GAME 71: Clippers (47-23) @ Rockets (16-54)— Friday 8PM PDT

[playaloc916]

Some pretty deep analysis on Reddit and YouTube about the loss guaranteeing that the Clips won't face the Lakers in round 1.

I can agree with the reasoning behind it. As mentioned already, the league will probably do everything in it's power to not see the Lakers eliminated in the first round. Does it guarantee that the Clips would lose to them in the first round? Probably not, but the officiating would be so much in their favor that it's not worth the risk. Anything after the first round I'd think is fair game.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT plotting against you.

Even if there were no conspiracy, Bron gets the calls and we don't. I'd rather face anybody else.

Agreed about Bron getting the calls. I think his pride alone would probably force him to play at another level, at least for the first round. He's load managed and recovered some energy... How much energy, we don't know...

[og15]

Sir, plus minus (with all due respect) is a worthless stat. The fact that you derive virtually all of your analysis from it is very limiting.

So Bev went 0-4 on Tuesday 21 minutes 0 pts but was +11

TMann was 7-7 20 points 21 minutes and only +1.

This is REALLY how you determine your ideas of who is best to play??

You keep repeating yourself now. MERCY. You tried to use the plus/minus stat and it proved you WRONG. Now you reject it again.

At his best, Bev is our 3rd or 4th most effective player. WE must do everything to get him back in form if possible. Mann is our 10th man at the moment. If Bev's minutes go anywhere, they will go to Reggie and Rondo.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746

This is just dense man deriving the pecking order of the team purely from +/-. In no universe is Mann the 10th most effective player on the team. There are plenty of articles and highly respected coaches and others who say how useless +/- is, but we'll just agree to disagree.

I have discussed +/- before with esqtvd, and I got busy and never responded to his last post about it last time, but I think we should be more clear here.

The first thing I would be clear about is that single game +/- is what many coaches, etc rightly say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Secondly, unadjusted and unanalyzed +/- is the second issue they tend to have. Coaches and teams in general are not using plus/minus for single player analysis (unless it's advanced and adjusted for lineups, luck etc,etc), but for lineup analysis, and with solid sample sizes, so not one game for example.

So for example, if we compare the raw +/- of a player A playing 30 mpg and a player B playing 15 mpg, we already have one problem, minutes difference means that technically player A would have double the +/- if both him and player B's lineups are beating the opponent by the same margin per minute.

So problem #1 is that we'll see people compare +/- of players on the same team playing largely different minutes and not adjust for minutes, which will always make the higher minute guy seem better than what the data is actually saying.

Second problem of course is that player A is playing with starters at least a lot more if not all his minutes, and therefore with the teams best players. If player B is getting a lot of minutes with a bench unit(s) that is comparatively weaker than other teams bench units, +/- will suggest they are weaker or lower impact when they might not be. Similarly, player A with the starters and stars might have their +/- simply overrated by playing with lineups which would be similarly positive regardless of who you subbed into their spot.

Hence why +/- needs a lot of analysis and adjustment, and teams in the analysis are generally doing adjusted +/-, but they can/will still use larger sample basic lineup data as a big picture look at lineups, but not for single players; at least the majority won't, can always find some outlier.

[RingColluder]

Mann has 0 starts this season alongside Kawhi and PG. Lue isn't changing that for the playoffs, so why get worked up about it. Next season Mann's spot in the pecking order is a different story. Mann has received minutes, so he can be called upon in the playoffs as the situation dictates.

Regardless of how many minutes Mann gets in the playoffs, all we should care is that his minutes are impactful and not just rest minutes for another player.

Rest minutes are fine. He's the ~10th man and is not going to take minutes from Reggie or Rondo. If whatever playoff minutes Mann gets are plus/minus ZERO, that's still quite a success for any 2nd year/2nd round player. We're a major contender, not Charlotte.
________________________________

You can keep repeating this as much as you want, but where has Lue indicated he won't get minutes over Reggie OR Bev if he doesn't perform? Rondo's a different story. I think depending on matchups Mann will absolutely get more minutes than Reggie and likely Bev.

