I'm assuming most people, including the thread starter, weren't looking at the popcorn machine. You are one of few who goes to that level. You should know as well as anybody that +/- on a surface level in an individual game can be extremely misleading. I know that Battier has a history of being among the league best in +/- over the course of a season but I am assuming there will also be individual games where he is relatively negative compared to other players.
Its misleading, to a degree. But when a player is at an extreme: e.g., +36 with him, -19 without him -- that tells me he was doing some good things. Similarly, if a player had a -36 with him, and a +19 without him, then he was probably not helping his team so much. Generally, the lineup matchup +/-, like its represented on popcorn machine, is much more interesting.
Gotcha. I wasn't trying to make a case against Battier. I think he and Chuck are our most valuable players. I just wonder how reliable straight +/- is on a game-to-game basis.
Here's what I was getting at. Check out Battier's +/- in Game 1 compared to the rest of the team: http://www.nba.com/games/20091027/HOUPOR/boxscore.html Unadjusted +/- can be a misleading statistic for individual players, particularly on a game-to-game basis. In that No Stats All-Star article, I read that Battier was one of the best in the league in some kind of adjusted +/-. That is a lot more meaningful than positive or negative values in one game. Battier is a huge asset to this team but I doubt that he had anywhere near the positive impact the Jazz boxscore would indicate just like he unlikely had anywhere near the negative impact the Blazers boxscore would indicate. This isn't a 1-on-1 game. One weak link or one strong link on either team can severely skew the numbers.
I think its safe to say that he played better against the Jazz than the Blazers. I wouldn't read much more into the raw +/- figures.
Agreed on both accounts. Your second statement is what I was getting at. The OP was using Battier's raw +/- from one game to take a stab at the Battier detractors. That shouldn't be used as an arugment any more than his bad data from Game 1 or Game 2 should be used against Battier supporters. Again, Battier is valuable to this team and more accurate statistics will reflect that over time. Those advanced stats are much better to use for what the OP is getting at.
i think the adjusted +/- can go either way, so Battier could have also been better than the +36 or worse than the -20 (i think it was) he had against Portland, but maybe you knew that and were just making a point..
No, I didn't know that. I'm not much of a stats guy. But I would guess that even adjusted +/- numbers for one game are less than perfect. I would think that you need to look at those adjusted numbers over time to get a better idea of a player's value and once again, even then, I'm sure there are holes in the statistics.
Don't know exactly what type of "adjusted" +/- numbers the Rockets track. The ones that are available publicly are meant to describe impact over a long stretch of games. Preferably close to a season's worth. And even then, the standard errors can be pretty big. For what its worth, and for only 4 games maybe its not worth anything, basketballvalue shows the Rockets adjusted +/- this year: http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2009-2010&team=HOU Notice how large those standard errors are for the 1-year adjusted +/-. Basically means that right now they are high unreliable. It says that the weakest 4 performers in our rotation have been: Ariza Lowry Battier Budinger The top 4 performers have been: Hayes Landry Andersen Brooks Again, very unreliable at this stage. There just have not yet been enough lineup matchups to tease out the true value of individual players.
Agree. As a whole, I personally don't really believe in +/-. Its just yet another way of measuring players, but IMHO its heck of of a whole lot less reliable than PER. There's so many factors involved in a particular game (including your opponent, your backup, their backup, the players you're playing with, the players they're playing with etc.), and even if you use adjusted historical +/- it still skewed by past history. Using +/- in one game to take a stab at Battier detractors is really weak, especially since he had -22 +/- in our first game.
We shouldn't think of it as "Battier had +36 rating" or "Battier had a -22 rating". Rather, its "lineups with Battier were +36" or "lineups with Batter were -22". It better reflects what those +/- numbers mean. It's not really a player rating like PER. Rather, its a measure of team performance when the player is on the floor. Adjusted +/- is a little different. It measures how the player impacts the game when he's on the court, relative to what an average player would do in his place.
Same here. A little surprising that Andersen would rate so highly, but he has had some effective minutes in the 3 of the 4 games, I think. I don't think Ariza played that great, outside of game 3. Lowry has been ok, but he's dealt with injuries for 2 of the 4 games. Budinger is a rookie and has played limited minutes. Battier played very well against Utah (I thought), but didn't do too much in the first 3 games.
I don't think Ariza played as good as many people make out to be either. He gambles too much on defense and loses concentration every now and then. Brewer and Kirilenko managed to sneak through the back door under Ariza's watch several times in the game vs Utah. Lowry on the other hand plays extraordinarily good defense but when it comes to initiating the offense he's not half as efficient as Brooks. He's not quick enough to get by good defenders as D-Will and although he's improved his outside shooting, it's not consistent enough to be considered a threat.
