matt Barnes higher plus minus than kawhi last year [Archive]

tholdren

10-13-2015, 10:44 PM

:lol

-35 vs. +22 over 7 games... We all know +/- suck but 57 differential damn... Matt could have used lube tbh

Too small sample size I went with regard season stats. 82 games bro. Sorry. If you use plus minus you have to agree Barnes is better. Sorry, that's plus minus

tholdren

10-13-2015, 10:45 PM

Lol Brazil using a 7 game sample size with plus minus. And thinking better plus minus is better than a playoff series win....

SuperCam

10-13-2015, 10:46 PM

:lol

-35 vs. +22 over 7 games... We all know +/- suck but 57 differential damn... Matt could have used lube tbh

:wow

Kiwi not doing much to shed the role player label with his atrocious preseason shooting, tbh...

Brazil

10-13-2015, 10:48 PM

Too small sample size I went with regard season stats. 82 games bro. Sorry. If you use plus minus you have to agree Barnes is better. Sorry, that's plus minus

:lol never said Barnes is a better player... Actually he is a scrub but a scrub pulling +22 while his team is -1 for the serie and kawhi is -35... 57 differential :wow ... A bit of lube would have helped tbh fwiw

Brazil

10-13-2015, 10:50 PM

Lol Brazil using a 7 game sample size with plus minus. And thinking better plus minus is better than a playoff series win....

:lol never paid too much attention but it seems what I've read in the thread about +/- is true and chinook rightly so built a new anus for you for good reason

SuperCam

10-13-2015, 10:51 PM

:lol never said Barnes is a better player... Actually he is a scrub but a scrub pulling +22 while his team is -1 for the serie and kawhi is -35... 57 differential :wow ... A bit of lube would have helped tbh fwiw

role players being taken out by scrubs :bang

Brazil

10-13-2015, 10:52 PM

:cry too small sample size tho :cry POs should last 82 games tbh with no elimination games... That would be more fair :lol

SuperCam

10-13-2015, 10:54 PM

^^^ The krew are the first to cite only games 3 and 4 of the 2014 NBA finals to justify the :cry Kiwi > bronbron :cry faggotry too :lmao

TheGreatYacht

10-13-2015, 11:08 PM

Skewed stats is the short bus way, if you bring your own stats and superior ball IQ, prepare yourself for the hurtful ":lmao French faggot" reply

DarrinS

10-13-2015, 11:13 PM

Finals MVP and DPOY and top 10 player vs scrub. You guys are pathetic.

Mikeanaro

10-13-2015, 11:40 PM

Finals MVP and DPOY and top 10 player vs scrub. You guys are pathetic.
And everything started because someone said Jimmer was an useless scrub... that ignited the fuel.

Aztecfan03

10-13-2015, 11:45 PM

Chinook says this stat means Barnes better than every spur
howbig was the difference. Barnes played more minutes so what is the plus-minus per 36 or something like that.

Mikeanaro

10-13-2015, 11:48 PM

Lol considering it was a sloppy pussy season, lots of teams were better than the 6th seeded Spurs (1st round exit) the numbers dont lie, whats the big deal?

DeRozan m8

10-13-2015, 11:54 PM

Skewed stats is the short bus way, if you bring your own stats and superior ball IQ, prepare yourself for the hurtful ":lmao French faggot" reply

Lets be honest here, it'd be good if Parker didn't fucking suck now.
We would have also won that Clippers series if he contributed just a little.

RayTdropout

10-14-2015, 12:35 AM

Whats the obsession with matt barnes on this forum. Hes a bum.

Kawhitstorm

10-14-2015, 12:54 AM

In a related news: A potato has a higher IQ than tholdren (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=29395)

Kawhitstorm

10-14-2015, 12:59 AM

Whats the obsession with matt barnes on this forum. Hes a bum.

It's their envy of Kawhi that has led them to irrationally worship Barnes, the same guy Kawhi destroyed before the Clips changed their strategy & started doubling.

