Varejao: 6th Man of the Year?

[Erick Blasco]

I guess I can give better examples.

 

Fisher on the court, the Lakers are a +12.5. Fisher off? They are a +1.4.

 

Gasol on? +14.8. Off it? They are +1.6.

 

It's pretty difficult for me to believe that Gasol and Fisher have nearly the same impact on and off the floor, especially when everyone knows Fisher is a pathetic defensive player and a terrible offensive player, shooting 37% from the floor with just seven points a game.

 

By the way, LeBron James was a -2 tonight against the Bobcats, despite drilling them for 29/7/6 on 62% shooting, just one turnover...while Anthony Parker's 40% shooting, 5/2/2 and PATHETIC defense on Stephen Jackson still gave him a +2 in the +/- column.

 

Worst stat you could ever use.

 

If you're going to use tiny sample sizes like one game and not give context, then yeah.

 

Fisher's helped by the fact that he doesn't make mistakes and plays with the starters. The Lakers bench has been terrible so Fisher's off-court numbers will look great.

 

Gasol's +/- should also be really good considering how mediocre Odom has played this season.

 

One game sample sizes will skew, but if you look over a big picture and you see a team that clearly performs better with one player on the court

as opposed to off of it, it becomes a trend.

 

And I just saw the Pacers give up a billion points to the Knicks. Please, don't disrespect Parker's defense by calling it "pathetic," when there are entire rosters in the league like Indiana's. Parker's slightly above average. Go put Luther Head on Jackson and see what happens.

[Erick Blasco]

Yeah. There are a lot of times where Gasol or Kobe will play with Vujacic, Farmar, Mbenga and Powell/Walton in the five, and that unit will struggle, thus hurting Kobe and Gasol's +/- stats, despite what they do in that span of 3-4 minutes where Phil Jackson declines to call a timeout, and lets Vujacic launch three bricks.

 

Looking at NBA.com every single raw +/- 5-man unit the Lakers have fielded has a positive plus/minus. The only unit that the Lakers have fielded that has a decent sample size, has Kobe in it, and isn't exceptional is a lineup with Kobe, Fisher, Brown, Odom, and Bynum.

 

The best lineup the Lakers field in +/- per minute with over 10:00 playing time is Farmar, Kobe, Artest, Odom and Gasol.

Their best lineup with over 100 minutes is Fisher, Kobe, Artest, Odom, and Gasol.

 

Their worst with over 10 minutes and 100 minutes is Fisher, Kobe, Odom, Artest, and Bynum

 

Judging from this, you can tell that the Lakers struggle more with Bynum on the court than with Gasol.

 

The worst four-man lineup on the roster is Kobe, Fisher, Odom, and Bynum.

 

Again, Bynum is there, Gasol and Artest aren't.

 

The on-court off court numbers heavily favor Kobe (Fourth in the League) so for the most part, the Lakers are exceptional with him. Artest's numbers are also exceptional, while Gasol, and Fisher are also way up there. Yeah they all start and play together, but Bynum starts too and his numbers relative to his teammates are horrible.

 

The second unit numbers are horrible, aside from Farmar who is just bad.

 

You can see a trend. The Lakers play great with Gasol and not with Bynum. Their second unit is also terrible. Artest and Kobe are vital to the team's success.

 

Is this not something you haven't intuitively concluded yourself Brandon?

[Cleveland's Finest]

The other day against the Kings Fish was +7 and Kobe was only +1. I was saying we should bench Kobe and play more Fish.

 

Well if you're looking at any stat for one game you could do that.

[Real Deal]

Fisher's helped by the fact that he doesn't make mistakes and plays with the starters. The Lakers bench has been terrible so Fisher's off-court numbers will look great.

 

Gasol's +/- should also be really good considering how mediocre Odom has played this season.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Their +/- stats are heavily based on the other four teammates they play with on the floor.

 

What happens if Gasol and Artest both stay injured, and they play about, oh, 30 games with this lineup...

 

C - Bynum

PF - Odom

SF - Bryant

SG - Brown

PG - Fisher

 

Basically, +/- stats tell how good the five-man units do (those that Kobe has to play in), not necessarily how good a player is.

 

So when we ask who the best sixth man in the league is, why not just use those +/- stats for the MVP as well? Well, because if we did, Ron Artest would be an MVP candidate...and we know how ridiculous that is.

 

I don't judge players on their +/- stats for that very reason. If Bryant has to play 25 minutes with the likes of Adam Morrison, Sasha Vujacic, Josh Powell and DJ Mbenga, I'm not going to have high hopes for "his" +/- statistic because, obviously, that five-man untit will score little and give up a lot.

 

It's really that simple of a stat...a little too simple. Every point Morrison and Vujacic would give up, it changes Kobe's +/- statistic. How is that Bryant's fault?

[Erick Blasco]

This is exactly what I'm saying. Their +/- stats are heavily based on the other four teammates they play with on the floor.

 

What happens if Gasol and Artest both stay injured, and they play about, oh, 30 games with this lineup...

 

C - Bynum

PF - Odom

SF - Bryant

SG - Brown

PG - Fisher

 

Basically, +/- stats tell how good the five-man units do (those that Kobe has to play in), not necessarily how good a player is.

 

So when we ask who the best sixth man in the league is, why not just use those +/- stats for the MVP as well? Well, because if we did, Ron Artest would be an MVP candidate...and we know how ridiculous that is.

 

I don't judge players on their +/- stats for that very reason. If Bryant has to play 25 minutes with the likes of Adam Morrison, Sasha Vujacic, Josh Powell and DJ Mbenga, I'm not going to have high hopes for "his" +/- statistic because, obviously, that five-man untit will score little and give up a lot.

 

It's really that simple of a stat...a little too simple. Every point Morrison and Vujacic would give up, it changes Kobe's +/- statistic. How is that Bryant's fault?

 

Like all basic stats, you can adjust for lineup discrepancy. That's how Morey and others use plus/minus. If that lineup you mentioned struggles, it would be reflected in the horrible plus/minus numbers of Morrison, Vujacic, Powell, and Mbenga. When you adjust, Kobe's numbers would look better.

 

It's a raw stat like points per game that on its own doesn't offer a total picture, but like every stat, you can refine and refine and refine to get a better portrait of true value.

[Real Deal]

Like all basic stats, you can adjust for lineup discrepancy. That's how Morey and others use plus/minus. If that lineup you mentioned struggles, it would be reflected in the horrible plus/minus numbers of Morrison, Vujacic, Powell, and Mbenga. When you adjust, Kobe's numbers would look better.

 

It's a raw stat like points per game that on its own doesn't offer a total picture, but like every stat, you can refine and refine and refine to get a better portrait of true value.

Okay, but adjusting means people like myself have to go through and find every single lineup, of every single game, and find how much those players produced in every lineup. That means I need to figure out how many of Sasha's points were put out when Kobe was in, and when he was out...and how many Vujacic gave up with Bryant in, Bryant out.

 

And then do that for every other player in those fives with Bryant.

 

But, instead, you guys are telling me that Anderson Varejao deserves sixth man consideration because of his +/- stats...but have you adjusted them in that manner? Have you actually given me true +/- stats JUST for Anderson Varejao and his opposition?

 

The better way to do that? Just looking at individual stats, including eFG% allowed, PPG, FG%, etc. That gives you more of an individual statistic, not the +/- stat.

 

Or, again, Ron Artest is an MVP candidate.

[Erick Blasco]

Okay, but adjusting means people like myself have to go through and find every single lineup, of every single game, and find how much those players produced in every lineup. That means I need to figure out how many of Sasha's points were put out when Kobe was in, and when he was out...and how many Vujacic gave up with Bryant in, Bryant out.

 

And then do that for every other player in those fives with Bryant.

 

But, instead, you guys are telling me that Anderson Varejao deserves sixth man consideration because of his +/- stats...but have you adjusted them in that manner? Have you actually given me true +/- stats JUST for Anderson Varejao and his opposition?

 

The better way to do that? Just looking at individual stats, including eFG% allowed, PPG, FG%, etc. That gives you more of an individual statistic, not the +/- stat.

 

Or, again, Ron Artest is an MVP candidate.

 

Let's get real here, how many lineups is Kobe playing exactly with Sasha Vujacic? You're bringing up problems that are horrible in theory but not in execution because Jackson isn't going to field many competitive lineups with Vujacic in. Just like obviously that LeBron fellow gives Varejao a boost in his plus/minus. Nobody is saying that the only way to measure a player is by his plus/minus numbers, just like a fan will be misled if he only judges a player based on how many rebounds he gets, or what his assist to turnover ratio is, without seeing a big picture.

 

But just like somebody leading the league in points per game, or blocks per game, defensive rating, eFG%, 4th quarter points, Clutch FG%, etc, leading the league is a pretty big deal. You can clearly see that a player plays well with one player on the court but not another. Cleveland's best 11 lineups involve Varejao. Ten of those lineups also include LeBron. One of them doesn't. Obviously Varejao is playing good basketball as the team is producing exceptionally well when he is in there.

 

And fortunately, this site already does this work: http://basketballvalue.com/topplayers.php?year=2009-2010&mode=summary&sortnumber=94&sortorder=DESC

 

Adjusting for teammates and opponents, Kobe comes out to the 11th best +/- in the league. LeBron is 4th, Varejao is 9th. Luol Deng, Chris Andersen, and Dwyane Wade are 1, 2, and 3.

 

When you get to overall ranking, Kobe is 3rd, Varejao is 1st, with Dirk and Wade buffering Kobe. LeBron becomes 9th.

 

It's hard to do simple percentages allowed for individuals. What individual is at fault when a guard can't get around a screen for example. And with Varejao's defense, does anyone have a stop percentage for him, or a percentage of shots missed because of him? The points produced metrics at basketball-reference have Varejao with a 116 OFF rating compared to Kobe's 114, and a defensive rating of 100 to Kobe's 101 (LeBron is 119, 101). Varejao also has a better eFG than Kobe by a few percentage points.

 

Looking at a player with a 116 OFF rating and a 100 DEF rating (both ratings better than Kobe, who has excellent numbers in his own right), that player is doing damn good things on the court.