[RingColluder]

You keep repeating yourself now. MERCY. You tried to use the plus/minus stat and it proved you WRONG. Now you reject it again.

At his best, Bev is our 3rd or 4th most effective player. WE must do everything to get him back in form if possible. Mann is our 10th man at the moment. If Bev's minutes go anywhere, they will go to Reggie and Rondo.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746

This is just dense man deriving the pecking order of the team purely from +/-. In no universe is Mann the 10th most effective player on the team. There are plenty of articles and highly respected coaches and others who say how useless +/- is, but we'll just agree to disagree.

I have discussed +/- before with esqtvd, and I got busy and never responded to his last post about it last time, but I think we should be more clear here.

The first thing I would be clear about is that single game +/- is what many coaches, etc rightly say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Secondly, unadjusted and unanalyzed +/- is the second issue they tend to have. Coaches and teams in general are not using plus/minus for single player analysis (unless it's advanced and adjusted for lineups, luck etc,etc), but for lineup analysis, and with solid sample sizes, so not one game for example.

So for example, if we compare the raw +/- of a player A playing 30 mpg and a player B playing 15 mpg, we already have one problem, minutes difference means that technically player A would have double the +/- if both him and player B's lineups are beating the opponent by the same margin per minute.

So problem #1 is that we'll see people compare +/- of players on the same team playing largely different minutes and not adjust for minutes, which will always make the higher minute guy seem better than what the data is actually saying.

Second problem of course is that player A is playing with starters at least a lot more if not all his minutes, and therefore with the teams best players. If player B is getting a lot of minutes with a bench unit(s) that is comparatively weaker than other teams bench units, +/- will suggest they are weaker or lower impact when they might not be. Similarly, player A with the starters and stars might have their +/- simply overrated by playing with lineups which would be similarly positive regardless of who you subbed into their spot.

Hence why +/- needs a lot of analysis and adjustment, and teams in the analysis are generally doing a van Ed +/-, but they will use larger sample basic lineups as a big picture loom at lineups, but not for single players still, at least the majority won't, can always find some outlier.

Exactly. As said if Mann got the minutes of a starter AND played with the starters no **** his +/- would be amazing and not "10th' or whatever. He LITERALLY does all the little things that don't show up on the stat sheet. Bev is a negative on offense, and Reggie is a disaster on defense. Mann is the best of both worlds.


And as you stated the starters vs. bench thing makes the numbers totally off. This is NOT some black and white "This person has +10, this person has +3, the +10 is better!!11!" That's ridiculous.

I challenge ESQ to find any successful coach who uses +/- as a primary barometer for their lineups.

[esqtvd]

You keep repeating yourself now. MERCY. You tried to use the plus/minus stat and it proved you WRONG. Now you reject it again.

At his best, Bev is our 3rd or 4th most effective player. WE must do everything to get him back in form if possible. Mann is our 10th man at the moment. If Bev's minutes go anywhere, they will go to Reggie and Rondo.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746

This is just dense man deriving the pecking order of the team purely from +/-. In no universe is Mann the 10th most effective player on the team. There are plenty of articles and highly respected coaches and others who say how useless +/- is, but we'll just agree to disagree.

I have discussed +/- before with esqtvd, and I got busy and never responded to his last post about it last time, but I think we should be more clear here.

The first thing I would be clear about is that single game +/- is what many coaches, etc rightly say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Secondly, unadjusted and unanalyzed +/- is the second issue they tend to have. Coaches and teams in general are not using plus/minus for single player analysis (unless it's advanced and adjusted for lineups, luck etc,etc), but for lineup analysis, and with solid sample sizes, so not one game for example.

So for example, if we compare the raw +/- of a player A playing 30 mpg and a player B playing 15 mpg, we already have one problem, minutes difference means that technically player A would have double the +/- if both him and player B's lineups are beating the opponent by the same margin per minute.

So problem #1 is that we'll see people compare +/- of players on the same team playing largely different minutes and not adjust for minutes, which will always make the higher minute guy seem better than what the data is actually saying.

