Hollinger's All-Star Picks

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...llStars-080108

"Who belongs in the All-Star Game?"

It sounds so simple, but it's a more complex question than you think. Is it the 12 most valuable players so far this season? The 12 players who played the best when they were available? The 12 who contributed the most to winning teams?

That's what makes choosing a team so difficult -- the criteria is far from ironclad. But alas, it's time to make my picks, so I need something to fall back on. Here's what I always go back to: It's a game played for the fans so they can see the best players in the game.

"Best" in this case is hazily defined. I look at it in the big-picture kind of way -- not necessarily who is having the best season, although that's certainly important, but who are the best players, period. That, in turn produces a series of criteria for being on the team:


1. Small injuries don't matter. If Player A is better than Player B but missed 12 games in December with an ankle sprain, I don't care -- he's still better, he's still the one that belongs in a game designed to showcase the best players, and he's still the All-Star. With this rule comes two exceptions: (1) If it's part of a larger pattern of injuries for a given player, and (2) if the player missed such an insanely large chunk of the season that he can't possibly be chosen -- like Elton Brand, for an obvious example.

2. History matters. If Player A and Player B are having comparable seasons, but Player A is playing way better than he ever has before while Player B has played at this level the past three seasons, I'm taking Player B every time.

3. .500 is not a magical All-Star maker. Unlike the coaches, I'm not automatically rejecting players from teams with losing records. Check out the marginal All-Star players from the past few seasons and you'll find a big chunk of them were on teams that were just a game or two over .500 when the teams were named … but almost none of them were on teams that were a couple games under that threshold. Of course, there is essentially no difference between 15-17 and 17-15 at this point in the season, but tell that to the people doing the voting.

4. Seriously, is this one of the 12 best players in the conference? You'd be amazed at how often people bypass this little crosscheck, which is how people like Dale Davis and Wally Szczerbiak have made the team in years past. Always a good rule of thumb to have in your back pocket.

Additionally, let me tell you about the one rule I definitely won't be using. Known as either The Parliament Argument or The Electoral College Argument, fans and columnists the world over reflexively use this one every year, and it drives me crazy.

What I mean is people will say, "Since Boston has the best record they have to have three All-Stars" or "Portland has to have representation on the All-Star team," like we're talking about an important block of voters or something. But we should be talking about the actual players instead of how many All-Stars their constituencies deserve or how a certain team needs representation.

OK, now that we've got that out of the way, it's time to name an actual team. I'll start in the East, where despite what you see on the news there are actually 15 franchises and not two.

To start, let's begin by filling out the five-man All-Star ballot as if I had the only vote. Or as if I were a nation of 1.2 billion people that could collectively outvote everyone else. Whichever one works for you:

The Starters

Billups
Point Guard: Chauncey Billups, Detroit
This is pretty much a slam dunk. Billups is the only point guard in the East to average at least 30 minutes a game and rank in the top 50 in player efficiency rating (PER); he's ninth overall at 24.18.

He's the best player on the second-best team in basketball, his third straight season with a PER of at least 21, and his defense is nearly as valuable as his offense. Of course, in the real balloting he's nowhere close, so he'll have to be named as a sub.

Wade
Shooting Guard: Dwyane Wade, Miami
I have some misgivings about this one, because Wade clearly hasn't been himself at the offensive end this season, and because he's pretty much been a sieve on D.

But when I look at my criteria, Wade is a shoo-in. Is he one of the 12 best players in the East? Of course he is. Has he played at this level before? Duh.

Besides, who else is worthy of starting here? The next best shooting guard in the East is who? Maybe Richard Hamilton or Michael Redd? Nobody in their right mind would take either over Wade. Even in his diminished state, Wade is 12th in PER, easily the best among the East's shooting guards.

Howard
Center: Dwight Howard, Orlando
There is only one center in the East averaging at least 30 minutes a game and ranking in the top 50 in PER. That's Howard, who ranks seventh, is shooting 60.2 percent from the floor, and is the unquestioned centerpiece of the conference's third-best team.

He's as strong on D as on offense, too, making him a double no-brainer.

James
Small Forward: LeBron James, Cavaliers
He leads the league in PER, just as he did two years earlier. And in the season in between he carried a team on his back to the conference title.

James is on his way to a historic season with his averages of 29.2/7.7/7.3; needless to say, no other small forward in the East comes close to him.

Garnett
Power Forward: Kevin Garnett, Celtics
I just want to point out how inane all the things written about him in Minnesota the past several years now seem. Yes, clearly it was Garnett's fault that the team couldn't get over the hump; a better man could have turned Marko Jaric and Mark Blount into champions.

Anyway, all Garnett has done in Boston is put his new team on pace for a record win total after they won 24 games the previous season. He ranks fourth in PER and if you took a vote for Defensive Player of the Year and MVP today, he'd probably win both.

The Subs

According to All-Star rules, coaches must select two guards, two forwards and a center as the first five reserves. Then the final two spots can be filled in whatever way they deem necessary.

An important caveat to that rule is that coaches may put a player at a different position than he plays regularly for his own team, if it makes sense and is most advantageous to the conference's All-Star squad.

In other words, just because there's only one good center in the East doesn't mean I have to vote in another center who sucks.

Thank goodness.

Bosh
Backup center: Chris Bosh, Raptors
Of course, Bosh should be an All-Star based on his hilarious YouTube video alone; better yet, he has the stats to back it up.

According to 82games.com, Bosh has played more than three-quarters of his minutes in the middle this season. While you can debate who is Toronto's "centre" when Bosh and Kris Humphries are paired, the 82games.com data shows it's not really much of a stretch to list him here -- even if you consider Humphries the 5 in that alignment, nearly half Bosh's minutes have come in the pivot.

As far as his All-Star bona fides go, Bosh is an easy call. He ranks seventh among Eastern Conference players in PER despite a series of nagging injuries, and this is the third straight year he's played at this level.

Pierce
Backup forward No. 1: Paul Pierce, Celtics
Pierce's offensive numbers are plenty good, but they don't really separate him from a few other forwards under consideration here (Caron Butler, Antawn Jamison, Josh Smith, Richard Jefferson, etc.).

What puts him several notches above is his defense. He's embraced the role of being the No. 1 perimeter defender for big stretches on the league's top defensive team, making him one of the game's top two-way players this season. He passes all the other tests with flying colors, of course, as he's long been regarded as one of the East's best players, so Pierce zooms in.

