Kobe is the 19th least valuable player in the NBA

[Erick Blasco]

There's a tiny sample size, so deviation errors are substantial, but I think it's kind of funny that Kobe Bryant according to adjusted +/- is currently the 19th worst player in the league, a touch worse than John Wall, and a hair better than Keith Bogans.

 

Al Jefferson is third, Ray Felton is fourth, while Darren Collison and T.J. Ford are one and two (should the Pacers play without a point guard)

 

The Marco Belineli/Trevor Ariza duo has been awful for the Hornets, while Travis Outlaw's deviation error is low enough to see that he's genuinely been terrible. Good friend Ron Artest has been about as bad as Kobe.

 

On the other side Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki are one and three in best adjusted +/-. Who's second...Chris Bosh? Pau Gasol, Landry Fields, and LaMarcus Aldridge have some great numbers, as do a pair of superstar point guards, Chris Paul and Keyon Dooling. Of players on the Heat, Dwyane Wade has a bad, but not terrible adjusted +/-, while Carlos Arroyo's numbers truly are terrible.

 

Have a look!

 

And don't take things too seriously. Sample size is still small.

 

http://basketballvalue.com/topplayers.php?year=2010-2011&mode=summary&sortnumber=94&sortorder=ASC

[Hawks Fly High]

+/- is a very innacurate stat and misleading. Wasn't varejao the best +/- player last year anyway?

[Lkr]

Even if he is 19th worst in +/-, that still doesn't make him the 19th least valuable player in the league...

[alcstarheel]

Specificty in what you're calling "value" would clear up what the title and topic is about.

 

If you're going by percentage of team's points I'm sure he's on the other side of the value scale.

 

Seeing the title I personally thought it was involving monetary metrics.

 

End of post using unnecessarily lengthy words.

[Makaveli]

No offense, but the +/- stat is probably the most inaccurate thing to look at in basketball statistics.

[Real Deal]

As stated many times before, the +/- statistic takes into account all players on the court with said player. Worst statistic out there.

 

Best players on each team, according to the +/- statistic...

 

Atlanta - Bibby (Johnson second worst)

Boston - Garnett (Rondo, Allen bottom four)

Charlotte - Wallace (S-Jax worst)

Chicago - Rose (Asik third best, over Boozer)

Cleveland - Varejao (Mo, Hickson bottom three)

Dallas - Dirk

Denver - Nene (Afflalo bottom two)

Detroit - Stuckey (Prince, Rip bottom four)

Golden State - Curry (Monta 4th, Lee 5th)

Houston - Scola (Martin, Hill bottom four)

Indiana - Dunleavy (McRoberts and Hansbrough over Granger, Collison last)

LA Clippers - Aminu (Smith over Griffin, Gordon 7th)

LA Lakers - Gasol (Kobe last)

Memphis - nobody, because the site forgot they had a team

Miami - Bosh (LeBron 4th, Wade 7th)

Milwaukee - Dooling

Minnesota - Tolliver (Beasley 5th, Darko second to last)

New Jersey - Lopez

New Orleans - CP3 (Jason "Boss" Smith 3rd)

New York - Fields (Amare 6th, Felton last)

Oklahoma City - Sefolosha (yes, over Westbrook and Durant)

Orlando - Carter (Bass 2nd, Howard 3rd, Nelson bottom three)

Philly - Holiday (Iggy 5th, Brand 7th)

Phoenix - Nash (J-Rich last)

Portland - Aldridge (Matthews and Batum bottom two)

Sacramento - Head (Evans 5th, Landry and Cousins last)

San Antonio - Ginobili (Parker 4th, Duncan 5th, Jefferson 6th)

Toronto - Johnson (DeRozan bottom four, Bargnani last, Kleiza 2nd)

Utah - Miles (Deron 3rd, Kirilenko 6th, Jefferson last)

Washington - Booker (Wall worst)

 

Worst thing I've ever seen.

[Erick Blasco]

As stated many times before, the +/- statistic takes into account all players on the court with said player. Worst statistic out there.

 

Best players on each team, according to the +/- statistic...

