Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- Galloisdaman
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,674
- And1: 2,171
- Joined: Mar 17, 2011
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
I have seen plus/minus mentioned a few times. I'm not a big believer in judging individuals by plus minus because it covers all 10 guys on the court. If starters are playing with Bev/Avery (or Gortat) its hard to have a huge plus and also you have to look at who they are playing against. Its much easier to go against some reserves than the leagues all stars at starter.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. 

Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- QRich3
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 5,844
- And1: 3,947
- Joined: Apr 03, 2011
-
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
Galloisdaman wrote:I have seen plus/minus mentioned a few times. I'm not a big believer in judging individuals by plus minus because it covers all 10 guys on the court. If starters are playing with Bev/Avery (or Gortat) its hard to have a huge plus and also you have to look at who they are playing against. Its much easier to go against some reserves than the leagues all stars at starter.
For single games it's useless, but over the long term it's the most reliable stat there is imo. Getting a rebound or scoring a basket can be good for your team or hurt you in another way, but running the score up is undeniably good in any situation. Of course there's many things to take into account as you mention, but there are stats like RAPM or PIPM that try look at all those things like who you're playing against/with, etc. while basing impact on the team score. Those tend to be the more reliable stats to me.
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
-
- Forum Mod - Clippers
- Posts: 50,693
- And1: 33,480
- Joined: Jun 23, 2004
- Location: NBA Fan
-
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
MartinToVaught wrote:esqtvd wrote:MartinToVaught wrote:The fact that our players just keep going over every screen for Trae and giving up wide-open shots is just further proof of how badly this team needs a real coach.
it never gets old
never change bro
never change
Doc's coaching is still bad. It's a good thing we're stacked enough to win in spite of it.
When you've dug in so deep, it becomes embarrassing to back out, right? Haha
I understand, but seriously, the man has done a good job coaching. With all the complaining we can do, how many coaches would legitimately do a better job? If we got rid of Doc, who is even out there to replace him and be better?
With Austin gone and Doc no longer making personell decisions, there's far less to complain about in regards to him, especially with how this team has been playing and winning so far. Top 5 offense, still average defense.
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- Galloisdaman
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,674
- And1: 2,171
- Joined: Mar 17, 2011
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
QRich3 wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:I have seen plus/minus mentioned a few times. I'm not a big believer in judging individuals by plus minus because it covers all 10 guys on the court. If starters are playing with Bev/Avery (or Gortat) its hard to have a huge plus and also you have to look at who they are playing against. Its much easier to go against some reserves than the leagues all stars at starter.
For single games it's useless, but over the long term it's the most reliable stat there is imo. Getting a rebound or scoring a basket can be good for your team or hurt you in another way, but running the score up is undeniably good in any situation. Of course there's many things to take into account as you mention, but there are stats like RAPM or PIPM that try look at all those things like who you're playing against/with, etc. while basing impact on the team score. Those tend to be the more reliable stats to me.
I find plus minus to be pretty bad both in hoops and hockey. I noticed in hockey some of the best players on bad teams have the worst plus minus because they play the most minutes but they can not account for the other 9 skaters plus 2 goalies. Guys like Curry and Durant are great players but if they had to play with 4 scrubs against other teams starters they would end up with bad plus minus figures.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. 

Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- Galloisdaman
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,674
- And1: 2,171
- Joined: Mar 17, 2011
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
og15 wrote:MartinToVaught wrote:esqtvd wrote:
it never gets old
never change bro
never change
Doc's coaching is still bad. It's a good thing we're stacked enough to win in spite of it.
When you've dug in so deep, it becomes embarrassing to back out, right? Haha
I understand, but seriously, the man has done a good job coaching. With all the complaining we can do, how many coaches would legitimately do a better job? If we got rid of Doc, who is even out there to replace him and be better?
With Austin gone and Doc no longer making personnel decisions, there's far less to complain about in regards to him, especially with how this team has been playing and winning so far. Top 5 offense, still average defense.
There are a couple of rotation changes I would make especially when the bonus is involved BUT its hard to argue against Doc's record last season or this season. Many folks spoke about this team like it was a tank job Dleague type roster. He has surprised the league so far this season.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. 

Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- QRich3
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 5,844
- And1: 3,947
- Joined: Apr 03, 2011
-
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
Galloisdaman wrote:QRich3 wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:I have seen plus/minus mentioned a few times. I'm not a big believer in judging individuals by plus minus because it covers all 10 guys on the court. If starters are playing with Bev/Avery (or Gortat) its hard to have a huge plus and also you have to look at who they are playing against. Its much easier to go against some reserves than the leagues all stars at starter.
For single games it's useless, but over the long term it's the most reliable stat there is imo. Getting a rebound or scoring a basket can be good for your team or hurt you in another way, but running the score up is undeniably good in any situation. Of course there's many things to take into account as you mention, but there are stats like RAPM or PIPM that try look at all those things like who you're playing against/with, etc. while basing impact on the team score. Those tend to be the more reliable stats to me.
I find plus minus to be pretty bad both in hoops and hockey. I noticed in hockey some of the best players on bad teams have the worst plus minus because they play the most minutes but they can not account for the other 9 skaters plus 2 goalies. Guys like Curry and Durant are great players but if they had to play with 4 scrubs against other teams starters they would end up with bad plus minus figures.
I don't follow hockey so I can't comment on that, but in basketball there are several statistics that adjust for all that you're saying. For instance, RAPM had guys like Jokic or Giannis among the top of their rankings, even though their teams were barely above 50%, because they account for how good your teammates are and adjust for who you're playing against.
Now, if you actually play on a terrible team and you can't showcase your skills because your team is terrible and put you in terrible positions all the time, there is no stat that can judge how much you're contributing to winning cause you're not in a situation where you can contribute to wins, so for me, it's correct that you score bad. Doesn't mean you're a bad player, but you're not playing well, because you simply can't.
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- Galloisdaman
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,674
- And1: 2,171
- Joined: Mar 17, 2011
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
QRich3 wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:QRich3 wrote:For single games it's useless, but over the long term it's the most reliable stat there is imo. Getting a rebound or scoring a basket can be good for your team or hurt you in another way, but running the score up is undeniably good in any situation. Of course there's many things to take into account as you mention, but there are stats like RAPM or PIPM that try look at all those things like who you're playing against/with, etc. while basing impact on the team score. Those tend to be the more reliable stats to me.
I find plus minus to be pretty bad both in hoops and hockey. I noticed in hockey some of the best players on bad teams have the worst plus minus because they play the most minutes but they can not account for the other 9 skaters plus 2 goalies. Guys like Curry and Durant are great players but if they had to play with 4 scrubs against other teams starters they would end up with bad plus minus figures.
I don't follow hockey so I can't comment on that, but in basketball there are several statistics that adjust for all that you're saying. For instance, RAPM had guys like Jokic or Giannis among the top of their rankings, even though their teams were barely above 50%, because they account for how good your teammates are and adjust for who you're playing against.
Now, if you actually play on a terrible team and you can't showcase your skills because your team is terrible and put you in terrible positions all the time, there is no stat that can judge how much you're contributing to winning cause you're not in a situation where you can contribute to wins, so for me, it's correct that you score bad. Doesn't mean you're a bad player, but you're not playing well, because you simply can't.
I understand but I was just referring to plus minus not the other stats you mentioned. All plus/minus- looks at is the plus and minus for a individuals time on the court but an individual can not compensate for the play of 9 other guys on the court for good or bad. If Toby played with the GS starters his plus would probably be higher than if he played with 5 scrubs.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. 