Butler
Backup forward No. 2: Caron Butler, Wizards
Butler made the team a year ago, but this is easily the best he's ever played. Averaging career highs of 22.2 points, 4.6 assists, 50.4-percent shooting, and 41.4 percent on 3-pointers, he's kept the Wizards north of .500 despite the absence of high-scoring guard Gilbert Arenas.

While he might be over his head at the moment, it's not like it's a close call between him and the next guy on the list. Butler ranks sixth among Eastern Conference players in PER, and is doing it while averaging over 40 minutes a game. He'd have to cool off considerably just to make the comparison between he and the other forwards interesting.

Calderon
Backup guard No. 1: Jose Calderon, Raptors
This is probably going to shock some people, so I'll just go ahead and say it: Calderon, right now, is the third-best guard in the East.

Go ahead and laugh. Get it out of your system.

Done? Good. Now let's look at the numbers. Calderon ranks fourth among Eastern Conference guards in PER; he's a millimeter behind T.J. Ford, who is out indefinitely, and of course trails Wade and Billups.

But he's way ahead of the others. Vince Carter, Richard Hamilton and Michael Redd are eating his dust, and no other point guard in the East rates in the top 50 in PER. (If you're looking for Jason Kidd, by the way, there's more on him below.)

You might think Calderon's numbers are so good because he's been beating up on second-teamers for half the season. Actually, no: His PER has gone up since Ford went out and now is as high as it's been all season. In his 20 games as a starter, he's averaging 13.5 points, 9.9 assists, and shooting 50.0 percent from the field. The other overlooked part is that he's making only 1.5 turnovers per game.

Let me repeat that for emphasis: 9.9 assists. 1.5 turnovers.

That's amazing. To show you how amazing, let's look at a stat I keep called "pure point rating." I created it to replace assist-turnover ratio, which tends to reward point guards who never penetrate. Pure point rating produces more valid ratings of a player's ability as a distributor by rewarding production instead of just making a ratio. (If you're curious, the formula is: Pure Point = (100* ((Assists * 2/3) - Turnovers))/Minutes.)

So … care to guess who's first in pure point ratio this season? Hint: it's not Steve Nash or Chris Paul. It's Calderon, by a fair amount.

Pure Point Rating leaders
Player Ast/40 min TO/40 min Pure Point Rating
Jose Calderon 11.2 1.8 14.11
Steve Nash 14.3 4.2 13.25
Chris Paul 11.0 2.7 11.47
Brevin Knight 7.9 1.7 8.96
Jason Kidd 11.3 4.0 8.94
*Through Sunday's games

No, he's not the scoring threat that Nash or Paul are, but Calderon is insanely efficient at running the offense and makes his shots, and that makes him a far more valuable player than people realize.

As for my arguments about preferring players who have established this level of performance, Calderon has a far better case than you might think. He played fantastic last season too and had the biggest PER jump in the league, though the voters chose to pretend he didn't exist in the Most Improved Player voting.

In fact, Calderon's 2006-07 PER ranked eighth among NBA point guards, and sixth among all guards in the East. To use one All-Star competitor as an example, his mark last season was not only better than Richard Hamilton's, it would have been the best mark of Hamilton's career.

So Calderon has been better than anyone else at his position except Billups, and his performance history suggests it's either not a fluke or a very small one. He's on a team with only one other viable scorer and, thanks to his skillful playmaking, has them in the top half of the league in offensive efficiency.

So if, after all this, you think he isn't an All-Star, I have only one question. Other than saying, "He's just not what I think of when I think of an All-Star," what case is there for Jose Calderon not to be an All-Star this year?

Hamilton
Backup guard No. 2: Richard Hamilton, Pistons
I've run out of players who actually deserve to be on the team, but because this is the East we still have three spots left to fill. If life were fair we'd take the three players that are going to get screwed out West, tack them on to the end of the East roster, and call it good.

Instead, we'll spend the next several minutes sorting out questions like "Who's played worse defense, Michael Redd or Antawn Jamison?" and "Who is more likely to spend the night inexplicably settling for jump shots, Vince Carter or Josh Smith?"

Since Detroit has played so well, Electoral College proponents will make the case for Hamilton right here, but I can get there with more solid reasoning. Redd and Carter have slightly stronger statistical resumes -- both have better numbers in previous seasons and Redd has a superior PER this season. But I'll go with Hamilton by a whisker because he's been more durable than Carter and defended better than both (especially Redd), and the PER differences between the three are fairly small.

Smith
Extra Reserve No. 1: Josh Smith, Hawks
This one is a little hairy. For one, Smith isn't generally perceived as the best player on the Hawks; Joe Johnson is. That's not just from opponents, that's from coaches and teammates too. So part of me wonders if I'm violating my own rule here.

But Johnson is mired in a horrible shooting slump and is at just 40.8 percent from the field, while Smith has taken another step forward in his fourth pro season. So the other part of me wonders if this situation will look a lot different in hindsight, and if Smith is taking over as Atlanta's top weapon. What's undeniable is that Smith has been Atlanta's most effective player in the first half of the season, and his improvement is a major reason the Hawks are no longer a laughingstock.

As far as Smith's own merits, let's weigh him against the competition. Besides Smith, there are only four players in the top 50 in PER who average at least 30 minutes that I haven't already nominated: Antawn Jamison, Michael Redd, Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson.

All but Redd take a back seat to Smith in PER, and Smith has more defensive value than all of them. Admittedly, PER already takes much of that into account since his East-leading 3.2 blocks per game are part of the equation, but he's also making fewer mistakes. And the emergence of a better supporting cast has allowed us to see what a factor he can be as a weak-side specialist, similar to the way Denver uses Marcus Camby. The Hawks are in the top half of the league in defensive efficiency for the first time in eons, and Smith's blocks have been a huge part.

Additionally, while Smith has never played this well before, it doesn't seem out of line to say that this is his current ability level. He's 22 and has improved his numbers every year, and his output this season isn't much different from what he did the final two months of last season. And while I joked above about his settling for jumpers, the truth is he's doing it a lot less than he used to, and averaging seven free throw attempts a game as a result -- that's one of the big reasons he's playing better. So it's Smith by a nose here.

