Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 73
  1. #26
    Believe. meta2007's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Post Count
    402
    I don't think Stoudemire deserves to be a starter. Even Bynum > Stoudemire!

  2. #27
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    22,190
    As a Pistons fan, you should be loving Hollinger right now. According to his playoff odds, the Pistons currently are 231 time more likely to win the championship than the Spurs. In fact, the Pistons have the best odds in the NBA, while the Spurs have only a .2% chance of winning the championship. The Jazz, who currently wouldn't even make the playoffs, also have a .2% shot of winning a championship.
    As a Spurs fan, you should know Pistons fan would rather the Pistons be under the radar than be a favorite by any "expert" opinion. The front runner position doesn't work well for the Pistons. The two times the Pistons went to the NBA Finals in recent years with this core group, they didn't even have homecourt advantage in the ECF. The two times they did have homecourt, they lost in the ECF. Plus, I don't take the vast majority of Hollinger's statistical formulaic analysis seriously. I'll take the opinion of a guy who watches the games over stats crunchers anyday.


    Calderon is a pretty damn good player and Kidd has been overrated for years but that said, every NBA GM would take Kidd over Calderon with all things being equal. Right now, Calderon has a tiny contract and Kidd has an albatross of a contract ... and Kidd could probably still fetch more in a trade.
    Don't disagree with any of that. Even a diminished Jason Kidd is better than Jose Calderon. And, I wasn't arguing that Calderon should be an all star. But, I do think Calderon has played great this year.

  3. #28
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    22,190
    Nothing quite says "All-Star" like being last on your team in plus/minus. Good call Hollinger


    Dwyane Wade is -82.

    http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo...it=9&team=Heat

  4. #29
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,749
    Uh yeah, the Heat suck and are -184 as a team on the season. The Heat play better with Wade on the court than when he's off the court.

    The Raptors, on the other hand, are +39 on the season. That means that they are +70 when Calderon is off the court and -31 when he's on the court.

    All-Star?

  5. #30
    Sarah Palin is a Maverick freemeat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    1,101
    I don't think Stoudemire deserves to be a starter. Even Bynum > Stoudemire!

  6. #31
    Feels bad man Mr.Bottomtooth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    16,539
    freemeat has been getting a little trigger happy with the youtube vids lately.

  7. #32
    Veteran endrity's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Post Count
    3,050
    +/- is an overrated stat, there are many things that affect it. Calderon was the 2nd point guard at the beginning of the season, which meant he had to play with the scrubs more. That might affect his stat for example. Dampier has a low +/- for the Mavs I think, but he is one of the more valuable players for the Mavs because of his defense and rebounding.

  8. #33
    Sarah Palin is a Maverick freemeat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    1,101
    freemeat has been getting a little trigger happy with the youtube vids lately.
    Yeah, I know I've been over-doing it, but it's like I just got a new toy!

  9. #34
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,749
    +/- is an overrated stat, there are many things that affect it.
    On a game by game basis, plus/minus isn't overly reliable. But once the sample size gets large enough, I think it's a decent enough stat. It's pretty simple really -- if the team does worse when you play, chances are you aren't that good of a player.

    Calderon was the 2nd point guard at the beginning of the season, which meant he had to play with the scrubs more. That might affect his stat for example.
    Good theory but Calderon's plus/minus numbers started to plummet around the time he got into the starting lineup. Over the last ten games (all of which he started), Calderon is still the worst on the Raptors.


    Dampier has a low +/- for the Mavs I think, but he is one of the more valuable players for the Mavs because of his defense and rebounding.
    Dampier has the fourth best plus/minus on the Mavs. Now if you want to tell me Juwan Howard is better than his last place ranking in plus/minus, then we might be getting somewhere . . .

    Bottomline is a player shouldn't be considered an All-Star when the team is drastically better when that player doesn't play. Especially a player with such an incomplete resume as Jose Calderon.

    By glancing at Hollinger's selections, the only players who he put on the All-Star teams who don't statistically improve their team's play are Yao and Calderon. Yao's problem is mostly due to the other starters on the team under performing. Calderon's problem is he's not the best point guard on his team and his defense has been pitiful for the most part.