 

Atlanta - Bibby (Johnson second worst)

Boston - Garnett (Rondo, Allen bottom four)

Charlotte - Wallace (S-Jax worst)

Chicago - Rose (Asik third best, over Boozer)

Cleveland - Varejao (Mo, Hickson bottom three)

Dallas - Dirk

Denver - Nene (Afflalo bottom two)

Detroit - Stuckey (Prince, Rip bottom four)

Golden State - Curry (Monta 4th, Lee 5th)

Houston - Scola (Martin, Hill bottom four)

Indiana - Dunleavy (McRoberts and Hansbrough over Granger, Collison last)

LA Clippers - Aminu (Smith over Griffin, Gordon 7th)

LA Lakers - Gasol (Kobe last)

Memphis - nobody, because the site forgot they had a team

Miami - Bosh (LeBron 4th, Wade 7th)

Milwaukee - Dooling

Minnesota - Tolliver (Beasley 5th, Darko second to last)

New Jersey - Lopez

New Orleans - CP3 (Jason "Boss" Smith 3rd)

New York - Fields (Amare 6th, Felton last)

Oklahoma City - Sefolosha (yes, over Westbrook and Durant)

Orlando - Carter (Bass 2nd, Howard 3rd, Nelson bottom three)

Philly - Holiday (Iggy 5th, Brand 7th)

Phoenix - Nash (J-Rich last)

Portland - Aldridge (Matthews and Batum bottom two)

Sacramento - Head (Evans 5th, Landry and Cousins last)

San Antonio - Ginobili (Parker 4th, Duncan 5th, Jefferson 6th)

Toronto - Johnson (DeRozan bottom four, Bargnani last, Kleiza 2nd)

Utah - Miles (Deron 3rd, Kirilenko 6th, Jefferson last)

Washington - Booker (Wall worst)

 

Worst thing I've ever seen.

 

A lot of these are spot on though. JJ has been very average to start the year and Bibby can still shoot. Heck he broke players down in the Nets gome over the weekend.

 

The Celtics have often played better with Glen Davis on the court.

 

Jackson has been awful to start the year on a very bad Bobcats team.

 

Boozer has had some awful offensive games, and his defense always lets other teams back in the game.

 

Mo and Hickson have been horrendous. Varejao has been one of the best role players in the league for awhile now.

 

I don't see why Affallo being in the bottom 2 in Denver is a big deal. They have good individual players.

 

Prince and Rip haven't played consistently hard since Kuestra took over.

 

No surprises with Golden State or Houston.

 

I haven't seen too much of Indiana, but hasn't Collison been a huge disappointment. The team is winning with defense, I'm not surprised guys like McRoberts are getting credit for that. Dunleavy is playing like he did two years ago.

 

The Clippers result is weird, and I don't think Kobe has played particularly well this year for Kobe's standards, and Gasol is terrific.

 

Keep in mind how much better the Heat play with one wing star on the bench, and you'll see a metric that sees Bosh and the Heat playing better when another star sits.

 

No surprise with Dooling, the Bucks have been collectively awful this year. Who else is there best player. Maggette, Salmons, and Jennings don't deserve merit for how bad they've been.

 

Minnesota isn't too much of a surprise. New Jersey actually is, and the Hornets aren't a surprise.

 

Fields is the kind of role player that just makes offenses flow better. This kid is one of the smartest rookies in the game. Felton takes a lot of bad shots and misses a lot of layups, plus he's been below average defensively. I'm not surprised by the Knicks' rating.

 

Durant has been voted OTR's most overrated player.

 

The Orlando result is stunning.

 

Philly is on point.

 

I'm surprised J-Rich is last on the Suns and not Hedo.

 

I don't see any big surprise with Portland.

 

Landry has been terrible this season. He sometimes plays the three and he's too small, and he's not having the success he had last year just by playing hard. He's one player who's crumbling under an increased role. Plus, all Cousins does is foul.

 

San Antonio and Toronto hold pretty consistent with my beliefs.

 

I'm not surprised AJ is last, and Williams' overall numbers are still pretty good.

 

Wall's a mistake-prone rookie.

 

 

Again, like points per game, rebound rate, defensive rating, etc, adjusted +/- is just one other way of looking at the game and should not be taken as its own as a baseline evaluation of a player.

