Reply With Quote
Griffins per yesterday was -37 lmao even though he was playing extremely well.
The master of the +/- statistic marches on, despite his zero rebounds in 16 minutes.
Griffins per yesterday was -37 lmao even though he was playing extremely well.
Plus / Minus is a sham statistic that should only be taken seriously with consideration of the player, the coach, the situation.
Pop's use of Bonner has determined his +/- for years. It's a sham statistic when taken as a stand-alone statistic like points, rebounds, you know, actual tangible statistics.
Bonner is a joke. Eventually, with the added youth of this season, Pop will be forced to play him only when we need him, when we are playing a give up game with starters rested.
+/- could be usefull for judging star players. Guys who have impact on offense and defense. Or to determine which lineup make runs eitherway.
This stat is completly missleading for guys like Bonner. He just stay behind 3 pt line on offense, and trying to defend backup C or PF on the other side. He has zero impact , wheter +/- goes + or goes -. He`s lucky it goes + most of the time. I can tell this means he doesnt disturb other 4 guys.
Playing together with Splitter for most of the game ... thats why Matty was +8
And why Splitter wasn't +30
For Pop that's the only relevant stat.
off topic but when i noticed you still have that avatar.. brought me a smile
You folks all miss the change in the game when Bonner is on the court. Why does he have a + most of the time? Because he draws a big from under the basket and opens it for the guards to drive for easy shots. When the shot is missed he has also drawn that big out of the rebound zone. Come on you folks have been Bonner haters for years. He does what he is asked and for last 3 or 4 years has done it well.
I agree that we need another big, but it wont happen until Pop RC and Holt find one. We dont have much to offer right now. That is the reason we wait until someone is out of the playoff picture then try to gain from their loss.
none of us would hate him if he only averaged 10 min. a game though
How does Bonner do it? Hes been the worst player on the court and somehow manages this .
Hi, troll.
It doesn't work that way anymore. Teams have gotten smarter. They realize they don't need to stay on Bonner but just need to close out hard on him and he'll be afraid to shoot.
+1
Someone finally gets it.
No . That's what he just said... the big has to close on him.
It's not spacing the floor when the big gets to cheat and Bonner can't make him pay.
How can it be a sham statistic? Statistics are, by definition, purely objective means of quantifying a player's value on the court. And this one clearly indicates that Bonner is a more useful player than he's being given credit for.
Look at the evidence. Bonner's +/- isn't a fluke -- he consistently has among the highest +/- stats in the team, even when it's adjusted to take into account his teammates. So it is an indisputable fact that when Bonner is on the floor, the team is more likely to outscore the opponent than when he's on the bench. And at the end of the day, winning basketball games is contingent solely on that rationale.
You can say whatever you want about what you perceive to be his poor rebounding and defense, but when it all comes down to it, he helps this team win. And that's all that matters.
Oh, and his IQ is higher than 99% of the world population.
Exactly. I third the motion.
booner iq is not higher then 99% of wolrd population
if it was he would know what postion to be in for rebounding
yes but he's in compe ion with hardcore ghetto blacks, so he's smart to use fake hustle
Sorry, I guess I missed all the indisputable evidence that supports this. Not that I doubt you, but it would be interesting if you'd repost it for the purposes of this thread.
Baloney. Adjusting to take into account teammates makes no sense. If anything, you would adjust to take into account the opposition.
This is the worst stat ever to gauge individual performance. And the reason is mostly because there's many, much better and accurate ones.
Blake Griffin was the ONLY Clippers player playing well against us and he ended up with -37... garbage.
He needs a career change, then
Um, Bonner got at least 1 rebound - I distinctly remember it. It was 4th Q, uncontested, defensive. Let's be fair!
Feast your eyes, and marvel at how Matt Bonner has the highest 2-yr adjusted +/- rating on the team outside of Tim and Manu.
http://basketballvalue.com/teamplaye...yoffs&team=SAS
Be amazed at how Matt Bonner is a member of the top 6 units the Spurs could have on the floor (last year).
http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits...yoffs&team=SAS
I'm not a huge fan of Bonner's inability to play defense and rebound, but I try to use reason over emotion when judging the worth of a player. The evidence doesn't lie -- Matt Bonner makes this team better.
Why doesn't it make any sense? And who said anything about individual performance? Basketball is a team game -- championships aren't won by individuals, they're won by groups. Maybe Bonner isn't the most talented player on the Spurs; heck, he probably couldn't beat any player one-on-one in the NBA. But that doesn't detract from the fact that when Bonner is on the floor in a 5-on-5 game, he unequivocally helps his team win games.
And why would having a high IQ be a basis for a career change? Can't basketball players be smart? (On a side note, one reason as to why I'm so passionate about defending Bonner is precisely because of his intelligence -- we have the roughly the same IQ, with mine being just a little bit higher).
Last edited by Uriel; 01-01-2012 at 12:28 AM.
You're saying it above.
And it doesn't make any sense, because +/- is intrinsically measured along with 9 other players on the floor. Matt Bonner doesn't play with the same 4 teammates all the time nor he plays against the same 5 team players on the other team all the time either. Which is why it's nonsensical.
The first thing you need to understand about +/- is what it was created to measure. +/- is a stat that was created in hockey to measure effectiveness of player lineups. Lineup of team A vs lineup of team B.
Using it to measure individual talent (in this case single out a player) is simply re ed, because it's a very poor stat to measure that.
We're discussing Matt Bonner. If you want to discuss the team, start a "Spurs +8" thread.
Because he's a mediocre basketball player. He's wasting all his talent on a basketball court. Perhaps he can put his high IQ on something he doesn't suck at.
So you're saying Matt Bonner has been more effective or efficient than Tony Parker the last two seasons?
Then you wonder why people tell you this is a stat when it comes to measuring individual players?
Should I remind you we got swept in the first round last year? Among other reasons because Ginger can't consistently make a shot when it counts nor he can guard the players he's supposed to guard on the position he's played in?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
