Matt Bonner: +8

[superjames1992]

The master of the +/- statistic marches on, despite his zero rebounds in 16 minutes.

[Hooks]

Griffins per yesterday was -37 lmao even though he was playing extremely well.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Plus / Minus is a sham statistic that should only be taken seriously with consideration of the player, the coach, the situation.

Pop's use of Bonner has determined his +/- for years. It's a sham statistic when taken as a stand-alone statistic like points, rebounds, you know, actual tangible statistics.

Bonner is a joke. Eventually, with the added youth of this season, Pop will be forced to play him only when we need him, when we are playing a give up game with starters rested.

[Mal]

+/- could be usefull for judging star players. Guys who have impact on offense and defense. Or to determine which lineup make runs eitherway.

This stat is completly missleading for guys like Bonner. He just stay behind 3 pt line on offense, and trying to defend backup C or PF on the other side. He has zero impact , wheter +/- goes + or goes -. He`s lucky it goes + most of the time. I can tell this means he doesnt disturb other 4 guys.

[Fireball]

Playing together with Splitter for most of the game ... thats why Matty was +8

[Obstructed_View]

Playing together with Splitter for most of the game ... thats why Matty was +8

And why Splitter wasn't +30

[dunkman]

For Pop that's the only relevant stat.

[jimo2305]

The master of the +/- statistic marches on, despite his zero rebounds in 16 minutes.

off topic but when i noticed you still have that avatar.. brought me a smile :)

[maverick1948]

+/- could be usefull for judging star players. Guys who have impact on offense and defense. Or to determine which lineup make runs eitherway.

This stat is completly missleading for guys like Bonner. He just stay behind 3 pt line on offense, and trying to defend backup C or PF on the other side. He has zero impact , wheter +/- goes + or goes -. He`s lucky it goes + most of the time. I can tell this means he doesnt disturb other 4 guys.


You folks all miss the change in the game when Bonner is on the court. Why does he have a + most of the time? Because he draws a big from under the basket and opens it for the guards to drive for easy shots. When the shot is missed he has also drawn that big out of the rebound zone. Come on you folks have been Bonner haters for years. He does what he is asked and for last 3 or 4 years has done it well.

I agree that we need another big, but it wont happen until Pop RC and Holt find one. We dont have much to offer right now. That is the reason we wait until someone is out of the playoff picture then try to gain from their loss.

[sananspursfan21]

You folks all miss the change in the game when Bonner is on the court. Why does he have a + most of the time? Because he draws a big from under the basket and opens it for the guards to drive for easy shots. When the shot is missed he has also drawn that big out of the rebound zone. Come on you folks have been Bonner haters for years. He does what he is asked and for last 3 or 4 years has done it well.

I agree that we need another big, but it wont happen until Pop RC and Holt find one. We dont have much to offer right now. That is the reason we wait until someone is out of the playoff picture then try to gain from their loss.

none of us would hate him if he only averaged 10 min. a game though

[z0sa]

How does Bonner do it? Hes been the worst player on the court and somehow manages this shit.

[Obstructed_View]

You folks all miss the change in the game when Bonner is on the court. Why does he have a + most of the time? Because he draws a big from under the basket and opens it for the guards to drive for easy shots. When the shot is missed he has also drawn that big out of the rebound zone. Come on you folks have been Bonner haters for years. He does what he is asked and for last 3 or 4 years has done it well.

I agree that we need another big, but it wont happen until Pop RC and Holt find one. We dont have much to offer right now. That is the reason we wait until someone is out of the playoff picture then try to gain from their loss.

Hi, troll.

[therealtruth]

You folks all miss the change in the game when Bonner is on the court. Why does he have a + most of the time? Because he draws a big from under the basket and opens it for the guards to drive for easy shots. When the shot is missed he has also drawn that big out of the rebound zone. Come on you folks have been Bonner haters for years. He does what he is asked and for last 3 or 4 years has done it well.

I agree that we need another big, but it wont happen until Pop RC and Holt find one. We dont have much to offer right now. That is the reason we wait until someone is out of the playoff picture then try to gain from their loss.

