RealGM

Looking at some numbers, I'm not so sure that there is anyone out there that has had more impact in the +/- stats since 97 than Shaq and David Robinson. Both of them have had an impressive record +/- to go along with their box score excellence. Some of the numbers make me to want to reconsider my position on both of them.


From 97-00, here are Shaq's playoff plus/minus numbers:
+4.45 on court, -15.15 off court, +19.6 plus/minus
108.01 O Rating on court, 100.23 O rating off court, +7.79 Net offensive rating

In 2000 playoffs, the Lakers with Shaq on court was +6.02 on court, -26.24 off court, +32.27 plus/minus

In an earlier thread, I went thru the Lakers 01-04 playoff plus/minus data viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1161853 . In it, Shaq was +20.8 from 01-04 (+15.4 offense). Overall here are Shaq's playoff plus minus numbers in his Lakers stint (97-04):

5007 min on, +6.40 on court, 108.10 Offensive Rating
906 min off, -13.97 off court, 96.27 Offensive Rating
+20.37 plus/minus, +11.83 Net Offensive rating

Shaq was solid in the regular season too averaging around an +11 plus/minus from 97-00 and a +12 from 01-04. In 98, his team was +15.6 with him on court, and barely above 0 when he was off court.


David Robinson:
97: +7.62 on court, -9.37 off court, +16.99 plus/minus. 95.8 D rating on, 109.3 off, -13.5 Net D rating

The Spurs could have been decent if Robinson played that year instead of injured.

From 98-00, he averaged around a +7 plus/minus and -2.7 D rating impact.

But Robinson impressed the most in the playoffs. From 98-00:
on court: +12.66, 89.27 D rating
off court: -17.47, 102.52 D rating
Net: +30.12 plus/minus, -13.25 D rating impact

Duncan wasn't even close to Robinson in the playoffs plus/minus. Robinson was most impressive in the 99 finals run. On court, the Spurs were +19.5 with Robinson on court. An absurd number. They were -71 in the 215 minutes he was off the court or -24.76 per 100 possessions. His total net +/- was +35 and D rating impact was -16.25. Duncan was +9.5 on court compared to Robinson's +19.5. So the Spurs completely collapsed without Robinson in those playoffs, but played fine without Duncan.

The 99 season might be the all-time best defensive season ever for a player. According to B-R, the 99 Spurs finished with a -7.2 D rating relative to league average. The Spurs had a 91.0 D rating when Robinson was on the court (92.2 with Duncan). In the playoffs, they got even better. The Spurs had a 86.0 D rating when Robinson was playing on court. They allowed about 75 points per 48 minutes with Robinson on the court in the playoffs In the 2nd round, the Lakers had a 81 O rating when Robinson was playing. Shaq had one of his worst series ever going 23.8 PPG on .506 TS%. For all the talk of Robinson declining, he was actually really good in his final years. From 98-03, his plus/minus numbers were comparable to Duncan.

98-03 On Court Net +/-:
Drob: +9.04
Duncan: +8.35

Playoffs:
DRob: +8.12
Duncan: +6.65

Duncan had better Net +/-'s because of his minute totals, but Robinson wasn't too far off.


Is there anyone else out there comparable to Robinson and Shaq in the plus/minus categories? I think the only one might be KG and Dirk.

I think it's pretty stupid to have deceiving statistics change your mind about how great players were. This is pretty much why I've grown to hate comparing players, because most people don't even watch games anymore. They just go on basketball reference and 82games and just base their opinion on that and not even watch a single game.

you do realize of course that the Admiral played basically all his PS minutes alongside Duncan which probably helped his on-court numbers a wee bit while Duncan played nearly half the game without Admiral which obviously didnt help his? You need to understand the context of these numbers before reaching some dubious conclusions.

But if your point is simply that people undersell just how dominant Shaq was and that Admiral is perhaps the most criminally underrated player on this board then yeah I agree.

Texas Chuck wrote:you do realize of course that the Admiral played basically all his PS minutes alongside Duncan which probably helped his on-court numbers a wee bit while Duncan played nearly half the game without Admiral which obviously didnt help his? You need to understand the context of these numbers before reaching some dubious conclusions.

But if your point is simply that people undersell just how dominant Shaq was and that Admiral is perhaps the most criminally underrated player on this board then yeah I agree.

But Robinson was better than Duncan in 98, and was a little behind in 99 though the Spurs played significantly better with Robinson on court during the 99 playoffs.

Robinson is very underrated. People focus on his playoff offensive failures but they don't take into account that he is one of the best playoff defenders in history. The only reason he doesn't get that recognition is because of a 6 game sample vs Hakeem where Hakeem got really hot and had a highlight reel play on Robinson.

Where do you find all this? It's not on BBR, is it on the new NBA stats site?

Once again Colts18, great work regarding Shaq. It will take time but I cannot wait for all his years to be released.

It's sad though thinking about his on-court impact considering he was always fat and out of shape Think of what he could have truly accomplished. (insert green font).

ardee wrote:Where do you find all this? It's not on BBR, is it on the new NBA stats site?

Yeah its on the new NBA.com. For example here is the rankings of on court Net +/- for the 98 season (min 20 minutes per game):

http://stats.nba.com/leaguePlayerGenera ... s=MIN*G*20

Top 5:
Shaq
Stockton
Mourning
Horry
Perkins

Pippen 22nd, MJ 23rd.

TheChosen618 wrote:I think it's pretty stupid to have deceiving statistics change your mind about how great players were. This is pretty much why I've grown to hate comparing players, because most people don't even watch games anymore. They just go on basketball reference and 82games and just base their opinion on that and not even watch a single game.

That's fine and all, but then what happens 10 years after the game is over? Then you have people make up **** about what happened with nothing to back up because hardly anyone would have access to the games.

David Robinson:
97: +7.62 on court, -9.37 off court, +16.99 plus/minus. 95.8 D rating on, 109.3 off, -13.5 Net D rating

Where are the on/off numbers on the site?

^^^ Yep, plus it reinforces what others recall actually watching versus those who only watched the tailends of careers and thinking that is how they played all career long.

I do not think anyone here bases a final result on just stats alone. That would be foolish and part of the fun is trying to match the statistical impact to the real live game result.

Dipper 13 wrote:

David Robinson:
97: +7.62 on court, -9.37 off court, +16.99 plus/minus. 95.8 D rating on, 109.3 off, -13.5 Net D rating

Where are the on/off numbers on the site?

You have to calculate them manually. First estimate the number possessions the Spurs and Robinson had, then use that to get the off court numbers.

Robinson played in 6 games during the 97 seasons and his plus minus during those 6 games (doesn't include the other 76 games in the off court) was off the charts.

On court: +21, +6.72 per 48 minutes
Off court: -33, -11.48 per 48 minutes
+18.2 points per 48 difference. That doesn't include the other 76 games where the Spurs sucked. They probably make the playoffs if Robinson was healthy that year.

TheChosen618 wrote:I think it's pretty stupid to have deceiving statistics change your mind about how great players were. This is pretty much why I've grown to hate comparing players, because most people don't even watch games anymore. They just go on basketball reference and 82games and just base their opinion on that and not even watch a single game.

Someone who understands

JordansBulls wrote:

TheChosen618 wrote:I think it's pretty stupid to have deceiving statistics change your mind about how great players were. This is pretty much why I've grown to hate comparing players, because most people don't even watch games anymore. They just go on basketball reference and 82games and just base their opinion on that and not even watch a single game.

That's fine and all, but then what happens 10 years after the game is over? Then you have people make up **** about what happened with nothing to back up because hardly anyone would have access to the games.

I'm not saying we should completely eliminate stats because yes, like you said, people would just make stuff up and defend their favorites even though we have plenty of people that do it already with stats.

There is nothing wrong with using stats, the problem is how most people use them and what kind of stats they are using. Plus/minus stats are incredibly misleading, I don't care if it's the RAPM or APM one, it's just as misleading. It's certainly more accurate than the raw/generic plus/minus, but nevertheless the stat has its issue.

It seems like most posters here just take the stat and most stats for face value and don't look at anything else, probably because it defends their favorite player and that's all people care about. Nobody cares if it completely contradicts or flaws their logic. They just want to be right.

Personally I love advanced +/- stats (where they've worked to eliminate as much noise as possible), but you have to be aware of the limitations of ALL your data. A lot of people dismiss what advanced stats say about AI, for example, because they contradict the pleasure people got from watching him.

MacGill wrote:I do not think anyone here bases a final result on just stats alone. That would be foolish and part of the fun is trying to match the statistical impact to the real live game result.

Well put. The dissonance between the two is sometimes the fun part of analysis. A weird one I remember was Kyle Korver having unreal +/- in "clutch" situations (as per 82games) without having particularly good actual production. Then, you consider the value of a good floor-spacer who opened up the court for Rose to drive and Boozer to operate down low...

According to the NBA.com calculations, places like 82games were using pace estimations to calculate team ratings in on/off statistics. NBA.com claims that they aren't using calculations and are counting possessions, which renders an accurate pace. This pace change changes the numbers across the board -- in general, most stars seem to play faster than using a team estimate (this makes sense intuitively -- weaker teams want fewer possessions) which is shifting down all the numbers we've previously looked at for the last decade or so.

For instance, the cap on offensive rating used to be around 120. It was hard to find a high-minute player who was on the court with an ORtg in this range. The best offense with a single player on the court in the last decade was Steve Nash on the court in 2005:

82games: 121.7 ORtg
BBR: 120.1 ORtg
NBA.com: 117.7 ORtg

BBR claims their pace was 96.2. NBA.com claims it was 98.7. Thus the difference in the ratings. Both claim they are counting possessions...Who do we believe?

At the team level,

NBA.com says the 2005 Suns played at a 98.62 pace.
Oliver's estimate says they played at a 95.9 pace.
BBR's counter says the 2005 Suns played at a 96.18 pace.

Without knowing much about how NBA.com is generating its numbers, I'm initially skeptical of their "counting possessions;" In order to generate the kind of difference in the above example, they are counting more than 200 extra possessions in a season. My guess is that there is a technicality difference in their counting. (eg Are they counting technical fouls as a separate possession? Still, 200 extra possessions is a lot...)

TheChosen618 wrote:I think it's pretty stupid to have deceiving statistics change your mind about how great players were. This is pretty much why I've grown to hate comparing players, because most people don't even watch games anymore. They just go on basketball reference and 82games and just base their opinion on that and not even watch a single game.

"deceiving statistics"? And what would those be, stats that disagree with your opinion?

"people don't watch games anymore"? An odd thing to say when being prompted by data 15 years old that has been made public for the first time. It's read like the writer is simply afraid of what he doesn't understand.

The OP here is not basing his entire opinion on these new stats. He's simply excited to have one more resource to use in his analysis...which is pretty much the exact opposite of stupid.

colts18 wrote:Looking at some numbers, I'm not so sure that there is anyone out there that has had more impact in the +/- stats since 97 than Shaq and David Robinson. Both of them have had an impressive record +/- to go along with their box score excellence. Some of the numbers make me to want to reconsider my position on both of them.


From 97-00, here are Shaq's playoff plus/minus numbers:
+4.45 on court, -15.15 off court, +19.6 plus/minus
108.01 O Rating on court, 100.23 O rating off court, +7.79 Net offensive rating

In 2000 playoffs, the Lakers with Shaq on court was +6.02 on court, -26.24 off court, +32.27 plus/minus

In an earlier thread, I went thru the Lakers 01-04 playoff plus/minus data viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1161853 . In it, Shaq was +20.8 from 01-04 (+15.4 offense). Overall here are Shaq's playoff plus minus numbers in his Lakers stint (97-04):

5007 min on, +6.40 on court, 108.10 Offensive Rating
906 min off, -13.97 off court, 96.27 Offensive Rating
+20.37 plus/minus, +11.83 Net Offensive rating

Shaq was solid in the regular season too averaging around an +11 plus/minus from 97-00 and a +12 from 01-04. In 98, his team was +15.6 with him on court, and barely above 0 when he was off court.


David Robinson:
97: +7.62 on court, -9.37 off court, +16.99 plus/minus. 95.8 D rating on, 109.3 off, -13.5 Net D rating

The Spurs could have been decent if Robinson played that year instead of injured.

From 98-00, he averaged around a +7 plus/minus and -2.7 D rating impact.

But Robinson impressed the most in the playoffs. From 98-00:
on court: +12.66, 89.27 D rating
off court: -17.47, 102.52 D rating
Net: +30.12 plus/minus, -13.25 D rating impact

Duncan wasn't even close to Robinson in the playoffs plus/minus. Robinson was most impressive in the 99 finals run. On court, the Spurs were +19.5 with Robinson on court. An absurd number. They were -71 in the 215 minutes he was off the court or -24.76 per 100 possessions. His total net +/- was +35 and D rating impact was -16.25. Duncan was +9.5 on court compared to Robinson's +19.5. So the Spurs completely collapsed without Robinson in those playoffs, but played fine without Duncan.

The 99 season might be the all-time best defensive season ever for a player. According to B-R, the 99 Spurs finished with a -7.2 D rating relative to league average. The Spurs had a 91.0 D rating when Robinson was on the court (92.2 with Duncan). In the playoffs, they got even better. The Spurs had a 86.0 D rating when Robinson was playing on court. They allowed about 75 points per 48 minutes with Robinson on the court in the playoffs In the 2nd round, the Lakers had a 81 O rating when Robinson was playing. Shaq had one of his worst series ever going 23.8 PPG on .506 TS%. For all the talk of Robinson declining, he was actually really good in his final years. From 98-03, his plus/minus numbers were comparable to Duncan.

98-03 On Court Net +/-:
Drob: +9.04
Duncan: +8.35

Playoffs:
DRob: +8.12
Duncan: +6.65

Duncan had better Net +/-'s because of his minute totals, but Robinson wasn't too far off.


Is there anyone else out there comparable to Robinson and Shaq in the plus/minus categories? I think the only one might be KG and Dirk.

Very interesting stuff.

Shaq is indeed amazing. Honestly the more I look at his +/- data, the more I'm able to let go of the fact that I consider him about the stupidest, pettiest person on the planet.

I've been thinking about '97-98 lately. Absolutely dominant in his regular season run, but that only makes me ask even louder: What the heck happened against the Jazz? An odd thing to ask given that it's not that I wasn't a fan back then, but if someone who had more educated eyes - or just a better memory could chime in, that'd be awesome.

Re: Robinson. I'm going to have a tough time effectively siding with him over Duncan based on raw +/- data. The differential in playing time is a pretty big deal. Still think Robinson's great though.

colts18 wrote:

ardee wrote:Where do you find all this? It's not on BBR, is it on the new NBA stats site?

Yeah its on the new NBA.com. For example here is the rankings of on court Net +/- for the 98 season (min 20 minutes per game):

http://stats.nba.com/leaguePlayerGenera ... s=MIN*G*20

Top 5:
Shaq
Stockton
Mourning
Horry
Perkins

Pippen 22nd, MJ 23rd.

I have to note the raw +/- here too though:

http://stats.nba.com/leaguePlayerGenera ... s=MIN*G*20

Top 5:
1. Shaq (in only 60 games)
2. Payton
3. Eddie Jones
4. Jordan
5. Malone

Stockton's net +/- is strong, but Malone's total +/- is significantly higher.

I thought the fact Payton rated 2nd over both Jordan & Malone was interesting.

Doctor MJ wrote:"deceiving statistics"? And what would those be, stats that disagree with your opinion?

No, I'm not most posters on this section. Posters that use stats that backup their opinion and take it for face value and ignore all context and everything else there is to it. Plus/Minus is a deceiving statistic. A lot of it is dependent on lineups, rotations, and so fourth. It amazes me how people think the stat is some end all be all stat like most people treat it on here. I guess most posters on the PC board like the same players and hate the same players.

ElGee wrote:According to the NBA.com calculations, places like 82games were using pace estimations to calculate team ratings in on/off statistics.

Where did you get the info that 82games.com is using estimates? The numbers are based on parsing pbp data and as far as I know 82games.com counts possessions as well.

ElGee wrote:Without knowing much about how NBA.com is generating its numbers, I'm initially skeptical of their "counting possessions;" In order to generate the kind of difference in the above example, they are counting more than 200 extra possessions in a season. My guess is that there is a technicality difference in their counting. (eg Are they counting technical fouls as a separate possession? Still, 200 extra possessions is a lot...)

Well, I also parsed pbp data and got different pace numbers, because I counted some possessions twice for example. It is possible to have such effect, if players getting substituted between free throws, for example. And as far as I can tell, bbr is counting correctly, given the fact that I count the same with their pbp when corrected the error. And there is another possible problem. basketballvalue is using the NBA.com pbp and is counting more possessions than bbr.com. I haven't checked the data from basketballvalue.com to figure out where the difference is coming from, I just know that bbr is not using the NBA.com pbp data. I also know that there are differences between the ESPN pbp and the NBA.com pbp data from the past (I have both going back until 2002).