Reply With Quote
So it's stupid to use regular +/- to judge a player's performance in a single game? Shocker
Luckily we have adjusted +/- stats that look at the entire season. Obviously still has flaws, but certainly worth looking at.
Dear Fans with Learning Disabilities in Math,
Please note that Plus Minus, has ZERO correlation to individual performance or player.
Example:
Player A is on the court for 20 minutes. In that time player A has 6 turnovers, 0/7, 0 assists, 0 rebounds, 0 blocks. During that 20 minutes the man PLAYER A is defending is the only player to score. Player A gives up 20 points during the time he was in the game. During the same time his other teammates score 30.
PLAYER A WOULD HAVE A +/- OF = +10
...........................................
Example:
Player B is on the court for 20 minutes. In that time player B has 0 Turnovers 10/10, 6 steals, 8 rebounds, and 3 blocks. During that 20 minutes the man that Player B is defending does not score, get an assist, or a rebound. Unfortunately for Player B during that 20 minutes his team was outscored 20-30.
PLAYER B WOULD HAVE A +/- OF = -10
-------------------------------------
Some of you would look at the plus minus and claim that Player A had the better game, but as you can see, this would not be the case. Plus minus has absolutely no correlation to a SINGLE PLAYER. I have no idea why/how anyone with minimal knowledge of statistics could misconstrue this statistic. The only thing that this stat would possibly do is generate questions.
STOP USING PLUS MINUS AS SOME TYPE OF EVIDENCE.
Thank You,
Mathematicians
So it's stupid to use regular +/- to judge a player's performance in a single game? Shocker
Luckily we have adjusted +/- stats that look at the entire season. Obviously still has flaws, but certainly worth looking at.
I can help you understand the premise behind stats if you want.So it's stupid to use regular +/- to judge a player's performance in a single game? Shocker
Luckily we have adjusted +/- stats that look at the entire season. Obviously still has flaws, but certainly worth looking at.
Ugh. Plus-minus isn't misleading. People choose to apply it incorrectly. It reflects reality and in large sample sizes it's pretty sound. But it only says what it says. It doesn't draw conclusions.
But Jimmer sucked subjectively, too. He earned his poor plus-minus score, just like he earned his awful net rating.
NO, it is.
It's not. That's like saying PPG is misleading because of shooting percentage. It's a basic stat that has no bias. The fact that you don't like it is completely irrelevant.
No, it's not like that at all. And what a terrible analogy. The fact remains that you cannot attribute any single fact from trash data that involves AT A MINIMUM 10 players at completely separate times, conditions, and other variables, then try to formulate what impact that player had. Even real plus minus is flawed as it is basically an estimate of an average of an estimate. And that is "REAL PLUS MINUS" not this trash at the end of box score. To use this, and state that it isn't misleading is A) ignorant and B) a lie.
b-b-but Kiwi is RPM mvp
You're mixing up misleading and misusable. Plus-minus is literally the net scoring of the teams when a player is on the floor. That is not debate able. It's not biased. However, by itself, it doesn't say how good a player is. But that stat isn't called "player value rating" or anything like that. It doesn't imply a player's worth. People imply that. But that's their fault, not the stat's.
That being said, you're arguing for noise affecting the numbers. Ignoring everything I just said for the sake of discussion, most noise goes away after you get a big enough sample size. For example, Bonner literally was a valuable asset to outscoring opponents in his prime. It's just irresponsible to dismiss it after seeing it over many thousands of minutes.
Plus-minus is measured, not determined. It reflects reality. It can only be flawed if someone measures it incorrectly. Keep it in its context, and you're golden. If you don't it loses power, but that's true of every stat.
Plus minus alone is a great tool to detect hidden performance. It can mean an average player is reaping the benefits of a better player, or that a player has non statistic superlatives. Like boban....modest points and rebounds but good plus score, and his shot altering size is the reason. There is no "made the sg put up weak in fear"stat. There is no "boxed out the best rebounder" stat. Just like Tony Parker never got credit for assists when we swung it around or Duncan took down low. Doesn't mean Parker was useless.
And that's also why I think people love Kawhi but not green. Green's defensive hustle doesn't result in stats (although his blocks are usually good). Meanwhile Kawhi gets blocks and steals. But Kawhi isn't any more important than green. (Kawhi is special b/c of his size, if there weren't other 3&d sg green would get the max too).
Im not mixing anything up. I stated plus minus cannot be used as evidence to state individual player performance. Which you just admitted to above.
Second, no sample size can ever take "noise" completely from stats based on the definition of stats itself.
Plus minus is measured, but as you state, cannot be used to determine individual performance.
I am uncertain why you even felt compelled to respond that it isn't misleading when many posters on here, when reflecting on performance, try to use this stat as a way to suggest one player performed better than another. Ironically, NBA/ESPN/etc. Throw plus minus in the box score, like it is to be used as some easily transferrable/analyzed piece of data.
Lol. got.
And here is another terrible explanation/use of plus minus. Shot alteration has nothing to do with plus minus.
