Vegas Summer League: Game 3 Celtics (2-0) vs Heat (1-1) 7/14/15

[tarheelsxxiii]

This is why you can't always trust the plus/minus stat.

Smart's stats:

6 points on 1 for 11 from the field, 0 of 8 behind the arc.

3 assists to 2 turnovers

4 of 6 from the FT line

&

2 steals

Yet he has a +20 for the game?

Or, on the other hand, the problem isn't with the stat, but your assessment about what an effective game is.

The problem is that's can be skewed with low sample sizes.  In this case, plus minus is lying like a thief.  No sane person can interpret smart's stat line and call it anything less than atrocious.

I agree with what you just said. By traditional statistics, his stat line was atrocious.

The plus-minus gives us a bit of an idea of the effect he had defensively. He consistently took the first option of their offense away, forced ball-handlers to go away from one entire side of the court, and generally (along with Rozier, Hunter, and Thorton), had the Heat backcourt uncomfortable, nervous, and mistake-ridden.

When Smart was on the court, the Celtics were amazing defensively, which is the reason that the plus-minus stat read +20.

There is no excuse for his shot selection, inefficiency, and general unwillingness to work into the offense by getting easier looks. As bad as he was on offense, he made the Heat worse with his defense, which is why he was +20.

I'm pretty sure there is no need to lash out. It's a discussion.

No, the problem is that you're looking at box plus-minus and not real plus-minus. Major difference.

[chambers]

Holmes is great.

I think I know who Rozier reminds me of....


    John Wall

(with a splash of Dwayne Wade in there)

[CelticSooner]

Finally getting to see the replay. I'm a nightowl anyway.

[CelticSooner]

Man it's going to be fun watching RJ develop 

[crimson_stallion]

This is why you can't always trust the plus/minus stat.

Smart's stats:

6 points on 1 for 11 from the field, 0 of 8 behind the arc.

3 assists to 2 turnovers

4 of 6 from the FT line

&

2 steals

Yet he has a +20 for the game?

Or, on the other hand, the problem isn't with the stat, but your assessment about what an effective game is.

The problem is that's can be skewed with low sample sizes.  In this case, plus minus is lying like a thief.  No sane person can interpret smart's stat line and call it anything less than atrocious.

Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting what plus/minus is all about. 

The purpose of Plus/Minus is not to analyse a player's stats.  It's purpose is to analyse a player's impact.

The entire purpose purpose of plus/minus is to give credit to the guys who impact winning by doing all the little things that don't show up on stat sheets (hockey passes, setting good screens that lead to baskets, playing outstanding defense, boxing out so your teammate can get a rebound, hustling after loose balls, vocal leadership, savvy veteran plays, etc). 

The other purpose is to expose the opposite players - those selfish players who are all about individual stat lines, but who hurt the team when they're on the court because they do a lot of negative things that don't show up on the box score (lazy defense, not going after shooters, not boxing out, setting poor screens, stopping ball movement, poor positioning on offense/defense, not executing plays properly, etc). 

For example, some players have generated countless turnovers off savvy veteran tricks like 'puling the chair' when defending in the post.  This often leads to the offensive player losing their footing and fall over, which in turn usually leads to them travelling, losing the ball out of bounds, or a loose ball that one of your teammates ends up collecting.  This not only ends your opponent's possession (and hence, stops them from scoring) but also generates an extra offensive possession (and hence opportunity to score) for your team.  That's a potential 4 point swing on a single play, yet it doesn't show up on a stat sheet. 

Another example is if you are playing against a great scorer, and you work extremely hard defensively off the ball, so they have to work twice as hard to catch the ball...and when they do it's in a spot where they aren't comfortable.  This often leads to any of three possibilities:

(a) The player doesn't touch the ball
(b) The player catches the ball, doesn't see a good opportunity, passes back out
(c) The player catches the ball in a bad spot, can't do what he wants, forces a bad play

Either of the above is a great outcome, and if you are doing this EVERY time down the court, the potential impact that could have on the opposing teams offense is huge - that type of performance could well be the single most important factor in your team winning the game.    But if said player has 2 points on 1-6 shooting, 0 assists, 0 rebounds and 1 turnover, then a simply glance at the stat sheet would tell you that the said player had a disgraceful game and did nothing to help the team win.

As with the above examples, if you watch this game it's easy to see some of the areas in which Smart impacted the game in a positive way.  His hustle, his ball movement (passes that didn't lead to assists), his defense, his leadership (etc) were all outstanding.

People get too caught up in basic box score numbers, as if a player's individual stats are what determines whether a team wins or loses.

No. 

A team's stats are what determines whether the team wins or loses.

Boston was outscoring the Heat by 20 Points Per 100 Possessions more when Smart was on the court, compared to when he was off the court, despite the fact that he had a bad shooting night and generally put up unimpressive box score numbers.  That tells you all you need to know about his impact on the game (which was overwhelmingly positive).

There are way too many variables involved to assign a specific percentage of credit for a players plus minus impact.

This stat gives no proof to a players positive or negative impact.

Gives no proof? 

The team's lead increases while the player is on the court.  It decreases when the player gets off the court.  How can you argue that's no proof of the players impact?

You can try to argue that it doesn't COMPLETELY prove the players impact, but you can't try to argue that it gives NO proof to the players impact...it absolutely does.  The only thing you can argue is that the stat might not EXCLUSIVELY indicate the player's impact, because it may include other factors too. 

Even then, in order to make that argument you would need to be able to show evidence of another influencing factor that would cause the said player's stat to be "exhagerated". 

For example if you could find another player who is a total plus/minus stud, and then demonstrate the fact that Smart is generally only on the court when he is (and gets off the court when he does) then this could explain an elevated +/- stat.  The +/- leaders in this game were Fair (+26) and O'neale (+21).  So if you could demonstrate that Smart is pretty much always on the court when one of those two players also was, then you could argue that it was THEM having the positive impact, and Smart's numbers got boosted as a result.

However...problem there is that basketball has 5 guys on the court at all times.  Chances are there is probably another player (maybe Mickey, maybe Rozier?) who ALSO was on the court when one of those two guys was...and if so, why were their +/- stat (+14 for Mickey, +10 for Rozier) not up in the 20's just like Smart's? 

This is the problem with trying to discredit +/- stats.  There are so many substitutions and rotation changes during the court of an NBA game that it's highly unlikely (not impossible, but statistically improbable) for a player who plays significant minutes to have his numbers skewed because of who he shared the court with.

It becomes even more improbable when you have a really large sample size, such as an entire 82 game NBA season (during which Smart was one of the NBA's leading point guards in terms of Real Plus/Minus).

Let me give you a simple example.  Load up the game footage and skip to 5:51 in the 2nd quarter.

Winslow has the ball in the top left of the court, dribbles towards the baseline.  Smart effortless passes the screen that was set, cuts off Winslow's path.  Windslow has to stop his dribble suddenly and pick up the ball, and starts falling off balance.  He is desperately looking for a teammate.  As he's falling back he needs all his strength just to try to throw the pass high enough to get it over Smart's outstretched arms, which are all over him.  Pass doesn't have enough power, so Thornton is able to intercept it, which leads to a fast break.  Thornton gets fouled on the fast break layup - hits both free throws. 

Four point swing, just like that.  Thornton is awarded the 'steal' stat on the box score because he's the one who intercepted the pass, so Smart gets zero box score recognition for that play - even though those two points were almost directly resulting in his hustle.   

Smart has impact plays like this all the time, that never lead to any recognition on the box score. That's the type of player he is.

It doesn't give any proof. How do you explain CJ Fair having a plus 28? The answer to me are the other players had more to do with that. Again too many variables at play here.

Fair has 12 points (3-6 shooting, 2-2 3PT, 4-4 FT), 9 rebounds, 1 assist and 0 turnovers in 18 minutes.

That's arguably the best Per-minute box score of anybody on the team.  Not a fan of the guy, but he hustled today.
 

[Csfan1984]

I like CJ Fair too. Seems like a good player. But not sure he makes an NBA roster. He has done well and should make a pro league somewhere regardless.

[LGC88]

This is why you can't always trust the plus/minus stat.

Smart's stats:

6 points on 1 for 11 from the field, 0 of 8 behind the arc.

3 assists to 2 turnovers

4 of 6 from the FT line

&

2 steals

Yet he has a +20 for the game?

Or, on the other hand, the problem isn't with the stat, but your assessment about what an effective game is.

The problem is that's can be skewed with low sample sizes.  In this case, plus minus is lying like a thief.  No sane person can interpret smart's stat line and call it anything less than atrocious.

Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting what plus/minus is all about. 

The purpose of Plus/Minus is not to analyse a player's stats.  It's purpose is to analyse a player's impact.

The entire purpose purpose of plus/minus is to give credit to the guys who impact winning by doing all the little things that don't show up on stat sheets (hockey passes, setting good screens that lead to baskets, playing outstanding defense, boxing out so your teammate can get a rebound, hustling after loose balls, vocal leadership, savvy veteran plays, etc). 

Likewise, to expose the selfish players who are all about individual stat lines, but who hurt the team when they're on the court because they do a lot of negative things that don't show up on the box score (lazy defense, not going after shooters, not boxing out, setting poor screens, stopping ball movement, poor positioning on offense/defense, not executing plays properly, etc). 

If you watch this game it's easy to see that Smart's hustle, his ball movement (passes that didn't lead to assists), his defense (etc) were all outstanding in this game - but none of those are things tracked by basic stats.

People get too caught up in basic box score numbers, as if a player's individual stats are what determines whether a team wins or loses.

No. 

A team's stats are what determines whether the team wins or loses.

Boston was outscoring the Heat by 20 Points Per 100 Possessions more when Smart was on the court, compared to when he was off the court, despite the fact that he had a bad shooting night and generally put up unimpressive box score numbers. 

Obviously there were things he did, that don't show on the box score, that had a huge positive impact for Boston.

What part of that is difficult to interpret?

Like defense? 

BB stats that fans get aren't very good picking up the effect of a strong defender. +/- isn't perfect, but Smart was basically the best +/- rookie who was in the draft and 2nd to Mirotic among rookies (and Mirotic's a faux rookie), and the sample was plenty big enough. Sort the link below for BPM and see.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015_advanced.html?lid=header_seasons

Yep, I've been stressing this all season.

People dump on stats like Real Plus/Minus because people can't (or don't want to) read between the lines. 

They can't fathom that a player can have a massive impact on his teams offense without getting a lot of points / assists.  Or how a player can have a huge impact on defense without getting a lot of blocks / steals. 

Yet every GM/coach in the league knows that this is the case. 

It's why guys like Shane Battier, Bruce Bowen, Derek Fisher and Tayshaun Prince have all had starting roles on championship/finals teams...and why those same guys have never had problems finding a spot on a roster, even after they got old and had declined heavily.

It's why guys like Andre Iguodala and Chauncey Billups were able to win Finals MVP awards despite the fact that weren't really the best (or most talented) players on their teams.

If you watched the Celtics carefully last year, it really wasn't that hard to see the huge impact Smart made every time he stepped on the court - even before Rondo got traded out (and Smart got his minutes increased) he was making huge plays on both ends of the court every time he stepped on the hardwood.  All plays that didn't show up on the stat sheet - diving for loose balls, shutting opposing guys down defensively, forcing turnovers, knocking loose balls to teammates, taking charges, making good hockey passes, etc. 

When Rondo got traded out I wasn't that worried at all, because I already felt like we played better when Smart was on the court, despite the fact that his stats were really quite woeful.

TP
Smart had a very bad day at shooting. However, he hustles and completely shut down Miami's offense, forcing them to make bad shots or turnovers.
Sometimes the stats doesn't show you everything.

[Boris Badenov]

Say what you want about Smart's defense, or his plus/minus, or that guys have bad shooting nights, but the simple fact is that his shot selection last night was absolutely terrible, even for him.

There's no excuse for that. He's a veteran leader on that SL team and he needs to provide a better example than jacking up contested, off-balance threes early in the clock.

And I love the guy don't get me wrong.

[chilidawg]

As someone noted above, its important to distinguish between the box +/-, which is what shows up in the box score, and "real +/-", which adjusts for the quality of opponents on the floor and teammates on the floor.  BPM can be misleading because you can run up a good point differential against poor opponents, or get carried along by teammates who are having a good game.

I've never seen RPM stats calculated on a game by game basis, but from what I've read they are best used as a season long average.  RPM used this way seems to me the most important stat out there.

None of this is meant to claim that Smart did or didn't have a good game.  Best way to do that is to watch the tape.

[IDreamCeltics]

The Celtic's forced 17 Heat turnovers and won the game by 30 points... I'm not really sure how anyone could say the Celtic's best defensive player (Smart) had a bad game when the defense alone created over 20 points. 

I realize he had a bad night OFFENSIVELY, but the thing about NBA stars is that they find ways to impact the game even when their own offense isn't going. 

"NBA ready" Justice Winslow had 5 points 3 rebounds 0 assists 0 steals 0 blocks and 3 turnovers and eventually sprained an ankle while falling out of bounds while Smart was guarding him. 

   

[saltlover]

Ignoring Smart for a second, can someone who was able to watch give a report on Holmes?  I still think there's a decent chance he's signed to a contract, despite the PJ3 trade.

[BballTim]

This is why you can't always trust the plus/minus stat.

Smart's stats:

6 points on 1 for 11 from the field, 0 of 8 behind the arc.

3 assists to 2 turnovers

4 of 6 from the FT line

&

2 steals

Yet he has a +20 for the game?

Or, on the other hand, the problem isn't with the stat, but your assessment about what an effective game is.

The problem is that's can be skewed with low sample sizes.  In this case, plus minus is lying like a thief.  No sane person can interpret smart's stat line and call it anything less than atrocious.

Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting what plus/minus is all about. 

The purpose of Plus/Minus is not to analyse a player's stats.  It's purpose is to analyse a player's impact.

The entire purpose purpose of plus/minus is to give credit to the guys who impact winning by doing all the little things that don't show up on stat sheets (hockey passes, setting good screens that lead to baskets, playing outstanding defense, boxing out so your teammate can get a rebound, hustling after loose balls, vocal leadership, savvy veteran plays, etc). 

The other purpose is to expose the opposite players - those selfish players who are all about individual stat lines, but who hurt the team when they're on the court because they do a lot of negative things that don't show up on the box score (lazy defense, not going after shooters, not boxing out, setting poor screens, stopping ball movement, poor positioning on offense/defense, not executing plays properly, etc). 

For example, some players have generated countless turnovers off savvy veteran tricks like 'puling the chair' when defending in the post.  This often leads to the offensive player losing their footing and fall over, which in turn usually leads to them travelling, losing the ball out of bounds, or a loose ball that one of your teammates ends up collecting.  This not only ends your opponent's possession (and hence, stops them from scoring) but also generates an extra offensive possession (and hence opportunity to score) for your team.  That's a potential 4 point swing on a single play, yet it doesn't show up on a stat sheet. 

Another example is if you are playing against a great scorer, and you work extremely hard defensively off the ball, so they have to work twice as hard to catch the ball...and when they do it's in a spot where they aren't comfortable.  This often leads to any of three possibilities:

(a) The player doesn't touch the ball
(b) The player catches the ball, doesn't see a good opportunity, passes back out
(c) The player catches the ball in a bad spot, can't do what he wants, forces a bad play

Either of the above is a great outcome, and if you are doing this EVERY time down the court, the potential impact that could have on the opposing teams offense is huge - that type of performance could well be the single most important factor in your team winning the game.    But if said player has 2 points on 1-6 shooting, 0 assists, 0 rebounds and 1 turnover, then a simply glance at the stat sheet would tell you that the said player had a disgraceful game and did nothing to help the team win.

As with the above examples, if you watch this game it's easy to see some of the areas in which Smart impacted the game in a positive way.  His hustle, his ball movement (passes that didn't lead to assists), his defense, his leadership (etc) were all outstanding.

People get too caught up in basic box score numbers, as if a player's individual stats are what determines whether a team wins or loses.

No. 

A team's stats are what determines whether the team wins or loses.

Boston was outscoring the Heat by 20 Points Per 100 Possessions more when Smart was on the court, compared to when he was off the court, despite the fact that he had a bad shooting night and generally put up unimpressive box score numbers.  That tells you all you need to know about his impact on the game (which was overwhelmingly positive).

There are way too many variables involved to assign a specific percentage of credit for a players plus minus impact.

This stat gives no proof to a players positive or negative impact.

Gives no proof? 

The team's lead increases while the player is on the court.  It decreases when the player gets off the court.  How can you argue that's no proof of the players impact?

You can try to argue that it doesn't COMPLETELY prove the players impact, but you can't try to argue that it gives NO proof to the players impact...it absolutely does.  The only thing you can argue is that the stat might not EXCLUSIVELY indicate the player's impact, because it may include other factors too. 

Even then, in order to make that argument you would need to be able to show evidence of another influencing factor that would cause the said player's stat to be "exhagerated". 

For example if you could find another player who is a total plus/minus stud, and then demonstrate the fact that Smart is generally only on the court when he is (and gets off the court when he does) then this could explain an elevated +/- stat.  The +/- leaders in this game were Fair (+26) and O'neale (+21).  So if you could demonstrate that Smart is pretty much always on the court when one of those two players also was, then you could argue that it was THEM having the positive impact, and Smart's numbers got boosted as a result.

However...problem there is that basketball has 5 guys on the court at all times.  Chances are there is probably another player (maybe Mickey, maybe Rozier?) who ALSO was on the court when one of those two guys was...and if so, why were their +/- stat (+14 for Mickey, +10 for Rozier) not up in the 20's just like Smart's? 

This is the problem with trying to discredit +/- stats.  There are so many substitutions and rotation changes during the court of an NBA game that it's highly unlikely (not impossible, but statistically improbable) for a player who plays significant minutes to have his numbers skewed because of who he shared the court with.

It becomes even more improbable when you have a really large sample size, such as an entire 82 game NBA season (during which Smart was one of the NBA's leading point guards in terms of Real Plus/Minus).

Let me give you a simple example.  Load up the game footage and skip to 5:51 in the 2nd quarter.

Winslow has the ball in the top left of the court, dribbles towards the baseline.  Smart effortless passes the screen that was set, cuts off Winslow's path.  Windslow has to stop his dribble suddenly and pick up the ball, and starts falling off balance.  He is desperately looking for a teammate.  As he's falling back he needs all his strength just to try to throw the pass high enough to get it over Smart's outstretched arms, which are all over him.  Pass doesn't have enough power, so Thornton is able to intercept it, which leads to a fast break.  Thornton gets fouled on the fast break layup - hits both free throws. 

Four point swing, just like that.  Thornton is awarded the 'steal' stat on the box score because he's the one who intercepted the pass, so Smart gets zero box score recognition for that play - even though those two points were almost directly resulting in his hustle.   

Smart has impact plays like this all the time, that never lead to any recognition on the box score. That's the type of player he is.

  Plus/minus can be a sign of a player's impact, or it can be a sign of how poor his backup is. It's incredibly noisy, and it's not unusual for who a player's on the court with to have a large effect on that player's numbers. Also, you talk about a season being an incredibly large sample size, but I think the prevailing thought on those numbers is that you'd have to see a player's numbers over a number of seasons before you could draw any meaningful conclusions.

[SHAQATTACK]

Ok re watched

The Game


Celtics destroyed their opponent ......with Smart practicing threes , not appearing to be trying otherwise.

When Hunter , Mickey , Holmes and ONeal with Rozier ........team was running over the Heat like a freight train.

Winslow played oK , but he isn't dominate yet .   Got the body .



Hunter is above D League , his vision and passing , understanding the game is on a second or third year NBA player level already .  He makes the whole team better when he is on the court.

[cltc5]

So Smart is garbage is what I'm gathering from this thread after one poor performance in the summer League?  NBA FInals Game 2 Steph Curry says hi

Seriously people get over it.  IF everytime a player has a bad game we judge him by that then there would be no good players or superstars at all in the NBA.  Its called being human and it has much more to do with stats and ability.

[Chief]

http://www.nba.com/2015/news/07/14/las-vegas-summer-league-tournament-seedings/