Reply With Quote
by itself maybe, but the story it tells me is that the bench won this game.
"top performers:
Kobe Bryant: 29 Pts, 7 Rebs, 10 Assists
Tim Duncan: 20 Pts, 10 Rebs, 8 Assists
Kobe Bryant (-2)
Tim Duncan: (-8)
other notables:
Roger Mason: 18 Pts, 3-4 3Pt
(-6)
Tony Parker: 20 Pts
(-6)
Michael Finley: 3 Pts, 1-4 FG in 23 minutes
(+5)
Pau Gasol: 21 Pts, 10-14 FG
(-5)
Derek Fisher: 16 Pts, 4-4 3Pt, 0 TO
(-4)
J Powell: 6 Pts, 13 minutes
(+6)
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore...gid=2009011424
by itself maybe, but the story it tells me is that the bench won this game.
The +/- stat works much better if you look at performance over a longer period of time, like at least a month. It isn't a perfect indicator from moment to moment or game to game, but over the course of a season, it's generally a very good measurement. The numbers vary quite a bit from quarter to quarter and game to game, but in the end it is relatively rare for a good player to have a low +/-, or for a mediocre player to have a high rating. Right now, the top three Spurs in the +/- category are Ginobili, Duncan, and Parker. The top three Celtics are Garnett, Pierce, and Allen. I'd say that's pretty accurate.
if you count Finley as a bench player and Manu as a starter, then the bench scored 17 of the Spurs 112 points...
so no.
where are you looking? 82games?
at NBA.com it's Bonner, Mason, Duncan, Manu, Udoka, Parker
http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusmi...t=9&team=Spurs
the +/- stats doesn't say too much.
If you play a lot, whatever your level, in a good team, you'll have a great +/- stat. if you play a lot, even greatly, on a bad team, it will be bad in this stat.
so, basically, you can't judge a player's level thanks to this stat.
Yeah, I looked at 82games.com for the +/- stats, but I mistakenly was looking at the Roland Ratings...
The +/- stat isn't flawless by a long shot, but I just don't think it's fair to say that it's useless either. No stat is perfect, but when combined together I think stats are often a better indicator of a player's abilities than, say, general popularity or the opinions of biased fans. Though I'd agree that Bonner's number is a good example of how someone in a specific situation can get lucky and have a rating higher than his true value.
don't even pay attention to it. the +/- "stat" is as worthless as Oscar De La Hoya's boxing career now.
Never use the +/- stat to evaluate performance by itself.
But it's not a worthless stat when you analyze it in concert with the other stats.
if my mother had balls she would be my father.
I've always thought it was worthless
if you wanna count an allstar who plays at the end of games instead of the beginning part of the bench go ahead
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