Jamison
Extra Reserve No. 2 -- Also Known as "Sorry, Jason Kidd took your spot": Antawn Jamison, Wizards
Right now Jason Kidd leads the fan voting at guard along with Wade, and the only guy close enough to have a reasonable chance of surpassing him is Ray Allen. While both are generally perceived as big-time stars, each has seen his numbers take a big hit this season.

Kidd has produced so many triple-doubles that a lot of people mistakenly think he's playing as well as ever, but this just isn't true. The dude won't shoot the ball anymore and rarely makes the ones he takes. He's at 36.5 percent from the floor and has lost more than two points off his 40-minute scoring average.

At the same time, he's seen a massive spike in his turnover ratio, forking it over on 14.3 percent of his possessions. Folks, that's plain terrible. Among point guards who have played at least 500 minutes, only two have a worse turnover ratio than Kidd. Scroll down to the bottom of this page to see what I mean -- it's a bunch of bad point guards and Jason Kidd. Weird, huh?

That's why despite his brilliance in the rebound and assist categories his PER is 16.91, well down from his standard of each of the past four seasons and well short of what's typically expected from an All-Star. Look at the player instead of The Legend, people -- he's still good, but he's not one of the 12 best players in the East anymore.

As for Allen, spare me the Electoral College argument. He's having his worst season as a pro and has no business being in New Orleans, 29-3 or not. His PER is behind Kidd's, and unlike Kidd he's basically a DH who has almost no defensive value.

So that leaves Jamison, Redd, Carter and Jefferson -- the four remaining East players with a PER in the top 50 who average at least 30 minutes per game. Of the four, Jefferson can't quite hang with this crowd -- even with a PER that's just a whisker short of his career best, he's more than a point shy of the others.

Thus, we're down to Jamison, Redd and Carter. Redd has the best statistical track record and the best PER, but his defense is deficient even by the standards of this list. Jamison has played the most minutes and been the most stabilizing influence, while Carter has a strong track record and has played very well after a slow start.

Really, you can't go wrong with either player (or, should I say, you can't go right -- we're talking about spot No. 12 on the East roster, and I'm not sure any of these guys could nab spot No. 20 out West). But I'll go with Jamison, because he's been so durable and consistent and ranks essentially right with the others in PER. Also, if we're giving brownie points for intangibles, I think his locker room influence has meant more in Washington than Redd's or, certainly, Carter's.

And this is an important spot, even if you allow that Kidd or Allen will win the fan voting, because inevitably one of the 12 players above is likely to be injured and miss the game. At that point, Jamison would be the replacement.

We've got the East All-Stars out of the way, so now it's time for the West -- a task that seems harder but is in many ways easier than picking the other conference. Sure, there are several worthy snubs out West, whereas in the East we had the opposite problem. But this year's Western squad almost builds itself until you get down to the final spot or two.

For those who missed it, I went over my All-Star criteria in the opening section of my East column. As with that conference, we'll start things off by picking a starting five as if I were filling out a ballot.

West

The Starters

Paul
Point guard: Chris Paul, Hornets
Some may stump for Steve Nash based on the idea that he has proved he can play at this level and Paul hasn't. But the truth is that Nash has never played quite this well. Paul would be the hands-down choice for Western Conference MVP if you handed out ballots today. He ranks second in the league in player efficiency rating (PER), first in steals, third in assists and pure point rating (see my Jose Calderon comment in the East All-Stars); Paul has his Hornets at a stunning 23-11, just a game behind Nash's Suns despite a much less imposing supporting cast.

Even if you're a skeptic and think Paul is playing over his head, consider that his PERs the past two seasons nearly matched those of Nash (Paul: 22.14 and 22.00; Nash: 23.29 and 23.87) and that he's now outplayed Nash head-to-head twice. There are a ton of great point guards in the league right now, but for this season the debate about which one is the best is pretty one-sided.

Bryant
Shooting guard: Kobe Bryant, Lakers
Another fairly obvious choice, the Kobester is actually having a slightly down year by his own lofty standards, with his PER ranking "only" 10th and a scoring average that's down nearly five points from last season. On the other hand, for a scoring guard, he's been pretty darn good defensively, and his team isn't exactly suffering from his diminished output -- L.A. has surprised many with a 21-11 start despite a tough schedule.

Besides, based on past performance, this is probably more like the floor for Bryant than the ceiling. All told, that makes him a far better pick here than the other assorted off guards (Allen Iverson, Manu Ginobili, Brandon Roy, Tracy McGrady) up for consideration.

Stoudemire
Center: Amare Stoudemire, Suns
Chide him for his periodic defensive lapses if you will, but there's no question that Stoudemire is a devastating offensive force. He ranks third in the NBA in PER and is shooting a ridiculous 58.3 percent from the field. Usually players who shoot that well are doing it with few attempts, but Stoudemire is pumping in 27.9 points per 40 minutes.

Even while averaging only 31.4 minutes per game due to frequent foul trouble, there's no question that he has been the West's most proficient center this season. In fact, his numbers are almost an exact replica of his 2004-05 stats suggesting he's finally back to his pre-microfracture self.

Duncan
Power forward: Tim Duncan, Spurs
Now that he's a forward on the ballot, we can check the box for both Duncan and Stoudemire in the starting lineup. While some may dispute his position, there's no question that Duncan is one of the five best players in the West.

He ranks eighth in the NBA in PER, and while one other West forward (Utah's Carlos Boozer) is slightly ahead of him, the glaring defensive disparity between the two more than makes up the difference.

Nowitzki
Small forward: Dirk Nowitzki, Mavericks
Yes, I'm cheating here. Dirk is mobile enough to play the 3, especially in a game like this one, and the West is overloaded with great power forwards. Additionally, we have a bit of a shortage of qualified small forwards this year, which I'll delve into further in a moment.

Nowitzki hasn't been up to his usual MVP self so far this season, but his recent play and previous track record suggest to me that it's more of a short-term blip than a new reality. Besides, it's not like he turned into Jason Collins -- even with the early slump, Nowitzki is 11th in the league in PER.

