important stat in basketball.
You win games by outscoring your opponent, and plus-minus reflects how much a team has done that in a player’s minutes on the floor. If you’re not scoring points yourself, you can help your teammates score and also prevent your opponent from doing so.
But in basketball, with nine other guys on the floor affecting what each player does, plus-minus always needs context, and lots of it. Who is a guy playing his minutes with? Who is he not playing his minutes with?
Furthermore, sample size is important. Single-game plus-minus can help tell a story about key sequences or the impact of a player or two on a particular night. But if you really want to get a good idea of how a team performs when a player or group of players is on the floor, you’ve got to look at a large chunk of games.
At this point in the season, we can get a pretty good idea of where teams are strong and weak. Through Wednesday, 224 players have logged at least 500 minutes for one team this season. And when you measure how efficient their team’s offense has been with them on or off the floor, you come across some interesting numbers.

Damian Lillard is the real deal, but he isn’t the best offensive player in the league. Still, the offensive drop-off that the Portland Trail Blazers have suffered when Lillard has stepped off the floor has been greater than the drop-off that any other team has suffered when a specific player goes to the bench.

also here too:
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....ge-sit/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[B-Roy]

It matches the eye test.

 

[blue9]

+/- is garbage. It doesn't tell you what an individual is doing. You often see players have the lowest +/- in a given game even though they had the most positive contributions, or conversely a player has a very high +/- because they scored 6 points in 2 minutes of garbage time.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

This bench is literally one of the worst in NBA history.

But they're improving. Instead of 3 PPG from the bench it's up around 15-ish, right?

 

[magnifier661]

This bench is literally one of the worst in NBA history.

But they're improving. Instead of 3 PPG from the bench it's up around 15-ish, right?

Yeah but that's a season average. It's more like 20+ a game the last 15 games.

 

[Natebishop3]

Of course there's a huge dropoff when it's Ronnie Price and Luke Babbitt coming into the game for Damian Lillard and Aldridge.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Babs has been putting in solid work lately.

 

[Natebishop3]

Babs has been putting in solid work lately.

It's still a huge dropoff though.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Babs has been putting in solid work lately.

Yeah, but he's no LaMarcus Aldridge!

 

[blue9]

And anyone who plays with Price is going to see their +/- plunge.

 

[BBert]

Lillard has been very good, our backup point guards have been very horrible, add up the plus/minus and no one should be surprised. Same goes for taking out Aldridge and inserting any other player off our bench. It's a miracle we've won so many games.

 

[blazerboy30]

+/- is garbage. It doesn't tell you what an individual is doing. You often see players have the lowest +/- in a given game even though they had the most positive contributions, or conversely a player has a very high +/- because they scored 6 points in 2 minutes of garbage time.

Did you read the original post where he specifically says you need to use a large sample size and not use +/- for individual games?

 

[RoyToy]

The NBA has a lot of unnecessary stats

 

[blue9]

Did you read the original post where he specifically says you need to use a large sample size and not use +/- for individual games?

Doesn't matter - large sample size or not, it's a nearly worthless stat IMO. It and PER are both stupid - especially when used in isolation, as they generally are. They are contrived and filled with the author's biases. About the only stat that's widely used that has any concreteness to it is FG% and various iterations of it (Opp FG%, etc). I do find other pure stats interesting, like APG, SPG, BPG, RPG, etc - but they're also open for some level of deeper interpretation. But unlike PER and +/- they actually tell you SOMETHING tangible about the player.

 

[blue9]

The NBA has a lot of unnecessary stats

Agreed.

 

[RoyToy]

Doesn't matter - large sample size or not, it's a nearly worthless stat IMO. It and PER are both stupid - especially when used in isolation, as they generally are. They are contrived and filled with the author's biases. About the only stat that's widely used that has any concreteness to it is FG% and various iterations of it (Opp FG%, etc). I do find other pure stats interesting, like APG, SPG, BPG, RPG, etc - but they're also open for some level of deeper interpretation. But unlike PER and +/- they actually tell you SOMETHING tangible about the player.

Finally someone else that gets it.

The best new poster here in years.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Doesn't matter - large sample size or not, it's a nearly worthless stat IMO. It and PER are both stupid - especially when used in isolation, as they generally are. They are contrived and filled with the author's biases. About the only stat that's widely used that has any concreteness to it is FG% and various iterations of it (Opp FG%, etc). I do find other pure stats interesting, like APG, SPG, BPG, RPG, etc - but they're also open for some level of deeper interpretation. But unlike PER and +/- they actually tell you SOMETHING tangible about the player.

While I agree that stats can be manipulated, +/- does have some value.

 

[THE HCP]

The NBA has a lot of unnecessary stats

And you my angry little friend have a lot of unnecessary posts.

 

[HailBlazers]

Stats don't tell the whole story? what a revelation!

 

[blue9]

While I agree that stats can be manipulated, +/- does have some value.

I certainly think it has more value than PER. At least I think so, if I'm remembering what +/- is. It's the one where you add up "good" things and subtract "bad" things? Or does it just tell you the point differential when a player is on the floor? If it's the latter, then it's almost pure garbage - if it's the former then it can be an interesting, if misleading stat.

 

[RoyToy]

And you my angry little friend have a lot of unnecessary posts.

Says the guy with 24k posts

 

[blazerboy30]

Doesn't matter - large sample size or not, it's a nearly worthless stat IMO. It and PER are both stupid - especially when used in isolation, as they generally are. They are contrived and filled with the author's biases. About the only stat that's widely used that has any concreteness to it is FG% and various iterations of it (Opp FG%, etc). I do find other pure stats interesting, like APG, SPG, BPG, RPG, etc - but they're also open for some level of deeper interpretation. But unlike PER and +/- they actually tell you SOMETHING tangible about the player.