  10. #35
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    22,190
    Uh yeah, the Heat suck and are -184 as a team on the season. The Heat play better with Wade on the court than when he's off the court.

    The Raptors, on the other hand, are +39 on the season. That means that they are +70 when Calderon is off the court and -31 when he's on the court.

    All-Star?

    Ok true. But, if Dwyane Wade is an all star, is Chris Quinn also since he has a higher +/- on that same Heat team?

    I wasn't arguing Calderon was an all star. I was arguing that the +/- is a flawed statistic to gauge how good a player is.

  11. #36
    Veteran endrity's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Post Count
    3,050
    Ok, I will concede that I did no research at all regarding both Calderon and Damp. My bad. It just seems to me that Calderon is an important part of the Raptors, probably their best player in the playoffs last year, and so even if he is not an All-Star, he should not be bashed, eventhough a +/- stat shows him as a bad player.

  12. #37
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    22,190
    I have a problem with a stat that affects an individual based on how his teammates on the court at a given time play. I don't put too much stock in a stat that says Andre Iguodala and Andre Miller are the two worst players on the Sixers, a stat that says Danny Granger is the worst Indiana Pacer, a stat that says Andrei Kirilenko is more important or efficient or productive as a team player than Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer, a stat that says Anthony Johnson is more valuable than Joe Johnson on the court, a stat that tells me that Travis Outlaw and Channing Frye are the bigger difference makers than Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. I just don't buy into a stat that tells me those things. It's a nice little stat. Good for discussion, good for ancillary but less relevant analysis. But, I don't put great stock into how reflective it is in evaluating how good a player is.

  13. #38
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,749
    Ok true. But, if Dwyane Wade is an all star, is Chris Quinn also since he has a higher +/- on that same Heat team?
    Obviously.

    I wasn't arguing Calderon was an all star. I was arguing that the +/- is a flawed statistic to gauge how good a player is.
    Plus/minus is inherently flawed but do you think that it's a coincidence that almost every player that will make the All-Star team dramatically makes their better?

    I mean, look at these numbers and tell me you don't see why I'm questioning Calderon's inclusion.

    Net Plus/Minus per 100 Possessions
    LeBron James +22.4
    Baron Davis +20.7
    Dirk Nowitzki +19.2
    Antawn Jamison +19.0
    Steve Nash +18.6
    Caron Butler +17.4
    Chauncey Billups +14.5
    Kevin Garnett +13.6
    Paul Pierce +13.0
    Allen Iverson +12.6
    Chris Paul +12.5
    Tim Duncan +10.6
    Manu Ginobili +9.6
    Kobe Bryant +9.5
    Chris Bosh +9.2
    Shawn Marion +8.5
    Dwight Howard +7.3
    Amare Stoudemire +5.5
    Dwyane Wade +3.8
    Richard Hamilton +0.8
    Carlos Boozer -0.4
    Josh Smith -1.2
    Yao Ming -5.2
    Jose Calderon -7.6

    If Hollinger wants to go out on a limb for a player, he should go out on a limb for a player that makes his team better. Not a player who is way worse than any other All-Star candidate he named. I could understand it if Calderon had a long resume to fall back on, but he doesn't.

    And I don't think you can say plus/minus is useless when most of the leaders in the above stat will make the All-Star team. While I don't think players should be named to the All-Star game for having a good plus/minus, it's certainly a good tool to use when considering a new All-Star who doesn't play that many minutes. Even if a player is putting up gaudy offensive stats, if he's a poor defender and the team plays better without him on the court, that doesn't scream All-Star to me.

    Ok, I will concede that I did no research at all regarding both Calderon and Damp. My bad. It just seems to me that Calderon is an important part of the Raptors, probably their best player in the playoffs last year, and so even if he is not an All-Star, he should not be bashed, eventhough a +/- stat shows him as a bad player.
    I never said Calderon is a bad player. I've said he's a very good player a number of times in this thread. In fact, I've previously stated that Calderon is easily the league's best backup point guard. As a starter, he might even be top 15.

    But there's a difference between being a good player and being an All-Star.

