Who's had the most games w/a positive +/- since 2000?

[DMAVS41]

Basketball Reference just posted this;

http://i68.tinypic.com/4uchtx.png

[MMM]

Only 4 ringless players on that list
:applause:

[Spurs5Rings2014]

I would of wagered my life on who had the most (and second most for that matter :cheers:) before I even entered the thread.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Manu and Fish probably doing it in much less minutes.

[Rocketswin2013]

I'm surprised Battier isn't higher.

[Lebronxrings]

wow pop made 3 guys into this.

[Kawhi]

wow pop made 3 guys into this.
Manu, Parker and Turkoglu. :applause:

[JohnFreeman]

Pierce doe damyummm

https://media.giphy.com/media/12ZVSHKrVcckfe/giphy.gif

[DMAVS41]

This is where help plays such a big role.

The Spurs have won many more games than the Mavs since 01...

Duncan's help without him on the floor...+1.9 points per 100

Dirk's help without him on the floor...-3.1 points per 100

Huge difference.

[T_L_P]

This is where help plays such a big role.

The Spurs have won many more games than the Mavs since 01...

Duncan's help without him on the floor...+1.9 points per 100

Dirk's help without him on the floor...-3.1 points per 100

Huge difference.

Playoffs.

-1.2 for Duncan (+5.4 w/ him on floor)
-1.6 for Dirk (+1.2 w/ him on floor)

:confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Playoffs.

-1.2 for Duncan (+5.4 w/ him on floor)
-1.6 for Dirk (+1.2 w/ him on floor)

:confusedshrug:

Playoffs plus minus is not nearly as indicative of bench help as stars play way more minutes and rotations are shortened. 2nd units aren't nearly as important in the playoffs. Samples also aren't that large here either...not to mention how lesser players play in the playoffs would have to be a factor as well.

I wasn't saying that as hating on Duncan by any means...just an observation.

But I'm curious...are you arguing Dirk has had more help?

Also, I'd expect Duncan/Spurs to have a better differential...Duncan was better than Dirk, he had more help than Dirk, and he had much better coaching throughout his career than Dirk. Not surprising whatsoever that the playoff differential is like that.

[Nuff Said]

No data prior to 2001? I'm curious to know all time leaders.

[GIF REACTION]

Lebron doing very well considering he started in 2004 and had weak supporting casts

[magnax1]

It doesn't take a genius to see this is just a list of guys who have been on a lot of very good teams for a very long time.

[rmt]

How about since 1997 - this cuts off 4 of Duncan's best years + some of KG, Kobe, Miller, etc?

[dhsilv]

Playoffs plus minus is not nearly as indicative of bench help as stars play way more minutes and rotations are shortened. 2nd units aren't nearly as important in the playoffs. Samples also aren't that large here either...not to mention how lesser players play in the playoffs would have to be a factor as well.

I wasn't saying that as hating on Duncan by any means...just an observation.

But I'm curious...are you arguing Dirk has had more help?

Also, I'd expect Duncan/Spurs to have a better differential...Duncan was better than Dirk, he had more help than Dirk, and he had much better coaching throughout his career than Dirk. Not surprising whatsoever that the playoff differential is like that.

Much better coaching? Not a fan of guys like Don Nelson? I'll give you Avery Johnson, but Dirk hasn't had bad coaching and Pop was pretty much a rookie coach to start out with Duncan and imo really wasn't at his stride until the mid 2000's. He just had Duncan....

[DMAVS41]

How about since 1997 - this cuts off 4 of Duncan's best years + some of KG, Kobe, Miller, etc?

Unfortunately they don't have the data going back that far.

Duncan would still clearly be in the lead...LOL

[dhsilv]

No data prior to 2001? I'm curious to know all time leaders.

I don't think there's complete play by play data prior to this time frame. There's nearly complete data going back to 97 or so from what I understand. Perhaps other can confirm.

[DMAVS41]

Much better coaching? Not a fan of guys like Don Nelson? I'll give you Avery Johnson, but Dirk hasn't had bad coaching and Pop was pretty much a rookie coach to start out with Duncan and imo really wasn't at his stride until the mid 2000's. He just had Duncan....

The difference between Nellie and Pop...and then Avery and Pop is quite large in my opinion.

Nellie had some good moments, but he was kind of a mad scientist...the way he decided to go with that 04 team was just pretty bad.

I feel very comfortable saying what I did. Even as good as Rick is...he's not as good as Pop.

I certainly wouldn't call Nellie a bad coach...Avery certainly was a bad coach...and Rick is fantastic. Me saying that Duncan has had much better coaching does not mean Dirk has had bad coaching. Those two don't go together.

[dhsilv]

It doesn't take a genius to see this is just a list of guys who have been on a lot of very good teams for a very long time.

KG is 4th....

[dhsilv]

The difference between Nellie and Pop...and then Avery and Pop is quite large in my opinion.

Nellie had some good moments, but he was kind of a mad scientist...the way he decided to go with that 04 team was just pretty bad.

I feel very comfortable saying what I did. Even as good as Rick is...he's not as good as Pop.

Nellie in the early 2000's imo was close to pop and certainly more experienced. I'm not sure where i'd rank Rick, but he's awfully close.