[Real Deal]

I don't think Kobe has played particularly well this year for Kobe's standards, and Gasol is terrific.

If this is correct, it means that Kobe Bryant is playing incredibly bad, as in, Adam Morrison bad.

 

And if Gasol has been terrific, his ten-game span of an average of 42% shooting was ignored, not to mention his pathetic defense and lackluster late-game production.

 

PER (another useless stat) says that Bryant is the best player on the Lakers, followed by Gasol, Odom and Brown. More realistic, sad to say.

 

If Bryant is anywhere near the worst player on the squad (even anything less than third best), Pau Gasol is a superstar and a top three player in the NBA.

[Real Deal]

Haha, I loved seeing this tonight...the three best players for the Lakers against the Bucks (Kobe, Gasol and Odom) had the three worst +/- statistics.

 

Kobe: -22

Gasol: -21

Odom: -18

 

The best was from Luke Walton, one of just two players who contributed with a positive +/- statistic (+3), despite his 1-3 shooting and basically nothing else. Devin Ebanks gave us a +2, zeros all the way across his statsheet (yes, no joke), and just 1:29 playing time.

 

Kind of similar to Shannon Brown's +13 in that Philly game, where he shot 0-4 and contributed just one single assist and one foul (nothing else) in 12 minutes. Third on the team in +/- for that game.

 

I'm not even sure why this statistic even exists, to be honest.

[Multi-Billionaire]

No reason for me to defend Kobe but I agree this stat sucks [expletive], I never look at it.

[Erick Blasco]

Haha, I loved seeing this tonight...the three best players for the Lakers against the Bucks (Kobe, Gasol and Odom) had the three worst +/- statistics.

 

Kobe: -22

Gasol: -21

Odom: -18

 

The best was from Luke Walton, one of just two players who contributed with a positive +/- statistic (+3), despite his 1-3 shooting and basically nothing else. Devin Ebanks gave us a +2, zeros all the way across his statsheet (yes, no joke), and just 1:29 playing time.

 

Kind of similar to Shannon Brown's +13 in that Philly game, where he shot 0-4 and contributed just one single assist and one foul (nothing else) in 12 minutes. Third on the team in +/- for that game.

 

I'm not even sure why this statistic even exists, to be honest.

 

It exists because there's something to be said about players who contribute to winning (positive point differential) and who contribute to losing. This statistic adjusts for opponents and teammates,

 

In your piece about tonight, yeah that's what happens when your starting unit doesn't show up against the Bucks. The sample size for the season is small, it will adjust over time to a more normal value.

 

Here are the 2009-2010 totals.

 

http://basketballvalue.com/topplayers.php?year=2009-2010&mode=summary&sortnumber=94&sortorder=DESC

[Real Deal]

It exists because there's something to be said about players who contribute to winning (positive point differential) and who contribute to losing. This statistic adjusts for opponents and teammates

No, it doesn't adjust to teammates. That's the problem. It relies HEAVILY on who Bryant (for instance) is in the game with. If Phil Jackson plays Bryant with a four of Ratliff, Caracter, Ebanks, and Blake most of the time, you're going to see his +/- stats suffer significantly because that five would be pathetic on the court together.

 

If it could talk, the statistic for Bryant says, "Hey, this is how Kobe Bryant's five-man units do on the court together."

 

In your piece about tonight, yeah that's what happens when your starting unit doesn't show up against the Bucks. The sample size for the season is small, it will adjust over time to a more normal value.

http://www.nba.com/games/20101212/LALNJN/gameinfo.html#nbaGIboxscore

 

Bryant dominated in this game, Gasol was horrific on offense and was getting abused by Brook Lopez and Kris Humphries down low. Gasol still gets the better +/- statistic.

 

http://www.nba.com/games/20101128/INDLAL/gameinfo.html#nbaGIboxscore

 

Kobe went absolutely nuts in this game, dropped 41 and locked up everyone he defended, yet he doesn't get a higher +/- statistic than Odom, Brown, Caracter, or Blake? Those four, together, put up 22 points...almost half of Bryant's 41, yet the +/- statistics favor those guys?

 

And, why would the numbers eventually even out and show Kobe's true value at the end of the season? The sample size, small or large, shouldn't be showing him as the worst player on the team right now. There's no legitimate reason, none at all, to think that.