Sean Cagney

10-14-2015, 02:23 AM

Shows you what a f in joke +/- stats are... Worst argument for a player imo.

spurraider21

10-14-2015, 02:54 AM

threads like this suck

100%duncan

10-14-2015, 03:17 AM

threads like this suck

When did Brazil become such a homo? Wtf brah.

TheCultOfPersonality

10-14-2015, 03:32 AM

Whats the obsession with matt barnes on this forum. Hes a bum.
I agree.

spurraider21

10-14-2015, 03:47 AM

When did Brazil (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14466) become such a homo? Wtf brah.
these threads are cancerous by nature... its the faggots who keep starting them that are the problem

:cry lol ray mccallum > parker
:cry lol barnes > kawhi
:cry lol porker
:cry lol kawhi is a role player

Brazil

10-14-2015, 07:10 AM

When did Brazil (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14466) become such a homo? Wtf brah.

:lol it is not my thread tho

Last thread I started was months ago :lol

hater

10-14-2015, 07:15 AM

Without Barnes, spurs over Clits in 5

SuperCam

10-14-2015, 10:11 AM

Without Barnes, spurs over Clits in 5

Would have been a repeat. Kiwi left yet another ring on the table, smh

FkLA

10-14-2015, 10:25 AM

these threads are cancerous by nature... its the faggots who keep starting them that are the problem

:cry lol ray mccallum > parker
:cry lol barnes > kawhi
:cry lol porker
:cry lol kawhi is a role player

Don't equate the two points, retard. Rique sucking actually has a lot of merit. Kawhi OTOH is a Top 15 (atleast) player.

DarrinS

10-14-2015, 10:33 AM

Without Barnes, spurs sweep the Clits. I've got a huge man crush on :cheer Matt Barnes :cheer (and all other SF on non-Spurs teams).

YGWHI

10-14-2015, 10:36 AM

Chinook says this stat means Barnes better than every spur

Real Plus Minus>Plus minus

So RPM can help us determine who's more valuable to his team? You know, stats don't tell the whole story but...

#1 Curry, #2 James, #3 Harden, #4 Davis, #5 Kawhi, #6 Westbrook...#45 Matt Barnes.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

YGWHI

10-14-2015, 10:38 AM

In a related news: A potato has a higher IQ than tholdren (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=29395)

Sounds legit :tu

Chinook

10-14-2015, 10:49 AM

Real Plus Minus>Plus minus

This is what the issue is. That's like saying PER>Points. Better at what? Does it make creating models to measure a player's value easier? Sure. Is it something you can put on a box score? Not in the least.

I don't know why people have a hard time understanding the difference between a datum an a statistically generated solution. A datum is only wrong if it is recorded incorrectly. A statistically generated solution can be wrong/uninformative for so many more reasons. Plus-minus is just data. RAPM, is a solution. Plus-minus is RIGHT in the sense that it is just a number that's self-evident. Solutions have to say something, so RAPM can totally be off base if it doesn't say that the statistician wants it to say.

spurraider21

10-14-2015, 11:10 AM

Don't equate the two points, retard. Rique sucking actually has a lot of merit. Kawhi OTOH is a Top 15 (atleast) player.
I'm not equating the points. I'm equating the shitty threads

YGWHI

10-14-2015, 11:10 AM

Better at what? Does it make creating models to measure a player's value easier? Sure. Is it something you can put on a box score? Not in the least.
There aren't many people who look a box score without any context today. I mean, there are a lot of fans who cares only about ppg but that number, like you say, is just a datum.

Brazil

10-14-2015, 11:12 AM

There aren't many people who look a box score without any context today. I mean, there are a lot of fans who cares only about ppg but that number, like you say, is just a datum.

Amen

Chinook

10-14-2015, 11:46 AM

There aren't many people who look a box score without any context today. I mean, there are a lot of fans who cares only about ppg but that number, like you say, is just a datum.

Yes, obviously. But it's not flawed any more than "2" is a wrong answer. It needs to be contextualized to make sense. But that doesn't make "2" somehow lacking.

It's like if you said, "Kawhi's 6-7," and someone replied with, "Yeah, so? That doesn't tell us if he's a good shot-blocker." I mean, it doesn't. But it also doesn't negate the value of knowing Kawhi's height.