Eh, I don't think the gap is nearly what you're implying. If Dirk had been with bad coaches or even average coaches for most of his career, he'd have played a LOT more in the post to the detriment of the team.

[DMAVS41]

It doesn't take a genius to see this is just a list of guys who have been on a lot of very good teams for a very long time.

Have to disagree a bit there...KG is 4th and Paul Pierce is 5th...they did not play on very good teams for a very long time.

[DMAVS41]

Nellie in the early 2000's imo was close to pop and certainly more experienced. I'm not sure where i'd rank Rick, but he's awfully close.

Eh, I don't think the gap is nearly what you're implying. If Dirk had been with bad coaches or even average coaches for most of his career, he'd have played a LOT more in the post to the detriment of the team.

You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but what kind of gap do you think I'm implying?

If you want to just say "better coaching"...great. I don't think that does it justice when you have Avery Johnson coaching you 3 plus years of your peak/prime...and Nellie running crazy experiments out there on the floor while paying no attention whatsoever to defense.

Dirk didn't get Rick until 09.

I mean...was there ever a year in which Dirk's coach gave him a better chance than Pop would have? Perhaps Rick in 14 did out coach Pop in the playoffs...I'd probably agree with that, but we are talking nearly 20 years now and there are maybe 1 or 2 years in which I'd rather have Dirk's coach than Pop...and that is being generous.

[JT123]

So Kobe has less impact than KG, Parker, AND Pierce? :roll:
I'm honestly not even all that shocked. Dude's impact on winning games has always been overrated as phock

[dhsilv]

You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but what kind of gap do you think I'm implying?

If you want to just say "better coaching"...great. I don't think that does it justice when you have Avery Johnson coaching you 3 plus years of your peak/prime...and Nellie running crazy experiments out there on the floor while paying no attention whatsoever to defense.

Dirk didn't get Rick until 09.

Well in large part I don't think Pop was a great or even very good coach until 2003 at the earliest and even then I think it was more like 07 when he became great.

I respect Nellie though I've never really been able to fairly judge his early Mav's teams. I think Avery was better than he gets credit for all be it he wasn't a good coach, and right now Dirk has likely the second best coach in basketball if not the best coach depending on if you really think pop is magic or if having Duncan just makes a coach that much more effective.

Duncan had better coaching. I don't buy it was much better coaching.

[dhsilv]

So Kobe has less impact than KG, Parker, AND Pierce? :roll:
I'm honestly not even all that shocked. Dude's impact on winning games has always been overrated as phock

not what the stat is showing...

[DMAVS41]

Well in large part I don't think Pop was a great or even very good coach until 2003 at the earliest and even then I think it was more like 07 when he became great.

I respect Nellie though I've never really been able to fairly judge his early Mav's teams. I think Avery was better than he gets credit for all be it he wasn't a good coach, and right now Dirk has likely the second best coach in basketball if not the best coach depending on if you really think pop is magic or if having Duncan just makes a coach that much more effective.

Duncan had better coaching. I don't buy it was much better coaching.

I think Pop was a little better than you by the 03 season...and beyond, but we are pretty much on the same page with him.

You value Nellie and Avery higher than I do. Avery was a bad coach. No way around it.

We agree on Rick...he's fantastic. He's not as good as Pop though...

[Harison]

It doesn't take a genius to see this is just a list of guys who have been on a lot of very good teams for a very long time.
This, its more team stat than for players.

[dhsilv]

This, its more team stat than for players.

If that were truly the case, you'd see a lot of role players on the list vs super stars.

[Harison]

If that were truly the case, you'd see a lot of role players on the list vs super stars.
You dont get it. Superstars get higher +/- because of their greater impact, but to get more +/- games they need the team to win more, i.e. to have a good to great team for most of their careers.

Like Jordan or KG werent winning many games with terrible teams, this changed when they got good teams.

[dhsilv]

You dont get it. Superstars get higher +/- because of their greater impact, but to get more +/- games they need the team to win more, i.e. to have a good to great team for most of their careers.

Like Jordan or KG werent winning many games with terrible teams, this changed when they got good teams.

The majority of KG's career even in this sample was on weaker teams, yet the plus minus are clearly showing here. Heck same can be said of Pierce who also did well on this list.

Sure having better teammates on the floor with someone all else equal helps, but great players have positive plus minus.

[IMObjective]

This is where help plays such a big role.

The Spurs have won many more games than the Mavs since 01...

Duncan's help without him on the floor...+1.9 points per 100

Dirk's help without him on the floor...-3.1 points per 100

Huge difference.


Playoffs plus minus is not nearly as indicative of bench help as stars play way more minutes and rotations are shortened. 2nd units aren't nearly as important in the playoffs. Samples also aren't that large here either...not to mention how lesser players play in the playoffs would have to be a factor as well.


But I'm curious...are you arguing Dirk has had more help?

Also, I'd expect Duncan/Spurs to have a better differential...Duncan was better than Dirk, he had more help than Dirk, and he had much better coaching throughout his career than Dirk. Not surprising whatsoever that the playoff differential is like that.

Dirk>Duncan