[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

top 5 man units...courtesy of 82games.com
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
SlimPack
Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009
USA
11/29/2005  10:59 PM
I think what tomverve was trying to say was no matter how good one player his if his team mates suck is +/- when he is on the court could be negative, his +/- when he is off the court would just be even more negative. anyway i disagree with tomverve, I think the team last year while bad did have some talent, i think marbury just isnt the type of pg that can have a postitive effect on anyone elses game except his own.
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/29/2005  11:04 PM
Posted by SlimPack:

I think what tomverve was trying to say was no matter how good one player his if his team mates suck is +/- when he is on the court could be negative, his +/- when he is off the court would just be even more negative. anyway i disagree with tomverve, I think the team last year while bad did have some talent, i think marbury just isnt the type of pg that can have a postitive effect on anyone elses game except his own.
The team did have some talent, but not one of the players other than Marbury would be a good or even average starter. Plenty of the starters would have been solid sixth men, but you're in a terrible situation when your 2nd best player should be at best a sixth man.

Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/29/2005  11:10 PM
Posted by McK1:

I really hope you aren't using 40 year old fresh out of a second retirement with Wizards Jordan as a basis on how we should view and judge Steph.

Jordan with the Bulls made the play-offs every season he was there. If there is a site that has the +/- for the early years I dsoubt very highly it was negative even when he was the team.
lol...you're right technically about him making the playoffs every year in Chicago. His first 3 years went 38-44, 30-52, and 40-42, but technically they did make the playoffs each year.

SlimPack
Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009
USA
11/29/2005  11:12 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by SlimPack:

I think what tomverve was trying to say was no matter how good one player his if his team mates suck is +/- when he is on the court could be negative, his +/- when he is off the court would just be even more negative. anyway i disagree with tomverve, I think the team last year while bad did have some talent, i think marbury just isnt the type of pg that can have a postitive effect on anyone elses game except his own.
The team did have some talent, but not one of the players other than Marbury would be a good or even average starter. Plenty of the starters would have been solid sixth men, but you're in a terrible situation when your 2nd best player should be at best a sixth man.


until I become more sure about marbury Im just going to agree with you to a large extent. I still think that there are better fits for this team than the incredibly highly paid marbury though. being able to take your man of the dribble is a very useful ability to have but I beleive that there are cheaper ways to keep the knicks a good team than to have marbury.

[Edited by - slimpack on 11-29-2005 11:14 PM]
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
11/29/2005  11:14 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bonn1997:
bringing MJ into this is pointless because he didn't have a negative rating and his teams won.
I don't know what Jordan's +/- on the court #s were but I'd bet they were negative on the lottery teams he played on. His +/- on/off court #s were probably always very good, which are the better way to assess a player's net impact for all the reasons tom indicated.
If you want to go by just the "on" court +/- #s, then almost any star on a bad team is going to have a negative, be it Marbury last year, Jordan on lottery teams, or any of the following players this year:

Allen Iverson (-1.2)
Paul Pierce (-1.2)
Michael Redd (-2.7)
Steve Francis (-2.0)
Chris Bosh (-8.2)
Ray Allen (-1.4)
Steve Nash (-2.4)

The obvious confound is that these guys simply have bad teams. Their teams are all much worse with them off than on the court; so they have positive +/-on-off court #s even though they have negative +/- on court #s.


the obvious is that +/- is a bone for stat geeks to chew on.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/29/2005  11:15 PM
Then why were you posting Marbury's +/- on the court #s? You must have thought the # had some validity if you were using it to support your arguments.
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
11/29/2005  11:21 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by franco12:

Marebury & curry both CLEARLY need to be traded.

Not sure if you're joking or serious, but the +/- for Marbury is an abberation probably due in part to low sample size of games. Every year after 82 games are played, his +/- is always outstanding.

I posted Marbury's - 0.4 in response to this bull.

the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/29/2005  11:57 PM
McK1, not only are you clueless, you actually have an active desire to remain clueless. So I will let you be that way in peace. Enjoy.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/30/2005  12:08 AM
Posted by SlimPack:

anyway i disagree with tomverve, I think the team last year while bad did have some talent, i think marbury just isnt the type of pg that can have a postitive effect on anyone elses game except his own.

Every team has some talent. And our talent last year wasn't exactly stellar. We had Tim Thomas bricking away most of the year and Craw taking and missing more than his share of poor shots, shooting poor percentages. Aside from Marbury our most consistent talent was the solid but not exactly sensational Kurt Thomas and Michael Sweetney.