  14. #39
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    I have a problem with a stat that affects an individual based on how his teammates on the court at a given time play. I don't put too much stock in a stat that says Andre Iguodala and Andre Miller are the two worst players on the Sixers, a stat that says Danny Granger is the worst Indiana Pacer, a stat that says Andrei Kirilenko is more important or efficient or productive as a team player than Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer, a stat that says Anthony Johnson is more valuable than Joe Johnson on the court, a stat that tells me that Travis Outlaw and Channing Frye are the bigger difference makers than Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. I just don't buy into a stat that tells me those things. It's a nice little stat. Good for discussion, good for ancillary but less relevant analysis. But, I don't put great stock into how reflective it is in evaluating how good a player is.
    I like the +/- stat because I think sometimes it can quantify things that are difficult to quantify. But, even over the long haul, it tends to reward players who get big minutes on really good teams.

    For instance, last year, there was only one player from a team other than the Spurs, Mavericks, or Suns (Rafer Alston) in the league-wide Top 15 in +/-. If you extend that to the Top 25 players in the league, there were 4 Rockets (Alston, Battier, McGrady, and Chuck Hayes), 3 Bulls (Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich), 3 Pistons (Billups, Hamilton, and Prince), and 1 Cavalier (Lebron) in the top 25. That is, you couldn't make the Top 25 unless your team won at least 49 games (Bulls) -- and you basically couldn't be in the top 15 unless your team was among the 3 best in the league.

    I understand where timvp is coming from here, but I don't buy +/- as a good tool for a comparative evaluation of players that are on different teams and I'm not sure that it's a particularly good tool for comparatively evaluating players who are teammates.

    Edit: I see the metric that evens out +/- to some extent and the statement about the value of +/- generally. I'm also not really quibbling here with timvp's arguments against Hollinger's inclusion of Calderon; it seems like typical Hollinger in that its trying to use his system (to a large degree) to argue that a player is somehow underrated by the rest of basketball fans. He does this too frequently now for me to really care much about it.

  15. #40
    Hedo Layup Drill ShoogarBear's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    39,519
    I know I'm beating my own personal dead horse, but Hollinger is nothing more than a shill for his own made-up stats. He can't go three sentences without mentioning PER. And I see he's using the opportunity to introduce more unproven bull with his magical point guard rating.

  16. #41
    Hedo Layup Drill ShoogarBear's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    39,519
    I have a problem with a stat that affects an individual based on how his teammates on the court at a given time play. I don't put too much stock in a stat that says Andre Iguodala and Andre Miller are the two worst players on the Sixers, a stat that says Danny Granger is the worst Indiana Pacer, a stat that says Andrei Kirilenko is more important or efficient or productive as a team player than Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer, a stat that says Anthony Johnson is more valuable than Joe Johnson on the court, a stat that tells me that Travis Outlaw and Channing Frye are the bigger difference makers than Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. I just don't buy into a stat that tells me those things. It's a nice little stat. Good for discussion, good for ancillary but less relevant analysis. But, I don't put great stock into how reflective it is in evaluating how good a player is.
    Actually, concept behind +/- is sound, and you can argue that the IDEAL stat for evaluating how good a player is would be a "normalized plus/minus". That is, how do the other four players play with that player versus playing any other player.

    So the problem is not that the stat depends on how his teammates play. The problem is that the stat doesn't necessarily compare the same four teammates from one player to the next.

  17. #42
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    22,190
    Obviously.

    Plus/minus is inherently flawed but do you think that it's a coincidence that almost every player that will make the All-Star team dramatically makes their better?

    I mean, look at these numbers and tell me you don't see why I'm questioning Calderon's inclusion.

    Net Plus/Minus per 100 Possessions
    LeBron James +22.4
    Baron Davis +20.7
    Dirk Nowitzki +19.2
    Antawn Jamison +19.0
    Steve Nash +18.6
    Caron Butler +17.4
    Chauncey Billups +14.5
    Kevin Garnett +13.6
    Paul Pierce +13.0
    Allen Iverson +12.6
    Chris Paul +12.5
    Tim Duncan +10.6
    Manu Ginobili +9.6
    Kobe Bryant +9.5
    Chris Bosh +9.2
    Shawn Marion +8.5
    Dwight Howard +7.3
    Amare Stoudemire +5.5
    Dwyane Wade +3.8
    Richard Hamilton +0.8
    Carlos Boozer -0.4
    Josh Smith -1.2
    Yao Ming -5.2
    Jose Calderon -7.6
    Again, first of all, I was never arguing Calderon should be in the all star game. I was arguing how relevant the +/- stat is to evaluating a player. No I don't think it's a coincidence that most all stars help make their team better. I question that the +/- stat is a true reflection of proving a player makes their team better.