Boban alters a shot and opponent scores off rebound, boban is still -2.
Score plus-minus is the most useless stat in sports but all the Kawhi haters cling on to it b/c their re ed overlord tweeted a bunch of on/off stats based on the score plus/minus thinking he was doing some high level analytical work.
It's the net scoring of teams when different lineups that include the player are on the floor. It's a lineup-based stat that has it's uses, especially when lineups are fairly consistent (which is generally the case in basketball, with the Spurs perhaps being an outlier).
Interestingly, it's value is actually diminished as a lineup stat when the lineups change a lot, but conversely, when that happens, it's value as a gauge of individual performance increases.
The nice thing about it as a lineup stat is that it can capture things like "good chemistry", which are often lost in stats based on pure raw individual numbers.
I think it's a useful stat, especially when analyzing player combinations. But like any other, it's just one more tool in the toolbox, and paints a partial picture.
there isn't a poster on SpursTalk that uses stats more incorrectly than tholdren, tbh..
This is the same poster that cited Rasual Butler's playoff PER from 7 minutes of total playing time as an argument against him, just last week..
What is this? Fantasy and fact? Boban scored 1-2 fg and had 1 rebound. His plus minus score for the game is higher, why? Shot alteration. This is an example where plus minus plus the eye test gives useful info.
Lmao of course if boban can't get rebounds his plus minus won't be great lol.
Lmao letter on the internet. Lmao hidden player fan agenda. Lmao not understanding stats?
What's the point of this thread anyway? Did plus minus hurt you recently?
a mathematician would never say something so re ed.
Of course raw +/- is flawed. But I've never seen anyone use raw +/- numbers to measure the worth of a player, especially when the sample size is small.
That's why we have real plus-minus. Of course, that isn't perfect either. But it isn't nearly susceptible to the same weaknesses you mentioned in your OP, since by definition, it works to extricate the impact of the other nine players on the floor and isolate the impact of the individual player in question.
You can argue that real plus-minus is "an estimate of an average of an estimate." But you can't argue that it suffers from the same vulnerabilities you pointed out in your OP.
Im sorry you don't understand the insanely complicated formula that is plus minus.... or that shot alteration has nothing to do with it.
You see it on here after every single game
Simmons had the highest +/- of the entire team at 18. He had 5 rebounds and 4 assists and 1 steal. Those are stats of someone who knows what he's doing. Sure he had a terrible shooting night, but he made up in all other things.
+/0 of West was -14 LMA was -21, Aldridge has Zero assists... that's a sign of a guy that is totally lost!!
I think Spurs might have acquired a very expensive catch and shoot player.
------------------
I don't like to use +/- because it's only useful across a whole season and is biased toward players on winning teams. It's only useful for comparing players on the same team (and sometimes not even that.) There are better stats to use like the adjusted +/-'s.
But that's not a flaw of the stat. It doesn't claim to do that. PPG doesn't claim say who's the best scorer, especially not based on one game. The problem is people who misuse the stat. The stat itself is just a raw number.
No. That's why we have confidence intervals. However, stats, especially counting stats, are NOT subject to noise save for recorder bias. It's the models that are subjective and have noise. Have you done statistical modeling before? You'd know the difference.Second, no sample size can ever take "noise" completely from stats based on the definition of stats itself.
Yes. By itself, it does not determine individual performance. But you can totally go, "I can see why Jimmer was -12 last game. Dude sucked balls and made everyone worse." Or you can go, "It sucks for Jimmer that he was -12 last night. He got really unlucky by being on the court for SAC making seven threes in a three-minute span." The first actually happened; the second is fabricated. But neither would be exposing a flaw in plus-minus. The stat reflected the truth of the game independent of subjective interpretation. Now if Jimmer had 3000 minutes of -12 games, you have to start wondering what's going on. No one is THAT unlucky.Plus minus is measured, but as you state, cannot be used to determine individual performance.
That's what I'm saying. The stat is misused, but it's not misleading. The fact that some people don't understand it doesn't make the stat fallable. Some people think Kobe is better than Duncan based on PPG. But that doesn't make PPG a flawed stat. It just makes those people ignorant. It's probably semantics more than anything.I am uncertain why you even felt compelled to respond that it isn't misleading when many posters on here, when reflecting on performance, try to use this stat as a way to suggest one player performed better than another. Ironically, NBA/ESPN/etc. Throw plus minus in the box score, like it is to be used as some easily transferrable/analyzed piece of data.
I don't think your stance is bad; I just think it's a little off-target. Stats are often misunderstood and misapplied. People who don't know the philosophy and formulae just throw the numbers out and make sweeping judgments. Some use descriptive stats in a prescriptive manner. Those are people being ignorant of who stats work and the difference between the stats and the interpretation of stats. Stats are just a collection of data that are possibly churned through a formula. They are what they are. And if you keep that in mind, they're useful.
+/- is only good kawhi has a net positive and Parker a net negative... It doesn't apply when kawhi is -35 and Barnes +22 for instance
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