Second problem of course is that player A is playing with starters at least a lot more if not all his minutes, and therefore with the teams best players. If player B is getting a lot of minutes with a bench unit(s) that is comparatively weaker than other teams bench units, +/- will suggest they are weaker or lower impact when they might not be. Similarly, player A with the starters and stars might have their +/- simply overrated by playing with lineups which would be similarly positive regardless of who you subbed into their spot.

Hence why +/- needs a lot of analysis and adjustment, and teams in the analysis are generally doing a van Ed +/-, but they will use larger sample basic lineups as a big picture loom at lineups, but not for single players still, at least the majority won't, can always find some outlier.

You've said this numerous times and I've rebutted it just as many: If we get blown out Kawhi is gonna be minus-20 like everyone else. But if Kawhi was plus+10 and PG was minus-30, hmmmmmmmmmmmm....?

I've done +/- full season and the last 15 games and at other times 10. I've also used it for lineup combinations. It's remarkably consistent with itself and with Ty's lineups and dealing out PT. And when certain players consistently appear at the bottom of the table, to blame the 14 players ahead of him is illogical. It's possible he's run into a statistically improbable run of bad luck when he's out there, but Occam's Razor suggests that everybody ends up more or less where they belong over the larger sample size.

Whether for the full season or over the past n games, our plus/minus reflects our rotation. Whether this is cause or effect in the end doesn't matter. To wave away plus/minus when it completely reflects the reality is empty talk, whether like the drunk and the lamppost, you use it for support rather than illumination.

It agrees with not only my eye test but the coach's too. If it didn't, I suppose I'd be waving it away too.

What does your eye test disagree with here? Looks kosher to me.


https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746&LastNGames=10

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746 [season]

[Quake Griffin]

Yall be paying attention when bro talks all this +/- **** in these game threads?

LOL.
**** is instant scroll-season when he start talking that.

[MartinToVaught]

Yall be paying attention when bro talks all this +/- **** in these game threads?

LOL.
**** is instant scroll-season when he start talking that.

Clearly they weren't here for the season when +/- was off-limits for Austin Rivers (a career net-negative player), but was the metric by which all other players on the team were judged.

[RingColluder]

There is absolutely no universe in which Nicolas Batum is the 3rd most important player on our "totem poll" nor does it reflect in the minutes because of his +/-.

[og15]

This is just dense man deriving the pecking order of the team purely from +/-. In no universe is Mann the 10th most effective player on the team. There are plenty of articles and highly respected coaches and others who say how useless +/- is, but we'll just agree to disagree.

I have discussed +/- before with esqtvd, and I got busy and never responded to his last post about it last time, but I think we should be more clear here.

The first thing I would be clear about is that single game +/- is what many coaches, etc rightly say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Secondly, unadjusted and unanalyzed +/- is the second issue they tend to have. Coaches and teams in general are not using plus/minus for single player analysis (unless it's advanced and adjusted for lineups, luck etc,etc), but for lineup analysis, and with solid sample sizes, so not one game for example.

So for example, if we compare the raw +/- of a player A playing 30 mpg and a player B playing 15 mpg, we already have one problem, minutes difference means that technically player A would have double the +/- if both him and player B's lineups are beating the opponent by the same margin per minute.

So problem #1 is that we'll see people compare +/- of players on the same team playing largely different minutes and not adjust for minutes, which will always make the higher minute guy seem better than what the data is actually saying.

Second problem of course is that player A is playing with starters at least a lot more if not all his minutes, and therefore with the teams best players. If player B is getting a lot of minutes with a bench unit(s) that is comparatively weaker than other teams bench units, +/- will suggest they are weaker or lower impact when they might not be. Similarly, player A with the starters and stars might have their +/- simply overrated by playing with lineups which would be similarly positive regardless of who you subbed into their spot.

Hence why +/- needs a lot of analysis and adjustment, and teams in the analysis are generally doing a van Ed +/-, but they will use larger sample basic lineups as a big picture loom at lineups, but not for single players still, at least the majority won't, can always find some outlier.