It doesn't work that way anymore. Teams have gotten smarter. They realize they don't need to stay on Bonner but just need to close out hard on him and he'll be afraid to shoot.

[chazley]

You folks all miss the change in the game when Bonner is on the court. Why does he have a + most of the time? Because he draws a big from under the basket and opens it for the guards to drive for easy shots. When the shot is missed he has also drawn that big out of the rebound zone. Come on you folks have been Bonner haters for years. He does what he is asked and for last 3 or 4 years has done it well.

I agree that we need another big, but it wont happen until Pop RC and Holt find one. We dont have much to offer right now. That is the reason we wait until someone is out of the playoff picture then try to gain from their loss.

+1

Someone finally gets it.

[chazley]

It doesn't work that way anymore. Teams have gotten smarter. They realize they don't need to stay on Bonner but just need to close out hard on him and he'll be afraid to shoot.

No shit. That's what he just said... the big has to close on him.

[therealtruth]

No shit. That's what he just said... the big has to close on him.

It's not spacing the floor when the big gets to cheat and Bonner can't make him pay.

[Uriel]

Plus / Minus is a sham statistic that should only be taken seriously with consideration of the player, the coach, the situation.

Pop's use of Bonner has determined his +/- for years. It's a sham statistic when taken as a stand-alone statistic like points, rebounds, you know, actual tangible statistics.

Bonner is a joke. Eventually, with the added youth of this season, Pop will be forced to play him only when we need him, when we are playing a give up game with starters rested.

How can it be a sham statistic? Statistics are, by definition, purely objective means of quantifying a player's value on the court. And this one clearly indicates that Bonner is a more useful player than he's being given credit for.

Look at the evidence. Bonner's +/- isn't a fluke -- he consistently has among the highest +/- stats in the team, even when it's adjusted to take into account his teammates. So it is an indisputable fact that when Bonner is on the floor, the team is more likely to outscore the opponent than when he's on the bench. And at the end of the day, winning basketball games is contingent solely on that rationale.

You can say whatever you want about what you perceive to be his poor rebounding and defense, but when it all comes down to it, he helps this team win. And that's all that matters.

Oh, and his IQ is higher than 99% of the world population.


You folks all miss the change in the game when Bonner is on the court. Why does he have a + most of the time? Because he draws a big from under the basket and opens it for the guards to drive for easy shots. When the shot is missed he has also drawn that big out of the rebound zone. Come on you folks have been Bonner haters for years. He does what he is asked and for last 3 or 4 years has done it well.

I agree that we need another big, but it wont happen until Pop RC and Holt find one. We dont have much to offer right now. That is the reason we wait until someone is out of the playoff picture then try to gain from their loss.

Exactly. I third the motion.

[ducks]

booner iq is not higher then 99% of wolrd population

if it was he would know what postion to be in for rebounding

[Cessation]

booner iq is not higher then 99% of wolrd population

if it was he would know what postion to be in for rebounding

yes but he's in competition with hardcore ghetto blacks, so he's smart to use fake hustle

[Obstructed_View]

he consistently has among the highest +/- stats in the team, even when it's adjusted to take into account his teammates. So it is an indisputable fact that when Bonner is on the floor, the team is more likely to outscore the opponent than when he's on the bench.

Sorry, I guess I missed all the indisputable evidence that supports this. Not that I doubt you, but it would be interesting if you'd repost it for the purposes of this thread.

[ElNono]

Look at the evidence. Bonner's +/- isn't a fluke -- he consistently has among the highest +/- stats in the team, even when it's adjusted to take into account his teammates.

Baloney. Adjusting to take into account teammates makes no sense. If anything, you would adjust to take into account the opposition.

This is the worst stat ever to gauge individual performance. And the reason is mostly because there's many, much better and accurate ones.

Blake Griffin was the ONLY Clippers player playing well against us and he ended up with -37... garbage.


Oh, and his IQ is higher than 99% of the world population.

