Are you ready for 3-0- Pelicans rematch GDT

[Coolbreeze44]

Just my opinion but I think the +/- stat is very important. However, I think it means more in regard to a teams top players than the role players. Your top guys get the most shots and the most minutes, thus having the most influence on a game. Josh Okogie's +/- is largely contingent upon how well the dominant offensive players perform. When the 2nd unit is in they are mostly playing against other 2nd unit guys. Ultimately the game is won or lost by a team's best players. I'll let you decide whether DLO fits into that category.

[Jester1534]

Just my opinion but I think the +/- stat is very important. However, I think it means more in regard to a teams top players than the role players. Your top guys get the most shots and the most minutes, thus having the most influence on a game. Josh Okogie's +/- is largely contingent upon how well the dominant offensive players perform. When the 2nd unit is in they are mostly playing against other 2nd unit guys. Ultimately the game is won or lost by a team's best players. I'll let you decide whether DLO fits into that category.

Cool I'm trying to understand your side of it. Cause i might be stupid but I just don't understand. Wouldn't it be opposite of what your saying because the stars of the game effect the outcome more than role players. So there +- would be skewed cause there always playing the other teams best guys. I know you say it's good to look through over time. But I'm going to take an example of a single game tonight from the lakers

Ty Jerome played 14 mins and scored 3 pts and had 2 assists tonight was +28 for OKC

SGA scored 27 and had 5 assists and was only a +2

I know it's one game but it's because SGA played against Lebron and Davis all night and I'm sure Jerome played against Malik Monk and the ghost of Carmelo Anthony.

If we're looking at the stat over the long haul wouldn't these types of games happen over and over skewing the results?

SGA is always going to play against top stars on a team so his +- will always be effected by it.

Idk I feel like I'm missing something?

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Just my opinion but I think the +/- stat is very important. However, I think it means more in regard to a teams top players than the role players. Your top guys get the most shots and the most minutes, thus having the most influence on a game. Josh Okogie's +/- is largely contingent upon how well the dominant offensive players perform. When the 2nd unit is in they are mostly playing against other 2nd unit guys. Ultimately the game is won or lost by a team's best players. I'll let you decide whether DLO fits into that category.

Cool I'm trying to understand your side of it. Cause i might be stupid but I just don't understand. Wouldn't it be opposite of what your saying because the stars of the game effect the outcome more than role players. So there +- would be skewed cause there always playing the other teams best guys. I know you say it's good to look through over time. But I'm going to take an example of a single game tonight from the lakers

Ty Jerome played 14 mins and scored 3 pts and had 2 assists tonight was +28 for OKC

SGA scored 27 and had 5 assists and was only a +2

I know it's one game but it's because SGA played against Lebron and Davis all night and I'm sure Jerome played against Malik Monk and the ghost of Carmelo Anthony.

If we're looking at the stat over the long haul wouldn't these types of games happen over and over skewing the results?

SGA is always going to play against top stars on a team so his +- will always be effected by it.

Idk I feel like I'm missing something?

But why would +/- be skewed over the long haul if I'm in a certain role (whether that be starter or backup) and in turn I'm consistently playing against people that are in a similar role? In other words, isn't it all somewhat relative?

Now what is important is context. If over a 5-year period Ty Jerome has a career Net Rating of +2.0 as a backup guard and SGA has a Net Rating of +2.0 as a starting guard, I'm pretty sure I know who is the better player overall. Just like box score stats shouldn't be looked at in complete isolation or without context, the same applies to +/- and On/Off type stats.

What Cam basically posits is that Net Rating is a completely useless stat without merit. I beg to differ. If that were the case, why do all the players we agree unanimously are great players do so well in Net Rating and Net On/Off Rating over their careers? May be being really good actually means your team performs better when you play versus sit on the bench.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

No, my stance is that plus-minus, net rating, etc. should be used in conjunction with other data that we have available as it can be highly misleading on its own. Those statistics should never be the sole factor in determining whether a player provides value on the court or not. It's just not an all-encompassing or comprehensive stat, no matter how vehemently you want it to be, because it will always lack certain context of every game. Namely, it doesn't account for the quality of teammates, the quality of opposing players, the player's role, or the game situation/flow. This has been my actual position for quite some time now.

With that said, I don't think you in particular use these metrics irresponsibly, Q. I do think you tend to use it as just a piece of the puzzle versus a one-and-done evaluation. Kudos for that. My main issue is when these numbers end up being the entirety of the argument for or against a player. And yes, that has happened here many times.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

No, my stance is that plus-minus, net rating, etc. should be used in conjunction with other data that we have available as it can be highly misleading on its own. Those statistics should never be the sole factor in determining whether a player provides value on the court or not. It's just not an all-encompassing or comprehensive stat, no matter how vehemently you want it to be, because it will always lack certain context of every game. Namely, it doesn't account for the quality of teammates, the quality of opposing players, the player's role, or the game situation/flow. This has been my actual position for quite some time now.

With that said, I don't think you in particular use these metrics irresponsibly, Q. I do think you tend to use it as just a piece of the puzzle versus a one-and-done evaluation. Kudos for that. My main issue is when these numbers end up being the entirety of the argument for or against a player. And yes, that has happened here many times.

Fair enough. I do think your logical take here though gets clouded when discussing DLO. He's been in many different contexts with many different coaches and teams and just never does well with this stat. After multiple seasons in the negative (not just net rating, but net on/off rating), that becomes more about the player and not the other variables. Hopefully that finally changes this season.

