Why We Stink: The Numbers

[Moranis]

Another interesting number (at least to me):

Tatum    +207  (in 16 wins)
Tatum    -116   (in 17 losses)

No other player is even close in terms of the disparity in wins vs. losses.

That is because Tatum is the engine of the team.  The team goes as he goes.  What you will also find, is some of Tatum's best games were in losses when the team was a (-), while some of his worst games were in wins when the team was well into the (+) with him. 

[Vermont Green]

Another interesting number (at least to me):

Tatum    +207  (in 16 wins)
Tatum    -116   (in 17 losses)

No other player is even close in terms of the disparity in wins vs. losses.

That is because Tatum is the engine of the team.  The team goes as he goes.  What you will also find, is some of Tatum's best games were in losses when the team was a (-), while some of his worst games were in wins when the team was well into the (+) with him.

I am not sure I am following this but what you are saying is that some (maybe many) cases, that Tatum played well but the team around him played so poorly that the team was overall negative?  And that when Tatum played poorly, the team around him played better and took the team to positive?

I am not sure how to make sense of this.  It is expected that every player will have a better +/- in wins vs. in losses but Tatum's disparity was by far the widest.  The team played very well with Tatum on the court in wins and played pretty badly with Tatum on the court in losses.  This would imply to me that Tatum played well in the wins and badly in the losses.  What you are saying is just the opposite.

[dannyboy35]

  You can’t consistently or very often have 2 poor shooters in the game at once anymore and look to win a championship. Can you? Are contending teams doing this like us? Either way, I think the jays are great/ very very good  players but not good enough (at least yet) to play with 2 bad shooters at once ..A LOT. That’s not even close to a criticism. I just think that’s too much to overcome and an unrealistic ask these days. But I’m wrong A LOT, too.
   

[pokeKingCurtis]

Another interesting number (at least to me):

Tatum    +207  (in 16 wins)
Tatum    -116   (in 17 losses)

No other player is even close in terms of the disparity in wins vs. losses.

That is because Tatum is the engine of the team.  The team goes as he goes.  What you will also find, is some of Tatum's best games were in losses when the team was a (-), while some of his worst games were in wins when the team was well into the (+) with him.

I am not sure I am following this but what you are saying is that some (maybe many) cases, that Tatum played well but the team around him played so poorly that the team was overall negative?  And that when Tatum played poorly, the team around him played better and took the team to positive?

I am not sure how to make sense of this.  It is expected that every player will have a better +/- in wins vs. in losses but Tatum's disparity was by far the widest.  The team played very well with Tatum on the court in wins and played pretty badly with Tatum on the court in losses.  This would imply to me that Tatum played well in the wins and badly in the losses.  What you are saying is just the opposite.

I think he's saying even in Tatum's bad games box-score-wise, if the C's win, Tatum will still likely be a plus. Because the C's run everything thru him.

(and vice versa)

[Moranis]

Another interesting number (at least to me):

Tatum    +207  (in 16 wins)
Tatum    -116   (in 17 losses)

No other player is even close in terms of the disparity in wins vs. losses.

That is because Tatum is the engine of the team.  The team goes as he goes.  What you will also find, is some of Tatum's best games were in losses when the team was a (-), while some of his worst games were in wins when the team was well into the (+) with him.

I am not sure I am following this but what you are saying is that some (maybe many) cases, that Tatum played well but the team around him played so poorly that the team was overall negative?  And that when Tatum played poorly, the team around him played better and took the team to positive?

I am not sure how to make sense of this.  It is expected that every player will have a better +/- in wins vs. in losses but Tatum's disparity was by far the widest.  The team played very well with Tatum on the court in wins and played pretty badly with Tatum on the court in losses.  This would imply to me that Tatum played well in the wins and badly in the losses.  What you are saying is just the opposite.

I think he's saying even in Tatum's bad games box-score-wise, if the C's win, Tatum will still likely be a plus. Because the C's run everything thru him.

(and vice versa)

Yes.  For example, November 28th.  Tatum was 2 of 16 and scored just 8 points, though did have 10 assists and 7 rebounds.  Tatum was +13 in his 38 minutes and Boston beat Toronto by 12.  So despite him having one of the worst shooting games in his career, the team was still positive with him in the game and negative with him on the bench (-1 in 10 minutes).  Conversely, November 17th Tatum was 12 of 22 scoring 34 points with 5 assists and 9 rebounds and Boston was -7 in his 38 minutes.  They lost by 11 to the Hawks (so an even worst -4 in 10 minutes without him).  Now obviously most of the time that Tatum plays poorly, the Celtics lose and most of the time he plays well the Celtics win, but that isn't a given. 

