1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

A look at some player pair +/- data (last 10 games)

Discussion in 'Houston Rockets: Game Action & Roster Moves' started by durvasa, Nov 25, 2009.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,997
    Likes Received:
    15,461
    NBA.com provides 1-man, 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, and 5-man +/- data over last 10 games, and over seasons going back to 4 seasons.

    http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusm...n=22009&split=22&team=Rockets&pager.offset=25

    Below, I've posted all Rockets pairs that have played at least 40 minutes over the last 10 games. NBA.com doesn't provide possession information, so I'll make due with assessing the offensive and defensive performance based on points scored/allowed per 48 minutes (which I call OFF and DEF). Keep in mind that this information is not in any way accounting for opposition faced. So, a pair of starters are likely facing stiffer competition than a pair of bench players, for example.


    Player 1        Player 2       +       -      Min        OFF       DEF         NET
    C. Hayes       C. Budinger    131     -95     51.8       121.5     88.1        33.4
    C. Hayes       K. Lowry       156     -126    71.3       105.1     84.9        20.2
    C. Hayes       C. Landry      124     -105    53.7       110.8     93.8        17.0
    T. Ariza       C. Budinger    243     -207    103.0      113.2     96.5        16.8
    T. Ariza       K. Lowry       318     -272    145.0      105.3     90.0        15.2
    K. Lowry       C. Budinger    380     -328    169.5      107.6     92.9        14.7
    L. Scola       C. Budinger    187     -166    77.9       115.2     102.3       12.9
    D. Andersen    T. Ariza       128     -114    61.3       100.2     89.3        11.0
    L. Scola       K. Lowry       202     -185    93.0       104.3     95.5        8.8
    A. Brooks      C. Budinger    190     -176    81.0       112.6     104.3       8.3
    K. Lowry       C. Landry      430     -398    197.0      104.8     97.0        7.8
    K. Lowry       A. Brooks      225     -213    100.7      107.2     101.5       5.7
    L. Scola       C. Hayes       474     -448    219.5      103.7     98.0        5.7
    T. Ariza       C. Hayes       516     -488    239.9      103.3     97.7        5.6
    D. Andersen    A. Brooks      154     -146    73.2       100.9     95.7        5.2
    D. Andersen    K. Lowry       243     -232    113.1      103.1     98.4        4.7
    C. Landry      C. Budinger    340     -325    159.0      102.7     98.1        4.5
    D. Andersen    C. Landry      250     -242    119.1      100.8     97.6        3.2
    D. Andersen    C. Budinger    232     -225    107.0      104.1     101.0       3.1
    T. Ariza       C. Landry      358     -349    170.4      100.8     98.3        2.5
    L. Scola       T. Ariza       665     -649    309.2      103.2     100.8       2.5
    T. Ariza       A. Brooks      618     -604    288.0      103.0     100.7       2.3
    C. Hayes       A. Brooks      466     -460    218.3      102.4     101.1       1.3
    L. Scola       A. Brooks      546     -541    257.1      102.0     101.0       0.9
    S. Battier     C. Budinger    157     -157    71.9       104.8     104.8       0.0
    S. Battier     C. Hayes       447     -449    219.7      97.7      98.1       -0.4
    S. Battier     D. Andersen    139     -143    67.1       99.5      102.4      -2.9
    A. Brooks      C. Landry      251     -259    122.6      98.2      101.4      -3.1
    S. Battier     T. Ariza       524     -544    257.3      97.8      101.5      -3.7
    S. Battier     K. Lowry       195     -210    98.7       94.9      102.2      -7.3
    L. Scola       C. Landry      213     -229    102.3      100.0     107.5      -7.5


    A few things jump out at me:

    • Scola+Landry give up 107.5 points per 48 minutes, which is the worst amongst all these pairs. By comparison, Scola+Hayes allows 98.0 and Landry+Hayes allows 93.8.
    • Budinger is part of the top 4 pairs in offense (when paired with Hayes, Scola, Ariza, Brooks), while Battier part of the bottom 3 pairs in offense (when paired with Ariza, Hayes, Lowry).
    • The combination of Brooks+Lowry was the 7th best pair in offense (107.2).
    • The pair of Lowry+Landry is +7.8, while Brooks+Landry is only -3.1.
    • Ariza+Battier is a -3.7. Again, we keep in mind that this combo is playing against better lineups. But still, its the 3rd worst in points scored per minute for the above pairs, and 8th worst in points allowed.
    • Points allowed hasn't been so bad when Andersen is paired with Ariza or Brooks. And yet my eyes tell me his defense is awful. Best explanation I can come up with is that Adelman won't play Andersen very long with Ariza/Brooks if the opposing team has a potent offense lineup on the floor. Also, perhaps with Andersen not running the floor so much the pace slows down.
    • Best performing starting pair is Scola+Hayes (13th best in +/- per minute, overall). No starting pair including Battier has a positive +/-.

    If anyone sees anything else interesting in there, please let me know.
     
    #1 durvasa, Nov 25, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2009
  2. redao

    redao Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    3,819
    Likes Received:
    58
    a disguised "Battier is the albatross " thread.
     
    #2 redao, Nov 25, 2009
  3. Bob Sacamano

    Bob Sacamano Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    13
    [​IMG]
     
    #3 Bob Sacamano, Nov 25, 2009
  4. Hayesfan

    Hayesfan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    360
    I wonder how long Shane's foot has been hurting him... He hasn't looked good since the second game against the Lakers imho.

    Those +/- numbers don't really surprise me all that much.
     
    #4 Hayesfan, Nov 25, 2009
  5. pmac

    pmac Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    7,939
    Likes Received:
    2,507
    Offensively, Chuck Hayes is a much better player when there is more ball movement. It allows him to use his passing skills and score when the defense leaves him. We know he's a great defensive player. He can defend the post straight up, help on PnR's, etc. He has tremendous foot speed and quick hands for a big. I point that out because I think it is very different from what Shane does.

    Shane Battier isn't really what I would consider a talented defensive player. What he does is amazing but it is mostly based on being smarter, not being better. Without a true big man in the lineup Shane's style of defense is less impressive. It also hurts Shane's game when he's asked to do more offensively because he can't do more. When he tries, it's hurting the team. And, to make matters worse the Rockets are playing another SF alongside of him. The penetrations suffers when he and Ariza are on the court together. They have got to be by far the worst ball handling wing duo in the league. Really, there isn't adequate penetration unless both Brooks and Lowry are on the court, they're really the only rotation players I'd consider guards. That's something I feel is a huge problem for this team.

    Since this a +/- thread I'd like to note that we'd be a much better team with a young budding star...like...Kevin Durant. Wouldn't we?:p
     
    #5 pmac, Nov 25, 2009
  6. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,997
    Likes Received:
    15,461
    Much better? I'm no so sure about that, actually. Durant has some decent talent around him right now, and how good is his team?
     
    #6 durvasa, Nov 25, 2009
  7. trugoy

    trugoy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    139
    essentially what it means is that our bench is the key to winning, our starters likely won't outplay other teams starters but as long as they keep their head above water, our bench has a chance to win the game.
     
    #7 trugoy, Nov 25, 2009
  8. RV6

    RV6 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    Messages:
    25,522
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Adelman needs to change up the rotation, he's got too many one sided players in battier, ariza, and hayes playing together and too many offensive minded in the second unit with DA, landry, and bud He needs to mix it up. Most of the athleticism is int he second unit as well.
     
    #8 RV6, Nov 25, 2009
  9. pmac

    pmac Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    7,939
    Likes Received:
    2,507
    How much is much?

    lighten up, i'm joking. What, do you think he's a below average player or something? ;)
     
    #9 pmac, Nov 25, 2009
  10. RV6

    RV6 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    Messages:
    25,522
    Likes Received:
    1,109

    that's exactly why he should play more with guys from the second unit, he can still play his D, but offensively the movement those guys create will let chuck do what he does best on O, and that's finding himself an opening under the rim where he'll have an easy look. You're not going to get much of that if the wings are shooting like 15 threes a night and AB's penetration isn't consistent enough.
     
    #10 RV6, Nov 25, 2009
  11. choujie

    choujie Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    7,389
    Likes Received:
    77
    So far, Duran is still somewhat one dimensional, stats looks better than his impact.
     
    #11 choujie, Nov 25, 2009
  12. maw7079

    maw7079 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    71
    Morey?
     
    #12 maw7079, Nov 25, 2009
  13. maw7079

    maw7079 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    71
    Brooks is looking to hot based on this either.
     
    #13 maw7079, Nov 25, 2009
  14. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,997
    Likes Received:
    15,461
    His +/- this year looks to be very good actually, so I guess you were right.
     
    #14 durvasa, Nov 25, 2009
  15. Artesticles

    Artesticles Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    13
    Still a small sample size. I bet Budinger's -33 today against Dallas might change some of those rankings. Somehow, Battier was a +2 in this blowout loss.
     
    #15 Artesticles, Nov 25, 2009
  16. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,997
    Likes Received:
    15,461
    The Dallas bench killed us, because that's when they put a bunch of shooters on the floor to stretch our defense. And Lowry/Budinger couldn't get anything going offensively.

    The Rockets should have looked to Landry much more in the post than they did.
     
    #16 durvasa, Nov 25, 2009
  17. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    124,091
    Likes Received:
    32,983
    Adding in tonights game is gonna swing a lot of those wildly.

    ;)

    DD
     
    #17 DaDakota, Nov 25, 2009
  18. RV6

    RV6 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    Messages:
    25,522
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    i've been saying he needs 20 shots a game, what's the point of talking about him as your best post up player and you only go to him 10 or 11 times a game?? Ridiculous.
     
    #18 RV6, Nov 25, 2009
  19. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    124,091
    Likes Received:
    32,983
    He does need more touches, if only he played defense as hard as he does offense.

    DD
     
    #19 DaDakota, Nov 25, 2009
  20. Melechesh

    Melechesh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,446
    Likes Received:
    16
    Everyone knows we lack interior defense and perimeter scoring.
     
    #20 Melechesh, Nov 26, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now