[FNG]

No, my stance is that plus-minus, net rating, etc. should be used in conjunction with other data that we have available as it can be highly misleading on its own. Those statistics should never be the sole factor in determining whether a player provides value on the court or not. It's just not an all-encompassing or comprehensive stat, no matter how vehemently you want it to be, because it will always lack certain context of every game. Namely, it doesn't account for the quality of teammates, the quality of opposing players, the player's role, or the game situation/flow. This has been my actual position for quite some time now.

With that said, I don't think you in particular use these metrics irresponsibly, Q. I do think you tend to use it as just a piece of the puzzle versus a one-and-done evaluation. Kudos for that. My main issue is when these numbers end up being the entirety of the argument for or against a player. And yes, that has happened here many times.

Fair enough. I do think your logical take here though gets clouded when discussing DLO. He's been in many different contexts with many different coaches and teams and just never does well with this stat. After multiple seasons in the negative (not just net rating, but net on/off rating), that becomes more about the player and not the other variables. Hopefully that finally changes this season.

Yeah, I just made that same point in tonight's GDT. I fully agree with Cam that stats need to be taken in context with other stats to be more meaningful, and naturally some of us are going to favor stats that our favorite players excel in. I admit that my admiration for Ricky Rubio is likely why I've always favored assist to turnover ratio because he is regularly in the top 5 in the league. But I also recognize he has significant flaws in his game.

I don't think it's logical to brush aside net ratings, +/- and on/off numbers when evaluating a certain player, because over time winning players are going to excel in these numbers and losing players are going to struggle. I mentioned in another thread that Wig and DLo might be the only current max players who have never had a positive net rating in a season (and nobody has found another example, so I think I am correct), and that simply can't be ignored when evaluating those two players. It's why the two players will be always linked unless one of them becomes more effective.

Cam, we get that you don't like net rating and +/-, but I asked you in another thread what are your favorite stats for evaluating the effectiveness of a player. You have an excellent (albeit often prejudiced) basketball mind, and I honestly want to know. For me I admit I look hard at TS%, net ratings, various defensive measures (although they are probably the least reliable, so I usually end up with eye test in evaluating a player's defense) and A:To ratio for PGs. How do you evaluate a player statistically?

[Jester1534]

No, my stance is that plus-minus, net rating, etc. should be used in conjunction with other data that we have available as it can be highly misleading on its own. Those statistics should never be the sole factor in determining whether a player provides value on the court or not. It's just not an all-encompassing or comprehensive stat, no matter how vehemently you want it to be, because it will always lack certain context of every game. Namely, it doesn't account for the quality of teammates, the quality of opposing players, the player's role, or the game situation/flow. This has been my actual position for quite some time now.

With that said, I don't think you in particular use these metrics irresponsibly, Q. I do think you tend to use it as just a piece of the puzzle versus a one-and-done evaluation. Kudos for that. My main issue is when these numbers end up being the entirety of the argument for or against a player. And yes, that has happened here many times.

Fair enough. I do think your logical take here though gets clouded when discussing DLO. He's been in many different contexts with many different coaches and teams and just never does well with this stat. After multiple seasons in the negative (not just net rating, but net on/off rating), that becomes more about the player and not the other variables. Hopefully that finally changes this season.

Yeah, I just made that same point in tonight's GDT. I fully agree with Cam that stats need to be taken in context with other stats to be more meaningful, and naturally some of us are going to favor stats that our favorite players excel in. I admit that my admiration for Ricky Rubio is likely why I've always favored assist to turnover ratio because he is regularly in the top 5 in the league. But I also recognize he has significant flaws in his game.

I don't think it's logical to brush aside net ratings, +/- and on/off numbers when evaluating a certain player, because over time winning players are going to excel in these numbers and losing players are going to struggle. I mentioned in another thread that Wig and DLo might be the only current max players who have never had a positive net rating in a season (and nobody has found another example, so I think I am correct), and that simply can't be ignored when evaluating those two players. It's why the two players will be always linked unless one of them becomes more effective.

Cam, we get that you don't like net rating and +/-, but I asked you in another thread what are your favorite stats for evaluating the effectiveness of a player. You have an excellent (albeit often prejudiced) basketball mind, and I honestly want to know. For me I admit I look hard at TS%, net ratings, various defensive measures (although they are probably the least reliable, so I usually end up with eye test in evaluating a player's defense) and A:To ratio for PGs. How do you evaluate a player statistically?

This could all be over if you have a true WAR stat like baseball :) the only stat that matters in baseball lol

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

This could all be over if you have a true WAR stat like baseball :) the only stat that matters in baseball lol

There is an easily viewable stat comparable to Wins Above Replacement for basketball called Value Over Replacement Player, and it's a pretty good one, albeit not as relied upon as WAR is. A lot of the time you can quickly reference the league's highest VORP list and it'll match the eye test. If I recall correctly, negative two (-2.0) is considered replacement level and then it goes from there. You can also do a little extra math and convert the VORP value into a WAR-like value indicating how many wins said player contributed to his team. Note that this value after conversion is different from win shares.

[AbeVigodaLive]

UGH.

I've lost some of my joy for baseball because of the heavy reliance on analytics. It took out some of the uniqueness and fun of the game IMO.

We're not there with basketball... YET.


[Note: I'm playing hoops tonight. And I will feed the big man in the post dammit... analytics be damned.*]







* We play by ones.... so technically, it's still the smart play.

[FNG]

UGH.

I've lost some of my joy for baseball because of the heavy reliance on analytics. It took out some of the uniqueness and fun of the game IMO.

We're not there with basketball... YET.


[Note: I'm playing hoops tonight. And I will feed the big man in the post dammit... analytics be damned.*]







* We play by ones.... so technically, it's still the smart play.

All we ask, Abe, is that you don't lose your cool and whine about bad calls...please learn from our own KAT.