Plus or Minus Some Discrepancies
- Ranma
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,456
- And1: 4,062
- Joined: Jun 13, 2011
- Location: OC, CA
- Contact:
-
Plus or Minus Some Discrepancies
Galloisdaman wrote:I understand but I was just referring to plus minus not the other stats you mentioned. All plus/minus- looks at is the plus and minus for a individuals time on the court but an individual can not compensate for the play of 9 other guys on the court for good or bad. If Toby played with the GS starters his plus would probably be higher than if he played with 5 scrubs.
I've acknowledged that plus-minus is not perfect, but it's a good indicator of how a player is performing with his unit. Yeah, his rating is hurt by the quality of his teammates and competition, but the same thing applies to scoring, assists, rebounding, blocks, steals, and any other stat. It's easier to score against a scrub team than it is against an elite one. Just like it's easier to get assists from a teammate who can shoot than it is from one who can't.
Plus-minus gives a good idea of how a player is playing with particular units from game to game. It's up to the coach to figure out the matchups and makeup of the unit that would give the team the best chance to win. Coach's decisions also factor into the performance of individuals as well as the team since part of his job is to put his players in the best situation to succeed.
LA Legends: Kershaw & Koufax_
_IGNORED: Max Headrom-esqtvd-QRich3-EBledsoe12-alon8882-45clip

Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- esqtvd
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,092
- And1: 4,831
- Joined: Jun 24, 2017
- Location: LA LA LA LAND
- Contact:
-
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
Galloisdaman wrote:QRich3 wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:I find plus minus to be pretty bad both in hoops and hockey. I noticed in hockey some of the best players on bad teams have the worst plus minus because they play the most minutes but they can not account for the other 9 skaters plus 2 goalies. Guys like Curry and Durant are great players but if they had to play with 4 scrubs against other teams starters they would end up with bad plus minus figures.
I don't follow hockey so I can't comment on that, but in basketball there are several statistics that adjust for all that you're saying. For instance, RAPM had guys like Jokic or Giannis among the top of their rankings, even though their teams were barely above 50%, because they account for how good your teammates are and adjust for who you're playing against.
Now, if you actually play on a terrible team and you can't showcase your skills because your team is terrible and put you in terrible positions all the time, there is no stat that can judge how much you're contributing to winning cause you're not in a situation where you can contribute to wins, so for me, it's correct that you score bad. Doesn't mean you're a bad player, but you're not playing well, because you simply can't.
I understand but I was just referring to plus minus not the other stats you mentioned. All plus/minus- looks at is the plus and minus for a individuals time on the court but an individual can not compensate for the play of 9 other guys on the court for good or bad. If Toby played with the GS starters his plus would probably be higher than if he played with 5 scrubs.
I find plus/minus very helpful not so much after the game, but in-game, where you can see what combinations are working. When a unit is mostly plus or minus 5, it's not significant. When somebody jumps out at plus+15, you give him some burn. Or if he's minus-15, you don't ignore that either. But hey, if it's Tobias or Shai who's minus-15, you might say he's having a bad night, but OTOH, maybe you change the guys around him.
Doc did both last night. Lou [+18], Trezz [+11], and Scott [+22!] were on the court at the end, along with Harris [-5] and Shai [-7]. But both Tobias and Shai [and Lou, iirc] were into deep double digits in the minus at one point, and only dug out when the combinations changed.
That's why plus/minus is helpful after the game--when looking at 3, 4 or 5-man combinations. Everybody is who he is, so it's the coach's job to maximize their effectiveness by finding the best combinations--something that was unfortunately fairly impossible in the Big Three Era, since most of the combinations not including the Top 4 sucked.
Last night was a prime example of how to use plus/minus in-game. Avery was only minus-2, Bev and Gortat only minus-5 and 6, respectively. None played more than 20 minutes, each a placeholder starter who did reasonably well enough, but not enough to win, which is why they ate pine in crunchtime.
Also worth noting is that Milos and Bobi had 10 key minutes at about plus+10; Wallace and Sindarius got a 6-minute bite at the apple but at minus-2 and 5 respectively--not horrible, but no improvement over B&B. The in-game plus/minus was a quantification of the ebb and flow of what was actually happening on the court.

Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- Galloisdaman
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,674
- And1: 2,171
- Joined: Mar 17, 2011
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
esqtvd wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:QRich3 wrote:I don't follow hockey so I can't comment on that, but in basketball there are several statistics that adjust for all that you're saying. For instance, RAPM had guys like Jokic or Giannis among the top of their rankings, even though their teams were barely above 50%, because they account for how good your teammates are and adjust for who you're playing against.
Now, if you actually play on a terrible team and you can't showcase your skills because your team is terrible and put you in terrible positions all the time, there is no stat that can judge how much you're contributing to winning cause you're not in a situation where you can contribute to wins, so for me, it's correct that you score bad. Doesn't mean you're a bad player, but you're not playing well, because you simply can't.
I understand but I was just referring to plus minus not the other stats you mentioned. All plus/minus- looks at is the plus and minus for a individuals time on the court but an individual can not compensate for the play of 9 other guys on the court for good or bad. If Toby played with the GS starters his plus would probably be higher than if he played with 5 scrubs.
I find plus/minus very helpful not so much after the game, but in-game, where you can see what combinations are working. When a unit is mostly plus or minus 5, it's not significant. When somebody jumps out at plus+15, you give him some burn. Or if he's minus-15, you don't ignore that either. But hey, if it's Tobias or Shai who's minus-15, you might say he's having a bad night, but OTOH, maybe you change the guys around him.
Doc did both last night. Lou [+18], Trezz [+11], and Scott [+22!] were on the court at the end, along with Harris [-5] and Shai [-7]. But both Tobias and Shai [and Lou, iirc] were into deep double digits in the minus at one point, and only dug out when the combinations changed.
That's why plus/minus is helpful after the game--when looking at 3, 4 or 5-man combinations. Everybody is who he is, so it's the coach's job to maximize their effectiveness by finding the best combinations--something that was unfortunately fairly impossible in the Big Three Era, since most of the combinations not including the Top 4 sucked.
Last night was a prime example of how to use plus/minus in-game. Avery was only minus-2, Bev and Gortat only minus-5 and 6, respectively. None played more than 20 minutes, each a placeholder starter who did reasonably well enough, but not enough to win, which is why they ate pine in crunchtime.
Also worth noting is that Milos and Bobi had 10 key minutes at about plus+10; Wallace and Sindarius got a 6-minute bite at the apple but at minus-2 and 5 respectively--not horrible, but no improvement over B&B. The in-game plus/minus was a quantification of the ebb and flow of what was actually happening on the court.
I understand your points and some have merit, I like to see who is playing best with who but that still is not taking in to account who is playing for the other team. A guy could start off the first quarter shooting 4 for 4 scoring 12 points on 4fga and not let his man score a single point yet end up a minus 10 based on the other 9 players on the court. I just find it hard to blame that guy for his minus 10 after 1 quarter if he played as perfectly as possible.
It is like this Clippers board. I could be the best poster in the history of real gm but if the other 9 biggest posters are horrible this Clippers board will get a bad reputation despite my greatness (lol joking).

My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. 

Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- esqtvd
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,092
- And1: 4,831
- Joined: Jun 24, 2017
- Location: LA LA LA LAND
- Contact:
-
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
Galloisdaman wrote:esqtvd wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:I understand but I was just referring to plus minus not the other stats you mentioned. All plus/minus- looks at is the plus and minus for a individuals time on the court but an individual can not compensate for the play of 9 other guys on the court for good or bad. If Toby played with the GS starters his plus would probably be higher than if he played with 5 scrubs.
I find plus/minus very helpful not so much after the game, but in-game, where you can see what combinations are working. When a unit is mostly plus or minus 5, it's not significant. When somebody jumps out at plus+15, you give him some burn. Or if he's minus-15, you don't ignore that either. But hey, if it's Tobias or Shai who's minus-15, you might say he's having a bad night, but OTOH, maybe you change the guys around him.
Doc did both last night. Lou [+18], Trezz [+11], and Scott [+22!] were on the court at the end, along with Harris [-5] and Shai [-7]. But both Tobias and Shai [and Lou, iirc] were into deep double digits in the minus at one point, and only dug out when the combinations changed.
That's why plus/minus is helpful after the game--when looking at 3, 4 or 5-man combinations. Everybody is who he is, so it's the coach's job to maximize their effectiveness by finding the best combinations--something that was unfortunately fairly impossible in the Big Three Era, since most of the combinations not including the Top 4 sucked.
Last night was a prime example of how to use plus/minus in-game. Avery was only minus-2, Bev and Gortat only minus-5 and 6, respectively. None played more than 20 minutes, each a placeholder starter who did reasonably well enough, but not enough to win, which is why they ate pine in crunchtime.
Also worth noting is that Milos and Bobi had 10 key minutes at about plus+10; Wallace and Sindarius got a 6-minute bite at the apple but at minus-2 and 5 respectively--not horrible, but no improvement over B&B. The in-game plus/minus was a quantification of the ebb and flow of what was actually happening on the court.
I understand your points and some have merit, I like to see who is playing best with who but that still is not taking in to account who is playing for the other team. A guy could start off the first quarter shooting 4 for 4 scoring 12 points on 4fga and not let his man score a single point yet end up a minus 10 based on the other 9 players on the court. I just find it hard to blame that guy for his minus 10 after 1 quarter if he played as perfectly as possible.
It is like this Clippers board. I could be the best poster in the history of real gm but if the other 9 biggest posters are horrible this Clippers board will get a bad reputation despite my greatness (lol joking).
It's not about blaming anyone. You don't give up on your top guys even if the plus/minus isn't there. Tobias was in exactly the situation you describe early in the game. You find a way to grow what's going well, you pull the plug on what isn't: 3 starters hit the bench and Mike Scott finishes the game.
When somebody jumps out at plus+15, you give him some burn. Or if he's minus-15, you don't ignore that either. But hey, if it's Tobias or Shai who's minus-15, you might say he's having a bad night, but OTOH, maybe you change the guys around him.
Doc did both last night. Lou [+18], Trezz [+11], and Scott [+22!] were on the court at the end, along with Harris [-5] and Shai [-7]. But both Tobias and Shai [and Lou, iirc] were into deep double digits in the minus at one point, and only dug out when the combinations changed.

Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- Galloisdaman
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,674
- And1: 2,171
- Joined: Mar 17, 2011
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
esqtvd wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:esqtvd wrote:
I find plus/minus very helpful not so much after the game, but in-game, where you can see what combinations are working. When a unit is mostly plus or minus 5, it's not significant. When somebody jumps out at plus+15, you give him some burn. Or if he's minus-15, you don't ignore that either. But hey, if it's Tobias or Shai who's minus-15, you might say he's having a bad night, but OTOH, maybe you change the guys around him.
Doc did both last night. Lou [+18], Trezz [+11], and Scott [+22!] were on the court at the end, along with Harris [-5] and Shai [-7]. But both Tobias and Shai [and Lou, iirc] were into deep double digits in the minus at one point, and only dug out when the combinations changed.
That's why plus/minus is helpful after the game--when looking at 3, 4 or 5-man combinations. Everybody is who he is, so it's the coach's job to maximize their effectiveness by finding the best combinations--something that was unfortunately fairly impossible in the Big Three Era, since most of the combinations not including the Top 4 sucked.
Last night was a prime example of how to use plus/minus in-game. Avery was only minus-2, Bev and Gortat only minus-5 and 6, respectively. None played more than 20 minutes, each a placeholder starter who did reasonably well enough, but not enough to win, which is why they ate pine in crunchtime.
Also worth noting is that Milos and Bobi had 10 key minutes at about plus+10; Wallace and Sindarius got a 6-minute bite at the apple but at minus-2 and 5 respectively--not horrible, but no improvement over B&B. The in-game plus/minus was a quantification of the ebb and flow of what was actually happening on the court.
I understand your points and some have merit, I like to see who is playing best with who but that still is not taking in to account who is playing for the other team. A guy could start off the first quarter shooting 4 for 4 scoring 12 points on 4fga and not let his man score a single point yet end up a minus 10 based on the other 9 players on the court. I just find it hard to blame that guy for his minus 10 after 1 quarter if he played as perfectly as possible.
It is like this Clippers board. I could be the best poster in the history of real gm but if the other 9 biggest posters are horrible this Clippers board will get a bad reputation despite my greatness (lol joking).
It's not about blaming anyone. You don't give up on your top guys even if the plus/minus isn't there. Tobias was in exactly the situation you describe early in the game. You find a way to grow what's going well, you pull the plug on what isn't: 3 starters hit the bench and Mike Scott finishes the game.When somebody jumps out at plus+15, you give him some burn. Or if he's minus-15, you don't ignore that either. But hey, if it's Tobias or Shai who's minus-15, you might say he's having a bad night, but OTOH, maybe you change the guys around him.
Doc did both last night. Lou [+18], Trezz [+11], and Scott [+22!] were on the court at the end, along with Harris [-5] and Shai [-7]. But both Tobias and Shai [and Lou, iirc] were into deep double digits in the minus at one point, and only dug out when the combinations changed.
I got ya and I'm glad we can agree I'm a plus 17 poster on this board.

My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. 

Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- esqtvd
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,092
- And1: 4,831
- Joined: Jun 24, 2017
- Location: LA LA LA LAND
- Contact:
-
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
Galloisdaman wrote:esqtvd wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:
I understand your points and some have merit, I like to see who is playing best with who but that still is not taking in to account who is playing for the other team. A guy could start off the first quarter shooting 4 for 4 scoring 12 points on 4fga and not let his man score a single point yet end up a minus 10 based on the other 9 players on the court. I just find it hard to blame that guy for his minus 10 after 1 quarter if he played as perfectly as possible.
It is like this Clippers board. I could be the best poster in the history of real gm but if the other 9 biggest posters are horrible this Clippers board will get a bad reputation despite my greatness (lol joking).
It's not about blaming anyone. You don't give up on your top guys even if the plus/minus isn't there. Tobias was in exactly the situation you describe early in the game. You find a way to grow what's going well, you pull the plug on what isn't: 3 starters hit the bench and Mike Scott finishes the game.When somebody jumps out at plus+15, you give him some burn. Or if he's minus-15, you don't ignore that either. But hey, if it's Tobias or Shai who's minus-15, you might say he's having a bad night, but OTOH, maybe you change the guys around him.
Doc did both last night. Lou [+18], Trezz [+11], and Scott [+22!] were on the court at the end, along with Harris [-5] and Shai [-7]. But both Tobias and Shai [and Lou, iirc] were into deep double digits in the minus at one point, and only dug out when the combinations changed.
I got ya and I'm glad we can agree I'm a plus 17 poster on this board.
Yah, it's the others who bring down the curve.


Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
- Galloisdaman
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,674
- And1: 2,171
- Joined: Mar 17, 2011
Re: Game 16: Los Angeles Clippers (10-5) @ Atlanta Hawks (3-13) - 4:30 PM PT
esqtvd wrote:Galloisdaman wrote:esqtvd wrote:
It's not about blaming anyone. You don't give up on your top guys even if the plus/minus isn't there. Tobias was in exactly the situation you describe early in the game. You find a way to grow what's going well, you pull the plug on what isn't: 3 starters hit the bench and Mike Scott finishes the game.
I got ya and I'm glad we can agree I'm a plus 17 poster on this board.
Yah, it's the others who bring down the curve.
LOL that made me laugh!

My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. 

Return to Los Angeles Clippers