[Vermont Green]

Another interesting number (at least to me):

Tatum    +207  (in 16 wins)
Tatum    -116   (in 17 losses)

No other player is even close in terms of the disparity in wins vs. losses.

That is because Tatum is the engine of the team.  The team goes as he goes.  What you will also find, is some of Tatum's best games were in losses when the team was a (-), while some of his worst games were in wins when the team was well into the (+) with him.

I am not sure I am following this but what you are saying is that some (maybe many) cases, that Tatum played well but the team around him played so poorly that the team was overall negative?  And that when Tatum played poorly, the team around him played better and took the team to positive?

I am not sure how to make sense of this.  It is expected that every player will have a better +/- in wins vs. in losses but Tatum's disparity was by far the widest.  The team played very well with Tatum on the court in wins and played pretty badly with Tatum on the court in losses.  This would imply to me that Tatum played well in the wins and badly in the losses.  What you are saying is just the opposite.

I think he's saying even in Tatum's bad games box-score-wise, if the C's win, Tatum will still likely be a plus. Because the C's run everything thru him.

(and vice versa)

Yes.  For example, November 28th.  Tatum was 2 of 16 and scored just 8 points, though did have 10 assists and 7 rebounds.  Tatum was +13 in his 38 minutes and Boston beat Toronto by 12.  So despite him having one of the worst shooting games in his career, the team was still positive with him in the game and negative with him on the bench (-1 in 10 minutes).  Conversely, November 17th Tatum was 12 of 22 scoring 34 points with 5 assists and 9 rebounds and Boston was -7 in his 38 minutes.  They lost by 11 to the Hawks (so an even worst -4 in 10 minutes without him).  Now obviously most of the time that Tatum plays poorly, the Celtics lose and most of the time he plays well the Celtics win, but that isn't a given.

Of course, there are outliers in the +/- numbers but it is pretty clear from these numbers Tatum has wide swings that impact the team.  He had the team worst +/- last night at -9, in a loss.

Just for context, I looked at the numbers for Doncic.  Interestingly, he had the worst overall +/- on the team at -61.  His wins vs. losses change was pretty wide also with +80 in wins and -141 in losses.  Still not as wide a disparity as Tatum though.  I wonder what is going on that Doncic has the worst +/- on the entire team.

[GreenlyGreeny]

Another interesting number (at least to me):

Tatum    +207  (in 16 wins)
Tatum    -116   (in 17 losses)

No other player is even close in terms of the disparity in wins vs. losses.

That is because Tatum is the engine of the team.  The team goes as he goes.  What you will also find, is some of Tatum's best games were in losses when the team was a (-), while some of his worst games were in wins when the team was well into the (+) with him.

I am not sure I am following this but what you are saying is that some (maybe many) cases, that Tatum played well but the team around him played so poorly that the team was overall negative?  And that when Tatum played poorly, the team around him played better and took the team to positive?

I am not sure how to make sense of this.  It is expected that every player will have a better +/- in wins vs. in losses but Tatum's disparity was by far the widest.  The team played very well with Tatum on the court in wins and played pretty badly with Tatum on the court in losses.  This would imply to me that Tatum played well in the wins and badly in the losses.  What you are saying is just the opposite.

I think he's saying even in Tatum's bad games box-score-wise, if the C's win, Tatum will still likely be a plus. Because the C's run everything thru him.

(and vice versa)

Yes.  For example, November 28th.  Tatum was 2 of 16 and scored just 8 points, though did have 10 assists and 7 rebounds.  Tatum was +13 in his 38 minutes and Boston beat Toronto by 12.  So despite him having one of the worst shooting games in his career, the team was still positive with him in the game and negative with him on the bench (-1 in 10 minutes).  Conversely, November 17th Tatum was 12 of 22 scoring 34 points with 5 assists and 9 rebounds and Boston was -7 in his 38 minutes.  They lost by 11 to the Hawks (so an even worst -4 in 10 minutes without him).  Now obviously most of the time that Tatum plays poorly, the Celtics lose and most of the time he plays well the Celtics win, but that isn't a given.

Of course, there are outliers in the +/- numbers but it is pretty clear from these numbers Tatum has wide swings that impact the team.  He had the team worst +/- last night at -9, in a loss.