 

Nobody is going to consider Varejao an MVP candidate but when his defensive rating blows all potential 6th man candidates out of the water, and his rating differential is rivaled only by Carl Landry, he's going to deserve significant consideration for 6th man of the year.

[Real Deal]

Adjusting for teammates and opponents, Kobe comes out to the 11th best +/- in the league. LeBron is 4th, Varejao is 9th. Luol Deng, Chris Andersen, and Dwyane Wade are 1, 2, and 3.

 

When you get to overall ranking, Kobe is 3rd, Varejao is 1st, with Dirk and Wade buffering Kobe. LeBron becomes 9th.

Do you see why I'm still having trouble grasping any of that?

 

In no way, shape or form should Anderson Varejao or Luol Deng be ranked anywhere NEAR Bryant in overall anything. Offense, defense, overall game, doesn't matter.

 

Reading "Player Overall Statistics" and then seeing the likes of Deng, Birdman, Felton, Nene, Haywood, and Varejao all listed over Bryant? Three of them barely play any defense, and the others barely produce on offense. Overall what?

 

Just the worst stat I've ever ran across when judging individual play. When +/- statistics can be altered by teammates, that automatically rules out any type of ranking, individual-wise.

 

I might as well say that the best players in the NBA are, in order: Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, Howard, Dirk, Joe Johnson, and Duncan, all based solely on team record.

 

Agree to disagree, I guess.

[Erick Blasco]

Do you see why I'm still having trouble grasping any of that?

 

In no way, shape or form should Anderson Varejao or Luol Deng be ranked anywhere NEAR Bryant in overall anything. Offense, defense, overall game, doesn't matter.

 

Reading "Player Overall Statistics" and then seeing the likes of Deng, Birdman, Felton, Nene, Haywood, and Varejao all listed over Bryant? Three of them barely play any defense, and the others barely produce on offense. Overall what?

 

Just the worst stat I've ever ran across when judging individual play. When +/- statistics can be altered by teammates, that automatically rules out any type of ranking, individual-wise.

 

I might as well say that the best players in the NBA are, in order: Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, Howard, Dirk, Joe Johnson, and Duncan, all based solely on team record.

 

Agree to disagree, I guess.

 

It just shows that those players are vital to their team's success because the teams play much better with them as to without them, even with adjustments to teammates. It doesn't mean that they're better---maybe it means they're more important? I don't know, I don't think it's that cut and dry---but it does show that adjusting for circumstances, those teams do really well with those players on the floor.

 

Then it's just a matter of forming your own conclusions as to why.

 

Deng's an anomaly. The Bulls are about -2 with him, but are about -20 without him. The Bulls just suck a lot less with Deng.

 

The Nuggets get great statistical production from their centers, and regardless of injured teammates, Denver produces when Andersen and Nene don't both get in foul trouble.

 

Dirk is Dirk, Wade is Wade, LeBron is LeBron, D-Will is D-Will, Kobe is Kobe.

 

Varejao is really a good player under the radar who does wonders for a team's defense, its offensive continuity, and its rebounding.

 

Haywood stabilizes Washington's defense as a post-defending shot-blocking presence, and sets good screens to open up the Wizards' perimeter game. With Washington's lack of any other screener and any other good interior defender, it's no surprise that his numbers are exceptional.

 

Raymond Felton...uhhhhhh.....ummmmm, no clue.

 

It's not like because Chris Andersen is second that he's the second best player in the league, but it DOES mean that his team really plays well with him and doesn't play as well with anyone else. And most of the time there are reasons if you look for them.

[Real Deal]

Well, you couldn't explain Felton and really can't say why Deng is actually "ranked" high. Maybe the guy should've come up with a better explanation of his "rankings" instead of calling them just that?

 

It goes back to Derek Fisher, really. Head over to 82games and check out Fisher's +/- stats. The truth is, Fisher is complete garbage on defense, and he's just terrible on offense...but because he plays most of the game with Bryant, Gasol and Artest, those three make him look like he's extremely important to our success.

 

The one thing Fisher does for us is hit a big shot, last minute of the game. That's because he's too busy sucking for the other 47 minutes, causing us to be down late.

 

On the other hand, Shannon Brown's +/- stats are ugly...yet, he's one of the best perimeter defenders we have, and he slashes to the rim and finishes better than the other two point guards on our roster (Farmar and Fisher). However, because he comes in with our ugly, disorganized second unit, his +/- stats are just as bad as theirs, and because Farmar plays more with Bryant and Gasol than Brown does, well, Farmar's stat is better.

 

Every Lakers fan you'll run into will tell you this. It can be proven by individual stats, or just by watching the game...but the one thing that opposes it is the +/- statistic because it is far too team-developed.

 

If you can give me a better explanation as to why Fisher's +/- is way too high, then I'll be done with this...but I can assure you that there is no explanation other than what I said above.

[Poe]

Stats are always misleading one way or another. It's not like baseball where you can just look at a batting average to see if the player is a good hitter. You can sometimes make a rough outline of a what a player can do based off of statistics and averages, but really, there are just so many minor areas to the game of basketball it's tough to evaluate a player based on what is averaged each game.