 

That 2009-10 list is horrible.

 

Let me put it this way: your topic title says that Kobe is the 19th least most valuable player in the NBA. Nothing more. Using the 2009-10 stats (and keep in mind that these are more normal, correct?), is it safe to create a topic saying that Chris Andersen was the sixth most valuable player in the league, above Deron Williams, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Bosh and Tim Duncan?

 

I really don't think there's any more for me to say about it. I might as well go rank players based on their turnovers per game.

 

By the way...based on this amazing site, the best Lakers unit is...

 

C - Pau Gasol

PF - Luke Walton

SF - Matt Barnes

SG - Shannon Brown

PG - Steve Blake

 

And not only that hell of a gem, but that particular five-man unit is ranked 11th in the NBA.

 

Arguably the best team in the league, the Spurs, doesn't have a unit placed in that list until 34th.

 

http://basketballvalue.com/topunits.php?year=2010-2011&sortnumber=17&sortorder=DESC

 

It's almost laughable how bad it is. The host seriously needs to shut the site down.

[Erick Blasco]

No, it doesn't adjust to teammates. That's the problem. It relies HEAVILY on who Bryant (for instance) is in the game with. If Phil Jackson plays Bryant with a four of Ratliff, Caracter, Ebanks, and Blake most of the time, you're going to see his +/- stats suffer significantly because that five would be pathetic on the court together.

 

If it could talk, the statistic for Bryant says, "Hey, this is how Kobe Bryant's five-man units do on the court together."

 

This isn't raw plus/minus, it's adjusted. The whole nature is that it adjusts for teammates and opponents.

 

http://www.nba.com/g...l#nbaGIboxscore

 

Bryant dominated in this game, Gasol was horrific on offense and was getting abused by Brook Lopez and Kris Humphries down low. Gasol still gets the better +/- statistic.

 

And when adjusted, Bryant will come out looking like a rose in the adjusted +/- metric.

http://www.nba.com/g...l#nbaGIboxscore

 

Kobe went absolutely nuts in this game, dropped 41 and locked up everyone he defended, yet he doesn't get a higher +/- statistic than Odom, Brown, Caracter, or Blake? Those four, together, put up 22 points...almost half of Bryant's 41, yet the +/- statistics favor those guys?

 

Could the fact that Kobe went 14-33 with only four assists inhibit the team from scoring an efficient amount of points?

 

And, why would the numbers eventually even out and show Kobe's true value at the end of the season? The sample size, small or large, shouldn't be showing him as the worst player on the team right now. There's no legitimate reason, none at all, to think that.

 

That 2009-10 list is horrible.

 

Let me put it this way: your topic title says that Kobe is the 19th least most valuable player in the NBA. Nothing more. Using the 2009-10 stats (and keep in mind that these are more normal, correct?), is it safe to create a topic saying that Chris Andersen was the sixth most valuable player in the league, above Deron Williams, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Bosh and Tim Duncan?

 

I really don't think there's any more for me to say about it. I might as well go rank players based on their turnovers per game.

 

Why not. I created this title mostly for effect and it clearly worked (Nobody reads most of the links I post). Andersen's shot-blocking and baseline moving obviously had positive effects on the Nuggets. As with every stat, you don't rely strictly on one stat to paint a complete portrait of a player. If you want to rank players on turnover percentage go ahead. It'll be about as useful as this stat, rebounding rate, assist rate, usage, points per game, etc---AKA parts of a whole.

By the way...based on this amazing site, the best Lakers unit is...

 

C - Pau Gasol

PF - Luke Walton

SF - Matt Barnes

SG - Shannon Brown

PG - Steve Blake

 

And not only that hell of a gem, but that particular five-man unit is ranked 11th in the NBA.

 

Arguably the best team in the league, the Spurs, doesn't have a unit placed in that list until 34th.

 

http://basketballval...&sortorder=DESC

 

It's almost laughable how bad it is. The host seriously needs to shut the site down.

 

There's a deviation error over 21 on that lineup. That's too high to paint an accurate picture. You need to wait until the sample size is larger. Even still, with how the Lakers' bench has played, are you that surprised?

[Poe]

Bench players can get a higher +/- because they are matched up against a weaker bench. Brown may have a better +/- than Kobe because he is usually matched up against a weaker opponent than Kobe. Perhaps he could be matched up against George Hill or Gary Neal with a unit including Matt Bonner, Chris Quinn, and Tiago Splitter while Kobe is matched up against Manu Ginobili with a unit including Tony Parker, Richard Jefferson, and Tim Duncan.

 

If the +/- happened to be better while Brown is on the floor, does that mean Brown is better than Kobe, or does that mean the Lakers have a better bench than the Spurs?

 

 

And also, the Heat often times play better with a star or two on the bench because at that point in the game, they are playing the opposing team's second unit.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Poe

[Real Deal]

This isn't raw plus/minus, it's adjusted. The whole nature is that it adjusts for teammates and opponents.

Because the values don't reflect the player accurately in the first place, I don't see how it's even adjusted. Doesn't make much sense. The site would be better off producing the +/- values of the five-man units, then writing a small disclaimer telling the world that even those are inaccurate because the particular five don't always play the best five from the opposing team.

 

And when adjusted, Bryant will come out looking like a rose in the adjusted +/- metric.

Well, it doesn't look like it right now. Adjusted, he's apparently the worst on the team.

 

Could the fact that Kobe went 14-33 with only four assists inhibit the team from scoring an efficient amount of points?

He scored 45% of the team's points, and he locked his man up. A true +/- statistic would show that he, alone, was a +/- of around 25-30, as adjusted by him scoring 41 and not allowing more than 10-11 points total.

 

If Bryant throws 10 passes to Ron Artest, and he goes 1-10 from the floor AND the Lakers blow a 15-point lead because Derrick Caracter plays horrible defense against a surging Amare down low, guess who gets the blame for it in the +/- statistic? Haha, that's right, Kobe does, and no "adjustment" changes that.

 

Why not. I created this title mostly for effect and it clearly worked (Nobody reads most of the links I post). Andersen's shot-blocking and baseline moving obviously had positive effects on the Nuggets. As with every stat, you don't rely strictly on one stat to paint a complete portrait of a player. If you want to rank players on turnover percentage go ahead. It'll be about as useful as this stat, rebounding rate, assist rate, usage, points per game, etc---AKA parts of a whole.

Producing arguments isn't about fishing for disagreements, it's about believing in what you are arguing. Kelly Dwyer posts articles that he knows, for a fact, that people will have problems with. Journalism is about drawing attention, but there are many ways of doing that. People read your articles and links...but, usually, it's difficult to disagree with anything you say in your team analysis, so there's really nothing to argue. That's the good thing. But, I really don't believe you are sold on Kobe being the 19th least most valuable in the NBA.

 

All I want to read is you agreeing that Kobe is possibly the least valuable Laker on the team. That's all. And, well, that Chris Andersen was an MVP candidate last year, even top 10. If you can do either (or both) of those, I'll start taking the statistic more seriously (only in this discussion).

 

There's a deviation error over 21 on that lineup. That's too high to paint an accurate picture. You need to wait until the sample size is larger. Even still, with how the Lakers' bench has played, are you that surprised?

I'm very surprised, because Luke Walton is a horrific player...and Steve Blake isn't performing well on the defensive end, and still having trouble back on offense.

 

Deviation error? Larger sample size? Just take last year's leading five-man unit, if you want to laugh...

 

C - Jermaine O'Neal

PF - Udonis Haslem

SF - Dorell Wright

SG - Daequan Cook

PG - Carlos Arroyo

 

Want to know Boston's best five-man unit last season (as big of a sample size as you can get)? According to the accurate basketballvalue.com...

 

C - Shelden Williams

PF - Rasheed Wallace

SF - Marquis Daniels

SG - Ray Allen

PG - Eddie House

 

For the sake of not actually digging the hole and sticking that site in its own grave, I'll stop there.

[YugoRocketsFan]

TBH, regardless of what people say I think that the +/- is a very good measurement of how much you help when you're in. When a certain player comes in I just know that the deficit would be cut or the lead would be stronger.