    Take Brandon Roy, for example. Some NBA analysts think he should be in the discussion for league MVP with the way he's played and how well the Blazers have been so far this season. He's a -16 while his team overall is a +29. Look at the Atlanta Hawks, who have also played surprisingly well this season. Anthony Johnson is a +5 while Joe Johnson is a -32.

    As I agreed, it's not a coincidence that almost all all stars will have a good +/- stat. I just don't believe it's an end-all, be-all stat in evaluating how good a player is. The stat relies on teammates playing well while they are on the court with a particular individual player. A +/- stat might have very little to do with that individual player at all sometimes. Say some regular NBA starter has a poor +/- on an average team. Perhaps he's the best player on the team, and when he plays he's the guy, but the other starters are not that good and they are routinely outscored by the opposing team's starters. But, he routinely gets rested in the beginning of the second quarter and half way through the third quarter and the beginning of the fourth quarter. Now, his team while only being an average team in the NBA has one of the better benches in the league. And, his team's bench routinely outscores the opposing team's bench. Guess what? His +/- stat is probably not going to be very good especially compared to the team's overall +/- stat. But, that's how this particular stat can be affected not by the individual player, but by his teammates.


    If Hollinger wants to go out on a limb for a player, he should go out on a limb for a player that makes his team better. Not a player who is way worse than any other All-Star candidate he named. I could understand it if Calderon had a long resume to fall back on, but he doesn't.
    You are relying on a stat you admitted is flawed to say Calderon does not make his team better. 8.2 apg and 1.32 TO. That's an assist/turnover ratio of 6.2. That's making your team better.

    And, since TJ Ford went down and Calderon has been starting, the Raptors went on a 7 game Western Conference trip with three back-to-back sets and games against Portland, Phoenix, San Antonio, Houston, and New Orleans, and also had games against Dallas, Boston, Detroit, and Cleveland. I'm guessing most of the Raptors +/- stats started to dip during that stretch.


    And I don't think you can say plus/minus is useless when most of the leaders in the above stat will make the All-Star team. While I don't think players should be named to the All-Star game for having a good plus/minus, it's certainly a good tool to use when considering a new All-Star who doesn't play that many minutes. Even if a player is putting up gaudy offensive stats, if he's a poor defender and the team plays better without him on the court, that doesn't scream All-Star to me.
    Brandon Roy shouldn't even be closed to being considered for an all star bid then. Joe Johnson and Josh Smith have no chance. But, get Rajon Rondo and Andris Biedrins in that all star game quick.

    You see, players on good teams with great teammates that play a lot of minutes can have great +/- stats. And, some great players on bad teams might have poor +/- stats. There are other factors as well. Too many varying factors that can affect the +/- stat. That's why I don't think it's a good gauge on how good a player is.

  18. #43
    Hedo Layup Drill ShoogarBear's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    39,519
    I like the +/- stat because I think sometimes it can quantify things that are difficult to quantify. But, even over the long haul, it tends to reward players who get big minutes on really good teams.
    Of course, players who get big minutes on really good teams are by definition going to be good players.

    A very nice statistical analysis was just published (and posted here) which showed that if you want to predict wins for the 2007-2008 season, the best correlation of that will be with 2006-2007 MPG rather than 2006-2007 PER. The inference is that coaches already know who the best players are, and play them the most.

    Coaches know more than Hollinger? The you say!

  19. #44
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    22,190
    Actually, concept behind +/- is sound, and you can argue that the IDEAL stat for evaluating how good a player is would be a "normalized plus/minus". That is, how do the other four players play with that player versus playing any other player.

    So the problem is not that the stat depends on how his teammates play. The problem is that the stat doesn't necessarily compare the same four teammates from one player to the next.

    Good point. Hard to do all the number crunching of every single player with every possible group of four teammates to make it more accurate. But, the +/- stat as it is now is not an accurate enough gauge for me.

