Plus/Minus Superstars (Shaq and Robinson)

[colts18]

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.

Doesn't it actually you more mad that Shaq was lazy. We have all this data on Shaq's greatness. He was better than 2nd 3peat MJ, yet we feel like Shaq left a lot on the table. People really underrate Shaq's "lesser" years. For example, here are his RAPM numbers from 01-06 (real RAPM, not the crap with box score influence).

01: 6.5 RAPM, #2 in the league
02: 7.1, #1
03: 5.1, #3
04: 6.9, #1
05: 4.7, #3
06: 4.2, #5

Top 3 every year from 01-05. he was #1 in 2004 ahead of Duncan and KG who were at their peak. This doesn't even include his first 8 seasons. We have data for 4 of those seasons and Shaq's plus/minus numbers are comparable to his 01-06 numbers. Shaq could be underrated which is crazy to think about.


They lost to the Jazz because of Shaq's support, not Shaq. The Lakers minus Shaq shot 33.2 FG% (25.7 3P%).

[ElGee]

Looking at some numbers...Some of the numbers make me to want to reconsider my position

.....

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.

Why Robinson and not Terry Porter?

In 2000, Porter was +13. Robinson +8.5 (net team ratings while on court)
In 2001, Porter was +13.3. Robinson +13.2.
In 2002, Porter +14.0. Robinson +9.9.

Porter crushes Robinson here -- why wouldn't you reconsider your position on Porter?

[colts18]

Looking at some numbers...Some of the numbers make me to want to reconsider my position

.....

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.

Why Robinson and not Terry Porter?

In 2000, Porter was +13. Robinson +8.5 (net team ratings while on court)
In 2001, Porter was +13.3. Robinson +13.2.
In 2002, Porter +14.0. Robinson +9.9.

Porter crushes Robinson here -- why wouldn't you reconsider your position on Porter?

Robinson played 2653 more minutes than Porter in that span. Plus Robinson was +271 better in raw plus/minus. And RAPM confirmed that Robinson was better.

btw, Terry Porter was always an underrated player.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Doesn't it actually you more mad that Shaq was lazy. We have all this data on Shaq's greatness. He was better than 2nd 3peat MJ, yet we feel like Shaq left a lot on the table. People really underrate Shaq's "lesser" years. For example, here are his RAPM numbers from 01-06 (real RAPM, not the crap with box score influence).

01: 6.5 RAPM, #2 in the league
02: 7.1, #1
03: 5.1, #3
04: 6.9, #1
05: 4.7, #3
06: 4.2, #5

Top 3 every year from 01-05. he was #1 in 2004 ahead of Duncan and KG who were at their peak. This doesn't even include his first 8 seasons. We have data for 4 of those seasons and Shaq's plus/minus numbers are comparable to his 01-06 numbers. Shaq could be underrated which is crazy to think about.


They lost to the Jazz because of Shaq's support, not Shaq. The Lakers minus Shaq shot 33.2 FG% (25.7 3P%).

For me the thing is that there are times I held against Shaq based on the combination of his bad behavior and the less than optimal team result where he still looks phenomenal. I think I overrated just how big the effect of his laziness was.

[ElGee]

Looking at some numbers...Some of the numbers make me to want to reconsider my position

.....

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.

Why Robinson and not Terry Porter?

In 2000, Porter was +13. Robinson +8.5 (net team ratings while on court)
In 2001, Porter was +13.3. Robinson +13.2.
In 2002, Porter +14.0. Robinson +9.9.

Porter crushes Robinson here -- why wouldn't you reconsider your position on Porter?

Robinson played 2653 more minutes than Porter in that span. Plus Robinson was +271 better in raw plus/minus. And RAPM confirmed that Robinson was better.

btw, Terry Porter was always an underrated player.

More minutes? Better raw +/-? Do those things matter?

In 1997, when John Stockton was still a high-minute player, Karl Malone was +12.8 and Stockton +11.4. To use a number you curiously espouse, raw plus/minus, Stockton was -109 compared to Malone in 102 fewer minutes.

From 97 to 00, Malone played 2,211 minutes more than Stockton and was +223 better in raw plus/minus. So why tout Robinson over Porter but not Malone over Stockton?

[Doctor MJ]

"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.

Ignoring the stats that disagree with you is basically the exact same thing as using a stat only because it agrees with you.

I also really doubt that a guy who is talking about being blown away by David Robinson while looking at '90s data is likely someone who has been just itching for an opportunity to champion his favorite long retired player.

[colts18]

More minutes? Better raw +/-? Do those things matter?