[Real Deal]

TBH, regardless of what people say I think that the +/- is a very good measurement of how much you help when you're in. When a certain player comes in I just know that the deficit would be cut or the lead would be stronger.

Problem is, one person doesn't cut, or increase, the lead.

 

Hayes, Scola, Budinger, Battier and Ish in the game at once could be a disaster. Are you telling me you can get an idea of how good Scola is based on how that five-man unit plays? Maybe Scola is being defended by Garnett, and no matter what he does on offense, the other four are being obliterated by Boston's starting five at the other end of the floor, and Scola's +/- statistic suffers for it.

[AboveLegit]

I really hate these advanced stats. PER seems to be the most popular one, but I think it fails in just as many ways as it succeeds. I believe the problem is that people are trying to create broad formulas that can boil a player down into one number, and it's really not possible because basketball depends so much on how a player coexists with others. I think sites like 82games.com and hoopdata.com are definitely helping, but I think that there's more we could be doing.

 

As for all these advanced stats, I personally think +/- is the best, but I like the adjusted +/- stats from 82games, stuff like the On/Off stats and the Roland Rating (which combines PER with +/-).

[Erick Blasco]

Because the values don't reflect the player accurately in the first place, I don't see how it's even adjusted. Doesn't make much sense. The site would be better off producing the +/- values of the five-man units, then writing a small disclaimer telling the world that even those are inaccurate because the particular five don't always play the best five from the opposing team.

 

They adjust the stats via some mathimatical formula. But it is adjusted. This isn't raw +/-.

 

Well, it doesn't look like it right now. Adjusted, he's apparently the worst on the team.

 

For that specific game he was probably the best.

 

 

He scored 45% of the team's points, and he locked his man up. A true +/- statistic would show that he, alone, was a +/- of around 25-30, as adjusted by him scoring 41 and not allowing more than 10-11 points total.

 

We don't know how many points he failed to prevent, we don't know if a missed shot led to a fast break basket, there are ways to look at this. Also, if a player shoots 12-50 and scores 30 points (of his team's 50), and his opponent goes 1-5 and scores 2 points, but his team scores 80, the player didn't really have a terrific game.

 

If Bryant throws 10 passes to Ron Artest, and he goes 1-10 from the floor AND the Lakers blow a 15-point lead because Derrick Caracter plays horrible defense against a surging Amare down low, guess who gets the blame for it in the +/- statistic? Haha, that's right, Kobe does, and no "adjustment" changes that.

 

And in the adjusted +/- Artest gets the blame. Kobe will be adjusted and made better for playing with a player who shot 1-10. I believe that's part of the premise of how this works.

 

Producing arguments isn't about fishing for disagreements, it's about believing in what you are arguing. Kelly Dwyer posts articles that he knows, for a fact, that people will have problems with. Journalism is about drawing attention, but there are many ways of doing that. People read your articles and links...but, usually, it's difficult to disagree with anything you say in your team analysis, so there's really nothing to argue. That's the good thing. But, I really don't believe you are sold on Kobe being the 19th least most valuable in the NBA.

 

I'm not. This post was about me being cheap and knowing people would get riled up. I do want people to see that there is some truth behind these numbers though.

 

All I want to read is you agreeing that Kobe is possibly the least valuable Laker on the team. That's all. And, well, that Chris Andersen was an MVP candidate last year, even top 10. If you can do either (or both) of those, I'll start taking the statistic more seriously (only in this discussion).

 

If a player were sixth in assists per game, would he be an automatic MVP candidate? Or in rebounds per game? FG% Blocks? It's one metric. Nobody will make any MVP arguments off of one metric, except the people who do it strictly based on ppg.

 

I'm very surprised, because Luke Walton is a horrific player...and Steve Blake isn't performing well on the defensive end, and still having trouble back on offense.

 

And the unit still dominates other benches, and some units with partial benches and some starters.

 

Deviation error? Larger sample size? Just take last year's leading five-man unit, if you want to laugh...

 

C - Jermaine O'Neal

PF - Udonis Haslem

SF - Dorell Wright

SG - Daequan Cook

PG - Carlos Arroyo

 

Want to know Boston's best five-man unit last season (as big of a sample size as you can get)? According to the accurate basketballvalue.com...