So if the only stat with any concreteness is FG%, you should always select the player with the highest FG%? If not, please explain how you use the only stat with any concreteness, FG%, to compare players and how much they may improve a team.

 

[blazerboy30]

I certainly think it has more value than PER. At least I think so, if I'm remembering what +/- is. It's the one where you add up "good" things and subtract "bad" things? Or does it just tell you the point differential when a player is on the floor? If it's the latter, then it's almost pure garbage - if it's the former then it can be an interesting, if misleading stat.

Let me get this straight... you don't even know what the stat measures but you're confident it's garbage?

 

[blue9]

Yup. It's been so long since I paid any attention to it, because I found it to be garbage - so I no longer know precisely what it is. That's often how the memory works - if it's not in active rotation the details slowly fade away. I try not to waste too much time on stuff that I perceive to be garbage.

Regarding how I use stats - I use them in conjunction with what I see when I watch games. First I get a feel for a player - good or bad. Then I look at stats to see if they're supporting what I'm seeing. If they don't then I either watch some more to see if I'm missing something, or try to see what is making the stat appear to tell something that isn't quite true. This process lead me to rethink the importance of RPG - it can be a very misleading stat and it certainly doesn't measure a player's ability when it comes to rebounding.

When it comes to FG% I like to look at a team's FG% and their OppFG% to help determine whether my opinion of that team's offense/defense is "correct". I find FG% & OppFG% to be more meaningful than OffRtg & DefRtg - it measures how well they are at putting the ball in the basket or keeping the opposition from putting the ball in the basket and weeds out stuff like how good a team is at shooting foul shots, or how many FTs a team shoots which is largely based on whether they have a superstar on their roster. It also weeds out stuff like steals, which is part of defense - but I'm interested in the actual ability of making a team shoot low percentage shots...steals are a gamble, bad defense can lead to a steal. I also like to compare individual's FG% by position, and their FG% by shot location. In this way you can see how good a player is compared to other people who score in similar ways.

No individual stat is going to tell you the whole story, and trying to make one stat by doing a bunch of math with a whole bunch of stats is just blurring an already blurry line - at least when it comes to fan talk. Advanced stats may come in useful for teams who are employing people to do nothing but pore over volumes of stats - but when those stats are used by fans as stand-alone measurements they lose all meaning.

But I more than anything it's the eye test - seeing is believing.

 

[Nikolokolus]

+/- is garbage. It doesn't tell you what an individual is doing. You often see players have the lowest +/- in a given game even though they had the most positive contributions, or conversely a player has a very high +/- because they scored 6 points in 2 minutes of garbage time.

It's a really noisy stat in small sample sizes, but over the course of a season or two it's a pretty useful number.

 

[e_blazer]

It seems to me that Olshey has a decison to make pretty quickly. The Blazers are presently sitting in the 8th spot in the West. I suspect that's a surprise to Blazers' management as compared with preseason expectations. The starting lineup is competing fairly well and probably is playoff-worthy. In order to stay in the thick of the playoff hunt, especially given that the schedule gets much tougher from this point on, is going to take an infusion of talent in the bench unit. Whether through trade or even just a signing of an older vet or two, the bench could be beefed up. Guys like Bibby or even Derek Fisher, are available and have playoff experience. By now, Olshey has seen enough of the bench players to know who he wants to keep and develop and who can be dumped. Sitting out of the playoffs one more year and getting a decent pick wouldn't be the worst thing, but I don't see it as likely to really move the dial towards contending either. The Blazers are likely to get no higher draft pick than the 11th or so. The absolute worst thing would be to finish out of the playoffs but with the 13th or 14th pick and have to hand it over to Charlotte.

 

[Masbee]

Doesn't matter - large sample size or not, it's a nearly worthless stat IMO. It and PER are both stupid - especially when used in isolation, as they generally are. They are contrived and filled with the author's biases. About the only stat that's widely used that has any concreteness to it is FG% and various iterations of it (Opp FG%, etc). I do find other pure stats interesting, like APG, SPG, BPG, RPG, etc - but they're also open for some level of deeper interpretation. But unlike PER and +/- they actually tell you SOMETHING tangible about the player.

Ummmm.

Ok.

 

[PapaG]

The only stats that are legitimate are the stats that support my opinion. Stats that fly in the face of my opinion are to be disregarded and called garbage.

Regards,

All S2 Posters

 

[Nikolokolus]

Doesn't matter - large sample size or not, it's a nearly worthless stat IMO. It and PER are both stupid - especially when used in isolation, as they generally are. They are contrived and filled with the author's biases. About the only stat that's widely used that has any concreteness to it is FG% and various iterations of it (Opp FG%, etc). I do find other pure stats interesting, like APG, SPG, BPG, RPG, etc - but they're also open for some level of deeper interpretation. But unlike PER and +/- they actually tell you SOMETHING tangible about the player.

The amount of "herp derp" in this is simultaneously shocking and awesome.

 

[PapaG]

I certainly think it has more value than PER. At least I think so, if I'm remembering what +/- is. It's the one where you add up "good" things and subtract "bad" things? Or does it just tell you the point differential when a player is on the floor? If it's the latter, then it's almost pure garbage - if it's the former then it can be an interesting, if misleading stat.

How do you quantify "good things" versus "bad things" while a player is on the court?

Seems to me a rather basic stat is to see if a team scores more or less points while any given player is on the floor. It's not ideal over a large sample, but it seems foolish to call it and PER "garbage". Is it just a coincidence that the players with the highest PERs seem to be on All-NBA teams and All-Star teams?

If you're going by FG%, then Przy the year he almost shot 70% should have been MVP.