 

Point per game, for example, can be a product of how many shots a player is given through how many plays are set up for them, how many touches the player gets, his tendency to attempt a shot in each touch, how good of an offensive rebounder he is, etc, etc. Chris Kaman averages more points than Chris Paul, Tim Duncan, Ben Gordan, and Pau Gasol, yet would you say he has a better overall ability to score than they do?

 

 

Like PPG, individual stats are often affected by the situation of that player compared to the rest of his team. +/- is no different. Actually, it can probably be the most misleading stat. There are plenty of reasons why it can be misleading. Try a scenerio of mixing a D League player with 4 All Star caliber players, and you'll probably get some good +/- results despite the individual player not being a positive impact to the team.

 

Not to take away what Varejao does, but try taking him out of the Cavs and putting him on the Nets or the T-Wolves. I think it's almost guaranteed his +/- will dramatically drop.

 

 

+/- is a much better evaluation for how 5 guys function on the court with one another. This can also be situational, like what teams these 5 particular players were on the court against, whether they were matched up against starters or bench units, or whether the coach put these 5 in the game only against particular match ups (whether a team goes "big" or goes "small"). Even then, +/- is still much more reliable as an evaluation for a 5 man line up than an individual player.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Poe

[Zero]

Vagina<<<<Landry

 

Carl Leads the league in 4th quarter scoring and he comes off the bench.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Zero

[Erick Blasco]

Well, you couldn't explain Felton and really can't say why Deng is actually "ranked" high. Maybe the guy should've come up with a better explanation of his "rankings" instead of calling them just that?

 

It goes back to Derek Fisher, really. Head over to 82games and check out Fisher's +/- stats. The truth is, Fisher is complete garbage on defense, and he's just terrible on offense...but because he plays most of the game with Bryant, Gasol and Artest, those three make him look like he's extremely important to our success.

 

The one thing Fisher does for us is hit a big shot, last minute of the game. That's because he's too busy sucking for the other 47 minutes, causing us to be down late.

 

On the other hand, Shannon Brown's +/- stats are ugly...yet, he's one of the best perimeter defenders we have, and he slashes to the rim and finishes better than the other two point guards on our roster (Farmar and Fisher). However, because he comes in with our ugly, disorganized second unit, his +/- stats are just as bad as theirs, and because Farmar plays more with Bryant and Gasol than Brown does, well, Farmar's stat is better.

 

Every Lakers fan you'll run into will tell you this. It can be proven by individual stats, or just by watching the game...but the one thing that opposes it is the +/- statistic because it is far too team-developed.

 

If you can give me a better explanation as to why Fisher's +/- is way too high, then I'll be done with this...but I can assure you that there is no explanation other than what I said above.

 

I know exactly why Deng is high on the adjusted plus/minus. Chicago is horrendous when he's not on the floor (probably because the Bulls have no real backup wing besides rookie James Johnson) and fall apart without him. With him they play average basketball. The difference is so substantial that he rises to the top of the adjusted list.

 

You do know that when the site adjusts for Fisher, his plus/minus goes from +11 (or whatever the raw number is) to -6.66, 6th among the 8 Lakers who qualify. The numbers know that Fisher has been terrible. He's an example where you must account for lineup discrepancy with his plus/minuses.

 

Shannon Brown has not been a good defensive player this year at all, and I haven't been too impressed with his offense. The few times I've seen him, he was getting lit up by opposing guards and he hasn't been consistently making plays. His adjusted plus/minus is even worse than Fisher's, and it's no surprise why considering how bad all of LA's backups have been.

 

Felton I have no idea. I don't follow Charlotte enough. Then again, can anyone explain why exactly Gerald Wallace has gone bananas with his rebounding? Sometimes there aren't easy answers.

[Real Deal]

Ah, good. That's what I wanted to hear.

 

Now here's my problem: logically, because we play five guys at once and ALWAYS have a point guard on the floor, there has to be at least one of our point guards with a positive "adjusted" +/- statistic.

 

Fisher: -6.19

Brown: -5.16

Farmar: -6.38

Vujacic: -1.04 (which is funny, by the way)

 

Why is that? Because it is simply impossible to calculate what an individual player produces, and allows, on the floor based on five-man units and their non-adjusted +/- numbers.

 

When adjusted, you're just taking the original inaccurate numbers from every player and applying them, individually, to each. This makes absolutely no sense if you're not using the exact time each player was playing with every other player on the team, the points scored and allowed in every single unit, in each second/minute those guys were on the floor together, and not considering what other players they were defending in those minutes as well, and the full five units from the opposing team.

 

Once I see some genius giving me those detailed stats, then applying them, I'll change my mind about all of this.

 

Just pushing different buttons for a moment...what happens if, as an example, Anderson Varejao ends up playing every minute of his time on the floor with LeBron? Let's just say Varejao's man usually scores 20 on him a night...while LeBron is averaging his 30+ per game (yes, all while Anderson plays his 40 minutes with LeBron). Can anyone truly explain to me why Varejao's +/- statistic would still be a positive number, in that case? Because it would be...but definitely not accurate, as Varejao's 10-12 PPG doesn't exactly cover what he's giving up, and his "importance" to the team isn't as great as the number states.

