aaron brooks is in the lead for most improved player

Two Rocket players are in the race for MIP. Testament to Morey's drafting prowess, and the team's coaching and development staff.

 

That sounds nice, but if Hakeem won games as frequently as Shareef Abdur-Rahim or Al Jefferson during his career, never made the playoffs, etc. ... is he considered an all-time great?

Its a silly question, of course, because Hakeem was an all-time great, that's why his teams were never that lousy, and so the above scenario is unrealistic. There is a correlation between being really good player and impacting how your team wins games. +/- is an indicator for how well you impact your team's ability to win.

And that you can bring up some exceptions doesn't matter. I can list bad players that have a good FG% or good PPG too. Here's the more relevant question: what percentage of rotation players with better "+/- ratings" than Kyle Lowry are not good players?

 

from that list, there no Melo, Granger, Amare, Nash, Tyreke Evans, Pierce, Rose, Westbrook, Boozer, Gasol, Duncan, Manu, Brandon Roy, Billups, Rondo, Gerald Wallace, Bosh, Joe Jhonson, Martin, Igoudala, Monte Ellis, Mayo, Randolph, David Lee, Brook Lopez, Curry, .....

they sure have less impact than Chris Anderson, Hilbert Roy, Dampier, Camby, Lowry, Sessions?

That list is worthless.

 

I judge players based on their individual performance, yes, not on how many games they won or how many championships they won or whether they like dogs or other mostly irrelevant facts. This is true for all team sports. So yes, if Hakeem had performed the same way but never won a title or even had a winning record, I would still consider him a great player. The most his teams' lack of success would cause would be an investigation into why such a great player was never on a successful team, with the starting hypothesis that his teammates really, really sucked.

 

A "worthless" list of 30 players, picked out for being potentially very good impact players, would miss on a lot more than just 6 of them -- even if I did agree with you that it missed on those 6 players.

 

What does "individual performance" mean? How many points he scored? How many rebounds he got? How many shots he blocked?

Why does that matter?

Because, perhaps, it gives his team an edge in winning games?

OK, well, if that's what matters ultimately, is it not reasonable to at least consider that as part of the evaluation? Does this player have a history of player well on really good teams, or does he just pile up stats on bad teams? Does this player tend to make his team better when he's on the floor versus off? That sort of thing? I say yes, that is reasonable. And I'm glad the Rockets agree.

 

only 6?

how about the names on my list? Should not Melo, Granger, Amare, Nash, Tyreke Evans, Pierce, Rose, Westbrook, Boozer, Gasol, Duncan, Manu, Brandon Roy, Billups, Rondo, Gerald Wallace, Bosh, Joe Jhonson, Martin, Igoudala, Monte Ellis, Mayo, Randolph, David Lee, Brook Lopez, Curry have bigger impact than CJ Waltson, Varejo, Stucky, Perkins, Ben Wallace, Oneal, Gay other than those other 6?

 

His individual contribution to winning. Since basketball is a team sport, no one player can contribute 100% or even 75% of his team's wins. Put Hakeem in his prime into a game with four random dudes off the street and face them up against any group of five NBA players and I guarantee you, Hakeem's team would get toasted. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point quite well.

Do you honestly believe that this year's Nets would be contending for a title if they just had LeBron James? Sure, they would be a lot better, they might even scrape their way into the playoffs, but LeBron is not worth +50 wins. No player is.

 

On what basis would you say the players you list first have a bigger impact than the ones you list last?

 

A worthless list would be, essentially, like picking 30 players at random from the pool of players I considered (at least 30% of team minutes' played). That would be literally worthless.

What is the likelihood that, by such a process, 8 of the 30 on my list would include arguably 8 of the top 10 players in the league (in this case -- Durant, Wade, James, Bryant, Nowitzki, Paul, Williams, Howard)? Those chances would be so staggeringly low that I can not except your conclusion that this list is worthless. It is apparently picking up on something that great players do. It may not be especially valuable on its own, which is all your counter-examples indicate, but that doesn't make it worthless as a thing to look at.

 

on overall production, efficiency, PER, and usage.

and on what basis, Melo has less impact than Chris Anderson? Granger has less impact than Hilbert? Monte has less impact than Watson?

Bosh, Duncan, Pierce, Gasol, Roy, Johnson, Amare, Nash are all not in top 30?

Howard is ranked at 24, 6 below Dampier?


+/_ has to be the stat that makes the least sense.
I'd rank stars in FTA and the list would be more reasonable than the list based on +/-.

 

I don't see your point. If the Nets aren't any better, then that reflects poorly on how great a player LeBron James is. Why? Because good players are supposed to make their teams better -- i.e. help them win more games.

 

you can make any list and rank players in any sequence. Just don't related +/- to "impact", "great". it is not.

 

Regarding Impact: How much better does a player making his team when he's on the floor?


Me: "Well, how does the team play when he's in the game? Better or worse than when he's not in the game?"

Answer: +/-, unadjusted, adjusted, On/Off, ...

Next question: "Ok, what type of players does he play with? Play against? Which matchups work well for him? Is he playing when the game is close down the stretch?

Answer: lineup analysis, play-by-play analysis.

Next question: "What are his particular skills? Good scorer, rebounder? Passer? What are his weaknesses?

Answer: watch the games, look at the boxscore, pay close attention to what he does with the ball, and off the ball. What's he doing on defense? Guarding the good scorers, or the bad ones? Etc.

That's how I look at impact. I look at a lot of things, +/- being one of them.

 

He does change the game, but there has to be a better metric than +/- to show his impact.

Because that stat is totally dependent upon whom you play with, and whom you play against.

Lowry has the benefit of going against :

a: Tired starters

or

b: Bench players

And the guys he played with this year, primarily Budinger and Landry helped him immensely....because if he had to drag Ariza and Battier around with Hayes, his +/- would be a lot worse.

To me all the +/- stat is good for is showing which combinations of 5 are playing well together, but you still have to factor in situations and opponents somehow.

DD

 

http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2009-2010&sortnumber=17&sortorder=DESC&team=HOU

Adjusted +/- (adjusts for strength of opponent) for 5-player lineups. Best combination has been the lineup: Brooks-Martin-Battier-Scola-Hayes. Lowry shows up in the next 6.

I've run through all this before, but you're free to ignore it if its suits your already-set opinions. With Lowry, its not merely about looking at his individual +/- and making a judgment. You look at all the player combinations, and what you find is that when Lowry is on the floor it makes a big difference. Virtually every player's +/- improves when Lowry is on the floor with them. You can even look at player combinations, and their +/- tends to improve with Lowry on the floor with them (e.g. Shane+Trevor -- +2.1 with Lowry, -2.3 without Lowry; Shane+Trevor+Chuck -- +2.2 with Lowry, +0.1 without Lowry).

 

Yes it does show that Lowry is a positive impact player, watching the games you can see that.

However, he still gets the benefit of playing against weaker opponents, and his style of push the ball works to help the team overall against that competition.

However, if you look at his play in the post season, when the game slows down, and the possessions matter and more attention is paid to details, he struggles.

I am not saying he is bad, just the opposite, he is great for us, as a change of pace player, but if he were starting, his impact would drop drastically, because teams would be more prepared for his style.

DD

 

OK. You made me lost by asking and answering those irrelevant questions. Only the last line makes sense to me and it was exact the reason why I said +/- alone not equal to "impact" but you did made an "impact ranking" using +/- only.

I hope you watch a lot of games because I am still having this question:

 

Where did I write that +/- is all you need to look at to gauge impact?

You said +/- is worthless. I said it is not worthless.

I did NOT say: "No, +/- tells me everything I need to know. See this list of 30 players? These are the best players in the game. I don't need to look at anything else."

If you grasp that, then hopefully you'll understand why your question is irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

If people are still arguing with you after this post, I would let it go.
They are just being annoying.