 

C - Shelden Williams

PF - Rasheed Wallace

SF - Marquis Daniels

SG - Ray Allen

PG - Eddie House

 

For the sake of not actually digging the hole and sticking that site in its own grave, I'll stop there.

 

 

That's not what I see for Boston's best unit.

 

I see Rondo, Allen, Daniels, KG, and Rasheed, plus with a hefty standard error.

 

If surprised why Rondo, Allen, Pierce, KG, Perkins isn't the top unit, remember, the Celtics lost a lot of games last season with a starting lineup that often looked old and washed up.

 

For Miami, there's also a huge standard error on that lineup. Their best 8 or 9 lineups with standard errors less than 15 all involve Wade.

[Real Deal]

We don't know how many points he failed to prevent, we don't know if a missed shot led to a fast break basket, there are ways to look at this. Also, if a player shoots 12-50 and scores 30 points (of his team's 50), and his opponent goes 1-5 and scores 2 points, but his team scores 80, the player didn't really have a terrific game.

LOL, that's just it. I watched the game. A +/- statistic doesn't tell you any of that for that particular player, only that particular five-man unit. You can "adjust" it all you want, but here's the thing: adjusted +/- is based on the raw +/- stats of the other players and opponents, which are STILL inaccurate because, when they are used to adjust for others, they aren't adjusted themselves. You have to start somewhere.

 

The statistic is inaccurate, big time. An assist is a two-way street: you have to throw it, and your teammate has to convert it. THIS statistic is a five-way stop. You, and your four teammates, have to convert and make stops for you to actually get a good +/- in a game, a run of games, and throughout the season.

 

And the unit still dominates other benches, and some units with partial benches and some starters.

...and that's irrelevant, because Walton is playing mostly in garbage time, and so is that five-man unit. Gasol plays a lot of his minutes against second units and in garbage time. Bryant comes back into games when the best players (of the opposition) are in. A five-man unit that isn't challenged will obviously look better than the starting five that was the core that won the NBA championship, but you're willing to say that the leading five-man would be better (more valuable) than the Lakers' starters?

 

And no, this isn't similar to PPG or any other individual statistic. Bryant scores his 25-26 PPG by shooting the ball. Some of his points are assisted on, but not by four other players at once, like this statistic is.

 

Here's the topic title: Kobe is the 19th least valuable player in the NBA

 

Here's my question: if this statistic determines value, why wasn't Chris Andersen a top MVP candidate based on being the sixth-most valuable last season?

 

Funny thing...when I was working at a refinery a few years back, I had three other co-workers, and they were pathetic. We got little done in a day, and to be honest, it was all because of them. However, and I don't mean to brag...I worked my ass off and was very efficient. If there was a raw +/- statistic for me, it would be ugly because of my co-workers...and there would be no way of adjusting it to provide a more accurate number because, quite frankly, there's no way of knowing my production (or body of work) in the first place.

 

If this site wants a true +/- statistic, it should somehow adjust it based on points scored, and nothing more. But, even then, it's inaccurate because it doesn't consider the teammates' inability to create for themselves, or create for Bryant, or Bryant's shooting percentages with each and every player in the lineup (a good example of this is when you see Gasol getting better +/- stats despite shooting poorly).

 

Give me a statistic that "ranks" the players, and it better consider everything. Otherwise, it's just as useless as me ranking them by turnovers per game and calling the top half of those guys the most valuable. You would argue how ignorant that is, to the death (I would hope), and so would everyone else.

 

Bryant runs the offense AND is the primary scoring option. The defensive attention he draws gives Gasol easier looks (which the stat doesn't account for, either). His roaming on defense allows Gasol to help on Fisher's man, who always gets to the rim. That statistic won't show that value, either. When teams screen the Lakers to death (switching Bryant over to defend the point guard position, or the three), and the bigger player takes Fisher into the post and scores on him over and over again (ex. Phoenix all of those years they played us), it hurts Bryant even more.

 

I'm not looking for an "end-all" conclusive statistic that ranks the players, because there isn't one...but this particular stat sure the hell isn't it, and it doesn't even come close.

 

You guys can keep discussing it, whatever...doesn't make any sense for me to waste my time on this.