Game Thoughts: Spurs @ Wizards - Feb. 6

[Obstructed_View]

Whottt you bring that sarcastic yet rough edgy role of a poster to this board. I really find it interesting yet entertaining.

Hey man can it be any more obvious that you are a serious ass kisser?

[ORION]

haha ..Elson is a headless chicken

[wildchild]

I always thought Pop moving Oberto out of the starting lineup was what hurt him.

me, too. I'm getting tired of the Pop's changes in the center position. it wasn't good for the Oberto's play.
He took long time to assimilate those changes and his confidence dropped.
Just now he's in the starting lineup again and as timvp said, he is rather solid in last games.

[timvp]

So I too was impressed with this Blatche character last night. I walk over to my PC to check his line: 50% fg, 16pts 15rebs(5 offensive), 2 blocks, 1 steal, 1 ast, 2 to in 33 minutes and yet he has the second worst +/- on the team at -10?



WTF is up with that stat? People only seem to use it when it suits their purposes. Can someone explain how this stat can be useful if it seems so wrong in this instance?

Blatche played most of the game and finished with a -10 and the Wizards lost by 8. Not that drastic.

Plus, while Blatche was pretty impressive offensively, he was horrible defensively. They tried him on Duncan and Duncan literally scored every time he was matched up against him. When he was defending the jump shooters, he wasn't contesting shots. With the Wizards starting Haywood, Blatche and Jamison, that's a center and two power forwards defensively. Blatche was asked to step out and guard on the perimeter, which he showed he wasn't able to do.

+/- was never meant to be used to judge individual play on a game by game basis. People like to use it because it's a new and nifty stat...but that doesn't mean it's accurate in a single game context.

Most statisticians don't consider it an accurate measure of individual play until you have a sample size equal to two seasons worth of games....and that's taking into account that the supporting cast and minutes will be mostly the same over that period.

The supporting and opposing casts are huge factor in that number and that is the main reason it's inaccurate in a single game sample size. For example...all it takes to get a horrible +/- is for a player to be on the court while the other team makes a run and then not get any more minutes the rest of the game...due to foul trouble or a blow out etc...

There hasn't been a player born that hasn't happened to at one point or another....


Guys at the end of the bench, or without a defined role in the rotation are going to have the worst +/- on the team, and I'd be willing to bet you can see that trend on every team in the league, regardless of the differing levels of talent.


It's not meant to be used at all as a judge of individual play on a single game basis.

Don't let whottt fool you. whottt used to be a fan of plus/minus .... until I pointed out that Barry has the worst plus/minus of any player in the Duncan Era during the playoffs. Ever since then, whottt changed his tone and has gone on a rampage against plus/minus.

While I agree that plus/minus is far from a perfect stat, I do think it's a decent enough tool if you actually watch the games and factor everything else in. If you don't watch a game, plus/minus is worthless because you won't know what went into the numbers for that particular game.

But for example, last night Horry was the best player on the court for the Spurs when they made their run. He ended up with the best plus/minus on the team. Was that a fluke or was Horry rewarded for being the best player during the time the Spurs were pulling away? I think it's pretty obvious that the latter is the correct answer.

With whottt, you have to realize his arguments are either rooted in something regarding David Robinson or Brent Barry. This argument stems from me pointing out Barry's plus/minus shortcomings and whottt melting down.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

That's a sister instead of a brother, actually.

I'd hit it. /tlong

[duncan228]

I'd hit it. /tlong

Sister...not sheep.

[TwoHandJam]

Blatche played most of the game and finished with a -10 and the Wizards lost by 8. Not that drastic.

Plus, while Blatche was pretty impressive offensively, he was horrible defensively. They tried him on Duncan and Duncan literally scored every time he was matched up against him. When he was defending the jump shooters, he wasn't contesting shots. With the Wizards starting Haywood, Blatche and Jamison, that's a center and two power forwards defensively. Blatche was asked to step out and guard on the perimeter, which he showed he wasn't able to do.

...

I understand some points you are trying to make but I still find it odd that +/- ranked him as the second worst player on the entire team for that game. Stevenson and Haywood played similar minutes and were at -1 even though they both had terrible (30%) shooting percentages, less rebounds and blocked shots and Stevenson had 3 turnovers to boot.

Seeing as they (Stevenson, Haywood, Blatche) all played around 34 minutes, they must have all been on the court simultaneously a fair amount. Is +/- that heavily weighted against you when your matchup scores on you alot?

[travis2]

simply said.. you just don't around with duncan228.. got it?

At least, not unless you're married to her, I'd wager...

[travis2]

Sister...not sheep.

[duncan228]

I didn't realize that before. Thought duncan228 was a "guy". A nice guy to be sure, with very nice posts and contributions to the forum.

I have to admit, I thought the "man love" for duncan was kind of odd though...

Makes more sense now, doesn't it?

[ClingingMars]

That's a sister instead of a brother, actually.

thats what the spur is for

-Mars

[duncan228]

yes, I'm very relieved !

I think a lot of people are when they finally discover I'm not a guy. Or a "man." Or a "bro." Or a "dawg."

The list goes on...

[ClingingMars]

I'd hit it. /tlong

-Mars