This, according to ESPN's Chris Broussard

[Mel_13]

Bonner's floor time stats were better when paired with KT than with Duncan, Tony Parker has better floor time stats with Bonner than with TD, so who's making who look better?

he may not look pretty out there, but the team definitely plays better when he's on the court

it's really not hard to understand

in the 1900 or so minutes that Bonner was on the court, the Spurs outscored opponents by 338 points
in the 1975 or so minutes that Bonner was NOT on the court, the Spurs were outscored by 10 points

In 1413 minutes that Bonner was on the court with Tony Parker and any other three players, Spurs outscored opponents by 317 points.

In 506 minutes Bonner played without Tony Parker on the court, Spurs outscored opponents by 21 points.

[benefactor]

In 1413 minutes that Bonner was on the court with Tony Parker and any other three players, Spurs outscored opponents by 317 points.

In 506 minutes Bonner played without Tony Parker on the court, Spurs outscored opponents by 21 points.

Owned....

[z0sa]

+/- over an entire season is very telling of a player's impact, and in all honesty, just accept the fact Bonner playing means good things for this team haters.

[z0sa]

Owned....

Owned? We still outscored people without our Big 2 on the court, as long as Bonner was around. I'm not sure how Manu skews these numbers.

The fact its still positive is more evidence FOR Bonner's case, geniuses... no one is saying he's not directly affected by TP and TD, but the proof is in the pudding: good happens when Bonner is in the lineup

[coyotes_geek]

Bonner's floor time stats were better when paired with KT than with Duncan, Tony Parker has better floor time stats with Bonner than with TD, so who's making who look better?

he may not look pretty out there, but the team definitely plays better when he's on the court

it's really not hard to understand

in the 1900 or so minutes that Bonner was on the court, the Spurs outscored opponents by 338 points
in the 1975 or so minutes that Bonner was NOT on the court, the Spurs were outscored by 10 points

How many of those 1900 minutes did he play with Parker and Duncan? I agree the team plays better when he's on the court. But he spends most of his time on the court with our two best players, so it stands to reason his +/- numbers will look good.

[Mel_13]

What the +/- prove to me is that Bonner was part of the best line-up we could put out there last year. It does not mean, IMO, that playing Sheed or Dice ahead of Bonner would not improve the team.

[Mugen]

Bonner would be a great 4th or 5th big.

[Obstructed_View]

What the +/- prove to me is that Bonner was part of the best line-up we could put out there last year. It does not mean, IMO, that playing Sheed or Dice ahead of Bonner would not improve the team.

Agreed. It also means that Bonner's not as terrible as many make him out to be. He was playing out of position against bigger better players for the most part and managed not to detroy the team. Imagine how he might be able to contribute once he's back in a role that's suited for him.

[coyotes_geek]

Owned? We still outscored people without our Big 2 on the court, as long as Bonner was around. I'm not sure how Manu skews these numbers.

The fact its still positive is more evidence FOR Bonner's case, geniuses... no one is saying he's not directly affected by TP and TD, but the proof is in the pudding: good happens when Bonner is in the lineup

+/- should not be used as evidence for or against any individual player. Case in point, Richard Jefferson. He was a -104 last year. I guess the Spurs screwed up in getting him since his +/- provides pretty clear evidence that bad things happened when he was on the court.

Caron Butler's a -379. Spurs better stay clear of that guy.

[Spursmania]

I can't find any news on Sheed and the Spurs. Just a bunch of articles on SA, Miami and Boston interests in Sheed. Also, that Garnett has been bending his ear to go with Boston and they are good freinds. But I say who cares if they are good freinds? This is a business. If I was Sheed I would want to start and no amount of jokes Garnett can tell me during games would change my mind about starting.

I mean why would he want to come off the bench? Wonder when any news will break?

[vander]

In 1413 minutes that Bonner was on the court with Tony Parker and any other three players, Spurs outscored opponents by 317 points.

In 506 minutes Bonner played without Tony Parker on the court, Spurs outscored opponents by 21 points.

there's no denying that TP was our best player last year, no one is saying that we should try to unload TP. you are entirely missing the point, TP was better when Bonner was on the floor

[4RINGS]

I can't find any news on Sheed and the Spurs. Just a bunch of articles on SA, Miami and Boston interests in Sheed. Also, that Garnett has been bending his ear to go with Boston and they are good freinds. But I say who cares if they are good freinds? This is a business. If I was Sheed I would want to start and no amount of jokes Garnett can tell me during games would change my mind about starting.

I mean why would he want to come off the bench? Wonder when any news will break?

I think Sheed will string everyone around for a while. Maybe next week???

[EricB]

I can't find any news on Sheed and the Spurs. Just a bunch of articles on SA, Miami and Boston interests in Sheed. Also, that Garnett has been bending his ear to go with Boston and they are good freinds. But I say who cares if they are good freinds? This is a business. If I was Sheed I would want to start and no amount of jokes Garnett can tell me during games would change my mind about starting.

I mean why would he want to come off the bench? Wonder when any news will break?

Probobly next week.