The Subs

Yao
Backup Center: Yao Ming, Rockets
Believe it or not, Yao isn't second among Western Conference centers in PER -- Al Jefferson of Minnesota is 0.20 ahead of him. Of course, Yao has four times as many wins as Jefferson and has been far more consistent with his defensive effort, so we take his candidacy a little more seriously. Though having an off-year by his own standards, shooting a career-worst 48.7 percent, Yao remains a dominant post player and an All-Star shoo-in. Not that it matters since the fans vote him in every year, and will do it again this season.

While we're on the topic, I've heard rumblings about other centers -- Marcus Camby, Tyson Chandler and Chris Kaman -- making the squad. But none of them stack up against the big boys yet. Camby is dominant on D and the boards but has essentially taken a powder on offense (seriously -- 8.9 points a game for the league's fastest-paced team? And he's not even shooting a high percentage). Chandler's offense hasn't been much better, and Kaman, though one of the league's most improved players, remains far too mistake-prone to hang with the West's elite.

Actually, the No. 3 center out West right now is probably Andrew Bynum, who has put up an impressive 21.82 PER in 28.9 minutes per game for the Lakers. It's a tough crowd out West so it will take more than that to earn him a spot, but don't be shocked if he's on the West roster a year from now in Phoenix. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program …

Nash
Backup guard No. 1: Steve Nash, Suns
Chris Paul has taken some of his thunder this season, but Nash has been the gold standard for point guard play for half a decade now and even at 33, only Paul outranks him in PER among Western Conference point guards. Throw in that he's the orchestrator for the league's most efficient offense, and that coming into 2007-08 his teams had led the league in offensive efficiency for six straight seasons, and he's a slam dunk choice.

But my favorite Nash stat is his unbelievable 63.9 true shooting percentage. Nash is hitting 51.1 percent from the field, 45.5 percent on 3s and 89.1 percent from the line, which makes it the fourth straight year that he's hit at least 50 percent from the field, 43 percent on 3s and 88 percent at the line. He's had a true shooting percentage (TS%) of 60-plus in all four seasons. Yes, the passing is brilliant, but the part everyone forgets is that this guy is the best shooter in the game.

Ginobili
Backup guard No. 2: Manu Ginobili, Spurs
Ginobili is the game's least recognized superstar. He finished ninth in the league in PER last season and is fifth this season -- yes, fifth in the entire NBA. His per-40-minute numbers are staggering: 26.4 points, 6.3 rebounds, and 5.7 assists; per minute he creates nearly as many shots as Kobe and converts a higher percentage. He's no longer just a slasher, hitting 39.3 percent on 3-pointers after making 39.6 percent a year ago, and he's also a good defensive player.

But he plays 29 minutes a game, and a lot of people look at a scoring average in the high teens and think he's a complementary player. No, no, no, no, no. Ginobili is a total freak who could get huge numbers in a different system. Coming off the bench in a small market, his contribution is vastly underestimated.

Boozer
Backup forward No. 1: Carlos Boozer, Jazz
Boozer is an overpowering force in the paint with a sweet mid-range jump shot, an almost impossible combination to defend. He's shooting 55.1 percent and ranks sixth in the league in PER, plus he's been insanely good on the glass. Jazz fans might like to see a little more D from Booz, but otherwise there's little reason for complaint. Relative to the other forwards we can consider here (Al Jefferson, Josh Howard, Shawn Marion) he's an easy pick.

Marion
Backup forward No. 2 -- also known as "Sorry, Carmelo Anthony took your spot": Shawn Marion, Suns
It hasn't been a good year for small forwards in the West. Marion, a natural small forward in theory though no longer one in practice, hasn't quite been up to his usual standard this season. Nor has Anthony -- they're 30th and 38th, respectively, in PER, after both made the All-Star team a year ago. If you consider T-Mac a small forward, he's been shelved too.

I suppose we could take yet another power forward, but the pickings have become surprisingly slim there too -- Al Jefferson has the numbers but not the D, David West hasn't quite been the equal of Marion and Howard at either end, Pau Gasol is having an off year, and Elton Brand is out indefinitely. The fact is, the West has become a guard-heavy conference.

That leaves us with Dallas' Josh Howard and Marion in a virtual dead heat for the final forward spot. Between the two I'll split hairs and take Marion. Why? Consider that this is Marion's worst PER in the past four seasons, while it's a career high for Howard, and that Howard is still barely ahead of him. In other words, it seems more likely to me that Marion will play better from here and Howard will play worse than the opposite, so if you held a gun to my head and asked "who's better?" I'd be forced to say Marion.

This will upset Electoral College proponents who feel it's more fair to have two Mavs and two Suns than three Suns and one Mav. But remember, the All-Star Game is about players, not teams.

Of course, Howard's inclusion is entirely theoretical unless his Mavs teammate Dirk Nowitzki can surpass Anthony in the fan voting. 'Melo is second among Western Conference forwards right now and though his play doesn't merit inclusion at this point, he'd effectively usurp a spot from Howard -- with so many good guards, four forwards is probably the limit out West.

Davis
Extra reserve No. 1 -- Baron Davis, Warriors
Choosing the final two spots out West is a virtually impossible task. Going by PER, the finalists are Al Jefferson (22.60) Allen Iverson (22.12), Tony Parker (22.08), Bynum (21.82) Davis (21.44), McGrady (21.40), Howard (20.70), Deron Williams (20.18) and Brandon Roy (20.00).

We can eliminate three of them right away. Bynum only plays 28.9 minutes a night, McGrady has missed a bunch of games and does this every season, and Jefferson's D isn't nearly as far along as his offense.

Great. Now we're down to six players for two spots. But if you really start splitting hairs, Davis comes out the best of this group. For starters, there's no question at all that he's the best defensive player of the bunch.

Second, he's been shockingly durable this season, playing every game while averaging nearly 40 minutes a contest. Throw in that he's already proven he can play at this high level -- actually he's been far better, as Mavs fans will attest -- and he become as easy a pick as you can make this late in the process.

Iverson
Extra reserve No. 2 -- also known as "Hopefully at least half those 1.2 billion people know T-Mac is hurt": Allen Iverson, Nuggets
McGrady is second in the fan voting for Western Conference guards at the moment, which would rob a more deserving player of a spot. However, Iverson and Nash are just over 100,000 votes behind McGrady in the balloting, and his recent injury may send a lot more votes their way.

