Reply With Quote
Thank you, but mat Bonner is still getting his jersey retired, nothing you can do about that
Aldridge had a great game 25pts and 11 rebounds, yet he had a -8. Pau scored 6pts and had 12 rebounds and he has a +17? WTF is that bull . The +/- doesnt really tell the whole story at all. Lonzo Ball can have a game with 3-12 fg and 0-7 3pt and have a +5.
They need to drop this +/- crap. Its worthless.
Thank you, but mat Bonner is still getting his jersey retired, nothing you can do about that
+- can't be flawed, the flowed bit is the analysis based on it.
Its flawd how you and virtually everyone else uses it. It is not an indicator of INDIVIDUAL perfomrance
I don't you use it as such. It is a fact, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to make analysis with it you need to have a very big sample size. But even then it doesn't tell X is better than Y, it tells X has had a positive/negative impact on team performance in it's current usage.
It doesnt even do what you said. So youve proven you use it incorrectly. U dumb
lebomb I did not book mark it, but I recall an NBA game where someone went like 15-20 and 90% of FTs to go with 2 steals and no turnovers and had a large -Aldridge had a great game 25pts and 11 rebounds, yet he had a -8. Pau scored 6pts and had 12 rebounds and he has a +17? WTF is that bull . The +/- doesnt really tell the whole story at all. Lonzo Ball can have a game with 3-12 fg and 0-7 3pt and have a +5.
They need to drop this +/- crap. Its worthless.
All things being equal, each player contributes to 20% of his own +/- box score. All things aren't equal, of course. Key players with the ball in their hands more will contribute a higher % to their own +/-. Guys who don't handle the ball a lot and are hid on defense will contribute less. It's a valuable statistic that is telling only over the long haul. Each individual +/- in a game can be a huge anomaly. If a very good player plays on a terrible team his entire career, his career +/- will certainly suffer. Think someone like Archie Manning, if I can switch sports for a comparison. Played his heart out, great quarterback, got beat to game after game for years. If a mediocre player plays on a dynasty team or 3 his entire career, his career +/- will be a little inflated, but not totally inaccurate.
The top 13 NBA box score +/- career leaders. I went to 13 for very obvious reasons.
1. LeBron James 9.19 2. Michael Jordan* 8.09 3. Chris Paul 7.56 4. Charles Barkley* 7.44 5. David Robinson* 7.35 6. Magic Johnson* 7.22 7. Larry Bird* 7.17 8. Russell Westbrook 6.60 9. Stephen Curry 6.50 10. James Harden 6.49 11. Clyde Drexler* 5.98 12. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 5.77 13. Tim Duncan 5.47
Huh. How flawed is a career +/- statistic? It's flawed in each and every individual game analysis, and assumptions from said analysis would be hit or miss. As the sample size gets larger, the statistic becomes less flawed.
EXACTLY!!!!! You can have a killer game contributing your ass off, and be on the floor with a scrub that s it all up. +/- is really dumb. Just ask Lebron.
Not in the long run -- especially when compe ion is equal.Aldridge had a great game 25pts and 11 rebounds, yet he had a -8. Pau scored 6pts and had 12 rebounds and he has a +17? WTF is that bull . The +/- doesnt really tell the whole story at all. Lonzo Ball can have a game with 3-12 fg and 0-7 3pt and have a +5.
They need to drop this +/- crap. Its worthless.
There's nothing worse than BPM. I use it sometimes just because the analytical virgins will reply to me with it if I don't. Only gullible idiots that believe in religion use that piece of fossilized dog .
BPM
Kyle Anderson: 3.9
Pau Gasol: 3.3
Lamarcus Aldridge: 3.1
I love your definition of "proven"
Deflection typicalI love your definition of "proven"
BPM is actually a newer stat (like much newer than RAPM and about the same age as ESPN's RPM). It's not regular plus-minus, like what this thread is about.There's nothing worse than BPM. I use it sometimes just because the analytical virgins will reply to me with it if I don't. Only gullible idiots that believe in religion use that piece of fossilized dog .