In 1997, when John Stockton was still a high-minute player, Karl Malone was +12.8 and Stockton +11.4. To use a number you curiously espouse, raw plus/minus, Stockton was -109 compared to Malone in 102 fewer minutes.

From 97 to 00, Malone played 2,211 minutes more than Stockton and was +223 better in raw plus/minus. So why tout Robinson over Porter but not Malone over Stockton?

From 97-03, Stockton beat out Malone in raw Plus/minus by a decent margin. The Jazz were like -4 without Stockton on the court and -1 without Malone. Stockton was +14 per 100 possessions. On offense Malone actually beat out Stockton. Malone was like +11 while Stockton was like +8. But Stockton had the significant defensive advantage.

Porter never played 24 minutes per game in any season from 00-02 so he can't be compared to the higher minute guys.

[colts18]

97-03 Malone and Stockton:

Malone +2769 (+6.77 per 48)
Stockton: +2941 (+8.86 per 48)

Raw Plus/minus per 48:
Malone: +8.15
Stockton: +10.42

[ElGee]

More minutes? Better raw +/-? Do those things matter?

In 1997, when John Stockton was still a high-minute player, Karl Malone was +12.8 and Stockton +11.4. To use a number you curiously espouse, raw plus/minus, Stockton was -109 compared to Malone in 102 fewer minutes.

From 97 to 00, Malone played 2,211 minutes more than Stockton and was +223 better in raw plus/minus. So why tout Robinson over Porter but not Malone over Stockton?

From 97-03, Stockton beat out Malone in raw Plus/minus by a decent margin. The Jazz were like -4 without Stockton on the court and -1 without Malone. Stockton was +14 per 100 possessions. On offense Malone actually beat out Stockton. Malone was like +11 while Stockton was like +8. But Stockton had the significant defensive advantage.

Porter never played 24 minutes per game in any season from 00-02 so he can't be compared to the higher minute guys.

I didn't say anything about 97 to 03. I said 97-00.

As far as the minutes go, I'm also wondering why you are placing an arbitary cutoff at 24 mpg. On one hand, minutes are an issue comparing 29 mpg to 24 mpg, but they are suddenly not an issue for you at 29 mpg to 35-37 mpg? I don't follow you there...

I bring this up because there are obvious issue with the data you are presenting, namely the correlation between team strength and individual on numbers, and (and primarily for net on/off) the rotations that are used. Do you think it's a coincidence that higher minute players almost always have lower numbers than role players? Or do you think Mario Chalmers, Nick Collison, Terry Porter, Derek Fisher, Eduardo Najera, low-minute John Stockton, low-minue David Robinson are all better than the superstars on those awesome teams?

Very few superstars lead good teams in on rating or on/off net: From 97-12 (16 years) Mourning 99, (Rasheed 00,) Dirk 03, Duncan 05, Nash 05, Shaq 05, (Rasheed 06), Wade 06, Duncan 07, Nash 07, Garnett 08, Nash 08, (Billups 08), Garnett 09, Kobe 10, Garnett 10, Manu 11, Dirk 11, Wade 12. That's basically it -- really about 13 or 14 clearcut star players and even some of those team had 3 or 4 AS-level guys to boot. The rest of the 50-60 elite teams in the period basically had secondary players leading them in this category.

[colts18]

More minutes? Better raw +/-? Do those things matter?

In 1997, when John Stockton was still a high-minute player, Karl Malone was +12.8 and Stockton +11.4. To use a number you curiously espouse, raw plus/minus, Stockton was -109 compared to Malone in 102 fewer minutes.

From 97 to 00, Malone played 2,211 minutes more than Stockton and was +223 better in raw plus/minus. So why tout Robinson over Porter but not Malone over Stockton?

From 97-03, Stockton beat out Malone in raw Plus/minus by a decent margin. The Jazz were like -4 without Stockton on the court and -1 without Malone. Stockton was +14 per 100 possessions. On offense Malone actually beat out Stockton. Malone was like +11 while Stockton was like +8. But Stockton had the significant defensive advantage.

Porter never played 24 minutes per game in any season from 00-02 so he can't be compared to the higher minute guys.

I didn't say anything about 97 to 03. I said 97-00.

As far as the minutes go, I'm also wondering why you are placing an arbitary cutoff at 24 mpg. On one hand, minutes are an issue comparing 29 mpg to 24 mpg, but they are suddenly not an issue for you at 29 mpg to 35-37 mpg? I don't follow you there...

I bring this up because there are obvious issue with the data you are presenting, namely the correlation between team strength and individual on numbers, and (and primarily for net on/off) the rotations that are used. Do you think it's a coincidence that higher minute players almost always have lower numbers than role players? Or do you think Mario Chalmers, Nick Collison, Terry Porter, Derek Fisher, Eduardo Najera, low-minute John Stockton, low-minue David Robinson are all better than the superstars on those awesome teams?