If so, that leaves us with Iverson, Parker, Howard, Roy, and Williams to consider for the final spot on the team. If you play the "which one of these is not like the others" game, Iverson immediately moves to the forefront based on the sheer volume of his contribution. He's leading the league in minutes at a whopping 41.4 per game; that he can do this while playing at altitude for the league's fastest-paced team is staggering.

And he's playing well, too, with his numbers rebounding from last year's post-trade dip and approaching the ones he put up in his final two seasons in Philly. That's helped keep the Nuggies to first in the Northwest Division despite a rash of injuries, and gives him a leg up on the four other deserving candidates from this conference.

In case of injury: Tony Parker Spurs. Inevitably, one of the above players will be injured or otherwise unable to take part in the All-Star Game. If so, Parker is the top name on my list for subs. In truth he's had an All-Star caliber season himself, and just ends up getting hosed because there are so many good guards out West. If this were the East he'd be a no-brainer of a pick. Instead he, Howard, Williams and Roy are on the outside looking in. Them's the breaks.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

I don't agree with Dwight Howard and LeBron James being All Stars.

---

attention whore

it's weird to read Hollinger kiss Manu's ass this good...

Hollinger has way too much time on his hands.

either that or its his job to analyze the nba.

Dwight Howard and LeBron James do nothing for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

Dwight Howard and LeBron James do nothing for the game.

---

your "LOL I'M BEING DIFFERENT AND ORIGINAL BY SAYING THEY'RE UNGOOD" schtick is tired, and does nothing for this board. :downspin: :hungry: :downspin:

i'll feed you no more :oink :elephant :oink

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

Dwight Howard and LeBron James do nothing for the game.

---

:stfu

Good picks.

SpursDynasty's act is getting old.

Predicting, then changing those predictions. If you're going to stick your neck out on a prediction be man enough to face it if it fails.

Adjusting the Spurs record based on what could have been without injuries. Win/loss is win/loss. The numbers stay no matter what the reason.

Saying other teams beat us by getting lucky instead of admitting it when the Spurs play bad.

It's all old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Attention whore

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

Dwight Howard and LeBron James do nothing for the game.

---

too easy

Yet, he continues with the drivel and people keep feeding him.

Hollinger lost me at Jose Calderon. Sure, Calderon is having another good year but he's the second best point guard on his own team. I don't care how good Calderon does in the stats Hollinger invented, no GM in the league would take Calderon over Redd or Kidd. The Raptors shopped Calderon during the draft to get a lottery pick and no team bit ... and Calderon was putting up similar stats last season.

In the West, I highly disagree with Shawn Marion over Josh Howard. I'm not even convinced Shawn Marion is more deserving than Carmelo Anthony. Heck, Marion hasn't even been that much better than Grant Hill. Howard >>>>>>>> Marion.

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 competition 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.

It's hell for those WC guards. I mean if Tony Parker and Deron Williams can't make the team, then you're talking about crazy competition.

Hollinger's formulas are sometimes interesting but other times just as relevant as the ESPN cat predicting bowl winners.

I would choose Carmelo Anthony over both Marion and Josh Howard, and it's not based on team record or overall stats. I just think he's a better basketball player than both, even if some of his stats are down and if he's been in a shooting slump recently, and even if he's a punk bitch.

Jose Calderon has played well this season, and I'm not convinced TJ Ford is the better point guard, honestly. He's not better than Jason Kidd, but as Hollinger wrote, if you don't watch the Nets routinely, you are somewhat deceived by all the triple doubles Jason Kidd gets because the rest of his game has gone to shit. He will always pass well and he will always rebound pretty well especially on a team whose frontcourt sucks so bad. But, he can't shoot, even more so than before and he's gotten worse defensively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hollinger

Butler

---

At first, I thought Hollinger wanted to send Jackie at the ASG. :spin

I love Jose but even I don't think he deserves to be an All-Star.

As for Bosh, I don't know how it will work because on the ballot he is listed at PF, but he is really playing at center while they start Bargnani at "center."

The problem with his West list is that it does not include the guy who will be selected as a starter by the fans- McGrady- so that leaves one fewer spot overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinny Del Negro

either that or its his job to analyze the nba.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

It's hell for those WC guards. I mean if Tony Parker and Deron Williams can't make the team, then you're talking about crazy competition.

---

Exactly. The point guard competition is just wicked. There are a bunch of points in the West the deserve consideration. The shooting guard position is a bit weaker with Bryant, Iverson and Ginobili clearly at the head of the pack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Hollinger's formulas are sometimes interesting but other times just as relevant as the ESPN cat predicting bowl winners.

---

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.

Gotta love Hollinger's made up stats :tu

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

I would choose Carmelo Anthony over both Marion and Josh Howard, and it's not based on team record or overall stats. I just think he's a better basketball player than both, even if some of his stats are down and if he's been in a shooting slump recently, and even if he's a punk bitch.

---

There's a better argument for Anthony over Howard than Marion over Howard. The only way someone can say Marion > Howard is if they don't watch basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Jose Calderon has played well this season, and I'm not convinced TJ Ford is the better point guard, honestly. He's not better than Jason Kidd, but as Hollinger wrote, if you don't watch the Nets routinely, you are somewhat deceived by all the triple doubles Jason Kidd gets because the rest of his game has gone to shit. He will always pass well and he will always rebound pretty well especially on a team whose frontcourt sucks so bad. But, he can't shoot, even more so than before and he's gotten worse defensively.

---

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.

I like how Hollinger bashes Redd's defense but then points to Baron Davis' defense as a reason why he should make the team. Since when did Davis become a defensive stopper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

At first, I thought Hollinger wanted to send Jackie at the ASG. :spin

---

:lol

Does that Butler even play basketball anymore? I'm assuming some European teams had to take a look at him . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

I love Jose but even I don't think he deserves to be an All-Star.

---

:rollin

ploto laid some hardcore ownage on Hollinger.

Nothing quite says "All-Star" like being last on your team in plus/minus. Good call Hollinger :tu

http://www.spurstalk.com/calderowned.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

As a Pistons fan, you should be loving Hollinger right now.

---

IIRC, he guaranteed we'd win the Central. I mean 100%, come hell, injuries, high water, Bibby-to-Cavs or decent-coach-to-Bulls, every-other-team-is-mathematically-eliminated guaranteed. :dizzy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Nothing quite says "All-Star" like being last on your team in plus/minus. Good call Hollinger :tu

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

:rollin

ploto laid some hardcore ownage on Hollinger.

