wjb1492
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 29, 2009
- Posts:
- 128
- Liked Posts:
- 1
- Location:
- Oklahoma
dougthonus wrote:
No, I completely agree with you there. I think I'm being way too vague, because I've kind of lumped +/- in with all team oriented stats. I absolutely agree that raw +/- is one of the most limited stats out there for basketball analysis. Probably the two best things I can say for it is that it provides a starting point for the improved net/adjusted +/- stuff and that it can cause you to want to look more carefully at what's going on when a player's raw +/- seems completely out of whack (good or bad) with his individual play and the rest of the team's numbers.
But I like that last part, because it sometimes really makes me think about the little things going on. And sometimes the answer absolutely is luck - a guy was lucky enough to be out there for every little run, and you can't find a darn thing he's doing that's really fueling it, or maybe it's just that he replaced someone sucking the life out of the team and now the other 4 are playing great just by virtue of that player not sucking. And "not sucking" isn't an especially high compliment in my book. And sometimes a guy comes in on fire and there's a direct tie from personal stats to team +/-. And sometimes it really is the little things that +/- supposedly measures.
So yes, with any stat it's a huge issue when you have to explain what you see and then say it's reflected in a stat, rather than use the stat as shorthand. But I like that +/- makes me think about what went on in the game aside from the classical box score stuff. For me it's a lot like looking at the gameflows, just part of the post-game analysis.
All that said, it would be most excellent if people would stop throwing out raw +/- as "proof" that a guy played well or poorly, particularly when that +/- score is contrary to other statistical measures.
No, I completely agree with you there. I think I'm being way too vague, because I've kind of lumped +/- in with all team oriented stats. I absolutely agree that raw +/- is one of the most limited stats out there for basketball analysis. Probably the two best things I can say for it is that it provides a starting point for the improved net/adjusted +/- stuff and that it can cause you to want to look more carefully at what's going on when a player's raw +/- seems completely out of whack (good or bad) with his individual play and the rest of the team's numbers.
But I like that last part, because it sometimes really makes me think about the little things going on. And sometimes the answer absolutely is luck - a guy was lucky enough to be out there for every little run, and you can't find a darn thing he's doing that's really fueling it, or maybe it's just that he replaced someone sucking the life out of the team and now the other 4 are playing great just by virtue of that player not sucking. And "not sucking" isn't an especially high compliment in my book. And sometimes a guy comes in on fire and there's a direct tie from personal stats to team +/-. And sometimes it really is the little things that +/- supposedly measures.
So yes, with any stat it's a huge issue when you have to explain what you see and then say it's reflected in a stat, rather than use the stat as shorthand. But I like that +/- makes me think about what went on in the game aside from the classical box score stuff. For me it's a lot like looking at the gameflows, just part of the post-game analysis.
All that said, it would be most excellent if people would stop throwing out raw +/- as "proof" that a guy played well or poorly, particularly when that +/- score is contrary to other statistical measures.
