statistics for the year

[fluffernutter]

Here is some yearly stats on the team.

http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2007-2008&team=CHA

Adjusted plus/minus takes into account the person you are coming in for. It's still a rough measure but not as rough as pure plus/minus.

The one that really sticks out at me is Okafor.

[fatlever]

what about okafor sticks out? the minus net rating?

[fluffernutter]

Yes.

We are a worse offensive rebounding team when he is in the game as well.

Just feels strange.

[fatlever]

it is most likely felton's fault

[Paydro70]

Well, the offensive rebounding is easy to explain, since both Hollins and Mohammed were better offensive rebounders than Okafor was. I would say the overall rating, since Mohammed also has a negative one, is simply attributable to the fact that Hollins played in garbage time.

[fluffernutter]

Well, the offensive rebounding is easy to explain, since both Hollins and Mohammed were better offensive rebounders than Okafor was. I would say the overall rating, since Mohammed also has a negative one, is simply attributable to the fact that Hollins played in garbage time.

I guess I don't understand the Hollins thing. The idea is that Hollins comes in for Okafor during garbage time after we have a big lead and gets some easy points? (this requires we have a lead). Or he comes in for Okafor when we are getting crushed for garbage time (which means we are getting crushed).

It seems like either way Okafor is getting reasonably firm+- numbers. If we get a big lead allowing Hollins to play, Okafor was part of that and will have a big + before Hollins shows up. If we are blown out, Okafor is part of that and has a big negative, before Hollins.

The case where skewing occurs is if we are dead even after 3.5 quarters. Okafor's +- might be 0. Then Hollins comes in and tears up the place, leaving the game with a +10, making Okafor look (by comparison) the worse player.

But a) does this happen that often? I don't remember Hollins doing much this season, and b) if Hollins gets a higher + in this situation, doesn't he deserve it?

There is also enemy player skewing; Hollins only plays against scrubs, and scores big. Against these guys, Okafor would dominate (in theory). I just am not convinced that Hollins was that dominating vs. scrubs this year (in fact when Hollins did play, wasn't it sometimes vs. the first team enemy)? Plus there is the question of minutes, Okafor's 3000 to Hollins 500, which makes it tough for Hollins' play to pull down Okafor's numbers that much.

It just feels strange.

That's all I am saying. Feels strange. Looks strange. The more I look the stranger it seems. Maybe it's not that strange. But my gut says, huh?

[Paydro70]

You are focusing on scoring for Hollins, which is not the point.

For simplicity's sake, lets imagine a game where Okafor/Mohammed alternate minutes for the first 40. We're down 20, meaning they've acquired -20 over the course of the game. Hollins comes in, and we finish the game down 15. Hollins is now +5, Okafor/Mohammed still -20. Hollins was playing against scrubs, in a game that didn't matter, and we gained a few points. Therefore, he is rewarded in +/-.

Othella Harrington is an even more ridiculous example... note that his overall rating (which corresponds to adjusted +/-) is incredibly high.

Basically, the team played really well when Hollins was on the court, which is a nice way of saying we came back some against the scrubs while he was on the court. Adjusted +/- is supposed to get rid of this problem by adjusting for the fact that he's playing against scrubs, but I guess it doesn't do it well enough.

[fluffernutter]

You are focusing on scoring for Hollins, which is not the point.

For simplicity's sake, lets imagine a game where Okafor/Mohammed alternate minutes for the first 40. We're down 20, meaning they've acquired -20 over the course of the game. Hollins comes in, and we finish the game down 15. Hollins is now +5, Okafor/Mohammed still -20. Hollins was playing against scrubs, in a game that didn't matter, and we gained a few points. Therefore, he is rewarded in +/-.

Othella Harrington is an even more ridiculous example... note that his overall rating (which corresponds to adjusted +/-) is incredibly high.

Basically, the team played really well when Hollins was on the court, which is a nice way of saying we came back some against the scrubs while he was on the court. Adjusted +/- is supposed to get rid of this problem by adjusting for the fact that he's playing against scrubs, but I guess it doesn't do it well enough.