You've said this numerous times and I've rebutted it just as many: If we get blown out Kawhi is gonna be minus-20 like everyone else. But if Kawhi was plus+10 and PG was minus-30, hmmmmmmmmmmmm....?

I've done +/- full season and the last 15 games and at other times 10. I've also used it for lineup combinations. It's remarkably consistent with itself and with Ty's lineups and dealing out PT. And when certain players consistently appear at the bottom of the table, to blame the 14 players ahead of him is illogical. It's possible he's run into a statistically improbable run of bad luck when he's out there, but Occam's Razor suggests that everybody ends up more or less where they belong over the larger sample size.

Whether for the full season or over the past n games, our plus/minus reflects our rotation. Whether this is cause or effect in the end doesn't matter. To wave away plus/minus when it completely reflects the reality is empty talk, whether like the drunk and the lamppost, you use it for support rather than illumination.

It agrees with not only my eye test but the coach's too. If it didn't, I suppose I'd be waving it away too.

What does your eye test disagree with here? Looks kosher to me.


https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746&LastNGames=10

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746 [season]

1) Extreme example is the easy one
The extreme example (PLAYER A: +20, PLAYER B: -30) isn't where there needs to be discussion or analysis. This is an extremely simple example, it will tend to be pretty obvious why that happened. Problem is that this isn't what happens in the average game, two starters having wildly different +/-, so it's not a very useful example. Most of the time we will be comparing players with different minutes (which we must acknowledge as a factor in raw +/-), and even players who don't play with similar strength lineups. It's not really a very useful comparison to directly compare those players +/- doesn't make much sense.

2) What exactly does consistency with lineups mean?
As a blanket statement, my starters are generally going to be my best lineups. Generally that's going to be carried by 2-3 players, meaning if I substitute the other 2-3 players out of that lineup, the average results over a regular season will remain fairly consistent. So for example, I would get a similar +/- with Kawhi/PG + (Zubac/Jackson/Morris) or Kawhi/PG + (Ibaka/Beverley/Batum). (EDIT, looked up those two lineups, Stars+Ibaka/Bev/Batum, 19 games, 11.3 mpg, +4.1 | Stars+Zubac/Jackson/Morris 19 games, 13.9 mpg, +4.6). So add my 3 main bench players who as long as they are playing >14 mpg are going to play with my starters, a 25 mpg guy will play around 11 minutes with a lineup with 3+ starters for example. Taking all that into example, at any point, my top 8 players, both because they are playing more minutes and because those are the guys playing more with my stars will have better +/- than the guys below them in the rotation.

January: Top 5 in +/- were the starters, #6 was Patrick Patterson, but he only played 7/15 games and was 11th in MPG that month. Reggie Jackson was 7th in +/, but Lou Williams, Luke Kennard both played more mpg (so did Morris and Zubac, but different positions)

February: Top 5 in +/- was 4 starters and Lou Williams. Marcus Morris was 12/14 in +/- but was 5th in MPG

March: Top 5: PG, Marcus Morris (now a starter), Kawhi, Kennard, Mann. Kennard was 9th in MPG despite being 4th in +/- that month. Patterson was +3.3 in just 13.5 mpg, but Zubac was getting a lot more minutes than him.

April (flux lineups due to injuries): Top 5: Kawhi (only 6 games), Batum, Rondo, Jackson, Zubac, George (since Kawhi only played 6). Rondo despite being #3 in +/- hasn't been moved into the starting lineup. Batum hasn't replaced Morris in the starting lineup even though he was 2nd in +/- last month while Morris was net zero. Patterson was +1.8 but just getting 16 mpg

May (so far): Top 5 are the starters, most of the other rotation guys are neutral or negative. Batum has been -1.3 in his 7 games. Rondo who based on April should have been starting is -0.4 in his games (Rondo and Batum's minutes tend to track together). Patterson hasn't been getting minutes, played 2 games.

Sorry, started in January, so didn't do December, and just don't care to do it now.