Very few superstars lead good teams in on rating or on/off net: From 97-12 (16 years) Mourning 99, (Rasheed 00,) Dirk 03, Duncan 05, Nash 05, Shaq 05, (Rasheed 06), Wade 06, Duncan 07, Nash 07, Garnett 08, Nash 08, (Billups 08), Garnett 09, Kobe 10, Garnett 10, Manu 11, Dirk 11, Wade 12. That's basically it -- really about 13 or 14 clearcut star players and even some of those team had 3 or 4 AS-level guys to boot. The rest of the 50-60 elite teams in the period basically had secondary players leading them in this category.

Do you have the data for on/ off net? How did u get the possession numbers for these players?

[lorak]

We also have RAPM and Winston's APM and both these metrics show Stockton's elite impact. so minutes aren't problem here. He definitely wasn't role player who played 20 mpg (like Porter).

But "on" data (or total raw +/-) is pretty useless, because players on good teams would have good "on". We need net on/off.

[MacGill]

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 appreciate you saying this Doc

You know I am a Shaq fan, but I try to be a very rational one. And while I have always agreed with your points around how he handled himself personally, it never deterred me from his immense impact made on the court. Also, since I go back and watch actual games of him, it never made sense when poster's tried to label him as what his career became to be after 14 years in the league.

BTW, doesn't the bolded belong to Dwight Howard now?

[ElGee]

@Colts -- I'm using NBA.com data. They provide pace to two decimal points, which allows for accurate calculation of possessions played. (Again, if we assume NBA.com is accurate, which you are for this thread.) The off can be calculated once you know the on.

We also have RAPM and Winston's APM and both these metrics show Stockton's elite impact. so minutes aren't problem here. He definitely wasn't role player who played 20 mpg (like Porter).

But "on" data (or total raw +/-) is pretty useless, because players on good teams would have good "on". We need net on/off.

You (and Colts) and anyone else on this train has a major issue that you have not addressed, which is that of co-variance and selective minutes. It's a problem with APM as well due to multicollinearity. Also saying "both" RAPM, APM and on/off show Stockton's "elite impact" is redundant, since they are reductions of the same data.

Here are the players I mentioned and their MPG:
Porter 21 M (00-02)
Chalmers 25 M (11-13)
Collison 21 M(10-13)
Fisher 26 M (99-02)
Najera 19 M (02-05)

Stockton 29 M (98-00)
Robinson 30 M (99-03)

Compare that to their star teammates
Duncan 39 M (99-03)
James 38 M (11-13)
Durant 39 M (10-13)
Shaq 38 M (99-02)
Dirk 38 M (02-05)
Malone 37 M (98-00)

What you are asking everyone to believe is that, when compared to Robinson and Stockton, that a 5-10 MPG difference is substantial for the role players in the first group , but when comparing Stockton and Robinson to players like Malone, Duncan (and other superstars), where there is less selectivity in the minutes, that 8-10 MPG is not relevant.

If you have an explanation for this I'm all ears, but it seems to me you have to either start pimping everyone of these role players on good teams as "plus-minus superstars" (who just happen to lose that skill when the star in question isn't next to them), or stop touting Robinson and Stockton in that same vein.

[colts18]

@Colts -- I'm using NBA.com data. They provide pace to two decimal points, which allows for accurate calculation of possessions played. (Again, if we assume NBA.com is accurate, which you are for this thread.) The off can be calculated once you know the on.

We also have RAPM and Winston's APM and both these metrics show Stockton's elite impact. so minutes aren't problem here. He definitely wasn't role player who played 20 mpg (like Porter).

But "on" data (or total raw +/-) is pretty useless, because players on good teams would have good "on". We need net on/off.

You (and Colts) and anyone else on this train has a major issue that you have not addressed, which is that of co-variance and selective minutes. It's a problem with APM as well due to multicollinearity. Also saying "both" RAPM, APM and on/off show Stockton's "elite impact" is redundant, since they are reductions of the same data.

Here are the players I mentioned and their MPG:
Porter 21 M (00-02)
Chalmers 25 M (11-13)
Collison 21 M(10-13)
Fisher 26 M (99-02)
Najera 19 M (02-05)

Stockton 29 M (98-00)
Robinson 30 M (99-03)

Compare that to their star teammates
Duncan 39 M (99-03)
James 38 M (11-13)
Durant 39 M (10-13)
Shaq 38 M (99-02)
Dirk 38 M (02-05)
Malone 37 M (98-00)

What you are asking everyone to believe is that, when compared to Robinson and Stockton, that a 5-10 MPG difference is substantial for the role players in the first group , but when comparing Stockton and Robinson to players like Malone, Duncan (and other superstars), where there is less selectivity in the minutes, that 8-10 MPG is not relevant.