 

And to top it all off and put the cap on the bottle here...

 

http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2008-2009&team=LAL

 

Check out Sasha Vujacic from last season. He's an "adjusted" +1.01, according to the site.

 

Want to know what he did last year? He shot 36% from the floor, had some of the worst defense on the team, scored 69 points total in the playoffs, zero points in the NBA Finals, and averaged almost two fouls in 16 minutes of play.

 

There is no stat on this Earth that can tell me Vujacic was a true, positive +/- on the court. Most of his minutes came with these lineups:

 

Farmar-Vujacic-Ariza-Odom-Bynum (+46)

Farmar-Vujacic-Ariza-Odom-Gasol (+14)

Farmar-Vujacic-Ariza-Powell-Gasol (-36)

Farmar-Vujacic-Walton-Powell-Gasol (-14)

Vujacic-Bryant-Ariza-Odom-Bynum (+25)

Vujacic-Bryant-Ariza-Odom-Gasol (+0)

Fisher-Vujacic-Ariza-Odom-Bynum (-1)

Farmar-Vujacic-Bryant-Odom-Gasol (+26)

 

EVEN FURTHER, check out Gasol's "overall rating" from last season, compared to everyone else's.

 

Odom: 16.63

Kobe: 10.23

Fisher: 5.99

Gasol: 4.91

Walton: 1.24

Ariza: -0.63

Radmanovic: -0.88

Bynum: -1.55

Brown: -4.23

Vujacic: -7.71

Farmar: -8.33

Morrison: -9.12

Mbenga: -9.20

Powell: -20.29

Mihm: -23.59

Yue: -84.10

 

I know you'll love what you can read about Derrick Rose and his importance to the Bulls last season. Check out that "amazing" overall rating:

 

http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2008-2009&mode=summary&sortnumber=21&sortorder=DESC&team=CHI

 

Aaron Gray, Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden all more important than Rose?

 

So inaccurate, it's not even funny.

[Cleveland's Finest]

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusminus/plusminus_sort.jsp?pcomb=1&season=22009&split=9&team=

 

About 95 % on this list are top players or legit starters in the league. How inaccurate is it really?

[Erick Blasco]

Ah, good. That's what I wanted to hear.

 

Now here's my problem: logically, because we play five guys at once and ALWAYS have a point guard on the floor, there has to be at least one of our point guards with a positive "adjusted" +/- statistic.

 

Fisher: -6.19

Brown: -5.16

Farmar: -6.38

Vujacic: -1.04 (which is funny, by the way)

 

Why is that? Because it is simply impossible to calculate what an individual player produces, and allows, on the floor based on five-man units and their non-adjusted +/- numbers.

 

When adjusted, you're just taking the original inaccurate numbers from every player and applying them, individually, to each. This makes absolutely no sense if you're not using the exact time each player was playing with every other player on the team, the points scored and allowed in every single unit, in each second/minute those guys were on the floor together, and not considering what other players they were defending in those minutes as well, and the full five units from the opposing team. Once I see some genius giving me those detailed stats, then applying them, I'll change my mind about all of this.

 

From the definition of how adjusted values are calculated.

"Every observation is a unit of time in a game where no substitutions are made. There are more than 60,000 such observations per year in 2002-03 and 2003-04.

That assures that the data is adjusted for exact scenarios where players are playing with the same teammates and against the same opponents. When a substitution is made, the variable adjusts again. It is also said that the variable adjusts for crunch time and garbage time.

 

Source for above

This is exactly what the adjusted plus-minus stat does: it reflects the impact of each player on his team's bottom line (scoring margin), after controlling statistically for the strength of every teammate and every opponent during each minute he's on the court.

 

True Hoop

 

 

 

Just pushing different buttons for a moment...what happens if, as an example, Anderson Varejao ends up playing every minute of his time on the floor with LeBron? Let's just say Varejao's man usually scores 20 on him a night...while LeBron is averaging his 30+ per game (yes, all while Anderson plays his 40 minutes with LeBron). Can anyone truly explain to me why Varejao's +/- statistic would still be a positive number, in that case? Because it would be...but definitely not accurate, as Varejao's 10-12 PPG doesn't exactly cover what he's giving up, and his "importance" to the team isn't as great as the number states.

 

Adjusted Plus/Minus does account for statistics when qualifying players, especially offensively. When adjusted, LeBron's would be higher than Varejao's as long as LeBron's 30 wasn't wildly inefficient (30 points on 11-34 shooting). Like all statistics, they're only tools for arguments, not be all, end all's. If Varejao, as a defensive specilaist, isn't doing a damn thing defensively he wouldn't play. Coaches wouldn't play him so often. Or, if Varejao's man gave up 20, but he did good things on offense to help LeBron score (set more effective screens, executed the right cuts, etc) and as a result Cleveland played great, it wouldn't matter. Cleveland would be scoring enough probably to offset, and therefore winning.

