How many of you actually believe single game +/- tells you who had the most impact?

[Kblaze8855]

We have been hearing more and more about plus/minus lately. Many people(often trolls or people just looking to annoy) pop into topics touting or mocking someones on/off regardless of how they performed. Claims that people who had apparently big games must have had an "empty" performance(another concept that is growing more and more foolish over time but thats another topic).

Over the course of many games there are still on/off issues like who is on and off the floor with you but those can level off with a large enough sample size(or at least thats the justification for caring about them). So I wont go into that.

But in one game?


Ok.


When Kobe has 46/6/5 on good shooting and is -1 in 40 minutes while Odom has 20/7 in 44 minutes and is +7....is there anyone here who thinks Odom had the greater impact on the game far as helping the team? Or when he had 51/9/4 on .626ts(for those who care) vs Odoms 16/10/6 on .504ts....Kobe -13 Odom +3....they played 44 and 45 minutes.

That something you caring about?


When Shaq has 44/20/5 in the finals for a negative six...but Rick Fox is plus two in 44 minutes and Lue is plus nine of 22 minutes.....

On the current version of ISH would there be someone on here talking about plus/minus?


Do those of you who come in topics talking that shit not realize how often it goes in the face of common sense or do you see it and simply not bring it up when it goes against the point you wish to make?






This is the Kobe 46 game by the way....














You honestly caring what the on/off splits were that game?



Maybe as like a "Jesus christ....look at this" bit of trivia. But I see people straight up post these on/off numbers that fly in the face of all observation and defend it as if its a serious point.

[Kblaze8855]

Shaqs -6.......

[Kblaze8855]

Lebron goes for 43/15/13 and a -5 ....Anthony Parker +13. Thats the game he and Melo both had 40. Both of their highlights if you care:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0mZvdsXiI

[Micku]

I always look at stats when the mindset of the numbers don't lie, but with ppl using it in the wrong context, it'll mislead on the purpose of the stat.

It goes beyond just +/-. PER, Ortg, DRtg, VOP, and usage. The usage percent drives me nuts because ppl on the forums and analyst on TV use it as a main indicator of a player holding the ball. That's not really how you are supposed to use that stat. It's meant to show how many plays are run through the player, in other words, what % of the offense is the team dependent on the player, but even that is flawed. Regardless, they don't use the stat correctly, and refuse to use time of possession.

Perhaps I'm getting off track a bit, but it's similar to +/-. There are factors that isn't in consideration. When a team is down, and not playing well, it doesn't really show that one player is keeping them in the game. It also doesn't account of the rotation players, line ups, or exploits that the team does to get them back in the game. The player could be lucky and be in a 7-0 in order to win the game, but the star player is actually the one who kept them in that position in the first place. But there are other scenario, like defense or FTs when the other team is in the bonus. I don't think it is very reliable on single games. Small sample size. You always get weird results. I think it's better to judge for long stretches. It still won't tell the full story due to the context, lineup and rotation.

And +/- isn't the big be all stat. It's not the best, but it's definitely not useless or something that you toss under in the trash. It can definitely tell you the impact of a player, offensively or defensively. Or better yet, what line ups work the best. Most ppl are only interested in the individual players rather than the team. I'm talking about the death line up that the Warriors had. Or when early Celts bring out Mchale into the line up and finish with him.

As mentioned, using it over a single game? Not really useful. All sorts of weird stuff happens. But using it over a long stretches of games? You would start to see what type of player would impact the game for their team. But most importantly, what line up work the best for the specific player. This does depend on the team that they are facing, but it still records the players that have better chemistry than others.

[Phoenix]

Stats are an account of what happened. 'Why' and 'how' it happened requires you to actually watch what you are seeing instead of referring to basketball reference. So what someone dropping +/- says to me, especially some of the individuals here who swear by it, is you aren't actually trying to have a basketball discussion. You found a 'you cant argue with this' stat that you can't or don't really analyze beyond having the basic math skills to know that -1 is lower on the scale than +1, even if the person with -1 is 30/8/8 and the person with +1 is 8/7/5 or whatever.

It's not to say that these stats are meaningless, but they are contextual and it turns the debate from one of talking ball to, you may as well be arguing about pivot tables. It's a really lame ass way to debate sports and nobody knows these numbers off the top of their head. They have b-ball reference on standby. You'd be told to GTFO hard bringing that bullshit into a debate at the park or barbershop but internet warriors flaunt it like they wielding the sword of omens.

[FKAri]

Probably means the opposing team's bench sucked that game.

