Pick A Date

[Fafnir]

Well, they lost the game by 8 and Marbury was minus 10.

When are we going to agree that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes?  When are we going to concede that Marbury isn't Starbury, he's Barfbury?  When are we going to take off the emerald colored glasses?  When are we going to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Donnie Walsh and Mike D'Antoni have been around the block a few times and knew what they were doing?

It's time to start snickering at Danny Ainge on this one.

In that case, I blame Ray Allen.  He was minus 14!!!

That's because he was on the floor with Marbury.  If not for Ray, Marbury would have been minus 25.  Did you watch the game?

+/- of a single game is a stupid way to judge performance and you know it Brick. If you want to attack Marbury's game tonight use a valid criticism, they're easy enough to find.

Why is +/- a stupid way to judge performance?  I would agree that it shouldn't be the sole determination of whether someone played well or not, but I don't think it's an invalid criticism.  For example, Bill Walker played 14 minutes, and the C's were +12 in the time he was on the court.  Would you say that we couldn't use that statistic to say that Walker made a positive contribution?  Which he did, btw.  It is true that it to use it on a game-by-game basis is tricky since it is open to so many other in-game variables, but I don't think it's a meaningless stat, either.

Because if you have a great player on a bad team he'll have a bad +/- night in and night out. Ray Allen was -14 did he have a negative impact? No of course not! He had a very good game. +/- depends on your teammates to the point that in its raw form it is practically useless.

Bill Walker did have a positive contribution, but his plus/minus is a terrible way to argue for it. Instead point out his efficient shooting came from put backs and playing hard. Point out his good box outs, his passing for assists, or his steals.

Gabe Pruit had a +6. He took no shots, and had essentially no impact on the game. He just bumbled into a point of the game where the C's scored 6 more than the Heat.

[CDawg834]

Well, they lost the game by 8 and Marbury was minus 10.

When are we going to agree that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes?  When are we going to concede that Marbury isn't Starbury, he's Barfbury?  When are we going to take off the emerald colored glasses?  When are we going to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Donnie Walsh and Mike D'Antoni have been around the block a few times and knew what they were doing?

It's time to start snickering at Danny Ainge on this one.

In that case, I blame Ray Allen.  He was minus 14!!!

That's because he was on the floor with Marbury.  If not for Ray, Marbury would have been minus 25.  Did you watch the game?

+/- of a single game is a stupid way to judge performance and you know it Brick. If you want to attack Marbury's game tonight use a valid criticism, they're easy enough to find.

Why is +/- a stupid way to judge performance?  I would agree that it shouldn't be the sole determination of whether someone played well or not, but I don't think it's an invalid criticism.  For example, Bill Walker played 14 minutes, and the C's were +12 in the time he was on the court.  Would you say that we couldn't use that statistic to say that Walker made a positive contribution?  Which he did, btw.  It is true that it to use it on a game-by-game basis is tricky since it is open to so many other in-game variables, but I don't think it's a meaningless stat, either.

Because if you have a great player on a bad team he'll have a bad +/- night in and night out. Ray Allen was -14 did he have a negative impact? No of course not! He had a very good game. +/- depends on your teammates to the point that in its raw form it is practically useless.

Bill Walker did have a positive contribution, but his plus/minus is a terrible way to argue for it. Instead point out his efficient shooting came from put backs and playing hard. Point out his good box outs, his passing for assists, or his steals.

Gabe Pruit had a +6. He took no shots, and had essentially no impact on the game. He just bumbled into a point of the game where the C's scored 6 more than the Heat.

You are right that any good player on a bad team is going to generally have a bad +/- stat, but I guess I just disagree with you in that I don't think it should be disregarded completely.  Your Pruitt example is a good one, he didn't directly contribute to his +6 (although one could make the point he probably didn't take anything off the table for the C's either), but in the case of Walker, I do think there is something to be said for the +12, the team played that much better while he was in the game.

The +/- by 5-man lineup over at 82games would probably be a better reference than individual +/- though

[Fafnir]

Well, they lost the game by 8 and Marbury was minus 10.

When are we going to agree that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes?  When are we going to concede that Marbury isn't Starbury, he's Barfbury?  When are we going to take off the emerald colored glasses?  When are we going to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Donnie Walsh and Mike D'Antoni have been around the block a few times and knew what they were doing?

It's time to start snickering at Danny Ainge on this one.

In that case, I blame Ray Allen.  He was minus 14!!!

That's because he was on the floor with Marbury.  If not for Ray, Marbury would have been minus 25.  Did you watch the game?

+/- of a single game is a stupid way to judge performance and you know it Brick. If you want to attack Marbury's game tonight use a valid criticism, they're easy enough to find.

Why is +/- a stupid way to judge performance?  I would agree that it shouldn't be the sole determination of whether someone played well or not, but I don't think it's an invalid criticism.  For example, Bill Walker played 14 minutes, and the C's were +12 in the time he was on the court.  Would you say that we couldn't use that statistic to say that Walker made a positive contribution?  Which he did, btw.  It is true that it to use it on a game-by-game basis is tricky since it is open to so many other in-game variables, but I don't think it's a meaningless stat, either.

Because if you have a great player on a bad team he'll have a bad +/- night in and night out. Ray Allen was -14 did he have a negative impact? No of course not! He had a very good game. +/- depends on your teammates to the point that in its raw form it is practically useless.

Bill Walker did have a positive contribution, but his plus/minus is a terrible way to argue for it. Instead point out his efficient shooting came from put backs and playing hard. Point out his good box outs, his passing for assists, or his steals.

Gabe Pruit had a +6. He took no shots, and had essentially no impact on the game. He just bumbled into a point of the game where the C's scored 6 more than the Heat.

The +/- by 5-man lineup over at 82games would probably be a better reference than individual +/- though

Not really, the five man lineups have such a small sample size that they are of extremely limited value. Very vulnerable to statistical noise. You need multiple years of +/- data to draw good conclusions with adjusted plus/minus rating systems.

[cordobes]

If Marbury doesn't show remarkable improvements till Tony Allen and Scalabrine are back (or by the end of the regular season), he should be cut from the roster. I don't think that will happen though, but that would be the correct date if he doesn't pan out.

The problem with Marbury is not only that he hasn't played in ages, not only that he was never really that good and he obviously has declined since his peak, but the fact that he hasn't played this role of a distributor and facilitator, of a true point guard, since his Minnesota days. He's hyper rusty. His defence worries me more, he's truly horrific. I'm not surprised by his productivity so far (nor did I ever had the wild and hysterical expectations of others), but the team can't go into the playoffs giving Marbury minutes without knowing for sure if he can produce or not.

As a side-note, it's hilarious to see Brickowski being the one calling out people for failed predictions.  

[cordobes]

Fafnir is right in regards to the +/-.

According to +/- (and adjusted to the presence of teammates and opponents, not only the raw +/-), Chris Paul was a bellow average NBA player last season. Does anyone buy that?

Of course, people will usually say cliches like "oh, of course, no metric is perfect", "stats have limitations", "they don't tell the whole story but are useful", blablabla. However, those are just excuses to exercise confirmation bias at will. If stats confirm what they think "oh, I know stats are perfect, but they can't be ignored, so..."; if the same stat says Chris Paul is a bellow average player, they  are never mentioned.

[Fafnir]

I would like to add I liked what Bill Walker did in spot minutes. He hasn't shown me anything that would indicate he should get signifigantly more minutes, this year, other than to rest Pierce.

I do think he can be a contributor next year if given a chance.

[dark_lord]

  

[wdleehi]

 

I can offer you $10 for that bridge.

[Tai]

So this is me after reading this topic. No, I did not draw this.