Why doesn't Dragic play more minutes?

[JohnVancouver]

...the consensus on this board says Dudley should definitely get more minutes. Keep Hill in the starting unit but take away some of his minutes and give it to Dudley and I'm fine with. Hill sucks coming off the bench while Dudley plays well in either roles, so it's logical to keep Hill in the starting unit where he's more productive.

and it's only fair to reward Duds for what he's done by giving him minutes, and smart to do so because you want to encourage him to keep working - and not only does it let hill continue to play in his most productive role, it's respectful of who he is and what he's given us

so yeah - fishi nailed it

[Sun Scorched]

http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2009-2010&sortnumber=17&sortorder=DESC&team=PHX
Take any group of four that played with Hill last year. Now swap in Dudley for Hill.

Every time that happened, Dudley's group absolutely annihilated Hill's. Destroyed, crushed, obliterated, demolished, eviscerated.

Please explain to me why that doesn't end this debate.

You're missing the key concept: Hill is playing against tougher opponents when he is on the floor.

By your logic, the lineup of Dragic/Barbosa/Hill/Dudley/Amundson was our best rotation last year.... No, they just ran up the score on the Sasha Vujacic's of the world. That's the truth behind +/-... it only accounts for points scored for and against. The strength of the opponent on the court at the time directly impacts that.

You're implying the Dudley vs. Bench is better than Hill vs. starters. I would agree with you. I think most would, but you can't say that Dudley's +/- translates into a starting role.

It doesn't.

You'd be correct if the advanced statistic in question was simply "+/-", but it isn't. We're talking about adjusted +/-...

"This is exactly what the adjusted plus-minus stat does: it reflects the impact of each player on his team’s bottom line (scoring margin), after controlling statistically for the strength of every teammate and every opponent during each minute he’s on the court."

Good read: http://www.82games.com/ilardi1.htm

Well, if that's truly the measure then I stand corrected.

I'd be interest to really crack into the math, it just seems like there has to be gaps in the data.

[YFZblu]

Well, if that's truly the measure then I stand corrected.

I'd be interest to really crack into the math, it just seems like there has to be gaps in the data.

I think I'm afraid to try to crack the math on this one

I'd just end up doing one of these ------->

[Wannabe MEP]

I'd be interest to really crack into the math, it just seems like there has to be gaps in the data.

Pretty sure you have to have a graduate degree in statistics to do that.

But I think you're right in that it has serious limitations. The biggest thing is that you have to have a very large, varied data set to have anything meaningful, and it's never really large or varied enough to be anywhere close to perfect.

Problems come in when, for example, you have players that pretty much always play together. If Nash and Hill always play together, the data doesn't know whether one is dragging the other down or whether one is pulling the other up. For example, in 2005-2006, Rasheed Wallace had the best adj +/- and Rip Hamilton had the worst. They played almost all their minutes together, but for the few minutes they separated, Rasheed's squad outperformed Rip's. The stats gave Rasheed all the credit. They can be jumpy.

But it's still aligns pretty well with intuition. The top players right now are:
1) Kevin Durant
2) LeBron James
3) Steve Nash
4) Dwyane Wade
5) Dwight Howard

But then there are surprises. Anderson Varejao is No. 8 and Dudley is No. 14. It makes sense to me; these guys are good defenders who hustle and play team basketball. they probably wouldn't be near as successful if they weren't playing on teams with quality creators like James and Nash.

I think adjusted +/- per unit is better; a player might be incredible valuable, but only when he's playing with a good point guard, for example.

I believe Dudley is one of the best players in the NBA when he's playing with other good creators. I think he should play huge minutes with Nash.

[YFZblu]

I'd be interest to really crack into the math, it just seems like there has to be gaps in the data.

Pretty sure you have to have a graduate degree in statistics to do that.

But I think you're right in that it has serious limitations. The biggest thing is that you have to have a very large, varied data set to have anything meaningful, and it's never really large or varied enough to be anywhere close to perfect.