HarlemHeat37

10-14-2015, 11:49 AM

Yes, obviously. But it's not flawed any more than "2" is a wrong answer. It needs to be contextualized to make sense. But that doesn't make "2" somehow lacking.

It's like if you said, "Kawhi's 6-7," and someone replied with, "Yeah, so? That doesn't tell us if he's a good shot-blocker." I mean, it doesn't. But it also doesn't negate the value of knowing Kawhi's height.

None of this changes the fact that OP claims to be a statistician, yet has no concept or understanding of how any of these numbers work, evidently..he continues to use them horribly, with no context or understanding, including using sample sizes of less than 10 games for the base of some of his arguments(in a serious manner, too)..

Making a 2nd thread to attempt to prove his point and take shots at you is what somebody having a meltdown would do, tbh..

The only argument that these anti-numbers guys make is that some of these numbers and systems have flaws aren't perfect, and then they falsely equate all systems as having the same accuracy/predictive value(which has been proven to be false, many times)..well, ya, that has never been denied by anybody:lol..

PrimeMinister

10-14-2015, 12:14 PM

MATT BARNES MATT BARNES DOES ANYONE ELSE PLAYER FAN MATT BARNES PORKER GOOD SHIT �� GOOD SHIT

FkLA

10-14-2015, 01:03 PM

I'm not equating the points. I'm equating the shitty threads

Why are the Rique threads as shitty if there's a lot of truth to what is being said in them? I don't care if it's been beaten to death. As long as he keeps sucking there's no reason why Rique sucks threads shouldn't be going up. Bonner sucks threads were going up all the time for as long as he was in the rotation and nobody complained.

spurraider21

10-14-2015, 02:00 PM

Why are the Rique threads as shitty if there's a lot of truth to what is being said in them? I don't care if it's been beaten to death. As long as he keeps sucking there's no reason why Rique sucks threads shouldn't be going up. Bonner sucks threads were going up all the time for as long as he was in the rotation and nobody complained.
Every thread you post in becomes lol Enrique. Get the French dick out your mouth. Just because something is true doesn't mean it deserves 6 threads per day. Let's also start many threads every day about Aldridge mid range jumper being good.

tholdren

10-14-2015, 04:47 PM

Yes, obviously. But it's not flawed any more than "2" is a wrong answer. It needs to be contextualized to make sense. But that doesn't make "2" somehow lacking.

It's like if you said, "Kawhi's 6-7," and someone replied with, "Yeah, so? That doesn't tell us if he's a good shot-blocker." I mean, it doesn't. But it also doesn't negate the value of knowing Kawhi's height.

Not the same thing... It is so strange that you seem smart enough to communicate yet your analogies are terrible, and you circumnavigate to try and prove an irrelevant point.

The issue, once again, is the fact that you are trying to prove PLUS MINUS shows individual worth. It does not. It has nothing to do with being a point calculated in the past. It has to do with being in a box score of other INDIVIDUAL statistics. It is misleading, and since it is published that way, it is misused because it is taken out of context.

tholdren

10-14-2015, 04:48 PM

None of this changes the fact that OP claims to be a statistician, yet has no concept or understanding of how any of these numbers work, evidently..he continues to use them horribly, with no context or understanding, including using sample sizes of less than 10 games for the base of some of his arguments(in a serious manner, too)..

Making a 2nd thread to attempt to prove his point and take shots at you is what somebody having a meltdown would do, tbh..

The only argument that these anti-numbers guys make is that some of these numbers and systems have flaws aren't perfect, and then they falsely equate all systems as having the same accuracy/predictive value(which has been proven to be false, many times)..well, ya, that has never been denied by anybody:lol..

But it does have to do with the fact that you are blatantly making up things, name-calling, and avoiding the argument....

tholdren

10-14-2015, 04:50 PM

I agree.
all the photos in your sig are of men.

Chinook

10-14-2015, 06:40 PM

The issue, once again, is the fact that you are trying to prove PLUS MINUS shows individual worth.