He needs a career change, then

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Um, Bonner got at least 1 rebound - I distinctly remember it. It was 4th Q, uncontested, defensive. Let's be fair! :lmao

[Uriel]

Sorry, I guess I missed all the indisputable evidence that supports this. Not that I doubt you, but it would be interesting if you'd repost it for the purposes of this thread.

Feast your eyes, and marvel at how Matt Bonner has the highest 2-yr adjusted +/- rating on the team outside of Tim and Manu.

http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2011%20playoffs&team=SAS

Be amazed at how Matt Bonner is a member of the top 6 units the Spurs could have on the floor (last year).

http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2011%20playoffs&team=SAS

I'm not a huge fan of Bonner's inability to play defense and rebound, but I try to use reason over emotion when judging the worth of a player. The evidence doesn't lie -- Matt Bonner makes this team better.


Baloney. Adjusting to take into account teammates makes no sense. If anything, you would adjust to take into account the opposition.

This is the worst stat ever to gauge individual performance. And the reason is mostly because there's many, much better and accurate ones.

Blake Griffin was the ONLY Clippers player playing well against us and he ended up with -37... garbage.



He needs a career change, then

Why doesn't it make any sense? And who said anything about individual performance? Basketball is a team game -- championships aren't won by individuals, they're won by groups. Maybe Bonner isn't the most talented player on the Spurs; heck, he probably couldn't beat any player one-on-one in the NBA. But that doesn't detract from the fact that when Bonner is on the floor in a 5-on-5 game, he unequivocally helps his team win games.

And why would having a high IQ be a basis for a career change? Can't basketball players be smart? (On a side note, one reason as to why I'm so passionate about defending Bonner is precisely because of his intelligence -- we have the roughly the same IQ, with mine being just a little bit higher).

[ElNono]

I'm not a huge fan of Bonner's inability to play defense and rebound, but I try to use reason over emotion when judging the worth of a player. The evidence doesn't lie -- Matt Bonner makes this team better.


Why doesn't it make any sense? And who said anything about individual performance?

You're saying it above.

And it doesn't make any sense, because +/- is intrinsically measured along with 9 other players on the floor. Matt Bonner doesn't play with the same 4 teammates all the time nor he plays against the same 5 team players on the other team all the time either. Which is why it's nonsensical.

The first thing you need to understand about +/- is what it was created to measure. +/- is a stat that was created in hockey to measure effectiveness of player lineups. Lineup of team A vs lineup of team B.

Using it to measure individual talent (in this case single out a player) is simply retarded, because it's a very poor stat to measure that.


Basketball is a team game -- championships aren't won by individuals, they're won by groups.

:sleep

We're discussing Matt Bonner. If you want to discuss the team, start a "Spurs +8" thread.


And why would having a high IQ be a basis for a career change?

Because he's a mediocre basketball player. He's wasting all his talent on a basketball court. Perhaps he can put his high IQ on something he doesn't suck at.

[ElNono]

Feast your eyes, and marvel at how Matt Bonner has the highest 2-yr adjusted +/- rating on the team outside of Tim and Manu.

http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2011%20playoffs&team=SAS


So you're saying Matt Bonner has been more effective or efficient than Tony Parker the last two seasons?

Then you wonder why people tell you this is a shit stat when it comes to measuring individual players?


Be amazed at how Matt Bonner is a member of the top 6 units the Spurs could have on the floor (last year).

http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2011%20playoffs&team=SAS

Should I remind you we got swept in the first round last year? Among other reasons because Ginger can't consistently make a shot when it counts nor he can guard the players he's supposed to guard on the position he's played in?

[Obstructed_View]

Matt Bonner makes this team better.

And since anyone who watches the Spurs knows that's just not true, let's delve into the numbers a bit.

The plus minus chart don't make any distinction about WHEN anything happens, just that it does. Let's suppose we have a player who can shoot three pointers, and let's say that player can hit a bunch of shots in a row during certain games, and often does so even with a big lead. Those points aren't particularly consequential to the outcome of the game since the team won by 30, but boy to they weigh his stats. Further, we see that he's most efficient when on the floor with the best players on the team. If this player has a really slow release and requires being absolutely wide open, then being on the floor with four guys who are most capable of drawing defenders and leaving him wide open is going to be the time that he shines. Having those same players understanding that they have to step up their own individual defense in order to cover for this player gives him a bump as well, though it does nothing for the long-term durability of those players or the overall health of the team.