Its getting close to a holiday weekend some some people are gonna start to hunker down for a 3 day weekend, so if nothing happens today or tommarow, expect waiting till monday or tuesday for anything to leak out on negotiations.

[z0sa]

+/- should not be used as evidence for or against any individual player.

You have to use a little sense, too. Sorry I forgot to mention that.

On a 53 win roster, Bonner had an extremely high +/-. Therefore, its clear he was a contributor to those wins.

On a disgustingly bad team, I'd be willing to bet RJ and Butler's +/- is pretty damn good in comparison with their teammates even. Additionally, you kidna expect #2 or #3 options having to carry a #1 option's load to have ty +/- numbers.

In Bonner's case, its a perfect exhibit of his contributions when used in the context it was meant to be used in. The fact Bonner still managed positive +/- numbers without TP or TD on the floor is more evidence for him, IMO.

[vander]

How many of those 1900 minutes did he play with Parker and Duncan? I agree the team plays better when he's on the court. But he spends most of his time on the court with our two best players, so it stands to reason his +/- numbers will look good.

but that doesn't explain how his +/- is the BEST on the TEAM. in order for other players to be pulling his # up, they would have to have a better +/- first.

Bonner's +/- can't pull ahead of TP or TD when he's on the court with TP or TD

another way of putting it. in most 5 man units involving Bonner, if you replace Bonner, the +/- for the unit decreases

[coyotes_geek]

You have to use a little sense, too. Sorry I forgot to mention that.

On a 53 win roster, Bonner had an extremely high +/-. Therefore, its clear he was a contributor to those wins.

On a disgustingly bad team, I'd be willing to bet RJ and Butler's +/- is pretty damn good in comparison with their teammates even. Additionally, you kidna expect #2 or #3 options having to carry a #1 option's load to have ty +/- numbers.

In Bonner's case, its a perfect exhibit of his contributions when used in the context it was meant to be used in.

Jefferson's +/- was 2nd worst on his team. Butler's +/- was the worst on his. Is it clear that those two were contributors to their team's losses? Does this data present a perfect exhibit of these player's negative contributions?

[bigdog]

I can't find any news on Sheed and the Spurs. Just a bunch of articles on SA, Miami and Boston interests in Sheed. Also, that Garnett has been bending his ear to go with Boston and they are good freinds. But I say who cares if they are good freinds? This is a business. If I was Sheed I would want to start and no amount of jokes Garnett can tell me during games would change my mind about starting.

I mean why would he want to come off the bench? Wonder when any news will break?

According to McDonald, the Spurs have already been in contact with Rasheed, but Sheed's agent hasn't confirmed it.

[z0sa]

Jefferson's +/- was 2nd worst on his team. Butler's +/- was the worst on his. Is it clear that those two were contributors to their team's losses? Does this data present a perfect exhibit of these player's negative contributions?

I'm just curious, why are you comparing #2 option players who were #1 options on ty teams to Bonner, who was at best, a #3 option at any given time, and usually the 4th option on a good team? Try finding someone with a similar role on their team to compare the numbers.

What it sounds like is you're writing +/- off altogether, which is one of the best indicators of a player's contributions over a long period of time. If you don't feel it is, sorry?

[vander]

Jefferson's +/- was 2nd worst on his team. Butler's +/- was the worst on his. Is it clear that those two were contributors to their team's losses? Does this data present a perfect exhibit of these player's negative contributions?

other factors come into play when your team sucks, such as your #1 option (who shouldn't be a #1 option) plays the first 3 quarters as the team falls behind, then other guys play in garbage time and get a few points back.

+/- requires compe ive/meaningful games

but still, that does worry me about RJ

[lefty]

Why Rasheed Wallace Would Be a Mistake for the Celtics

By Patrick Cassidy

Over on CelticsBlog, we just saw that Danny Ainge showed up on Rasheed Wallace’s doorstep last night at midnight to give Boston’s recruiting pitch to the free agent.

That pretty much tells you, just like everyone’s been talking about for the past few days, ‘Sheed is Boston’s No. 1 free agent target this offseason. On paper, a lineup of ‘Sheed, KG, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Rajon Rondo (assuming Boston can’t swing a trade to get him out of town), looks pretty solid. But there are lots of concerns.
First off, they’re old. Whether it was because ‘Sheed just didn’t care about last season or whatever, by the time the Cavs dismissed the Pistons, he didn’t look like he had much left in the tank. Would a move to Boston rejuvenate him? Maybe. But I wouldn’t be looking for a whole lot out of Wallace beyond just hanging out at the top of the key to jack threes. Another shooter helps them, but it’s not really what they need - another athletic perimeter player who can create his own shot and take some of the scoring burden off of Paul Pierce.
And how about Rasheed’s on-court antics? Even the most die-hard Detroit fan has to admit that it’s a tired act at this point. Maybe playing with KG, Pierce and Ray will chill him out a bit.
Overall, I think Boston clearly needs to get younger and faster. Remember when the Celtics’ master plan behind drafting Len Bias was that his youth and athleticism would extend the careers of Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish? Danny Ainge needs to apply that same type of thinking to this Boston team. While there’s probably nobody out there like a Len Bias, there are guys to be had. The San Antonio Spurs just pulled off exactly what I’m talking about with their acquisition of Richard Jefferson. The Spurs moved a few bit pieces for a guy who will keep their championship contender window open a few years long just by being in the mix.
A move like that makes a ton more sense than paying for a guy who might be done.





http://dimemag.com/2009/07/this-woul...r-the-celtics/

[TFloss32]

I can't find any news on Sheed and the Spurs. Just a bunch of articles on SA, Miami and Boston interests in Sheed. Also, that Garnett has been bending his ear to go with Boston and they are good freinds. But I say who cares if they are good freinds? This is a business. If I was Sheed I would want to start and no amount of jokes Garnett can tell me during games would change my mind about starting.