Just for context, I looked at the numbers for Doncic.  Interestingly, he had the worst overall +/- on the team at -61.  His wins vs. losses change was pretty wide also with +80 in wins and -141 in losses.  Still not as wide a disparity as Tatum though.  I wonder what is going on that Doncic has the worst +/- on the entire team.

Perhaps a function of time on court and the fact other teams ensure their best defenders are always on the court when Doncic (and Tatum for us) are on the floor?

[Kiorrik]

Sounds to me like Tatum's problem is his inconsistency.

He's as like to go for 50 points as he is to go for under 10.

[Moranis]

Another interesting number (at least to me):

Tatum    +207  (in 16 wins)
Tatum    -116   (in 17 losses)

No other player is even close in terms of the disparity in wins vs. losses.

That is because Tatum is the engine of the team.  The team goes as he goes.  What you will also find, is some of Tatum's best games were in losses when the team was a (-), while some of his worst games were in wins when the team was well into the (+) with him.

I am not sure I am following this but what you are saying is that some (maybe many) cases, that Tatum played well but the team around him played so poorly that the team was overall negative?  And that when Tatum played poorly, the team around him played better and took the team to positive?

I am not sure how to make sense of this.  It is expected that every player will have a better +/- in wins vs. in losses but Tatum's disparity was by far the widest.  The team played very well with Tatum on the court in wins and played pretty badly with Tatum on the court in losses.  This would imply to me that Tatum played well in the wins and badly in the losses.  What you are saying is just the opposite.

I think he's saying even in Tatum's bad games box-score-wise, if the C's win, Tatum will still likely be a plus. Because the C's run everything thru him.

(and vice versa)

Yes.  For example, November 28th.  Tatum was 2 of 16 and scored just 8 points, though did have 10 assists and 7 rebounds.  Tatum was +13 in his 38 minutes and Boston beat Toronto by 12.  So despite him having one of the worst shooting games in his career, the team was still positive with him in the game and negative with him on the bench (-1 in 10 minutes).  Conversely, November 17th Tatum was 12 of 22 scoring 34 points with 5 assists and 9 rebounds and Boston was -7 in his 38 minutes.  They lost by 11 to the Hawks (so an even worst -4 in 10 minutes without him).  Now obviously most of the time that Tatum plays poorly, the Celtics lose and most of the time he plays well the Celtics win, but that isn't a given.

Of course, there are outliers in the +/- numbers but it is pretty clear from these numbers Tatum has wide swings that impact the team.  He had the team worst +/- last night at -9, in a loss.

Just for context, I looked at the numbers for Doncic.  Interestingly, he had the worst overall +/- on the team at -61.  His wins vs. losses change was pretty wide also with +80 in wins and -141 in losses.  Still not as wide a disparity as Tatum though.  I wonder what is going on that Doncic has the worst +/- on the entire team.

For as good as Doncic's numbers are, the Mavs have never been that much worse without him in the game.  These are his on/off per 100 possessions for his career

-3.7
+1.2
+3.0
-8.4

So while this year is obviously much worse than any other season, it isn't like Doncic has ever been an elite performer.  And that is very strange, usually the really ball dominant players have their teams fall apart when they aren't in the game (think Lebron or to a lesser extent Tatum), but perhaps Doncic's ball dominance actually is a detriment to the rest of the Mavs.  And on some level that makes sense, since most of the Mavs aren't really great fits with Doncic, such that when Luka isn't in the game, the rest of the team just fits better.  That would be a management issue in not putting the right pieces around Luka, more than a Luka problem.  That said, maybe Luka's immaturity (both on and off the court) is more of an issue than you might otherwise expect.

[Who]

Mavs W-L with/without Luka = 12 wins 9 losses (47 win pace) with Luka and 5 wins 9 losses (29 win pace) without Luka.

Big difference.

[Vermont Green]

Mavs W-L with/without Luka = 12 wins 9 losses (47 win pace) with Luka and 5 wins 9 losses (29 win pace) without Luka.

Big difference.

That is interesting, so even though Luca has the worst individual +/- on the entire team, the team is still winning more games with him than without.  By this he has played 35 games and is -61 in those games.  That means when he is off the court, the team must be +something.

So Luca is making the team better when he is active but only when he is active but not on the court.  There could be a few blow out games that are skewing this but the skewing is happening mostly to Luca, not the rest of the team.  Very strange stats.

For the record, Tatum +8 in a loss last game (NYK), bucking the trend.  The problem seemed to be when GWill and RWill were on the court together (-11 in only 6 minutes).  We were much better when either Horford or Freedom were on the court with one of them and the best (+8) when they both Horford and Freedom were playing.