Once again, given the averages and what we witness every game, there's a second conclusion that better fits the stats: Matt Bonner is capable of scoring points in bunches, particularly when he's got good players around him to play good defense and draw defenders.

[ElNono]

Um, Bonner got at least 1 rebound - I distinctly remember it. It was 4th Q, uncontested, defensive. Let's be fair! :lmao

He got 3!... he's now 4 boards in 4 games! Fuck yeah!

[ElNono]

And since anyone who watches the Spurs knows that's just not true, let's delve into the numbers a bit.

The plus minus chart don't make any distinction about WHEN anything happens, just that it does. Let's suppose we have a player who can shoot three pointers, and let's say that player can hit a bunch of shots in a row during certain games, and often does so even with a big lead. Those points aren't particularly consequential to the outcome of the game since the team won by 30, but boy to they weigh his stats. Further, we see that he's most efficient when on the floor with the best players on the team. If this player has a really slow release and requires being absolutely wide open, then being on the floor with four guys who are most capable of drawing defenders and leaving him wide open is going to be the time that he shines. Having those same players understanding that they have to step up their own individual defense in order to cover for this player gives him a bump as well, though it does nothing for the long-term durability of those players or the overall health of the team.

Once again, given the averages and what we witness every game, there's a second conclusion that better fits the stats: Matt Bonner is capable of scoring points in bunches, particularly when he's got good players around him to play good defense and draw defenders.

It's a terrible stat for individual performances.

Blake Griffin, 28 points, 6 boards... -37

You tell me he had a -37, and I'll tell you to go watch the game. He was the only guy that played worth a shit.

[ElNono]

Just look at tonight...

Blair 17pts, 10 board, 30 mins... -1
Bonner, 3 points, 3 rebounds, 15 mins... +17

[ElNono]

I'll give you advanced stats that tell the picture about this guy:



Regular season:
Season Age Tm Lg G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
Career NBA 499 9353 14.2 .584 .567 6.6 15.6 11.1 6.3 1.3 1.2 7.6 15.7 119 107 17.2 10.1 27.3 .140

Playoffs:
Season Age Tm Lg G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
Career NBA 32 430 8.3 .523 .490 5.9 13.7 9.8 3.1 0.9 1.1 10.7 13.5 105 110 0.2 0.3 0.5 .053



There's not a single stat. Not one. That increases for this guy between regular season and playoffs. And a bunch of them are and amazing dropoff... PER, WS bottom out when the playoffs come around.

These are advanced stats that actually measure individual performance.

[Obstructed_View]

Just look at tonight...

Blair 17pts, 10 board, 30 mins... -1
Bonner, 3 points, 3 rebounds, 15 mins... +17

That's why we don't want Blair to play 30 minutes a game. Also, he was fat last year and has no knees. Pop must see something in practice. How many fucking rings do you have, anyway, mister Smart Guy?????/?

[ElNono]

That's why we don't want Blair to play 30 minutes a game. Also, he was fat last year and has no knees. Pop must see something in practice. How many fucking rings do you have, anyway, mister Smart Guy?????/?

:lol Ahhh... practice. That's what benched Mahinmi! It wasn't that he was a scrub, it was practices!

[Uriel]

You're saying it above.

And it doesn't make any sense, because +/- is intrinsically measured along with 9 other players on the floor. Matt Bonner doesn't play with the same 4 teammates all the time nor he plays against the same 5 team players on the other team all the time either. Which is why it's nonsensical.



This is a total non-sequitur. How does a stat being "intrinsically measured with 9 other players on the floor" make the stat nonsensical? Yes, it's true that his teammates and opponents vary from game to game, but the fact of the matter is, his net +/- is consistently positive, regardless of the opponents, and regardless of the other teammates on the floor. Just look at the link I gave you.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how +/- stats can be taken out of context. What it measures is really simple -- when Player X is on the floor, does Team Y outscore its opponent, or get outscored by it? When Player X = Matt Bonner, and Team Y = the San Antonio Spurs, it's usually more of the former than the latter. And that is an indisputable fact. Put aside your biased disgust of Matt Bonner for a while and muster enough rationality to marshal the evidence.