Yes I understand your scenario. But in that scenario, Okafor and Mohammed have generated a -20 for themselves due to their play. That's the reason Hollins came in vs. the scrubs. Because we got squished. It's not like this is a situation where Okafor has been cheated. He played 40 min. and is -20. Then Hollins comes in and plays a while against scrubs netting +5 making it look even worse.

But it was bad to begin with for Okafor/Mohommed, wasn't it?

I'm trying to figure out situations where Okafor played well, or even had a +5 for example, and Hollins came in and generated a +10 vs. scrubs wiping out (from a statistical standpoint, somewhat) Okafor's solid work vs. the starters. Did this happen a lot?

I'm fumblingly trying to make sense of your quote:

"I would say the overall rating, since Mohammed also has a negative one, is simply attributable to the fact that Hollins played in garbage time."

How do we get from Hollins playing garbage time to getting Okafor a negative rating?

[fatlever]

seems like i remember a lot of games in december and january, especially right after we traded for nazr where nazr would have something like +10 while okafor had a -10.... really big differences.

[fluffernutter]

I just want to be clear I don't have any agenda or opinion on the numbers.

I just honestly don't understand them right now.

[W_HAMILTON]

I just honestly don't understand them right now.

Just so you don't feel bad, I wouldn't understand anything that says we were more successful with Harrington on the court than anyone else, either.

[fatlever]

I just want to be clear I don't have any agenda or opinion on the numbers.

i definitely did not get the impression you had an agenda here.... so i think you are safe.

[Paydro70]

The example in my earlier post was a bad one, I'm sorry for the confusion. Okafor DOES have a negative raw +/-, but so does everyone else on the team, including Hollins:
http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo/le ... am=Bobcats

All this says is that we're a bad team... every bad team's list looks like this, because if you're losing, you're typically losing no matter who you throw out on the court.

A more effective measure is to compare how well the team plays with the player on and off the court. So to make my example a little clearer, it's more like, Okafor (and Felton, and everybody else) have us losing into the fourth. Hollins comes in, and the team starts losing BY LESS than it did before he came in. The reason we shrug off these results is that we know Hollins doesn't play meaningful minutes. His play does not suggest he's actually better than Okafor.

Adjusted +/- is supposed to account for the fact that Hollins plays with scrubs (which would hurt the team's performance) but also against scrubs (which would tend to improve the team's performance). I have not read about how this is actually done, and it's really rather important to know. It is also supposed to adjust for one's backup quality... both of which assume that you somehow already know vaguely how good everyone in the league is.

[W_HAMILTON]

Paydro70, would you say the 82games.com section about a player's PER versus their opponent's PER would be a good example of whether or not a player is actually helping his team while on the court, as opposed to being the recepient of a situation such as the ones you mention?

Okafor's PER at PF is 20.5, while his opposing player is 16.4.
Okafor's PER at C is 19.5, while his opposing player is 20.3.

That's a net PER of +3.3 with him on the court.

By comparison, Mohammed's net PER on the court is 0, and Hollins is -15.1.

But I don't know how they figure those things out, so maybe you would know. Do they come up with the opposing player's PER by figuring out what their counterpart produces while actually on the court with them?

[Paydro70]

Yes, they note how the opposing PF produces while the player is at the PF spot. Obviously there are a lot of complicated judgments in there... sometimes a guy isn't guarding the right person, sometimes somebody's not really playing the position they're attributed... and the big one, it's not opponent adjusted. Meaning if Okafor is kept on the floor as long as Howard is, and only comes out when Howard does, that would benefit Hollins/Mohammed (who only have to guard Battie) while Okafor never gets his chance to dominate scrubs.

But anyway, yes, it's a good thing to look at, because it's actually opponent individual production instead of team performance. But you can't do what you just did... keep in mind Okafor only played 5% of his minutes at PF (supposedly... he only counts as a PF with Brezec for some reason, not with Hollins or Mohammed), so his total average was actually dead even. However, Mohammed's is -1.3, and Hollins is -7 wherever he plays.