 

And to top it all off and put the cap on the bottle here...

 

http://basketballval...8-2009&team=LAL

 

Check out Sasha Vujacic from last season. He's an "adjusted" +1.01, according to the site.

 

Want to know what he did last year? He shot 36% from the floor, had some of the worst defense on the team, scored 69 points total in the playoffs, zero points in the NBA Finals, and averaged almost two fouls in 16 minutes of play.

 

There is no stat on this Earth that can tell me Vujacic was a true, positive +/- on the court. Most of his minutes came with these lineups:

 

Farmar-Vujacic-Ariza-Odom-Bynum (+46)

Farmar-Vujacic-Ariza-Odom-Gasol (+14)

Farmar-Vujacic-Ariza-Powell-Gasol (-36)

Farmar-Vujacic-Walton-Powell-Gasol (-14)

Vujacic-Bryant-Ariza-Odom-Bynum (+25)

Vujacic-Bryant-Ariza-Odom-Gasol (+0)

Fisher-Vujacic-Ariza-Odom-Bynum (-1)

Farmar-Vujacic-Bryant-Odom-Gasol (+26)

 

EVEN FURTHER, check out Gasol's "overall rating" from last season, compared to everyone else's.

 

Odom: 16.63

Kobe: 10.23

Fisher: 5.99

Gasol: 4.91

Walton: 1.24

Ariza: -0.63

Radmanovic: -0.88

Bynum: -1.55

Brown: -4.23

Vujacic: -7.71

Farmar: -8.33

Morrison: -9.12

Mbenga: -9.20

Powell: -20.29

Mihm: -23.59

Yue: -84.10

 

You're looking at two-year ratings from 2008-2009 which slightly factor in Gasol's time in Memphis, and Vujacic's season where he was a useful shooter. If you're on the 2008-2009 page, only use the one-year ratings if you strictly want last year's data. Also, the overall rating is raw and unadjusted. When Bynum was out, Gasol probably paired more with the horrendous Josh Powell and Mbenga.

 

When adjusted, Gasol comes out to 6.04, which is about 32nd in the league.

 

I know you'll love what you can read about Derrick Rose and his importance to the Bulls last season. Check out that "amazing" overall rating:

 

http://basketballval...r=DESC&team=CHI

 

Aaron Gray, Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden all more important than Rose?

 

And when adjusted, it becomes 0.76. The numbers on him are low because the team was considerably better defensively without him than with him (considering Hinrich was his backup, it makes sense). Rookies will tend to have low marks because their defense is bad, especially on mediocre teams like the Bulls.

 

So inaccurate, it's not even funny.

 

For the most part, it holds up to scrutiny as well as any other statistical measurement.

[Real Deal]

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusminus/plusminus_sort.jsp?pcomb=1&season=22009&split=9&team=

 

About 95 % on this list are top players or legit starters in the league. How inaccurate is it really?

Well, they play with other starters...that's the point.

 

And Erick, I listed the one year overall.

 

But, since you asked me to go to the one year adjusted, I will...and see that Sasha Vujacic was a 0.61, which is said to be better than Trevor's -2.78, Fisher's -11.09, and Farmar's -16.99.

 

Haha, not a chance, bro. 2008-09 Vujacic? No way.

[Erick Blasco]

Well, they play with other starters...that's the point.

 

And Erick, I listed the one year overall.

 

But, since you asked me to go to the one year adjusted, I will...and see that Sasha Vujacic was a 0.61, which is said to be better than Trevor's -2.78, Fisher's -11.09, and Farmar's -16.99.

 

Haha, not a chance, bro. 2008-09 Vujacic? No way.

 

Fisher and Farmar both were pretty bad, and you don't have to take everything as gospel. Nobody is arguing that Vujacic doesn't suck, and especially with small sample sizes, you'll get an anomaly or two like Vujacic being in the positive. For a team as good as the Lakers were last year, being at only 0.6 isn't that good, and he was still behind all the major players from last year's team besides Farmar, Fisher, and Ariza. Farmar and Fisher were pretty bad last year, and Ariza probably is hurt by numbers adjusting for what his teammates did to him.

 

You can still apply common sense and call Sasha's numbers a fluke, that doesn't mean that every single result is a fluke.

[Real Deal]

All I'm saying is that I would never, ever judge a player's impact on a team based on +/- numbers because those numbers are still influenced by teammates' statistics. No matter what way you bend it, when you "adjust" them using his teammates' numbers...well, you're still adjusting with other stats impacted by teammates (since EVERYONE'S is that way).

 

It all stems back to my original take on it: if you can consider Anderson Varejao the best sixth man in the league because of his +/- stats, you have to consider Ron Artest an MVP candidate. I'm sure there isn't a single person on OTR, or anywhere, willing to do that...so they might as well drop Varejao from all talk of a sixth man award.

 

And Vujacic isn't the only one. I found three other examples, and I'm sure I can find many others (at least one per team) where you can easily tell the +/- statistic is way off regarding player impact, I just didn't feel the need to have to post it.

 

As you saw, you had to try and explain why Fisher, Farmar and Ariza were sitting behind the pathetic Vujacic. All three should've been ahead of him, not just one of them.