[ImKobe]

Lebron goes for 43/15/13 and a -5 ....Anthony Parker +13. Thats the game he and Melo both had 40. Both of their highlights if you care:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0mZvdsXiI

Melo had a better game scoring wise & he also had 7 assists to just 1 turnover for the whole game. He was superior in crunch time.

Melo in 4th + OT went for 17 points on 7/8 shooting with 2 assists and 0 turnovers
Lebron in 4th + OT went for 24 points on 8/17 shooting with 2 assists and 2 turnovers

These numbers do look pretty even, and you can argue that Lebron was a bit better in the 4th, but Melo's 3/3 for 6 points and 0 turnovers in OT is superior to Lebron's 2/6 shooting with 0 assists and a turnover. Lebron missed a FT to tie the game so Melo put them up 3 on the next possession and his clutch 3 got it to OT. Lebron missed 1 and Shaq missed 2 FTs in OT and they ended up losing by a point, this is backed up by Melo having a +/- of +6 vs Lebron's -6 in this 17-minute stretch, both played every single minute of 4th/OT.

As far as Anthony Parker goes, he had a great +/- because he only played 30 minutes and the bench did a bad job as he rested, Denver had the better 2nd unit in that game because so many Cavs' players sat out and Mo was on minutes' restriction after having sat out for almost a whole month. Lebron was terrible to end the 1st quarter so they fell down by 10, Cavs make a small run in the 2nd quarter with him on the bench and Anthony Parker & Shaq leading the way, that's where the +/- numbers go in some of his teammates' favor.

You shouldn't use +/- to say one was better than the other, but you can use it to give the game some context. Like, one guy can struggle shooting but he'll impact his team in other ways for them to still outscore the opponent with him on the court, and that's when it should be a stat to look at. If a player's constantly a positive on the court, he has to be doing something right. I don't like using it outside of looking at a stretch in a certain game or just in the context of one single game or a series.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not sure why you were talking about Melo to begin with since my only reference to him was that it was the game they both had 40(assuming some of us remember it). So I wont go into that....

Far as parker.....yea....thats how it works. I dont think anyone fails to grasp how the numbers come to be. You go out...someone sucks or perhaps steps up....changes your personal plus/minus. Thats mostly the problem. Well no problem isnt the word. Its only a problem when people make it one by trying to make it more than it is.

If I sit down and my backup hits a couple threes while the opposing star is also out and his backups miss theirs....it doesnt say much about me.

[tpols]

Probably means the opposing team's bench sucked that game.

This. Compare apples to apples.

[ImKobe]

Im not sure why you were talking about Melo to begin with since my only reference to him was that it was the game they both had 40(assuming some of us remember it). So I wont go into that....

Far as parker.....yea....thats how it works. I dont think anyone fails to grasp how the numbers come to be. You go out...someone sucks or perhaps steps up....changes your personal plus/minus. Thats mostly the problem. Well no problem isnt the word. Its only a problem when people make it one by trying to make it more than it is.

If I sit down and my backup hits a couple threes while the opposing star is also out and his backups miss theirs....it doesnt say much about me.

It depends on the game. I was never a big fan of the stat to begin with, but certain posters here loved to use it in favor of some players, I don't think it says much when comparing one player to another since there are so many variables that play into it, but you could use it along with someone's scoring numbers in crunch time to give you an idea of how good they are in certain situations. It's one of those stats that's easy to nit-pick when looking at "advanced stats" to make a case for or against a certain player.

[tontoz]

+/- needs a large sample size to be reliable. Looking at an entire season it is a pretty good indicator of a players impact. Over the course of a single game it can be good for some entertaining hot takes but not much else.

[ronniec]

From a single game, it is not a good reference
From whole season, multiple seasons, career, yes, it is.
You can't be fluke for that long

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Not big on raw +/-

For careers, seasons or single games. If its not accounting for lineups or opponents then is it really useful?

RPM, RAPM AND PIPM are all adjusted forms of +/- AND take into account that tangible stuff. They're better measures of impact.

[Marchesk]

From a single game, it is not a good reference
From whole season, multiple seasons, career, yes, it is.
You can't be fluke for that long

What if told you that Jayson Tatum has a higher +/- for the season than Lebron?

[Phoenix]

Want to know how serious you should take +/-? Here's an example:

Game 6 1998 NBA finals, these are the numbers for the Bulls starting lineup

Jordan 45/1/1/ 54% TS +2
Kukoc 15/4/3 54% TS +8
Harper 8/3/3 82%TS +5
Pippen 8/4/3 57% TS +15
Longley 0/0/2 00% -4

Some jackass on this site will happily argue that Pipppen, Kukoc and Harper were all more vital to the Bulls pulling out that game because of +/-.