---

Now, Rasho on the other hand... :spin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Does that Butler even play basketball anymore? I'm assuming some European teams had to take a look at him . . .

---

AFAIK, he hasn't signed in Europe.
Some Europeans teams could have been interested in him but it's possible that Butler wasn't motivated to go overseas and to work to be in an somewhat decent basketball shape for $100K while he has still earned $6M in his career.

It's kinda sad to see talented players like Jackie Butler, Michael Sweetney or Greek Baby Shaq struggling that much to be in shape.

I don't think Stoudemire deserves to be a starter. Even Bynum > Stoudemire!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Nothing quite says "All-Star" like being last on your team in plus/minus. Good call Hollinger :tu

http://www.spurstalk.com/calderowned.jpg

---

Dwyane Wade is -82.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Dwyane Wade is -82.

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

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meta2007

I don't think Stoudemire deserves to be a starter. Even Bynum > Stoudemire!

---

freemeat has been getting a little trigger happy with the youtube vids lately.

+/- 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Bottomtooth

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by endrity

+/- 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by endrity

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by endrity

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

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.

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by endrity

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.

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 bullshit with his magical point guard rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Obviously. :rolleyes

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

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 hell you say!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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 hell 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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

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 competition 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 competition, 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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManuTim_best of Fwiendz

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

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 titles 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.

I'm sure if the "big 3" were healthy...then this article would have a different ring to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBeezie

I'm sure if the "big 3" were healthy...then this article would have a different ring to it.

---

I dunno. Outside of Spursdom, Manu and Tony aren't given their due. And there isn't a glut in really good guards in the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.

---

I look at plus/minus as a tool. It's pretty worthless by itself. But if you watch games, look at regular stats, look at splits and look at plus/minus, you can get a pretty good idea of what's happening. Plus/minus is imperfect but so is any other type of statistic. For example, you can't look at points per game or minutes per game or PER or anything else and get the whole story. But plus/minus, if used properly, has its value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.

---

Well, first of all, if an NBA analyst says Roy should be MVP, they should have their media credentials revoked.

And while Roy is playing awesome now, he had a horrible stretch earlier in the year where he shot something like 28% for a long stretch of games. During that time, his plus/minus was the worst on the team. But he turned it around and now the Blazers are winning ... and Roy's plus/minus is one of the best on the team during the win streak.

If you want to look at Roy's plus/minus on a whole, it makes sense for it to be about even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Look at the Atlanta Hawks, who have also played surprisingly well this season. Anthony Johnson is a +5 while Joe Johnson is a -32.

---

This also makes sense. Joe Johnson is a very good player but he's not a point guard. When the Hawks play him at point guard, not only does he tend to suck but the team on a whole sucks. It's been like that since he joined the Hawks. With AJ in the game, that moves Johnson to shooting guard where he's much more effective.

If you take out the time JJ spends at point, his plus/minus number looks a lot better. As it is, the Hawks are better with him in the game than they are with him out of the game -- even counting his disaster minutes at point guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.

---

Exactly. I never said plus/minus was the end-all, be-all. Nor did I say it was infallible. That's why you have to look at more than just the raw plus/minus number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.

---

Not if you are a horrible defender. Just like a gunner who scores a lot of points but gives up even more points on the other end ... the same can be true with a point guard who gets a lot of assists.

Calderon, in particular, is a well below average defender. With him on the court, the Raptors give up 111 points per 100 possessions. With him off the court, the Raptors give up 101 points per 100 possessions. That's a huge difference and that's why his plus/minus numbers have been poor all year. He was last in plus/minus when he was coming off the bench. He's last in plus/minus as a starter. Calderon's defense makes TJ Ford look like Gary Payton circa 1993.

And guess who is the best plus/minus wise for the Raptors when Calderon starts ... yep, the second and third string point guards (Dixon and Martin).

Pointing to offensive stats as "proof" that a player makes his team better is about as worthwhile as pointing to plus/minus alone as evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

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.

---

Yeah, because I've obviously been saying to use plus/minus to determine the All-Star teams.

im tired of seeing 3 suns players in the ASG...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

im tired of seeing 3 suns players in the ASG...

---

Why? They fit right in...same game plan as during the regular season.

I think this is the best chance we got to send our 3 big boyg there, I'd love to see Burce there either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

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.

---

This truly shows your ignorance of the game. You may now remain silent forever... :clap

He does it so he can piss people off, no one is that ignorant. LBJ is putting up historical numbers, and there is no big man better than Howard in the East. That is very easy to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by telecomguy

...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...

---

this is all you needed to say. damn. :bang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

im tired of seeing 3 suns players in the ASG...

---

:blah stop talking about it, probably coaches will select a 4th one :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

I look at plus/minus as a tool. It's pretty worthless by itself. But if you watch games, look at regular stats, look at splits and look at plus/minus, you can get a pretty good idea of what's happening. Plus/minus is imperfect but so is any other type of statistic. For example, you can't look at points per game or minutes per game or PER or anything else and get the whole story. But plus/minus, if used properly, has its value.

---

Pretty much what I've been saying. But, several times in this discussion, you've bottom lined your argument based solely on the +/- stat with respect to Jose Calderon.

Quote:

---

Well, first of all, if an NBA analyst says Roy should be MVP, they should have their media credentials revoked.

---

Being in the discussion for MVP and being a front runner or the top choice are two different things. Amare Stoudemire and Chris Paul will be in the discussion as well but no way either will be or should be the MVP. That doesn't mean they or Brandon Roy can't be in the discussion.

Quote:

---

And while Roy is playing awesome now, he had a horrible stretch earlier in the year where he shot something like 28% for a long stretch of games. During that time, his plus/minus was the worst on the team. But he turned it around and now the Blazers are winning ... and Roy's plus/minus is one of the best on the team during the win streak.

If you want to look at Roy's plus/minus on a whole, it makes sense for it to be about even.

---

See, here is what I don't get. You can categorize and fraction Brandon Roy's +/- stat for your argument but not for Jose Calderon. As I mentioned earlier, Jose Calderon's +/- stat has taken a sharp dip since he's been the starter after TJ Ford went down. But, look who the Raptors have been playing. The last ten games, they've played Cleveland, Detroit, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, the Clippers, and Boston. And, on that seven game western conference road trip, they had 3 back-to-back sets. The whole Raptors team, especially the starters, took huge dips in their +/- stats as the team went 3-7 in the last 10. Now, in the last 10, Jose Calderon's +/- was -72. Well, he's also the only true point guard on the team and he's been logging heavy minutes so in these losses, he's in there most of the time. But, his overall +/- is only -31. That means his +/- before the last 10 games where they've had a crazy road trip and played six of the best teams in the entire league, he was actually a +41 for his +/- stat. Why not look at that way just as you sectionalized Brandon Roy's +/- stat?

Quote:

---

This also makes sense. Joe Johnson is a very good player but he's not a point guard. When the Hawks play him at point guard, not only does he tend to suck but the team on a whole sucks. It's been like that since he joined the Hawks. With AJ in the game, that moves Johnson to shooting guard where he's much more effective.

If you take out the time JJ spends at point, his plus/minus number looks a lot better. As it is, the Hawks are better with him in the game than they are with him out of the game -- even counting his disaster minutes at point guard.

---

Don't know how to actually look at his +/- when Joe Johnson is a point guard versus a shooting guard without actually watching every single Atlanta Hawks game and do the +/- myself. So, I don't know how credible that argument is without the stats to back it up. My point still being the best player on the team doesn't necessarily have the best +/- stat and there are plenty of factors why that might be the case. And, thereby the +/- stat is not an accurate enough gauge to evaluate how good a player is.

Quote:

---

Exactly. I never said plus/minus was the end-all, be-all. Nor did I say it was infallible. That's why you have to look at more than just the raw plus/minus number.

---

But, several times in this discussion, you've bottomlined your evaluation of Jose Calderon as a bad player with only the +/- stat.

Quote:

---

Not if you are a horrible defender. Just like a gunner who scores a lot of points but gives up even more points on the other end ... the same can be true with a point guard who gets a lot of assists.

---

Lots of assists but extremely low turnovers. That's why I used assist/turnover ratio and not just assists per game. There's a difference. You know that. It shows Calderon is handling the ball A LOT, still compiling a great number of assists and not turning the ball over very much. A good point guard will have over a 2:1 assist/turnover ratio. Right now, Calderon is over 6:1. Do you realize how crazy that ratio is?

Quote:

---

Calderon, in particular, is a well below average defender. With him on the court, the Raptors give up 111 points per 100 possessions. With him off the court, the Raptors give up 101 points per 100 possessions. That's a huge difference and that's why his plus/minus numbers have been poor all year. He was last in plus/minus when he was coming off the bench. He's last in plus/minus as a starter. Calderon's defense makes TJ Ford look like Gary Payton circa 1993.

---

Don't disagree that he's a poor defender. Don't disagree that he gets beat on defense. Disagree that that fact and his +/- stat means he's a bad player. And, again, his last 10 games, he's been -72. His overall +/- stat is -31. So, before the last 10 games, his +/- was +41.

Quote:

---

And guess who is the best plus/minus wise for the Raptors when Calderon starts ... yep, the second and third string point guards (Dixon and Martin).

---

You said it yourself earlier in this thread something to the effect that +/- is not that good with a small sample. Martin and Dixon don't have a very large sample in terms of minutes played. Again, look at the competition the Raptors have played recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Darrick Martin's and Juan Dixon's +/- weren't affected by garbage minutes.

Quote:

---

Pointing to offensive stats as "proof" that a player makes his team better is about as worthwhile as pointing to plus/minus alone as evidence.

---

Assist to turnover ratio???? That has and always will be one of the best indicators of how good a job specifically a point guard makes his team better. It's not just ppg or apg. Assists versus turnovers is a great indicator of the amount of time a point guard actually handles the ball and still makes plays to help his teammates score.

The +/- stat doesn't reflect possessions when a point guard has nothing to do with scoring on offense or defense. It's based solely on scoring when a player is on the floor, even when it's not an individual player has nothing to do with the scoring. You could put Jessica Simpson at center for the Boston Celtics for 10 minutes every game and her +/- would be better than the majority of the league. It's a flawed stat and it's not much of an indicator of how to evaluate how good a player is.

Quote:

---

Yeah, because I've obviously been saying to use plus/minus to determine the All-Star teams.

---

I've written this a couple times already in this post, you've used the +/- as a bottomline stat several times in this discussion specifically to evaluate Jose Calderon as a player. And, you've specifically used his +/- stat as the primary if not sole reason why Calderon is not an all star, despite the fact that you want to generalize the +/- stat as not and end-all, be-all stat ... except for Calderon.

One other thing because I wanted to show how skewed the +/- stat can be and affected by different variables that don't truly reflect the value of a player:

Jose Calderon +/- stat
versus Boston and Phoenix (five games, four blowouts): -86
versus the rest of the league: +55

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by endrity

He does it so he can piss people off, no one is that ignorant. LBJ is putting up historical numbers, and there is no big man better than Howard in the East. That is very easy to see.

---

He doesn't piss me off..he just looks like an :donkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

I don't agree with Dwight Howard and LeBron James being All Stars.

---

Something is wrong with you. Contact your doctor ASAP.

Here is the status of the West's Center Position: Stoudemire is allowing all centers to have a happy field day and he can still be an AS starter on merit basis..Even though case can be made for Yao, Bynum and Kamman...

Marion over Antony is a joke. Marion is a good defender but he can not even create a shot for himself.

Bynum is better than stoudemire!.. and he doesnt wear diapers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Pretty much what I've been saying. But, several times in this discussion, you've bottom lined your argument based solely on the +/- stat with respect to Jose Calderon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

I've written this a couple times already in this post, you've used the +/- as a bottomline stat several times in this discussion specifically to evaluate Jose Calderon as a player. And, you've specifically used his +/- stat as the primary if not sole reason why Calderon is not an all star, despite the fact that you want to generalize the +/- stat as not and end-all, be-all stat ... except for Calderon.

---

:lol

Where have I said that Calderon shouldn't be on the All-Star team simply due to his plus/minus? Go back and read my first post in this thread. I argued against Calderon's inclusion without mentioning plus/minus. I used plus/minus as a tool to backup my original claims, therefore it was never my "bottomline" argument or whatever you are trying to paint it as. My "bottomline" argument was my original statement ... which you even agreed upon.