BPM
Kyle Anderson: 3.9
Pau Gasol: 3.3
Lamarcus Aldridge: 3.1
Same stupidity with different packaging
The bolded is a flawed assumption. Plus-minus itself is just a fact. Acting like it's supposed to "tell the whole story" is like saying FG% is supposed to tell the whole story. It's just a dumb assumption on your part and has nothing to do with the general viability of the metric.Aldridge had a great game 25pts and 11 rebounds, yet he had a -8. Pau scored 6pts and had 12 rebounds and he has a +17? WTF is that bull . The +/- doesnt really tell the whole story at all. Lonzo Ball can have a game with 3-12 fg and 0-7 3pt and have a +5.
They need to drop this +/- crap. Its worthless.
The Spurs outscored the Thunder by a lot when Pau was on the court and were outscored when LMA was on the court. That's true no matter which one played better. There are good explanations for it, like Pau being the only big when OKC had none of their Big Three on the court while LMA had to face OKC's starters or the team happening to hit a higher percentage of their open shots when Pau was on the floor. It's a fine critique to cite those reasons. On the aggregate, though, those things will even out.
Aldridge should be expected to have a decent plus-minus in relation to the team's margin of victory. He should not have the highest on the team (he plays too many minutes), but he should be above-average. So far, that's where he's been all year.
Not really. If anything, it would be "different stupidities with the same packaging". Numerically and philosophically, they're as different as can be.
BPM takes box score stats from an individual and team level and tries estimate player performance relative to NBA average
Yes, and general plus-minus is just a record of the point differential of a given player when that player is on the floor. The goal of BPM is to look like general plus-minus, but they are extremely different in how they are calculated and what type of arguments they are trying to make.
the name suggests, real plus-minus shares a family resemblance with the +/- stat in*the box score, which merely registers the net change in score (plus or minus) while each player is on the court.
RPM is inspired by the same underlying +/- logic: If a team outscores its opponents when a player is on the court, he's probably doing something to help his team, whether or not he's putting up big numbers.
Trying to estimate the value of individual players perfromance through averages and net score is philosophically the same, correct?
RAPM, RPM, BPM and a number of other stats like them are derivative metrics. They aren't trying to estimate general plus-minus; they are trying to "correct" it. Essentially, someone like the OP decided plus-minus was no informative enough and created a metric that would hopefully align better with our subjective ideas of who the best players were. That additional value argument is what makes those stats philosophically different from general plus-minus. The numerical different comes from the fact that general plus minus is an exact piece of data, while the other stats are estimates.
To put it another way, if in a game Curry shot 3/10 from three while Patty shot 4/6, the box score would say Curry's 3P% was .300 while Mills' was .667. No one in their right mind would say, "Man 3P% is so flawed. Curry's a way better shooter than Mills is." No one would even think about assigning a value argument or a value component to a simple descriptive metric. For some reason, however, people make this confusion with plus-minus, even though it's philosophically and numerically akin to 3P%. Neither stat is trying to 'say' anything. They are just factual records of what happened.
BPM and the like are akin to PER, win-shares and individual ratings. They are not merely records of what happened, they are mathematical arguments created by a statistician, assigning values based on how much weight the creator felt each number they get should have. They are not objective and can be wrong in a way regular stats can't be. In that way, RPM saying something like LMA is barely a net positive can be criticized for being wrong. It doesn't conform to reality, and unlike the regular plus-minus, it doesn't carry the inherent power to truth. The goal of those stats is to get a ranking of players, with the best (/ most impactful) players at the top. Therefore, it failing to do that would call the whole metric into question.
i always think of bruce bowen when it came to the +/- metric
Your explanation is exactly what makes it stupid. Who even cares. Especially when Pau is on the floor and their midgets are in.
Same family of thinking, philosophocally, as you just stated, they are trying to adjust plus minus. You wouldnt adjust anything that wasnt on similar philosphical planes. Trying to judge individual performance on a net value that takes 10 players minimum to contribute to is stupid. Which i think, after years of debate, you just confirmed
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