I mean why would he want to come off the bench? Wonder when any news will break?

I find it very encouraging that you can find news articles about all of these other teams pursuing Rasheed and other FAs, but not the Spurs. Look at how the whole Richard Jefferson thing played out...it hit us all like a brick wall and nobody saw it coming (including the media and all of these guys who are "in the know"). I'm sure the likes of Ric Bucher and Chris Broussard had no idea that was going to happen. We just have to remember that the Spurs don't play the media game and never show their cards. We won't know anything about the situation until Rasheed actually signs and talks about how it all went down (if he does come here). It's safe to say it's down to SA and Boston (even though I can't see him signing there). It sucks because we might've known something today if Boston hadn't thrown their name in the hat at the last minute.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm just curious, why are you comparing #2 option players who were #1 options on ty teams to Bonner, who was at best, a #3 option at any given time, and usually the 4th option? Try finding someone with a similar role on their team to compare the numbers.

I'm using players who are obviously better than Bonner to show why +/- is a completely meaningless method of evaluating individual players and whether or not they're having a positive impact on their team.

But if you're looking for someone who played a similar role, how about McDyess? He's -68. Played on a mediocre team. Played about the same minutes as Bonner did.

Gortat, -51 in 800 minutes. Played on a team that was better than Bonner's. Is Gortat a -51 because he doesn't help his team? Or is he a -51 because when he's on the floor Dwight Howard isn't?

Camby, -205 in 1900 minutes. Would you trade Bonner for Camby?

Haslem, +35 in 2600 minutes. Would you trade Bonner for Haslem?

The examples go on and on. +/- has way more to do with who you're on the court with than it does how productive a player you are. It's an interesting stat to know, but it's completely meaningless in terms of trying to evaluate players.

[ElNono]

Would you trade Bonner for Haslem?

I would...

[z0sa]

I'm using players who are obviously better than Bonner to show why +/- is a completely meaningless method of evaluating individual players and whether or not they're having a positive impact on their team.

But if you're looking for someone who played a similar role, how about McDyess? He's -68. Played on a mediocre team. Played about the same minutes as Bonner did.

Gortat, -51 in 800 minutes. Played on a team that was better than Bonner's. Is Gortat a -51 because he doesn't help his team? Or is he a -51 because when he's on the floor Dwight Howard isn't?

Camby, -205 in 1900 minutes. Would you trade Bonner for Camby?

Haslem, +35 in 2600 minutes. Would you trade Bonner for Haslem?

The examples go on and on. +/- has way more to do with who you're on the court with than it does how productive a player you are. It's an interesting stat to know, but it's completely meaningless in terms of trying to evaluate players.

You already made this point earlier, though I still don't understand why you're comparing players +/- from ty teams (Gortat's played 35% of the minutes Bonner did in a bench role). They're obviously going to be bad. I never denied +/- is affected by the team's efforts every nights. That's why you don't compare a 53 win who earned HC with a lottery team. In fact, +/- are meant to be used within only a certain context, like I previously proposed.

The point I'm making is that good things happen when Bonner is on the court. +/- numbers ARE a good indicator of that like you just proved. You can point to where I ever ventured outside of the parameters of this argument, instead of trying to find fault with the numbers themselves.

Your rebuttal is that he played with TP and TD, but he still posted positive numbers regardless in 500 more minutes. He can't go higher than them when he plays with them, so how did his rise so exceptionally?

[vander]

I'm using players who are obviously better than Bonner to show why +/- is a completely meaningless method of evaluating individual players and whether or not they're having a positive impact on their team.

But if you're looking for someone who played a similar role, how about McDyess? He's -68. Played on a mediocre team. Played about the same minutes as Bonner did.

Gortat, -51 in 800 minutes. Played on a team that was better than Bonner's. Is Gortat a -51 because he doesn't help his team? Or is he a -51 because when he's on the floor Dwight Howard isn't?

Camby, -205 in 1900 minutes. Would you trade Bonner for Camby?

Haslem, +35 in 2600 minutes. Would you trade Bonner for Haslem?

The examples go on and on. +/- has way more to do with who you're on the court with than it does how productive a player you are. It's an interesting stat to know, but it's completely meaningless in terms of trying to evaluate players.

Camby was actually a +7 per 48 for the clips
you might be just using on-court numbers instead of the difference between on-court and off-court

and Bonner > Mcdyess > Haslem > Gortat