Min +/- + -
J. Wilson 35 16 71 -55
J. Anderson 21 -3 36 -39
C. Otule 20 -5 34 -39
D. Wilson 27 18 61 -43
J. Thomas 34 18 71 -53
J. Dawson 9 2 14 -12
T. Mayo 27 1 49 -48
J. Johnson 1 -3 0 -3
D. Burton 6 -5 6 -11
D. Gardner 20 16 43 -2
Have at it
Not surprised. Confirms what I said about our best lineup right now.
Even without great offensive games tonite, Derrick & Jake lead the way.
That is why they get the minutes and the freshmen don't.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on February 11, 2014, 10:31:47 PM
Not surprised. Confirms what I said about our best lineup right now.
Confused by this. You have been completely against J. Thomas and have continuously spoken bad about D. Wilson. The stats show that they were the best tonight.
Another interesting thing to think through; I keep playing through the reverse +/- in my mind, i.e. what happened when some of the guys above sat. In a way it can show value more.
Quote from: chapman on February 11, 2014, 10:41:33 PM
Another interesting thing to think through; I keep playing through the reverse +/- in my mind, i.e. what happened when some of the guys above sat. In a way it can show value more.
Would off-court +/- help you?
Min +/- + -
Marquette J. Wilson 35 -5 6 -11
Marquette J. Anderson 21 14 41 -27
Marquette C. Otule 20 16 43 -27
Marquette D. Wilson 27 -7 16 -23
Marquette J. Thomas 34 -7 6 -13
Marquette J. Dawson 9 9 63 -54
Marquette T. Mayo 27 10 28 -18
Marquette J. Johnson 1 14 77 -63
Marquette D. Burton 6 16 71 -55
Marquette D. Gardner 20 -5 34 -39
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on February 11, 2014, 10:31:47 PM
Not surprised. Confirms what I said about our best lineup right now.
What was your best lineup because you knocked two of those guys relentlessly?
Quote from: forgetful on February 11, 2014, 10:39:53 PM
Confused by this. You have been completely against J. Thomas and have continuously spoken bad about D. Wilson. The stats show that they were the best tonight.
Nope I have been vehemently against them playing without Mayo, Ox and Jamil. I have said all year that there needs to be two of those guys at least on the floor together, if not 3.
I have also said to the people who hate derrick and jake that they have assets, they just need to be used properly. Now todays rare game aside....I see no reason Juan or Chris should play much at all.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on February 12, 2014, 12:10:11 AM
Nope I have been vehemently against them playing without Mayo, Ox and Jamil. I have said all year that there needs to be two of those guys at least on the floor together, if not 3.
I have also said to the people who hate derrick and jake that they have assets, they just need to be used properly. Now todays rare game aside....I see no reason Juan or Chris should play much at all.
I disagree with you about Otule. I think he is more valuable than people realize. There is tremendous value to having a near-7ft guy standing in the paint.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on February 12, 2014, 12:12:57 AM
I disagree with you about Otule. I think he is more valuable than people realize. There is tremendous value to having a near-7ft guy standing in the paint.
Some games I agree. But his ability to hold on to the ball and constantly bring it into his body kills us at times.
There are games(butler) where his presence helps. But it's amazing some of the issues he still has in his 6th year.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2014/02/11/marquette-77-seton-hall-66
Another look at +/-
This kind of confirms what I thought...
Derrick was +18.
Dawson was +2 despite a poor performance.
MU was -9 without either on the floor.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 12, 2014, 06:58:02 AM
This kind of confirms what I thought...
Derrick was +18.
Dawson was +2 despite a poor performance.
MU was -9 without either on the floor.
How accurate is this +/- stuff, actually? When Derrick left in the first half, it was 18-12 (18-11, but SHU was at the line on his foul and made 1 of 2, which I assume would count against his time), so MU is +6 with him. Then he played the whole second half in which MU was +10. So that is +16. How do we get +18? Inconsequential really in the grand scheme of things, but I was just wondering. It is possible, for example, that he came out for a possession in the second half and I missed it.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 11, 2014, 11:06:44 PM
Would off-court +/- help you?