But anyway, that's besides the point. Once again, +/- while on the court does not tell you useful information about an individual player. To repeat: you cannot infer anything about Marbury's effectiveness by his -0.4 while on the court. You need net +/- to single out what Marbury's contribution was. This is just a fact about what these numbers tell you. Marbury's net +/- was +12, so clearly we were better with him playing than without.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
nyk4ever
Posts: 40994
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
11/30/2005  12:13 AM
It's funny. You give a statistic to Mck1 that shows that Marbury was in the TOP10 in the NBA last year in Net Team +/-, he's on that list with some of the best players in the NBA yet McK1 still can't compliment him. Not only that he declared the statistic bull, I guess if Marbury is good at something the stat shouldn't count? Come on man, show a little balance FOR ONCE.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
11/30/2005  12:20 AM
losing by 2 or 12 is still losing stat geek.
For all your losing efforts in railroading what people obseve with their own 2 there is no bigger record of numbers than the 7 out of 9 teams with losing records spearheaded by Steph. 3 or 4 teams loss 50. I will happily remain clueless and oblivious to your preposterous stat posts. In turn you sir have my blessings to remain clueless to the win-loss total, the actual in-game goings on and live happily ever after with a jar of vaseline and a stat website.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/30/2005  12:24 AM
Maybe this will help. What does a team's +/- when a given player is NOT on the floor tell us? It tells us how effective that player's teammates are, on average, at outscoring the other team. So +/- when a player is off the floor gives us a kind of baseline measurement of how good the team is without that player. Does that make sense? Once you have that, you can measure how a valuable the player is to the team by seeing how much better (or worse) he makes the team, compared to that baseline.

For instance: NY's +/- when Marbury was off the court last season was -12.4. What does that tell us? That tells us that the NY Knicks last season, as a whole team, were 12.4 points worse than the opposition. That's our baseline measurement of how good the team is without Marbury. So even if you think Marbury's teammates had good talent last year, you cannot deny that they performed that poorly on the floor as a unit without Marbury.

Now we can see how effective Marbury was for the team by seeing how much better he made those 'Marbury-less' Knicks. Start with getting outscored by 12.4, and jump up to only getting outscored by 0.4. THAT is how you should interpret +/- stats. The +/- while a player is on the court tells you nothing about that player. In order to get information about that particular player, you need to use the +/- when he is off the court as a *reference point*, and only then can you interpret the meaning of the +/- while he is on the floor. Does that make sense?

It's kind of like someone asking you, "how far are you?" You just can't answer that question as it is framed there, because distance is only measured with respect to a reference point. Now if someone says, "how far are you from the subway on the corner of 30th and 7th?" then you can give a meaningful answer. Using +/- stats while a player is on the court without also using +/- stats when he is off is like asking "how far are you?" without specifying how far you are from what.

[Edited by - tomverve on 11-30-2005 12:27 AM]
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/30/2005  12:27 AM
Posted by McK1:

losing by 2 or 12 is still losing stat geek.
For all your losing efforts in railroading what people obseve with their own 2 there is no bigger record of numbers than the 7 out of 9 teams with losing records spearheaded by Steph. 3 or 4 teams loss 50. I will happily remain clueless and oblivious to your preposterous stat posts. In turn you sir have my blessings to remain clueless to the win-loss total, the actual in-game goings on and live happily ever after with a jar of vaseline and a stat website.


You are such an idiot that it hurts.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
11/30/2005  12:27 AM
Thank God for the internet and 82games.com, before then you could never tell how good a player was.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
11/30/2005  12:31 AM
Posted by nyk4ever:

It's funny. You give a statistic to Mck1 that shows that Marbury was in the TOP10 in the NBA last year in Net Team +/-, he's on that list with some of the best players in the NBA yet McK1 still can't compliment him. Not only that he declared the statistic bull, I guess if Marbury is good at something the stat shouldn't count? Come on man, show a little balance FOR ONCE.

this hooker with the heart of gold slant on things must stop. The ****ing +/- stat relative to your teams production with or with-out him on the court means not 1 ****ing thing in terms of OFFICIALLY recorded NBA stats. Geeks keep using this tool to make a case for Marbury's worth only shows how much of a ****ty job Isiah did in his initial attempt to build around Steph. Steph wasn't that good, the team was that bad. Isiah traded for everyone in the starting 5 last yr except Kurt. Isiah also traded for Moochie Norris, signed Vin Baker, signed Jamison Brewer. He inherited a growing low post beast in Sweetney but the **** guards IT entrusted the team to hadn't the will nor want to consistently feed him the ball; it was a bad situation that was made worse by Herb's not playing Mike much in the 2nd half after he would reel off 10 in the first.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
11/30/2005  12:40 AM
Posted by Knight:

Thank God for the internet and 82games.com, before then you could never tell how good a player was.

tomverve, the on-line statgeek Jesus, has come to show us the way. there will never be a need to watch a game again.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
Killa4luv
Posts: 27768
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
11/30/2005  12:42 AM
DJ, I just want to let you know that I hold you fully responsible for all of this bull**** going on in this thread because you are the one who started this assinine thread in the first place. That statistic has got these professional Marbury/Isiah haters getting wood!

You have emboldened the terrorists DJ!!! WTF were you thinking??!?!?!?!?
Killa4luv
Posts: 27768
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
11/30/2005  12:44 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
The bottom line is do you think our best +- five is realy our best 5?
I don't think anyone's saying that that would be the correct way to interpret the +/- statistics.

Reading the thread it certainly seems that way. Otherwise what is the poitn of this thread?
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
11/30/2005  12:49 AM
Posted by Killa4luv:

Otherwise what is the poitn of this thread?

its a stat orgy
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/30/2005  12:50 AM
Needless to say, I have never claimed that stats are the only way to know the game. They are a complement to watching games that help us get a deeper understanding. The "now we don't have to watch the games anymore" thing is a weak sling from people who have an axe to grind.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
top 5 man units...courtesy of 82games.com
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy