Magic and Bird Plus Minus Numbers

[70sFan]

I'm not going to re-explain it, because you are obviously familiar with my reasons and can go back over them. It is false to say official stats back then 'weren't any better', for the reasons I gave.

Will you treat Squared numbers different now, once he became the official +/- tracker for the league?

[SpreeS]

This is the list of WC pont guards who were starters in 1985

1. F.Lever DEN (2 ALLSTAR 1 ALLNBA)
2. N.Nixon LAC (2 ALLSTAR)
3. R.Green UTA (1 ALLSTAR)
4. J. Moore SAN
5. B.Davis DAL
6. J.Lucas HOU
7. L.Drew KAN
8. G.Henderson SEA
9. K.Macy PHO
10. L.Conner GSW
11. D.Valentive POR

I didnt know that they existed after 7th L.Drew

1. Curry GSW 10 ALLSTARS 8 ALLNBA
2. Doncic DAL 5 ALLSTARS 5 ALLNBA
3. Shai OKC 2 ALLSARS 2 ALLNBA
4. Morant MEM 2 ALLSARS 1 ALLNBA
5. Fox SAC 1 ALLSARS 1 ALLNBA
6. Harden LAC 10 ALLSARS 7 ALLNBA
7. Murray DEN
8. Murray NOL 1 ALLSTAR
9. Conley MIN 1 ALLSTAR
10. VanVleet HOU 1 ALLSTAR
11. Russell LAL 1 ALLSTAR
12. Paul SAN 12 ALLSTAR 11 ALLNBA
13. Jones PHO
14. Henderson POR
15. George UTA

Now we can imagine what kind of +/- Magic would have in this era.... 7 ALL STAR's in their peaks. Curry still playing at top level. Harden/Murray would be the TOP3 on Magic list.

[OhayoKD]

I'm not going to re-explain it, because you are obviously familiar with my reasons and can go back over them. It is false to say official stats back then 'weren't any better', for the reasons I gave.

What reasons, as has been well covered by now, they were not vetted:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2387572

[70sFan]

This is the list of WC pont guards who were starters in 1985

1. F.Lever DEN (2 ALLSTAR 1 ALLNBA)
2. N.Nixon LAC (2 ALLSTAR)
3. R.Green UTA (1 ALLSTAR)
4. J. Moore SAN
5. B.Davis DAL
6. J.Lucas HOU
7. L.Drew KAN
8. G.Henderson SEA
9. K.Macy PHO
10. L.Conner GSW
11. D.Valentive POR

I didnt know that they existed after 7th L.Drew

1. Curry GSW 10 ALLSTARS 8 ALLNBA
2. Doncic DAL 5 ALLSTARS 5 ALLNBA
3. Shai OKC 2 ALLSARS 2 ALLNBA
4. Morant MEM 2 ALLSARS 1 ALLNBA
5. Fox SAC 1 ALLSARS 1 ALLNBA
6. Harden LAC 10 ALLSARS 7 ALLNBA
7. Murray DEN
8. Murray NOL 1 ALLSTAR
9. Conley MIN 1 ALLSTAR
10. VanVleet HOU 1 ALLSTAR
11. Russell LAL 1 ALLSTAR
12. Paul SAN 12 ALLSTAR 11 ALLNBA
13. Jones PHO
14. Henderson POR
15. George UTA

Now we can imagine what kind of +/- Magic would have in this era.... 7 ALL STAR's in their peaks. Curry still playing at top level. Harden/Murray would be the TOP3 on Magic list.

If you don't know that Gerald Henderson existed, then that's your problem...

[SpreeS]

This is the list of WC pont guards who were starters in 1985

1. F.Lever DEN (2 ALLSTAR 1 ALLNBA)
2. N.Nixon LAC (2 ALLSTAR)
3. R.Green UTA (1 ALLSTAR)
4. J. Moore SAN
5. B.Davis DAL
6. J.Lucas HOU
7. L.Drew KAN
8. G.Henderson SEA
9. K.Macy PHO
10. L.Conner GSW
11. D.Valentive POR

I didnt know that they existed after 7th L.Drew

1. Curry GSW 10 ALLSTARS 8 ALLNBA
2. Doncic DAL 5 ALLSTARS 5 ALLNBA
3. Shai OKC 2 ALLSARS 2 ALLNBA
4. Morant MEM 2 ALLSARS 1 ALLNBA
5. Fox SAC 1 ALLSARS 1 ALLNBA
6. Harden LAC 10 ALLSARS 7 ALLNBA
7. Murray DEN
8. Murray NOL 1 ALLSTAR
9. Conley MIN 1 ALLSTAR
10. VanVleet HOU 1 ALLSTAR
11. Russell LAL 1 ALLSTAR
12. Paul SAN 12 ALLSTAR 11 ALLNBA
13. Jones PHO
14. Henderson POR
15. George UTA

Now we can imagine what kind of +/- Magic would have in this era.... 7 ALL STAR's in their peaks. Curry still playing at top level. Harden/Murray would be the TOP3 on Magic list.

If you don't know that Gerald Henderson existed, then that's your problem...

Yes its my bad, 3 time champion and have significant role on champ team in BOS. But this doesn't change anything what I wrote.

[70sFan]

This is the list of WC pont guards who were starters in 1985

1. F.Lever DEN (2 ALLSTAR 1 ALLNBA)
2. N.Nixon LAC (2 ALLSTAR)
3. R.Green UTA (1 ALLSTAR)
4. J. Moore SAN
5. B.Davis DAL
6. J.Lucas HOU
7. L.Drew KAN
8. G.Henderson SEA
9. K.Macy PHO
10. L.Conner GSW
11. D.Valentive POR

I didnt know that they existed after 7th L.Drew

1. Curry GSW 10 ALLSTARS 8 ALLNBA
2. Doncic DAL 5 ALLSTARS 5 ALLNBA
3. Shai OKC 2 ALLSARS 2 ALLNBA
4. Morant MEM 2 ALLSARS 1 ALLNBA
5. Fox SAC 1 ALLSARS 1 ALLNBA
6. Harden LAC 10 ALLSARS 7 ALLNBA
7. Murray DEN
8. Murray NOL 1 ALLSTAR
9. Conley MIN 1 ALLSTAR
10. VanVleet HOU 1 ALLSTAR
11. Russell LAL 1 ALLSTAR
12. Paul SAN 12 ALLSTAR 11 ALLNBA
13. Jones PHO
14. Henderson POR
15. George UTA

Now we can imagine what kind of +/- Magic would have in this era.... 7 ALL STAR's in their peaks. Curry still playing at top level. Harden/Murray would be the TOP3 on Magic list.

If you don't know that Gerald Henderson existed, then that's your problem...

Yes its my bad, 3 time champion and have significant role on champ team in BOS. But this doesn't change anything what I wrote.

To some degree it does, you are more familiar with the recent names and that's why you view the pool as significantly deeper. It's true that 2025 West is deeper on PGs than 1985, but I don't think recognition is a valid argument.

I also don't know why PG talent should be relevant in discussion about Magic +/- numbers.

[One_and_Done]

I'm not going to re-explain it, because you are obviously familiar with my reasons and can go back over them. It is false to say official stats back then 'weren't any better', for the reasons I gave.

What reasons, as has been well covered by now, they were not vetted:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2387572

That's not the thread, though a quick search didn't find it either.

To summarise; it's about the process.

In say 1970, they had different scorekeepers in every city, who were employed by teams who could fire them at the drop of a hat. If a team was rigging the stats for the home team for example, it would be easy to see by comparing home stats vs away stats. Instead we almost never see that; the stats tend to be consistent across the board. This strongly suggests the stats are done accurately and in good faith.

This could also by compared to the wisdom of the crowd, or how sources work in ancient history. When you have 5 different historians in different parts of the world all saying the same thing, and there's no way they could have interacted, that's good evidence for the fact that said thing actually happened.

Sure, the tapes are mostly gone now, but at the time they weren't; the NBA could check the tape and fire you. Is a lowly scorekeeper going to risk his job to fiddle scores? You'd also need an elaborate conspiracy of all scorekeepers across all teams, even though they'd never met. It's too absurd.

This stuff is completely different. We don't know what games they used, what the methodology was, etc. It's impossible to audit, or compare to see what other scorekeepers came up with using the same samples. It's a black box, done by 1 company (and maybe just 1guy). It doesn't compare.

[SpreeS]

If you don't know that Gerald Henderson existed, then that's your problem...

Yes its my bad, 3 time champion and have significant role on champ team in BOS. But this doesn't change anything what I wrote.

To some degree it does, you are more familiar with the recent names and that's why you view the pool as significantly deeper. It's true that 2025 West is deeper on PGs than 1985, but I don't think recognition is a valid argument.

I also don't know why PG talent should be relevant in discussion about Magic +/- numbers.

Yes, Its relevant when you are playing 18 time in RS against opponents like

9. K.Macy PHO
10. L.Conner GSW
11. D.Valentive POR

1st PO round against PHO

starters

C Alvan Adams
PF Charles Pittman
SF Mike Sanders
SG Jay Humphries (Rookie)
PG Kyle Macy

[70sFan]

Yes its my bad, 3 time champion and have significant role on champ team in BOS. But this doesn't change anything what I wrote.

To some degree it does, you are more familiar with the recent names and that's why you view the pool as significantly deeper. It's true that 2025 West is deeper on PGs than 1985, but I don't think recognition is a valid argument.

I also don't know why PG talent should be relevant in discussion about Magic +/- numbers.

Yes, Its relevant when you are playing 18 time in RS against opponents like

9. K.Macy PHO
10. L.Conner GSW
11. D.Valentive POR

1st PO round against PHO

starters

C Alvan Adams
PF Charles Pittman
SF Mike Sanders
SG Jay Humphries (Rookie)
PG Kyle Macy

It's relevant when you play against weak or good teams, not specific matchups at you position. Especially in Magic's case, when Johnson rarely guarded and was guarded by PGs.

[OhayoKD]

I'm not going to re-explain it, because you are obviously familiar with my reasons and can go back over them. It is false to say official stats back then 'weren't any better', for the reasons I gave.

What reasons, as has been well covered by now, they were not vetted:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2387572

That's not the thread, though a quick search didn't find it either.

It's the thread related to the expose that "officially working with the nba" doesn't mean anything for stats for that time period...
https://sports.yahoo.com/a-closer-look-at-michael-jordans-1988-dpoy-award-raises-questions-about-its-validity-has-lebron-james-been-chasing-a-ghost-140452567.html
...paticularly because those scorekeepers would inflate numbers for their teams, especially if that team was based in Chicago.

This could also by compared to the wisdom of the crowd, or how sources work in ancient history. When you have 5 different historians in different parts of the world all saying the same thing, and there's no way they could have interacted, that's good evidence for the fact that said thing actually happened.

And yet it took 50 years for people to realise the box-score was cooked and 50 years on the nba's official youtube has a video titled "10 steals!" for a clip where at most, 6 are visible.

By the account of Chicago's scorekeeper, you were expected and encouraged to miscount numbers for your team in stat-keeper conferences, and we can accordingly see gigantic home/away gulfs in measures to go along with tape-tracking(now done by multiple sources) showing stats inflated by more than a factor of 2.

Squared did plenty on their way out to sully their own credibility, but them not (yet) having their on/off released "officially" is not a serious argument

[Owly]

Yes its my bad, 3 time champion and have significant role on champ team in BOS. But this doesn't change anything what I wrote.

To some degree it does, you are more familiar with the recent names and that's why you view the pool as significantly deeper. It's true that 2025 West is deeper on PGs than 1985, but I don't think recognition is a valid argument.

I also don't know why PG talent should be relevant in discussion about Magic +/- numbers.

Yes, Its relevant when you are playing 18 time in RS against opponents like

9. K.Macy PHO
10. L.Conner GSW
11. D.Valentive POR

Never heard of "Valentive" either. Seriously though ... with regard to the "heard of" argument

As far as Valentine, Connor and Macy ... that doesn't look like an awful group for low end starters. Solid defensive reps. If one hasn't heard of them and they're already using that to say the players are bad ... I'd suggest they've got a poor argument. You could argue for some set of players being bad without having heard of anyone and just running numbers. You could do more qualitative stuff and read up what you can on them ... if it were a 12th man or a guy in the league for one year "I don't think I've heard of them ..." it wouldn't be a great gauge but maybe it at least might mean they are obscure. "I haven't heard of these starters" isn't great line of debate.

And I'm open to the idea that the 80s were overrated. I just don't think what was put was it.


As for as the specifics here of playing them 18 games ...
1) How much does "matchup" overall quality (even if done by something far better than name-recognition) matter to plus-minus. Isn't it team quality that would matter more. And starter versus-bench and how much they match rotation patterns with the team in question ... . I'd think a more direct measure like a box-aggregate would benefit more from a notional positional weakness.
2) In terms of team level schedule balance, the Lakers did play some of the easiest schedules ever - a bit of that for all teams is not having to go against themselves though Lakers RS for the early-to-mid 80s is more good than amazing - and even without neutralizing for no-team has to play itself that meant their average opponents was at worst a little over 1 point worse than league average (-1.03 to 2dp in 1988). It's not absolutely nothing ... I guess at the margin you could argue if teams are bad it's probably because of starter-like players and so LA are likely in those extra games to run up an advantage and have more garbage time or rubber-banding where non-core units aren't incentivized to maximize points diff. But in the noise of this type of measure that a team might have a most of a point per game advantage (and again this is slightly too generous as in "balanced" schedule teams still don't play themselves) probably isn't a huge deal.
3) As has been noted - even if one takes generally (though not necessarily matchup-specific) poor players as (a) accurate in this case and (b) boosting of +/- and similar surface level stats - Magic's size meant he wasn't purely matched up against point guards.