  20. #45
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    Of course, players who get big minutes on really good teams are by definition going to be good players.

    A very nice statistical analysis was just published (and posted here) which showed that if you want to predict wins for the 2007-2008 season, the best correlation of that will be with 2006-2007 MPG rather than 2006-2007 PER. The inference is that coaches already know who the best players are, and play them the most.

    Coaches know more than Hollinger? The you say!
    David Berri is cursing the very thought of this post -- anyone who thinks he or she can know what happens on a basketball court just by watching the game is absolutely clueless (at least according to Berri).

  21. #46
    Hedo Layup Drill ShoogarBear's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    39,519
    Good point. Hard to do all the number crunching of every single player with every possible group of four teammates to make it more accurate. But, the +/- stat as it is now is not an accurate enough gauge for me.
    Yeah. The other problem is that even if you could number crunch all of the five-player combinations, there's yet another level of complexity: you still haven't accounted for the opposition. If player A + 4 starters consistently go against better combinations than player B + 4 starters, then B's +/- is going to benefit.

    I wish there was a good realistic simulation game for basketball like there is for baseball. That way if you wanted to, say, determine if Tony Parker was better than Chauncey Billups, you could put Parker on the Pistons and simulate 1000 games and compare the results to those with Billups, and then do the same with the Spurs. (If you really wanted to be complete, you'd simulate Parker and Billups on ever other team in the league.)

  22. #47
    Formerly greenleo, and yes, I'm female greens's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    1,127
    I don't have a problem with the rest of his West because it's pretty straight forward. Duncan and Ginobili both deserve their spots. Parker has some tough compe ion with Paul, Nash, Davis, Williams, Roy, Iverson, etc., so it's understandable either way.

    Hollinger basically has three Spurs on his All-Star team so I can't hate on him too much. Although I'm not sure how much basketball he's watched to put Marion over Howard.


    Do you think the coaches will vote for Manu to be in the All Star? I'm just wondering what you think his chances are for making it(the missed 5 games and the finger injury stuff could have hurt his chances a bit)...But he's been absolutely awesome so far, though...I'm really hoping he does get voted in...he has only been an All Star one time, then the next two years, not included...It would be lovely if he makes it again...He definitely deserves it...

    Of course, it would be awesome to have the Big Three all in the All Star game...You know TD will be there...Tony has a tough compe ion, but he got to be an All Star the last two years...so it's all good... I think Manu definitely could use a place there this year...

  23. #48
    Veteran ManuTim_best of Fwiendz's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    8,897
    All Manu needs is to have one more crazy-ass game, or something, but he looks pretty good since he's been back, even with that splint, to continue putting up good consistent numbers.

  24. #49
    Formerly greenleo, and yes, I'm female greens's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    1,127
    All Manu needs is to have one more crazy-ass game, or something, but he looks pretty good since he's been back, even with that splint, to continue putting up good consistent numbers.
    He was especially good in the Clipper game...He seems to have gotten somewhat more comfortable with the splint...Plus, his energy is always so good...

    By the way, do you know when the coaches turn in their votes? I heard in early February?

  25. #50
    Banned
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    230
    I'm glad the only Maverick he put as an All Star is Dirk. To include Josh Howard or Jason Terry as one is absurd.

    I don't agree with Dwight Howard and LeBron James being All Stars.
    Are you serious? Josh Howard is a very very good player. Just imagine if Josh plays for Spurs.......Mavs would have NO CHANCE. Josh does lot of things well and is still improving. He can shoot jumpers very reliably, including the 3's, very good rebounder, plays within the system, and most importantly he is a very hard nosed, top defender. He would fit right into the Spurs system. In fact I would venture to say that had Spurs picked Josh instead of some other loser (was it Beno that year?) as Duncan apparently suggested, Spurs could have had another 1 or 2 les by now.

    Jason Terry is a terrific shooter....he is just a bit of a basket case and can dissappear but you can't say he isn't talented. Whether he is at Tier 1 sub is debatable but certainly he can be mentioned in that space.

    By the way, I would pick Josh Howard over Dirk as a SMALL FORWARD in the starting lineup.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •