think about that, why it is Rockets players who occupied top positions in this rating, rather than Mavs, Jazzs or Spurs players? I think that's one of the most important reasons for our collapses in 4th quarter, since 1) improper play-time allocation between our line-up and bench players 2) implication of that our bench players are still weak
in my opinion this lenovo stat only shows us how weak our bench is as the previous poster mentioned...as it defines "when players are both in and out of the game"...it just shows us the margin of point scoring between our bench and our starting 5 is the biggest in the league...that's hardly anything to get excited about...i mean...if you had a strong starting 5 and a strong bench...you wouldnt even make it onto this list...cos the difference would be minimal...this would definitely explain our fourth quarter collapses...jvg take the leashes off the bench players like juwan and deke and noticably we lose that considerable lead...connect the dots van gundy?... i must say the only positive indication lenovo gives us is the one player stats...it shows us the top three instrumental players in the league...which was apparent when chucky was injured...we struggled...
Back in the earliest thread about the Lenovo stat, I was the one who suggested that the quote on the NBA site "both on and off the court" might mean that the Rockets' dominance of this stat was due to poor bench play. But somebody corrected me on that (forget who) and after doing a little research I agree that the statistic is much simpler than trying to calculate +/- of players both on and off the court. I think the explanation on the NBA website is inadequate. Here's something I found on populationstatistic.com: So the statistic is a very simple plus/minus. For any combination of 1-5 players that are on the floor, you tally up all the points their team scores (regardless of who scored them) minus the points scored against them and there is the statistic. (You'll see the plus and minus scores for each combination on the stat page.) After last nights' game, Chuck has once again regained the #1 spot above Duncan and Nash in the individual Lenovo stat. Somehow, some way, when Chuck is on the floor for the Houston Rockets, the Rockets score more and their opponents score less- more so than any other single player on any other team in the league. How is this true? I still don't understand how the Rocks are dominating this stat. Can anybody give some input on the disadvantages of plus/minus statistics?
I find it hard to believe this Lenovo stat is a simple +/-. I'd have to say it's some sort of net +/- like 82games offers. When comparing players/teams across the NBA, a "simplistic" plus/minus stat simply favors the teams with the highest point differential--i mean, +/- IS point differential, but in time slices. Sure, that's still a good measurement for showing what stars/lineups create the highest point differential. And historically, next to W/Ls, pt differential gets you the closest to true standings over any other stat. Not too surprising. But, a simplistic +/- does little to show you what the up and coming stars are doing (like Lebron James) vs the stars on more mature teams, or stars who are unfortunate enough to be surrounded by bad players...like Bosh and Pierce, for instance, because those teams don't rack up the point differentials that the contenders do. What 82games does is provides a net +/-. They make an adjustment to normalize point differential. For instance, if Boston has a +/- (ie overall pt differential) as a team = negative 6, and Pierce's +/- is +1; Pierce has a net +/- of +7 for his team. That is much fairer than saying Pierce is a +1.
The other problem with +/-, even net +/-, is that the more minutes you play the more your +/- is going to equal your team's overal pt differential. That's nearly a mathematical fact. The closer you get to playing 48mpg the closer your +/- will = the team's +/-...this is true for net +/- as well. So, players with 40+ minutes will track closer to the team's overall +/-. Players with minutes like Hayes will have the opportunity to have significantly larger +/-'s. But if they were actually the main influence of the great +/-, reason dictates they would get more minutes, which has a tendency to drive your +/- towards the team's +/-. So, net +/- is better for just comparing high minute stars against stars. But really, net +/-'s main purpose is to show coaches what combinations are working statistically for their team, ie, for just comparing various 5-man combo's on their team. I doubt they use it to compare across the league.
Chuck's +/- from 82games.com is an astronomical +23. Looks like Lenovo is doing him a disservice. http://www.82games.com/0607/0607HOU.HTM
Well, their numbers are inaccurate. 82games seems to be having a problem using the correct number of games played by Chuckie. if you look here, http://www.82games.com/0607/06HOU9D.HTM Hayes is showing a net +104. Well, he's played 10 games, so far, so either his net +/- is +10.4, or 82games is not reliable. They have him listed at 186 minutes. espn has him at 215 minutes. He played 29 minutes last night, so they are one game off. <b>thus, +104 / 9 games = 11.56.</b> thus, 82games is not completely reliable with their data. But the way they do Net +/- certainly makes more sense that a simple +/- of just showing differential when on the court.
