« Reply #50 on: August 31, 2021, 02:46:18 PM »
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.
That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.
It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.
Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.
He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.
I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021
You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats.
Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!!
Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?
When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.
Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?
Do better. You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.
Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court. They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench. In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true. Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court." That just isn't true. The team was significantly worse with him on the court.
As Celtics2021 said above, the stat alone doesn't really make a solid case for what you're claiming it does. For lots of reasons. Sample size, for one, but it's also a very noisy stat that could be affected by all kinds of context that doesn't have to do with Langford's specific impact on the court.
Logged
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008