No. Fucking no. This is seriously your problem. Plus-minus doesn't indicate anything by itself. It's just like points. There isn't an assertion with plus-minus. It's just a fact. Jimmer was -12 against SAC. That's a fact. The question becomes why was he -12. He was -12 because he sucked. He didn't suck because he was -12. He sucked for other reasons. Nevertheless, that he was -12 is informative, just as it was informative that he scored zero points and played 11 minutes. They're just data. You put them together with constants and operators, and you create an assertion. The constants and operators you add in are subjective and are thus open to questions of bias and can be misleading. But the actual data are not, provided they were measured correctly.

Your lack of understanding when it comes to data and theory is extreme. You're trying to claim that "2" is misleading because some people might thing "2+2=5". And if you feel like that's a bad analogy, you really don't know how absurd your stance is.

tholdren

10-14-2015, 07:00 PM

No. Fucking no. This is seriously your problem. Plus-minus doesn't indicate anything by itself. It's just like points. There isn't an assertion with plus-minus. It's just a fact. Jimmer was -12 against SAC. That's a fact. The question becomes why was he -12. He was -12 because he sucked. He didn't suck because he was -12. He sucked for other reasons. Nevertheless, that he was -12 is informative, just as it was informative that he scored zero points and played 11 minutes. They're just data. You put them together with constants and operators, and you create an assertion. The constants and operators you add in are subjective and are thus open to questions of bias and can be misleading. But the actual data are not, provided they were measured correctly.

Your lack of understanding when it comes to data and theory is extreme. You're trying to claim that "2" is misleading because some people might thing "2+2=5". And if you feel like that's a bad analogy, you really don't know how absurd your stance is.

Wow. It took you 8 pages worth of still trash analogies, to finally admit I was correct in my first post. Then you go on a rant about jimmer. Are you really that stuck on trying to fit your anti jimmer agenda? Your absurdity lies in the fact that you argued incorrectly for several threads now you state I am right. Plus minus has no correlation with individual performance. Thanks for agreeing

SuperCam

10-14-2015, 07:04 PM

does dafaggot still refuse to prove he's a civil engineer? CROFL

TheGreatYacht

03-11-2016, 11:03 PM

26pts, 11reb, 10ast tonight.

Does this performance elevate him over Paul George as the 3rd best SF behind Durant and Lebron?

Kawhitstorm

03-11-2016, 11:18 PM

26pts, 11reb, 10ast tonight.

Does this performance elevate him over Paul George as the 3rd best SF behind Durant and Lebron?

All hail Matthew Barnes, he will be elevated to #1 if he can cuck Servant in the 1st rd.:worthy:

TheGreatYacht

03-11-2016, 11:20 PM

All hail Matthew Barnes, he will be elevated to #1 if he can cuck Servant in the 1st rd.:worthy:
Gasol coming back? These Memphis scrubs are playing out of their minds

Kawhitstorm

03-11-2016, 11:22 PM

Gasol coming back? These Memphis scrubs are playing out of their minds

GaSoft was holding them back, now the inmates are running the asylum (ala the "We Believe" Worriers) led by Barnes/Lance who have no fear of Servant/WestBrick.

Worriers are going to cake walk into the WCF by going through the Grizz for the 2nd year in a row.:bang

GSH

03-12-2016, 12:02 AM

The plus-minus stat is our constant reminder that Darwin was right.

tholdren

03-12-2016, 10:25 AM

Matt Barnes was only a PLUS 3 in this game

DATE
OPP
SCORE
MIN
FGM-FGA
FG%
3PM-3PA
3P%
FTM-FTA
FT%
REB
AST
BLK
STL
PF
TO
PTS

Fri 3/11

vs
NO (http://espn.go.com/nba/team/_/name/no/new-orleans-pelicans)

W 121-114 (http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828854)
44
8-19
.421
4-8
.500
6-6
1.000
11
10
0
2
5
0
26

Vince Carter, on-the-ther-hand

was a plus 9 in the same game. Vince was much more valuable. going 1 for 4. he had an assist, a steal and 5 rebounds in 11 min. Go Plus Minus!