 

Plus, when Odom is ahead of Bryant on the 1-year adjusted, nearly on the 2-year adjusted, and the 1-year overall...haha, I'm sorry, but that's just another example of the statistic being absolutely ridiculous, because Bryant is easily the better offensive player (by far) and easily the better defensive player.

 

All this stat tells me is how players do with all the different lineups they have to work with, but it doesn't tell me that Odom isn't stuck in a five with garbage players, or how much garbage time Vujacic played.

 

After a while, you run out of explanations, Erick. Farmar is low because he wasn't that good, but Ariza was low because of his adjustments due to his teammates, and Deng is so high because Chicago doesn't have anyone else at his position, while Rose is low because he was a rookie and his offense didn't impact the team as much as Hinrich's defense did, while Vujacic was so high because he was on a team full of stars and his rating was actually a bit low in that regard...

 

The one simple excuse is that the stat covers more from the five than it does from the actual player, because Kobe and Odom don't play with the same teammates, against the same opponents, all the time. Hardly ever, in fact. Does Odom defend Wade and shoot 20+ shots a game...same night? Does Bynum do that and run the triangle offense? How many offensively-injected centers does Bynum have to defend all season long compared to who Ron Artest will have to defend?

 

It's my final post on the subject. The statistic measures a player's impact in the fives he plays in, in the situations he's given. Not one player is the same in that regard, so this statistic is useless. While you can tell who some of the top scorers in the league are by simply looking at their PPG, or who throws the most assists, or who grabs the most rebounds...this stat really doesn't tell you much because, honestly, it doesn't compare two like kinds.

[Erick Blasco]

All I'm saying is that I would never, ever judge a player's impact on a team based on +/- numbers because those numbers are still influenced by teammates' statistics. No matter what way you bend it, when you "adjust" them using his teammates' numbers...well, you're still adjusting with other stats impacted by teammates (since EVERYONE'S is that way).

 

But all stats are impacted by teammates! A shooter playing with players that command double teams will probably have a better FG% than if he were on a worse team. A player with crappy teammates will probably average more points than a player with four other scorers. Dwight Howard gets tons of rebounds because he doesn't play with any rebounding power forward. Steve Nash gets assist because of the raw firepower of his teammates. If you're dismissing +/- on that front, then you'll have to dismiss every stat.

 

It all stems back to my original take on it: if you can consider Anderson Varejao the best sixth man in the league because of his +/- stats, you have to consider Ron Artest an MVP candidate. I'm sure there isn't a single person on OTR, or anywhere, willing to do that...so they might as well drop Varejao from all talk of a sixth man award.

 

I don't consider Varejao the best sixth man in the league because of his plus/minus, I consider him a leading candidate based on his play which his plus/minus references. Not only is he playing well, but he's playing well on a winning team, on a team that plays far better with him than without him, and on a team that plays far better with him than without him adjusting for circumstances.

 

I'll never consider anybody for any award purely based on statistics. I've seen enough of Varejao's play to realize that he's been exceptional defensively, on the boards, and in making little plays here and there on offense (he beat the Hawks with a game winning three). The numbers just back up his strong play.

 

And Vujacic isn't the only one. I found three other examples, and I'm sure I can find many others (at least one per team) where you can easily tell the +/- statistic is way off regarding player impact, I just didn't feel the need to have to post it.

 

As you saw, you had to try and explain why Fisher, Farmar and Ariza were sitting behind the pathetic Vujacic. All three should've been ahead of him, not just one of them.

 

According to percentages, Vujacic is the best 3-point shooter on the Lakers this year, and was second best last year. His numbers blow Kobe's out of the water. Would you say Vujacic is a better shooter than Kobe at face value?

 

Probably not. All statistics are are information that must be interpreted. For some cases, the information is cryptic, others, more obvious. Would I have to explain Kobe being ahead of all three players for example, or can we take for granted that he's really really good.

 

Plus, when Odom is ahead of Bryant on the 1-year adjusted, nearly on the 2-year adjusted, and the 1-year overall...haha, I'm sorry, but that's just another example of the statistic being absolutely ridiculous, because Bryant is easily the better offensive player (by far) and easily the better defensive player.

 

All this stat tells me is how players do with all the different lineups they have to work with, but it doesn't tell me that Odom isn't stuck in a five with garbage players, or how much garbage time Vujacic played.

 

Last year Odom played on a Lakers bench that massacred opponents. Odom spearheaded that bench. He also played on a starting unit that was very good. While Kobe, Gasol, and Odom all share good +/- numbers from the starting lineup, Odom rakes in raw numbers because of the Lakers' bench differential, gets a boost in the plus/minus for playing on a bench with several poor performers, and doesn't get killed for playing purely against opposing benches because he spent a bunch of time in the starting lineup too. He gets the best of both worlds.

 

After a while, you run out of explanations, Erick. Farmar is low because he wasn't that good, but Ariza was low because of his adjustments due to his teammates, and Deng is so high because Chicago doesn't have anyone else at his position, while Rose is low because he was a rookie and his offense didn't impact the team as much as Hinrich's defense did, while Vujacic was so high because he was on a team full of stars and his rating was actually a bit low in that regard...