Problems come in when, for example, you have players that pretty much always play together. If Nash and Hill always play together, the data doesn't know whether one is dragging the other down or whether one is pulling the other up. For example, in 2005-2006, Rasheed Wallace had the best adj +/- and Rip Hamilton had the worst. They played almost all their minutes together, but for the few minutes they separated, Rasheed's squad outperformed Rip's. The stats gave Rasheed all the credit. They can be jumpy.

But it's still aligns pretty well with intuition. The top players right now are:
1) Kevin Durant
2) LeBron James
3) Steve Nash
4) Dwyane Wade
5) Dwight Howard

But then there are surprises. Anderson Varejao is No. 8 and Dudley is No. 14. It makes sense to me; these guys are good defenders who hustle and play team basketball. they probably wouldn't be near as successful if they weren't playing on teams with quality creators like James and Nash.

I think adjusted +/- per unit is better; a player might be incredible valuable, but only when he's playing with a good point guard, for example.

I believe Dudley is one of the best players in the NBA when he's playing with other good creators. I think he should play huge minutes with Nash.

This post highlights exactly why I'm glad the Suns didn't offer Stoudemire a max max contract. The guy simply isn't worth it, as the Suns have often been digging themselves out of holes with him on the court. Stoudemire was a disgustingly efficient scorer with Nash, yet his adjusted +/- was reflecting that even though he had an elite playmaker at his disposal, his passing/rebounding/defense was so atrocious that the Suns weren't necessarily a better team when he was on the court. His 2-year adjusted +/- being a -7.85 This also explains why in 2006, when the Suns beefed up defensively (Bell), increased passing/playmaking (Diaw) yet lost Stoudemire, they were able to advance to the WCF in his absence.

Varejao is a huge surprise to those looking at his adjusted +/- stats, and I noticed that last year. Another player who's adjusted +/- would surprise people is Leandro Barbosa's, whos increased nicely over the years...He's often considered a mistake player who forces shots...But the numbers indicated a 2-year adjusted +/- of +.96

[Frank Lee]

This whole Hill / Dudley debate needs to consider what CD's real role is.

Dudley is 'captain' of the bench. He helped cultivate it to what it was/is. He holds it together. This intangible cannot be measured with +/- stats. With Dudley's 3 pt superiority to Hill, it keeps the lane less crowded for a driving and dishing/finishing Dragic. Our second unit needs to become cohesive once again... the same goes for our confused starting line up which has yet to become comfortable with each other (ie Hedu and his forced adjustment) Grant has his intangible contribution in the 20-24 mins with Nash that he gets too.

CDud will get all the minutes he can handle.... next yr.

[rsavaj]

I think adjusted plus/minus is very interesting, but it's not the be-all end-all of player performance. Dragic and Dudley need more minutes, agreed. Good things just happen when Dudley is on the court(as his +/- says).

But...I don't recall anybody endorsing me when I pointed out that Diaw's adjusted +/- in the stretch before he got traded was higher than Amare's.

[YFZblu]

I think adjusted plus/minus is very interesting, but it's not the be-all end-all of player performance. Dragic and Dudley need more minutes, agreed. Good things just happen when Dudley is on the court(as his +/- says).

But...I don't recall anybody endorsing me when I pointed out that Diaw's adjusted +/- in the stretch before he got traded was higher than Amare's.

If I was here at that time, I absolutely would have endorsed you. I've been saying that exact thing for years. Obviously Jrich has worked out nicely for us, but I was always in the camp that thought Diaw needed more minutes and more responsibility, as he clearly thrived in that role.

[Wannabe MEP]

But...I don't recall anybody endorsing me when I pointed out that Diaw's adjusted +/- in the stretch before he got traded was higher than Amare's.

If I was here at that time, I absolutely would have endorsed you. I've been saying that exact thing for years.

Me too, although less because of Diaw's awesomeness and more because of Amare's ineptitude.