The first thing you need to understand about +/- is what it was created to measure. +/- is a stat that was created in hockey to measure effectiveness of player lineups. Lineup of team A vs lineup of team B.

Using it to measure individual talent (in this case single out a player) is simply retarded, because it's a very poor stat to measure that.



That's why I posted a link showing the +/- of different team units on the floor. Matt Bonner is in almost all of the units with a positive +/-, including the top 6 of them. Please click that link and see for yourself. Besides, I never used it to "measure individual talent." I already conceded that Bonner was hardly the most talented player on the team. All I said was that, when he's on the floor, we're more likely to outscore our opponents. And that, again, is an indisputable fact.

Oh, and for the record, in the Jazz game today, he had a +/- of +17, the highest in the team outside of the Big 3. Again.



:sleep

We're discussing Matt Bonner. If you want to discuss the team, start a "Spurs +8" thread.



Because he's a mediocre basketball player. He's wasting all his talent on a basketball court. Perhaps he can put his high IQ on something he doesn't suck at.


Ad hominem. Non-sequitur.

You say he's a mediocre basketball player, yet you have yet to marshal a single objective piece of evidence to back up your claim that he makes the team worse. All you're doing is making assertions. How then can you expect to construct a logical argument that has any semblance of cogency?


So you're saying Matt Bonner has been more effective or efficient than Tony Parker the last two seasons?

Then you wonder why people tell you this is a shit stat when it comes to measuring individual players?



I never said that. I'm just pointing to evidence, which I noticed you haven't been doing much of lately.


Should I remind you we got swept in the first round last year? Among other reasons because Ginger can't consistently make a shot when it counts nor he can guard the players he's supposed to guard on the position he's played in?



Clearly, you did not click the link. Those stats were for the playoffs. Guess what, as much as you think Matt Bonner was destroyed by Zach Randolph, we outscored the Grizzlies when he was on the floor. This is simply amazing considering we lost 4 out of the 6 games. Again, another piece of evidence pointing to Bonner's usefulness for outscoring the opponent.

Look, when it all comes down it, this argument is really simple. I made the assertion that Matt Bonner helped us outscore our opponent, then showed evidence to support my claim.

You refuted my claim by merely dismissing it as "nonsensical" by virtue of the "intrinsic" properties of the +/- stat, yet your logic was faulty, and you gave no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion.

Now, given that, if this were a court of law, and we had a rational, objective and presumably non-racist jury, who do you think they'd vote in favor of?

[Obstructed_View]

:lol Ahhh... practice. That's what benched Mahinmi! It wasn't that he was a scrub, it was practices!

:lol The "there must be something Pop sees in practice" excuse was my favorite for not playing Mahinmi. It was so great it was recycled to explain Splitter's DNP-CDs too. I had to throw that one at you just for fun. :)

[Uriel]

And since anyone who watches the Spurs knows that's just not true, let's delve into the numbers a bit.

The plus minus chart don't make any distinction about WHEN anything happens, just that it does. Let's suppose we have a player who can shoot three pointers, and let's say that player can hit a bunch of shots in a row during certain games, and often does so even with a big lead. Those points aren't particularly consequential to the outcome of the game since the team won by 30, but boy to they weigh his stats. Further, we see that he's most efficient when on the floor with the best players on the team. If this player has a really slow release and requires being absolutely wide open, then being on the floor with four guys who are most capable of drawing defenders and leaving him wide open is going to be the time that he shines. Having those same players understanding that they have to step up their own individual defense in order to cover for this player gives him a bump as well, though it does nothing for the long-term durability of those players or the overall health of the team.

Once again, given the averages and what we witness every game, there's a second conclusion that better fits the stats: Matt Bonner is capable of scoring points in bunches, particularly when he's got good players around him to play good defense and draw defenders.