 

Ariza was also low because he wasn't that good. Look up his percentages in the regular season. He didn't explode into an awesome shooter until the postseason and wasn't an all-class NBA defender either.

 

You're assuming that the stat is a be all, end all way of categorizing players. It's not trying to be. Is Tyreke Evans a better player than Tim Duncan? According to points per game he is. Is Rodney Stuckey a better player than Tony Parker? Is Kendrick Perkins the best player in the NBA(FG%)? Is Monta Ellis (3rd in steals, 6th in points) the best two-way player? Of course not, and you'll need to interpret the data. Evans has more scoring responsibility in a faster system than TD. Stuckey has often times been Detroit's only scoring option while Parker shares the ball more. Ellis plays in a hyper-fast system that emphasizes gambling and transition offense. Most of Perkins' shot attempts are cookies.

 

All stats are are data that tries to reflect what's actually happening on the court. All it is is data. You can't strictly use it to qualify. But it is information that should be looked at when qualifying, especially for normally unqualifiable measures like individual defense, offensive continuity, and the like.

 

I love the game. If I ever get to a point where I actually do run out of answers as to why things happen, then it's time for me to start watching another game.

The one simple excuse is that the stat covers more from the five than it does from the actual player, because Kobe and Odom don't play with the same teammates, against the same opponents, all the time. Hardly ever, in fact. Does Odom defend Wade and shoot 20+ shots a game...same night? Does Bynum do that and run the triangle offense? How many offensively-injected centers does Bynum have to defend all season long compared to who Ron Artest will have to defend?

 

It's my final post on the subject. The statistic measures a player's impact in the fives he plays in, in the situations he's given. Not one player is the same in that regard, so this statistic is useless. While you can tell who some of the top scorers in the league are by simply looking at their PPG, or who throws the most assists, or who grabs the most rebounds...this stat really doesn't tell you much because, honestly, it doesn't compare two like kinds.

 

But those statistics become useless too. Is Brandon Jennings a better scorer than Tony Parker, is Chris Duhon a better playmaker than Chauncey Billups, is Gerald Wallace a better rebounder than David Lee? and what do the stats mean? If you give an answer, should I just dismiss the answer because the players are not like kinds? If you use the like kinds argument, then all statistics are useless because you will never be able to compare equally similar players in equally similar roles.

 

Even look at probably the best two-way stars in the game, LeBron, Wade, Melo and Kobe. Is Melo the best scorer cause he scores the most, even though LeBron has the best percentage? They all have far better supporting cast members than Wade though. However, Wade also plays at the slowest pace. Wade is the only one who averages over a block and a steal a game. But Kobe has two steals. But Kobe rarely guards a team's best player while Wade will do. Melo never does. LeBron sometimes does.

 

Do all stats become irrelevant?

[Real Deal]

Actually, I never said I use stats to say one player is better than the other. Otherwise, I'd be telling everyone that LeBron is better than Bryant.

 

I said this...

 

While you can tell who some of the top scorers in the league are by simply looking at their PPG, or who throws the most assists, or who grabs the most rebounds

Which is true.

 

I never said those stats mean they are the best in the league in those categories, though...just who leads in those stats.

 

Do stats become irrelevant? Not completely irrelevant, but re-read what you posted...

 

Last year Odom played on a Lakers bench that massacred opponents. Odom spearheaded that bench. He also played on a starting unit that was very good. While Kobe, Gasol, and Odom all share good +/- numbers from the starting lineup, Odom rakes in raw numbers because of the Lakers' bench differential, gets a boost in the plus/minus for playing on a bench with several poor performers, and doesn't get killed for playing purely against opposing benches because he spent a bunch of time in the starting lineup too. He gets the best of both worlds.

Because of the bench, because of who he plays with, because of his ability to play with starters, etc.

 

Everything is because of someone else.

 

The +/- statistic is going to favor who you play with more than someone's PPG. Kobe doesn't need a single decent teammate to give you 40 points, and he can do it with one (or two) as well. But something we know about your favorite statistic is that it's easily altered depending on your four other teammates, as you just stated with Odom.

 

The most important stats are the absolute stats, the ones that tell you "how many" in your game or season. How many points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, shot attempts, free throws, threes, etc. Without those, well, you have nothing to begin with, and +/- doesn't even exist at that point.

 

That statistic is just like Hollinger's PER and the NBA's efficiency rating. Both have inaccuracies. I'd rather have true numbers, and I guess you're in a different boat in that regard, and I'm willing to bet it's because you favor defense far more than you do offense.

 

Kobe's impact on the team is larger than that of Lamar Odom's. No statistic can tell me otherwise, and no scenario can convince me or ANY Laker fan that Odom is more important. Don't care if he led the bench or played in the starting five, every single fan knows he's not Bryant. Your statistic says the opposite. That's all I'm saying.

[The Next Knick]

I truthfully think it'll go to Jamal Crawford, he's playing awesome off of the bench for the Hawks. Last night against the Celtics really proved it. And he's a former Knicks <3