Min +/- + -
Marquette J. Wilson 35 -5 6 -11
Marquette J. Anderson 21 14 41 -27
Marquette C. Otule 20 16 43 -27
Marquette D. Wilson 27 -7 16 -23
Marquette J. Thomas 34 -7 6 -13
Marquette J. Dawson 9 9 63 -54
Marquette T. Mayo 27 10 28 -18
Marquette J. Johnson 1 14 77 -63
Marquette D. Burton 6 16 71 -55
Marquette D. Gardner 20 -5 34 -39
Indeed, thanks. I find it quite interesting to look at both sides.
+/- in basketball is much less effective at evaluating a players contribution then a game like hockey with lot's of line changes and little scoring.
Basketball is a game of runs and because of that it can weigh heavily on the +/- numbers for those in the game during those times. Jamil Wilson's opening stretch not only positively affected the numbers for our guys but also had a huge negative impact on SH's players. I can't recall the player for SH who is from Europe but he had a similar effect on the +/- figures when he went on his mini run of his own.
It's too flawed a metric in this sport to spend too much time discussing. I think points/possession and opponent's points/possession are better indicators of a players overall value to being on the floor. Even those are at the mercy of other people making or missing shots.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on February 12, 2014, 12:40:37 PM
+/- in basketball is much less effective at evaluating a players contribution then a game like hockey with lot's of line changes and little scoring.
Basketball is a game of runs and because of that it can weigh heavily on the +/- numbers for those in the game during those times. Jamil Wilson's opening stretch not only positively affected the numbers for our guys but also had a huge negative impact on SH's players. I can't recall the player for SH who is from Europe but he had a similar effect on the +/- figures when he went on his mini run of his own.
It's too flawed a metric in this sport to spend too much time discussing. I think points/possession and opponent's points/possession are better indicators of a players overall value to being on the floor. Even those are at the mercy of other people making or missing shots.
I agree that it's an imperfect stat, but I do love it. It's one of the only way I know how to quantify all the little things that player's do. Like Otule sealing off defenders in the lane, Jake stretching the defense, Derrick playing disruptive defense.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on February 12, 2014, 12:40:37 PM
+/- in basketball is much less effective at evaluating a players contribution then a game like hockey with lot's of line changes and little scoring..
Actually, +/- is almost entirely useless as a hockey stat as well.
Quote from: CTWarrior on February 12, 2014, 12:30:19 PM
How accurate is this +/- stuff, actually? When Derrick left in the first half, it was 18-12 (18-11, but SHU was at the line on his foul and made 1 of 2, which I assume would count against his time), so MU is +6 with him. Then he played the whole second half in which MU was +10. So that is +16. How do we get +18? Inconsequential really in the grand scheme of things, but I was just wondering. It is possible, for example, that he came out for a possession in the second half and I missed it.
CT - look at this site: http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2014/02/11/marquette-77-seton-hall-66/plus_minus
You can see each players' plus/minus by minutes and such. Derrick was +6 in his first half play and +12 in his second half play.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 12, 2014, 01:59:29 PM
CT - look at this site: http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2014/02/11/marquette-77-seton-hall-66/plus_minus
You can see each players' plus/minus by minutes and such. Derrick was +6 in his first half play and +12 in his second half play.
I think that's the root of CT's question, though: The website play-by-play shows Derrick playing the entire second half, yet credits him with +12...even though we outscored them by 10 in the second half. +12 would make sense if Derrick was out briefly in the second half and SHU scored 2 pts, but I don't think that happened.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on February 12, 2014, 02:14:01 PM
I think that's the root of CT's question, though: The website play-by-play shows Derrick playing the entire second half, yet credits him with +12...even though we outscored them by 10 in the second half. +12 would make sense if Derrick was out briefly in the second half and SHU scored 2 pts, but I don't think that happened.
Gotcha. There is an error apparently. If you hover over Derrick's bars, it says we were down 34-35 when Derrick came in in the second half. Not sure why.
I personally think +/- is useless.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 12, 2014, 02:20:10 PM
Gotcha. There is an error apparently. If you hover over Derrick's bars, it says we were down 34-35 when Derrick came in in the second half. Not sure why.
Says that for everybody who started the second half (and ended the first half). Probably just a coincidence. I wouldn't normally question except Derrick's was easy to figure out without any effort due to his only having one streak on the bench.
If you watched the game you don't need +/- to tell you MU was much better with Derrick in the game then when he was on the bench last night.....
Quote from: MuMark on February 12, 2014, 03:44:54 PM
If you watched the game you don't need +/- to tell you MU was much better with Derrick in the game then when he was on the bench last night.....
+10000000
Quote from: Henry Sugar on February 12, 2014, 02:27:39 PM
I personally think +/- is useless.
You seem to be the resident stat geek, care to explain why it is useless?
Quote from: BenCat12 on February 12, 2014, 09:14:48 PM
You seem to be the resident stat geek, care to explain why it is useless?
I'll give you a perfect example. Kevin Durant, one of the NBA's best players was one of the worst +/- players for 2 out of the 3 seasons since the NBA adopted the stat. The other year he was one of the league's best +/- players. His personal statistics were relative all three seasons and his team's success was relative all three seasons and yet his +/- numbers swung wildly.
The NBA plays 82 games in a season and advanced statisticians have proven that after 2-3 SEASONS +/- numbers begin to show indications of a player's effect on games he plays in and only after altering the formula for variances.
It's a pretty worthless stat.
Also, the best NCAA player on a bad NCAA team who logs major minutes and plays all 30 games with his team will have some of the worst +/- numbers on the team. If his team averaged 65 points/game and his team's opponents averaged 75 points/game for the season it's obvious he will be the one most affected by his mediocre team.
If a stat is inconclusive at best over multiple seasons then it is absolutely worthless over the course of a single game.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on February 12, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Also, the best NCAA player on a bad NCAA team who logs major minutes and plays all 30 games with his team will have some of the worst +/- numbers on the team. If his team averaged 65 points/game and his team's opponents averaged 75 points/game for the season it's obvious he will be the one most affected by his mediocre team.
If a stat is inconclusive at best over multiple seasons then it is absolutely worthless over the course of a single game.
With all due respect, I asked Henry. He has earned credibility with his stats and I respect his opinion. I understand some of the shortcomings of the stat, but I question why it's "useless."
Bencat
With all due respect, the stats are readily available and the arguments against it being a quality metric for evaluating players from people far more qualified than anyone on this board.
Insightful
Quote from: BenCat12 on February 12, 2014, 10:33:57 PM
Insightful
Hey, I tried to give you a real life scenario of one of the greatest players currently playing at the highest level and how he's fared with the plus minus statistic despite his personal numbers and his team's win percentage remaining mostly static over that same time.
I didn't make the stats up, and yet I was greeted with an 'In all due respect....'
I just was pointed out that people with the time, money and resources far exceeding us casual fans have proven how ineffective +/- stats are at telling a player's value to his team.
I thought we're living in 'the information age' and I didn't realize it was monopolized for only posters with 5000+ posts to share and digest.
I suppose I should have sent him a PM, to avoid hurting your feelings. It's really not worth getting upset about. You have no credibility with me, Sugar does. I have found articles on both sides of the value of the +/- stat. The conclusion I came to was the stat has value in certain contexts. One of those contexts is to use +/- comparisons to determine best overall lineups. The stat does not work for situational players like Juan, or small sample sizes like JJJ or Dawson. But it does work for players who play major minutes, for example Todd vs. Jake. I am currently watching the Heat Warriors game and the announcers specifically used +/- to show how much better Golden State is with Bogut (who is injured, who'd a thought) in the lineup than without. Clearly, it has some value. I asked Sugar because he has written extensive posts on basketball related statistics and I respect his thoughts because of it.
Quote from: BenCat12 on February 12, 2014, 10:56:44 PM
The conclusion I came to was the stat has value in certain contexts.
True of all of them. Numbers don't lie, but statistics can be spun to fit any agenda ;)
Quote from: BenCat12 on February 12, 2014, 10:25:35 PM
With all due respect, I asked Henry. He has earned credibility with his stats and I respect his opinion. I understand some of the shortcomings of the stat, but I question why it's "useless."
Honestly, I would have just written up something similar to mattyv. His explanation was very good and credible.
The sole advantage of +/- is that it's clear. Everyone can understand the concept of +/-. However, that's not a good thing, because the stat is inconsistent across games, years, and teams. It's not reproducible and has no way of deriving why a specific result in a game is obtained. In fact, because the stat is so clear and yet also inconsistent/not reproducible, that makes it dangerous. It's like the concept of pitcher wins.
Here's a decent further explanation.
http://wagesofwins.com/2013/02/15/measure-once-predict-twice-thoughts-on/
Henry, I appreciate the feedback.
The stat should be used to evaluate single players, on a team in a single year. Comparing +/- with different seasons or different teams in the same season, or different seasons is useless. But using it for a single team, in a single season it can show which 5 players perform the best together and who should see the court and who shouldn't. This is why I started measuring +/- in the first place. This was the first season I was so baffled by the playing time and rotations that I had to come up with some reason why Buzz was doing what he was doing. It turns out, after looking at +/-, that Buzz strongly favors consistent mediocrity (Jake and Derrick), over inconsistent upside (Mayo, the freshmen, etc). The stat is not useless, if you know how to use it and understand its importance. The more data there is as the season goes on the more valuable the stat is. In other words, the stat means next to nothing after one game, but after the 25th game it holds major weight in determining what is the best combination of 5 players on the floor.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on February 12, 2014, 09:45:51 PM
I'll give you a perfect example. Kevin Durant, one of the NBA's best players was one of the worst +/- players for 2 out of the 3 seasons since the NBA adopted the stat. The other year he was one of the league's best +/- players. His personal statistics were relative all three seasons and his team's success was relative all three seasons and yet his +/- numbers swung wildly.
The NBA plays 82 games in a season and advanced statisticians have proven that after 2-3 SEASONS +/- numbers begin to show indications of a player's effect on games he plays in and only after altering the formula for variances.
It's a pretty worthless stat.
Agreed, because it does not consider who the guy is playing with. Wade is a good example. He used to rest before LeBron and Bosh and then when they went out he was playing with 2nd teamers more minutes, and many games he would have a minus stat.
Quote from: BenCat12 on February 13, 2014, 10:47:38 AM
Henry, I appreciate the feedback.
The stat should be used to evaluate single players, on a team in a single year. Comparing +/- with different seasons or different teams in the same season, or different seasons is useless. But using it for a single team, in a single season it can show which 5 players perform the best together and who should see the court and who shouldn't. This is why I started measuring +/- in the first place. This was the first season I was so baffled by the playing time and rotations that I had to come up with some reason why Buzz was doing what he was doing. It turns out, after looking at +/-, that Buzz strongly favors below average consistency (Jake and Derrick), over inconsistent upside (Mayo, the freshmen, etc). The stat is not useless, if you know how to use it and understand its importance. The more data there is as the season goes on the more valuable the stat is. In other words, the stat means next to nothing after one game, but after the 25th game it holds major weight in determining what is the best combination of 5 players on the floor.
I do not agree. However, if you want to keep using +/-, knock yourself out.
It seems to me that +/- is more useful in evaluating bench/role players than it is in evaluating starters. If you are out there 30 minutes, you are going to hit runs and slides. But if you only play 10 minutes, +/- can tell you if you had a positive or negative effect on the floor.