Yes, I certainly concede that the +/- stat makes no such distinction as to when the points are scored. And I do concede that this point isn't irrelevant.

But I do disagree with your assessment of Bonner. I happen to watch Spurs games as much as anyone, and I haven't gotten the impression at all that Bonner was able to inflate his +/- statistic during garbage time, or anything like that. Au contraire, I'm more inclined to believe he was one of the reasons why the team went on scoring runs that allowed garbage time to be possible in the first place.

I concede that I haven't any evidence to back up these claims, but then again, neither do you. What I do have however is the law of averages, a.k.a., regression to the mean. The fact that Bonner's +/- has been consistently positive suggests to me that the positive net +/- has been no fluke.

Which implies Bonner helps the team win games, in the sense that he helps allow us to outscore our opponent.

[Obstructed_View]

Yes, I certainly concede that the +/- stat makes no such distinction as to when the points are scored. And I do concede that this point isn't irrelevant.

But I do disagree with your assessment of Bonner. I happen to watch Spurs games as much as anyone, and I haven't gotten the impression at all that Bonner was able to inflate his +/- statistic during garbage time, or anything like that. Au contraire, I'm more inclined to believe he was one of the reasons why the team went on scoring runs that allowed garbage time to be possible in the first place.

I concede that I haven't any evidence to back up these claims, but then again, neither do you. What I do have however is the law of averages, a.k.a., regression to the mean. The fact that Bonner's +/- has been consistently positive suggests to me that the positive net +/- has been no fluke.

Which implies Bonner helps the team win games, in the sense that he helps allow us to outscore our opponent.


The law of averages doesn't really account for streaky, volume shooters with confidence issues. It would be great in this case if Matt Bonner were the type of player who shoots his average every night. If you look at his career, he'll score 14 points one night, 2 the next and then 8 and then 20 and then zero for three games. Therefore, his average has zero bearing on the outcome of many games, and his lack of production can cost wins even if his overall point total is positive.

Another factor is the way he scores. Bonner gets a bonus in that the majority of his shots are worth 50 percent more points than the majority of most players' shots, and an additional bump in the fact that the Spurs aren't very good from the line.

At least I think that's right. Brain tired. We'll talk about this later. Happy new year!

[ElNono]

This is a total non-sequitur. How does a stat being "intrinsically measured with 9 other players on the floor" make the stat nonsensical? Yes, it's true that his teammates and opponents vary from game to game, but the fact of the matter is, his net +/- is consistently positive, regardless of the opponents, and regardless of the other teammates on the floor. Just look at the link I gave you.

You still don't understand what you're talking about, which is actually the big problem here. Let's start from the beginning. What do you know about +/-? What do you think it measures? How do you think it applies to individual players?

BTW, his +/- is not consistently positive. That's a fact that's easily demonstrable (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2010120112).

What you're trying to say is that his average +/- is positive. Which really tells me nothing about Matt Bonner.


I'm sorry, but I just don't see how +/- stats can be taken out of context.

It's really easy. You're doing it right now. For example, I could say Blake Griffin had a horrible game against the Spurs, because his +/- was -37 (worst in the team). If you actually watched the game, you would know that's a factually inaccurate assertion. One only has to look at much more reliable individual stats to realize Griffin had a monster game.


What it measures is really simple -- when Player X is on the floor, does Team Y outscore its opponent, or get outscored by it? When Player X = Matt Bonner, and Team Y = the San Antonio Spurs, it's usually more of the former than the latter. And that is an indisputable fact. Put aside your biased disgust of Matt Bonner for a while and muster enough rationality to marshal the evidence.

That's not correct, and I'm seeing where the problem is.

The actual formula is: When Lineup A is on the floor vs opponent Lineup B, the point differential will get spread out in it's entirety to all members of both lineups.

So if Lineup A outscores Lineup B by 20, all members of Lineup A get +20.

Notice the lack of Player X? That's because +/- doesn't measure individual player performance. It measures entire lineup differentials.


That's why I posted a link showing the +/- of different team units on the floor. Matt Bonner is in almost all of the units with a positive +/-, including the top 6 of them. Please click that link and see for yourself. Besides, I never used it to "measure individual talent." I already conceded that Bonner was hardly the most talented player on the team. All I said was that, when he's on the floor, we're more likely to outscore our opponents. And that, again, is an indisputable fact.

But you're contradicting yourself again. You're saying you're not taking plus minus as a measure of individual talent, and then you proceed to tell me that those stats show that when his individual talent is on the floor, we outscore opponents.

Baloney. What those stats show is that certain combinations of lineups do a better job against certain other combinations of lineups presented by opponents. They don't tell absolutely anything about Matt Bonner. If you wanted to tell me more about Bonner's individual contributions, then a much more telling stat to use would be 3 PT % (even though it floors when you get to the playoffs, which has been the argument all along).


Oh, and for the record, in the Jazz game today, he had a +/- of +17, the highest in the team outside of the Big 3. Again.

Exactly. And Blair, who posted a double-double in twice the playing time, had a -1. You're making my point for me.




Ad hominem. Non-sequitur.

You say he's a mediocre basketball player, yet you have yet to marshal a single objective piece of evidence to back up your claim that he makes the team worse. All you're doing is making assertions. How then can you expect to construct a logical argument that has any semblance of cogency?

I posted actual individual stats that clearly show he's a mediocre basketball player by current measurable standards (the same stats used to measure every other basketball player in the league) It's neither and Ad hominen nor a Non-sequitur.

The logical fallacy lies on trying to build an argument on something you don't even understand how it works.

And BTW, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. We clearly disagree. I'm just stating what I think.


I never said that. I'm just pointing to evidence, which I noticed you haven't been doing much of lately.

I posted more stats about the guy and this topic in this thread than you. Do you need a link?


Clearly, you did not click the link. Those stats were for the playoffs.

Did you click the link? What do you think 1 Year Adj. +/- means?

Let me quote it for you:
1 Year Adj. +/- (Adjusted Plus-Minus)
Plus-Minus results adjusted to account for both the teammates and the opponents on the floor with a player over the course of the season. This value is based on one year of data. During the playoffs, the analysis includes the regular season as well and weights possessions in the playoffs at 2x the weight of the regular season. Additional information on how these adjusted +/- ratings are calculated has been published on 82games.com here and here.


Those stats are not the playoffs. They're a 1 year weighed average.


Guess what, as much as you think Matt Bonner was destroyed by Zach Randolph, we outscored the Grizzlies when he was on the floor. This is simply amazing considering we lost 4 out of the 6 games. Again, another piece of evidence pointing to Bonner's usefulness for outscoring the opponent.

Guess what, you didn't even know what you were looking at!

Heck, I'll give you the +/- for Matty during last playoffs:

1st game: -10
2nd game: +3
3rd game: -10
4th game: -3
5th game: 0
6th game: +8

Overall: -12 Average: -2


Look, when it all comes down it, this argument is really simple. I made the assertion that Matt Bonner helped us outscore our opponent, then showed evidence to support my claim.

But you didn't. You didn't even know what was that "evidence", what it measures and even what was that evidence based on.


You refuted my claim by merely dismissing it as "nonsensical" by virtue of the "intrinsic" properties of the +/- stat, yet your logic was faulty, and you gave no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion.

My logic was entirely faulty in thinking you knew what you were talking about. You clearly have no idea what you're even looking at.


Now, given that, if this were a court of law, and we had a rational, objective and presumably non-racist jury, who do you think they'd vote in favor of?

Just be happy this ISN'T a court of law.

[therealtruth]

The law of averages doesn't really account for streaky, volume shooters with confidence issues. It would be great in this case if Matt Bonner were the type of player who shoots his average every night. If you look at his career, he'll score 14 points one night, 2 the next and then 8 and then 20 and then zero for three games. Therefore, his average has zero bearing on the outcome of many games, and his lack of production can cost wins even if his overall point total is positive.


Bonner's streakiness drives me nuts. There's no reason to be that streaky on wide open three pointers. And that's not counting the number the amount of times he passes of the shot because of his slow release. Such streakiness can blow open games but it can also cost games.