3) Therefore +/- generally SHOULD reflect the rotation (on a winning team)

1) The more minutes a player plays on a winning team, the higher their raw +/- should be because they are on the court more for those positive moments.

2) The Clippers are a +6.3 team on average. Assuming that they have the same level of +/- every minute on the court (of course they don't), but for the example, PLAYER A playing 30 mpg would on average be (+3.9), PLAYER B playing 13 mpg would be on average (+1.7). What you are suggesting is that "therefore PLAYER A is obviously better than the rotation reflect this", but that's NOT actually what the +/- data is saying. Now, the data isn't saying it isn't true, but it isn't saying that is true either. Of course player A is likely getting 30 minutes vs player B getting 13 minutes because he is considered better anyways, regardless of +/.

3)Generally the players at the top of the average teams rotation (starters are stronger than the bench, the more minutes you play, the more you play with starters, and the more + you accumulate) are going to have a higher +/-, this is supposed to happen, but this does not conclude anything about whether they are inferior to guys above them in the rotation

[esqtvd]

I have discussed +/- before with esqtvd, and I got busy and never responded to his last post about it last time, but I think we should be more clear here.

The first thing I would be clear about is that single game +/- is what many coaches, etc rightly say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Secondly, unadjusted and unanalyzed +/- is the second issue they tend to have. Coaches and teams in general are not using plus/minus for single player analysis (unless it's advanced and adjusted for lineups, luck etc,etc), but for lineup analysis, and with solid sample sizes, so not one game for example.

So for example, if we compare the raw +/- of a player A playing 30 mpg and a player B playing 15 mpg, we already have one problem, minutes difference means that technically player A would have double the +/- if both him and player B's lineups are beating the opponent by the same margin per minute.

So problem #1 is that we'll see people compare +/- of players on the same team playing largely different minutes and not adjust for minutes, which will always make the higher minute guy seem better than what the data is actually saying.

Second problem of course is that player A is playing with starters at least a lot more if not all his minutes, and therefore with the teams best players. If player B is getting a lot of minutes with a bench unit(s) that is comparatively weaker than other teams bench units, +/- will suggest they are weaker or lower impact when they might not be. Similarly, player A with the starters and stars might have their +/- simply overrated by playing with lineups which would be similarly positive regardless of who you subbed into their spot.

Hence why +/- needs a lot of analysis and adjustment, and teams in the analysis are generally doing a van Ed +/-, but they will use larger sample basic lineups as a big picture loom at lineups, but not for single players still, at least the majority won't, can always find some outlier.

You've said this numerous times and I've rebutted it just as many: If we get blown out Kawhi is gonna be minus-20 like everyone else. But if Kawhi was plus+10 and PG was minus-30, hmmmmmmmmmmmm....?

I've done +/- full season and the last 15 games and at other times 10. I've also used it for lineup combinations. It's remarkably consistent with itself and with Ty's lineups and dealing out PT. And when certain players consistently appear at the bottom of the table, to blame the 14 players ahead of him is illogical. It's possible he's run into a statistically improbable run of bad luck when he's out there, but Occam's Razor suggests that everybody ends up more or less where they belong over the larger sample size.

Whether for the full season or over the past n games, our plus/minus reflects our rotation. Whether this is cause or effect in the end doesn't matter. To wave away plus/minus when it completely reflects the reality is empty talk, whether like the drunk and the lamppost, you use it for support rather than illumination.

It agrees with not only my eye test but the coach's too. If it didn't, I suppose I'd be waving it away too.

What does your eye test disagree with here? Looks kosher to me.


https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746&LastNGames=10

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746 [season]

1) Extreme example is the easy one
The extreme example (PLAYER A: +20, PLAYER B: -30) isn't where there needs to be discussion or analysis. This is an extremely simple example, it will tend to be pretty obvious why that happened. Problem is that this isn't what happens in the average game, two starters having wildly different +/-, so it's not a very useful example. Most of the time we will be comparing players with different minutes (which we must acknowledge as a factor in raw +/-), and even players who don't play with similar strength lineups. It's not really a very useful comparison to directly compare those players +/- doesn't make much sense.