Well, here's where we'll all start to see what happens with Trevor Ariza, the developing player, Melechesh. Trevor Ariza is here to improve his game individually, particularly as an offensive player. He's said that himself, and more than a few other people have anointed him as the "go-to guy". Or at least, that's what they're hoping for from him. Daryl Morey and Rick Adelman have both said that, on his defensive ability alone, Ariza is worth their investment in him. Any improvement (read: consistency) from Ariza offensively is seen as a bonus, both a by-product of opportunity and necessity. The problem is, like you an some others have said, Melechesh: do you trade what Ariza CAN do defensively (which earned him the opportunity here in the first place), for what he MAY be able to do on offense? Ariza, at least early on, is seeming to make that change himself. I hope that doesn't happen, personally. One of the most important things about being a better player is about balance. Ideally, a player should be just as good offensively as he is defensively. Doesn't really matter which end of the spectrum you start from; you're going to have to be good on both ends of the floor eventually, if you've got designs on being an all-star player. I hope everyone concerned realizes (and they all seem to, at least early on), that that's not going to be Ariza's job, at least not right now (that is, to become a great player). Ariza's going to get a lot of looks and a lot of freedom. But he shouldn't dump the date that brought him to the dance....
There were some good moments when Ariza was guarding Roy on opening night in TC. What he lacks is consistency which I believe will be gained once he gets comfortable with his new role down the road. The comment I made in my previous post was focused on the overall four games he has played.
My criticism of Shane is legit. I listed about 10 things that Battier can't do in my previous post that a starting 2,3 in this league who was traded for a lottery pick and plays over 30 mpg and makes almost $7 million per year should at least be able to do a little bit. Cool, who do you think we can get for him in a trade? Don't you think a starting 2,3 player in this league who was traded for a lottery pick and plays over 30 mpg and makes almost $7 million per year should be able to dribble a basketball? Also, Battier is not an 80% ft shooter. I don't care what he's listed as, he's not 6'8" either. Here's what I said earlier about Battier's supposed high bball iq: On offense many times he either looks lost, runs around aimlessly like a chicken with his head cut off, or just hangs out in the corner. When he stands in the corner his man either sits in Yao's lap, rests on D, or wreaks havoc on the defensive end. These are not traits indicative of somebody with a high bball iq.
There are tons of things Shane can't do with a basketball that 90% of the league can. There are tons of things Shane can do without the basketball that 90% of the league can't. This status quo of what a lottery pick should garner with a specific salary range is irrelevant. With a Yao/Tracy centric offense, Battier fits perfectly because the ball belongs in either Tracy or Yaos hands and he is contributing 100% of the time with leadership and defense. If we had a third scorer (which we do btw in Scola/Brooks/Ariza), that player is only adding value when scoring, which will only be "some" of the time. I was going to make a quip about "Rocket science" but I guess in a wierd ironic way this is the science of the Rockets. Trading him as part of a package to get a legit superstar is cool, trading him just to trade him is stupid.
Care to elaborate on what these things are that 90% of the NBA can't do that Shane can? 90% really? Wow!
Do you ever wonder why a team like Memphis that is more talented at almost every position can lose so much, while a team comprised primarily of 2nd. round picks can smack a loaded Lakers team around in the playoffs, or can blowout the Jazz in Utah. How can a team of role players and broken selfish choker post a 22 game winning streaks? How in the world can a team with supposed choke arstists, and glassmen... stay poised, stay strong enough to accomplish these feats? What makes the difference? How come no one else does it? But but but there is so much talent in the league, so many great coaches, surely someone could get it done? What do you think that is? Where do you think it comes from? Is it magic? Are we a magical team? Is it karma? Maybe god is a closet Rocket fan?I mean you tell me, what is it about this team that enables us to accomplish these things. This is where the disconnect occurs. People like Leeb, Kwame, Bob Sacomono, etc. are so desperate to try and quantify everything, you can't see whats right in front of you. Everyone else sees it, we don't know what it is, we can't describe it to you, we just know it is good and we know Battier has it. Its not coincidence every team Battier has played on overacheives, its not coincidence the national media regularly recognizes a role player on an otherwise nationally insiginifigant team. Its not coincidence every coach he plays for endlessly praises him. Its not coincidence every team wants him. We can debate +/-, or ppg, or defensive rank till we are blue in the face...but it doesn't make a difference because there are certain players in this league that are just special. You can't define it, you can't quantify it, you can't label it...it just is what it is. Jordan was a special player, Magic, Bird, Dream...these guys had it. Battier is one of those special players. Call it leadership, call it veteran presence, call it grit, swagger, intangibles, glue guy...call it whatever you want. I can't put a label on it, I don't know what it is...all I know is Battier has it. Now I know what you are going to say."Are you seriously going to compare Battier to all time greats like Magic, etc?" And the answer is yes, yes I am. He certainly can't carry a team to a championship but he can sure as hell take a terrible Memphis Grizzlies team to the playoffs, or inspire a broken down shell of a team to a seven game series against the eventual champs. There are offensive players in this league, there are defensive players in this league, and then there are special players in this league. Artest , Ariza, Bowen, Jackson, Hayes...these are fantastic defenders, but they are no Shane Battiers. Battier takes defense to another level, he inspires, he fixes mistakes, he learns, he teaches, he hustles, he fights, he never gives up, and he always does it with a smile on his face. Special players like Shane Battier are one in a million, and you don't trade those guys. So to answer your question, I can't tell you what those things are, but if you can't see it yourself, I feel sorry for you, not because I think you are blind or anything negative, but because you are missing a trully remarkable basketball player.