If you have an explanation for this I'm all ears, but it seems to me you have to either start pimping everyone of these role players on good teams as "plus-minus superstars" (who just happen to lose that skill when the star in question isn't next to them), or stop touting Robinson and Stockton in that same vein.

Elgee, when will the malware attack on your site get fixed? I tried visiting one of the old realgm top 50 peak threads and I couldnt go on it because your site was trying to attack my computer.

[SideshowBob]

FWIW, I've visited backpicks loads of times since the warnings started showing up (probably twice in just the last week), and I've never once had an issue.

[ElGee]

I'll probably get around to it at some point. I've been unable to separate the malware from the content, so it will probably have to be a manual reload when I get around to it.

[lorak]

Here are the players I mentioned and their MPG:
Porter 21 M (00-02)
Chalmers 25 M (11-13)
Collison 21 M(10-13)
Fisher 26 M (99-02)
Najera 19 M (02-05)

Stockton 29 M (98-00)
Robinson 30 M (99-03)

Compare that to their star teammates
Duncan 39 M (99-03)
James 38 M (11-13)
Durant 39 M (10-13)
Shaq 38 M (99-02)
Dirk 38 M (02-05)
Malone 37 M (98-00)

Stockton has clear advantage over Malone in APM.
Lets check your examples (not to mention difference in minutes between Stockton and Malone is smaller than rest of the players - usually twice times...)

Chalmers -0.6 RAPM in 2011 and -0.1 in 2012

Collison looks great, but he plays almost half minutes less than Durant.

Najera 0.7 in 2002, 1.8 in 2003, 1.4 in 2004, 1.1 in 2005 and also half minutes less than Dirk. SO obviously good role player.

For Fisher and Porter I don't have APM data.

So what's your point? Expect of Collison no one looks as good in APM (and no one is better than 1st scoring option) as Stockton (he is better than Malone according to APM), but Collison plays almost half minutes less than Durant, so he clearly is role player.

[colts18]

@Colts -- I'm using NBA.com data. They provide pace to two decimal points, which allows for accurate calculation of possessions played. (Again, if we assume NBA.com is accurate, which you are for this thread.) The off can be calculated once you know the on.

How do you reconsile with the fact that NBA.com has different numbers for on court +/- per 100 and Net Rating (O rtg-D rtg) when calculating the on/off. For example, 2000 Shaq is +11.2 on on court per 100 with NBA.com. Then if you click on the advanced tab, it says Shaq is +11.0 (106.3 O rtg-95.3 D rtg). Can you help me figure out how exactly they calculate their Net rating? It looks like the on court per 100 seems accurate. But for the Net Rtg, I'm not sure exactly how they are getting their numbers. I'm playing around with it and I can't get accurate on court numbers for the net Rating that would fit in with the on court per 100. I tried emailing NBA.com for an explanation on this but they never emailed me back.

[ElGee]

@Colts -- I'm using NBA.com data. They provide pace to two decimal points, which allows for accurate calculation of possessions played. (Again, if we assume NBA.com is accurate, which you are for this thread.) The off can be calculated once you know the on.

How do you reconsile with the fact that NBA.com has different numbers for on court +/- per 100 and Net Rating (O rtg-D rtg) when calculating the on/off. For example, 2000 Shaq is +11.2 on on court per 100 with NBA.com. Then if you click on the advanced tab, it says Shaq is +11.0 (106.3 O rtg-95.3 D rtg). Can you help me figure out how exactly they calculate their Net rating? It looks like the on court per 100 seems accurate. But for the Net Rtg, I'm not sure exactly how they are getting their numbers. I'm playing around with it and I can't get accurate on court numbers for the net Rating that would fit in with the on court per 100. I tried emailing NBA.com for an explanation on this but they never emailed me back.

Some sort of pace calculation issue I'd guess. I'm not sure about their accuracy...

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...)

[mysticbb]

Some sort of pace calculation issue I'd guess. I'm not sure about their accuracy...

You can reduce the effect due to differences in terms of pace by using ratings adjusted for league average. For 2005 bbr has the league average at 105.8 (derived from the pbp data), NBA.com has it at 103.1. For your example with Nash that would make:

NBA.com: +14.6
bbr.com: +14.3

That cuts the difference down from 2.4 to 0.3. That isn't that bad. But I find it also weird, that NBA.com has such higher pace.