2) What exactly does consistency with lineups mean?
As a blanket statement, my starters are generally going to be my best lineups. Generally that's going to be carried by 2-3 players, meaning if I substitute the other 2-3 players out of that lineup, the average results over a regular season will remain fairly consistent. So for example, I would get a similar +/- with Kawhi/PG + (Zubac/Jackson/Morris) or Kawhi/PG + (Ibaka/Beverley/Batum). (EDIT, looked up those two lineups, Stars+Ibaka/Bev/Batum, 19 games, 11.3 mpg, +4.1 | Stars+Zubac/Jackson/Morris 19 games, 13.9 mpg, +4.6). So add my 3 main bench players who as long as they are playing >14 mpg are going to play with my starters, a 25 mpg guy will play around 11 minutes with a lineup with 3+ starters for example. Taking all that into example, at any point, my top 8 players, both because they are playing more minutes and because those are the guys playing more with my stars will have better +/- than the guys below them in the rotation.

January: Top 5 in +/- were the starters, #6 was Patrick Patterson, but he only played 7/15 games and was 11th in MPG that month. Reggie Jackson was 7th in +/, but Lou Williams, Luke Kennard both played more mpg (so did Morris and Zubac, but different positions)

February: Top 5 in +/- was 4 starters and Lou Williams. Marcus Morris was 12/14 in +/- but was 5th in MPG

March: Top 5: PG, Marcus Morris (now a starter), Kawhi, Kennard, Mann. Kennard was 9th in MPG despite being 4th in +/- that month. Patterson was +3.3 in just 13.5 mpg, but Zubac was getting a lot more minutes than him.

April (flux lineups due to injuries): Top 5: Kawhi (only 6 games), Batum, Rondo, Jackson, Zubac, George (since Kawhi only played 6). Rondo despite being #3 in +/- hasn't been moved into the starting lineup. Batum hasn't replaced Morris in the starting lineup even though he was 2nd in +/- last month while Morris was net zero. Patterson was +1.8 but just getting 16 mpg

May (so far): Top 5 are the starters, most of the other rotation guys are neutral or negative. Batum has been -1.3 in his 7 games. Rondo who based on April should have been starting is -0.4 in his games (Rondo and Batum's minutes tend to track together). Patterson hasn't been getting minutes, played 2 games.

Sorry, started in January, so didn't do December, and just don't care to do it now.

3) Therefore +/- generally SHOULD reflect the rotation (on a winning team)

1) The more minutes a player plays on a winning team, the higher their raw +/- should be because they are on the court more for those positive moments.

2) The Clippers are a +6.3 team on average. Assuming that they have the same level of +/- every minute on the court (of course they don't), but for the example, PLAYER A playing 30 mpg would on average be (+3.9), PLAYER B playing 13 mpg would be on average (+1.7). What you are suggesting is that "therefore PLAYER A is obviously better than the rotation reflect this", but that's NOT actually what the +/- data is saying. Now, the data isn't saying it isn't true, but it isn't saying that is true either. Of course player A is likely getting 30 minutes vs player B getting 13 minutes because he is considered better anyways, regardless of +/.

3)Generally the players at the top of the average teams rotation (starters are stronger than the bench, the more minutes you play, the more you play with starters, and the more + you accumulate) are going to have a higher +/-, this is supposed to happen, but this does not conclude anything about whether they are inferior to guys above them in the rotation

I appreciate your deep dive into the stat in question--I really do, OG--and none of it conflicts with a word I've ever said on the subject.

In fact, I stipulated it here. You just could have cut to the chase:

...Occam's Razor suggests that everybody ends up more or less where they belong over the larger sample size.

Whether for the full season or over the past n games, our plus/minus reflects our rotation. Whether this is cause or effect in the end doesn't matter. To wave away plus/minus when it completely reflects the reality is empty talk, whether like the drunk and the lamppost, you use it for support rather than illumination.

The plus/minus matches MY eye test and Ty's too. And common sense--Kawhi and PG CONSISTENTLY ride the top no matter how or when you slice it--no matter what PG's negatives. THEY ARE OUR TWO BEST PLAYERS. Duh. Start there with plus/minus and work back.

The two biggest happy surprises have been that Reggie has adequately filled in for Bev. We have the luxury of seeing if Bev can come back to his GREAT plus/minus of the early season and if he doesn't, Reggie is at the ready.

The other is that Zubac's recent rise in plus/minus over the past 10-15 games coincides with Ty giving him the starting job.--and maybe with telling him he's the starter for the playoffs. No Ibaka return looming over his head.

Just don't tell me #15 in our plus/minus should be starting in the playoffs. That's freaking absurd. And frankly, Marcus's promotion to the starting unit has been a positive only because Batum has performed equally as well with the second unit as he did with the first--something Marcus didn't. Run the numbers on that and you'll see what I mean. Good move by Ty because Marcus was TOEJAM unless he started.


To take this out of the abstract, let me pose this again. The drunk uses the lamppost for support, not illumination. But I'll be happy with either.

What does your eye test disagree with here? Looks kosher to me.


https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746&LastNGames=10

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612746

[RingColluder]

"Just don't tell me #15 in our plus/minus should be starting in the playoffs. That's freaking absurd. And frankly, Marcus's promotion to the starting unit has been a positive only because Batum has performed equally as well with the second unit as he did with the first--something Marcus didn't. Run the numbers on that and you'll see what I mean. Good move by Ty because Marcus was TOEJAM unless he started."

The offense was SPUTTERING with Batum in the first team lineup. What a joke

[esqtvd]

wrong again

we were fine with Batum starting but Marcus was crap off the bench

https://www.nba.com/stats/team/1610612746/lineups-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&GroupQuantity=5&CF=MIN*G*25&dir=1

[RingColluder]

wrong again

we were fine with Batum starting but Marcus was crap off the bench

https://www.nba.com/stats/team/1610612746/lineups-advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&GroupQuantity=5&CF=MIN*G*25&dir=1

"Fine" is not good for a starting lineup.

The ceiling of the team's offense improved EXPONENTIALLY when Morris joined the starting lineup. Of course Morris or whoever needs others around him to play to his potential, Batum couldn't even come close to Morris' level defensives or offensively. Batum is the DEFINITION of a role player


This is getting ridiculous...

[esqtvd]

show me your numbers or shove off

[RingColluder]

show me your numbers or shove off

Are you getting pissy that no one on this board is buying your plus minus arguments, esq?

Morris ends the season in 2nd place in the entire league in 3pt% only .2% points behind Joe Harris who has a much better role on the Nets AND averages only .7 less pts. To go along with 4 rebounds and 47% shooting for the season on only 26 minutes.

Batum is a ROLE PLAYER. Esq. Please.

[esqtvd]

show me your numbers or shove off

Are you getting pissy that no one on this board is buying your plus minus arguments, esq?

Morris ends the season in 2nd place in the entire league in 3pt% only .2% points behind Joe Harris who has a much better role on the Nets AND averages only .7 less pts. To go along with 4 rebounds and 47% shooting for the season on only 26 minutes.

Batum is a ROLE PLAYER. Esq. Please.

Unresponsive to what I wrote. Marcus has been decent since being moved back in the starting lineup. But he was struggling off the bench and the key was that Batum continued to produce after being moved to the 2nd unit. Otherwise it would have been a sideways move.

And FTR I'd rather have Harris who's Brooklyn's #4 guy than Morris who needs to be our #3. Not only does he shoot more 3s, Harris goes to the hole more despite being a SF. Marcus plays PF in our lineup and goes to the hole only half as often [8% of his shots] as Harris [17%]. But I agree they are comparable players and I'll be happy enough if Marcus maintains his 13.4 ppg I guess.

I'm still concerned where we're going to get points. I would double PG, let Kawhi get his and make somebody else beat me.