You are the one that is saying that plus/minus is basically worthless when trying to judge a player. I'm pointing out that if used along with other means, it has it's place. I've never claimed plus/minus to be perfect -- in this thread or anywhere else. I've also never said Calderon shouldn't make the All-Star team because his plus/minus is weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Lots of assists but extremely low turnovers. That's why I used assist/turnover ratio and not just assists per game. There's a difference. You know that. It shows Calderon is handling the ball A LOT, still compiling a great number of assists and not turning the ball over very much. A good point guard will have over a 2:1 assist/turnover ratio. Right now, Calderon is over 6:1. Do you realize how crazy that ratio is?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Assist to turnover ratio???? That has and always will be one of the best indicators of how good a job specifically a point guard makes his team better. It's not just ppg or apg. Assists versus turnovers is a great indicator of the amount of time a point guard actually handles the ball and still makes plays to help his teammates score.

---

Of course I know how great that assist to turnover ratio is. However, if you are a poor defender to the point that it offsets your offensive production, you have to take that into account. For some reason it's not clicking for you that point guards also play defense.

Hypothetically speaking, which was how this point began, a point guard could have the highest assist to turnover ration in NBA history but that could be offset by horrible defense. The same holds true for scoring, rebounding, steals or any other stat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

But, several times in this discussion, you've bottomlined your evaluation of Jose Calderon as a bad player with only the +/- stat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Don't disagree that he's a poor defender. Don't disagree that he gets beat on defense. Disagree that that fact and his +/- stat means he's a bad player.

---

:cuss :bang

How many times do I have to say he's a good player?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Calderon is having another good year

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Calderon is a pretty damn good player

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

he's a very good player

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Calderon is easily the league's best backup point guard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

As a starter, he might even be top 15.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Calderon is very good

---

Seriously, how many more times do I need to say Calderon is a very good player? Do I need to preface every Calderon comment with the fact that he's a good player?

Bottomline is Jose Calderon, who is a very good player, shouldn't be named to the All-Star team over players like Jason Kidd and Michael Redd because although he's a very good player, it's questionable whether he's in fact the best point guard on his team, whether his defense is All-Star level and whether his overall impact on a game is that of an All-Star. That said, Jose Calderon is a very good player, whether he's named to the All-Star team or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

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?

---

well derrick martin is 2nd in the list and is +60 almost
does that mean hes better than Jose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan0728

well derrick martin is 2nd in the list
does that mean hes an all star?

---

:smchode:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

:smchode:

---

edit**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by howbouthemspurs

Bynum is better than stoudemire!.. and he doesnt wear diapers!

---

You're right about that. He prefers tampoons.

timvp,

You're right, after re-reading the thread, I mischaracterized what you wrote. You didn't say it several times. But, this one post does essentially bottom lines your point that Calderon doesn't deserve to be an all star because of the +/- stat. It was this only one time. I mistakenly thought you made that point more than once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Nothing quite says "All-Star" like being last on your team in plus/minus. Good call Hollinger :tu

http://www.spurstalk.com/calderowned.jpg

---

And, if you re-read what I've posted, I didn't argue for Jose Calderon to be an all star. Once you brought up the +/- stat, I simply argued how irrelevant that stat was in evaluating how good a player is. You're right that you never said Calderon was a bad player. But, you did criticize his game by using the +/- stat. And, I simply argue against ever using the +/- stat in rating players, even if not used alone. I think it's an inaccurate indicator because it can be affected by different variables that don't necessarily have to deal with that individual player and his performance. It's affected by things you can't necessarily see by just looking at the stat sheet without looking deeper or watching the actual games.

For example, since I looked at quite a bit of Calderon's stats, one of his worst +/- games was a -27 effort against Boston. The Raps lost by 28, so -28 for the team. Chris Bosh missed the game. The +/- season total won't tell you that. No surprise the Celts blowout the Raps without Bosh starting? And no surprise the Celts starters crush the Raps starters without Bosh? In another poor +/- game against Phoenix, Calderon shot the ball well while the guy he guarded, Nash, struggled shooting the ball. But, the turning point in a still close game was when Chris Bosh got his 3rd foul and Sam Mitchell subbed Bosh with Jason Kapono. The Suns quickly went on a 13-6 run to end the 3rd quarter, went up 20 and put the game out of reach. But, these are things you don't see just looking at the individual +/- stat and the team's overall +/- stat. Calderon's +/- took a serious hit by those two things, Bosh missing a game and a coaching substitution. Those 2 things alone make up -34 of Calderon's overall -31 +/- stat.

There are other things that affect individual +/- stats like garbage minutes. Juan Dixon had a +8 in the final 3:19 of a blowout even though the game was decided and scrubs were playing for both teams. As far as I know, we can't take out the garbage time that affects the +/- stat to make the +/- stat a more true player evaluator. Similarly, Darrick Martin had a +20 game in a 16 point win against Dallas in a game where Devin Harris was out so Jason Terry started and Stackhouse and Brandon Bass went 1-for-13 from the field so the bench was horrible. Darrick Martin's performance didn't really warrant a +20 stat but because Dallas bench was so bad, his +/- was unbelievable.


You were right about Jose Calderon and I apologize for misquoting you or misrepresenting what I perceived you wrote. And, I agree he doesn't deserve to be an all star over players like Kidd or Redd.

But, I do still find the +/- stat worthless even if it's used along with other stats because it carries too many flaws to be an accurate enough player evaluator.

Alright, cool. It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems that we agree that Calderon hasn't yet earned an All-Star nod. However, this seems to be the point of contention:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

But, I do still find the +/- stat worthless even if it's used along with other stats because it carries too many flaws to be an accurate enough player evaluator.

---

I simply can't agree that plus/minus is a 100% worthless stat. I think when used correctly, it's actually highly valuable. In fact, the Spurs use plus/minus as a tool during individual games -- which is perhaps the most extreme use of plus/minus.

I do think that traditional statistics and scouting are more valuable than plus/minus, but I also think that plus/minus has its place.

Anyways, you made some good points. That's why I like Piston Fan :tu






P.S.

That one and a half sentence plus emoticon you quoted was just some sarcasm to introduce my screen capture. I was trying to take a shot at Hollinger, not the very good point guard in question :)