1) Week of missed training camp 2) Talking to Media instead of dealing with the Rockets like a professional 3) Twitter wars while teammates practicing 4) Sprung this on the Rockets at the last minute when he had all summer to say something In other words, this guy had better be GOOD.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that. +/- stats are a simple and easy to understand tool to look at general trends. Don't blame the tool, blame the easily misled and impressionable.
I'm leaning towards the former. That was a nice up-fake by PatPat to freeze Asik, but Asik still contested it very well.
You cited the stat "Knicks gave up 2.1 less points per 100 when Lin was in the line up," so I take it you are using that stat to suggest Lin's effect on the defense. Why cite it if that isn't your pt? There are just too many variables. When Lin is on the court, it is more likely that Chandler is too. If Lin sags from his man and gives up an open shot on the perimeter, that's all on Lin. But if Lin is beat by his man in the paint and Chandler helps out, then Chandler's effect on the defense is credited to Lin's +/-. Now, add Amare, who is also more likely to be on the court with Lin than not. As one of the worst defenders in the league, adding him in along with the DPOY is like injecting dark matter into the universe heh. Net positive or net negative? I have no friggin clue. Whatever all that adds up to, that +/- for Lin's presence on the court says very little about Lin.
Response As you observed, I see JLin's ability to hit those jumpers when available as the key to his offense and confidence. If he is forced to drive to the rims too often, opponents will be ready to take the charges.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>On the plane, getting ready to say goodbye to the Valley (until the 10th that is). Houston, we're coming home. <a href="http://t.co/JXuGDWHE" title="http://twitter.com/RocketsJCF/status/254674079452381184/photo/1">twitter.com/RocketsJCF/sta…</a></p>— Jason Friedman (@RocketsJCF) <a href="https://twitter.com/RocketsJCF/status/254674079452381184" data-datetime="2012-10-06T20:06:47+00:00">October 6, 2012</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Iman Shumpert played with Chandler almost as much as Lin did in terms of percentage of total minutes played and yet opponents outscored the Knicks when Shumpert was on the floor as opposed to off. <table border="1"> <tr> <th><b>Player</b></th> <th><b>% of MP<br>with Chandler</b></th> <th><b>On Court<br>Def Points per 100 possessions</b></th> <th><b>Off Court<br>Def Points per 100 possessions</b></th> <th><b>Net Difference</b></th> </tr> <tr> <td>Jeremy Lin</td> <td>71.3</td> <td>100.6</td> <td>102.8</td> <td>-2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Iman Shumpert</td> <td>64.3</td> <td>102.9</td> <td>101.3</td> <td>+1.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Baron Davis</td> <td>58.0</td> <td>104.3</td> <td>101.6</td> <td>+2.7</td> </tr> </table>
That's interesting. Are you really saying these numbers mean that Shumpert is a better defender than Lin? To accept that these numbers are meaningful require that you agree with that conclusion. To me, that just doesn't jibe with the eye test. Eg, go back and watch the first Toronto game. Calderon was having his way, scoring efficiently and finding teammates, and the Raptors had the lead for the almost the entirety of the game, with the lead extending into double digits. The Knicks only started getting stops to make a run at the end of the 3rd quarter when Lin was taken off of Calderon and Shumpert was put on him. Shump was the defensive catalyst for that run. Rewatch that game and tell me if you still believe these +/- numbers mean something. And in general I don't think many would accept that Lin is a better defender than Shump.
"Shumpert's aggressiveness had a cost too, and he has to learn how to manage risk and reward better at that end. He fouled 4.09 times per 40 minutes, a ridiculously high rate for a guard, and gave up enough openings for drives that it often offset the impact of his pressure." From Hollinger's player profile. The problem with the eye test is that it's severely slanted by the viewer's biases. You may remember Shumpert going to work on Calderon and come away with the impression that he's an amazing defender. Someone else may remember Shumpert getting into foul trouble within 3 minutes of the game vs. the Mavericks and come away with the impression that he's a dumb player. +/- stats take that bias out of the picture, and give you the general trend over a large sample size. In the NBA, where each game can have 100+ possessions, even 26 games is a deceptively large sample. Take it for what it's worth. My only contention is that Lin is a much better defender than people give him credit for, and the statistics bear that out. If you want "eye test" examples of Lin's defense, check out his defense against Rose in the Bull's game, or his lockdown D on Jennings at the end of the Bucks game when Tyson was out. Bucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A22sqH0gqpc 3:50 Bulls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii4uQZxNVDI
Of course Shump is the better defender of the two, Shump is The King of lock-down D baby(maybe not the King). The Knicks did drafted Shump for his D, everyone knows that....If Shump had more offensive abilities he prob be a top 10 pick. No, def a top 10 pick.
I agree with everything you said there. I just think bringing in +/- into the argument can be more distracting than persuasive.
