Draymond Green: First player ever to hit +1,000 Plus/Minus

[colts18]

Draymond Green became the first player in recorded NBA history to hit a +1,000 on court plus/minus, surpassing 1996 MJ's total. Green also has the highest recorded on court plus/minus per 100 possessions and the the highest net on/off ever recorded.


On court Net +/-, On court per 100 poss, Net Plus/Minus per 100 poss
1. 16 Green, +1007, +18.2, +25.1
2. 96 Jordan +980, +16.7, +15.2
3. 16 Curry +969, +18.1, +22.5
4. 15 Curry +911, +16.6, +17.8
5. 96 Pippen +899, +16.8, +11.8
6. 09 James +871, +15, +21.2
7. 15 Green +861, +16.5, +15.5
8. 97 Jordan +818, +14, +9.7
9. 97 Pippen +807, +13.9, +9
10. 08 Pierce +784, +14.2, +9.8

[Doctor MJ]

Let me also add that I've analyzed years going back into history. I don't think anyone has hit this number before. Not Jordan, not Kareem, not Wilt, not Russell.

So yeah, it's really something that we're seeing in this...and also that we're seeing this from the guy who is not the one we're calling maybe the new GOAT on his team.

[Shot Clock]

Let me also add that I've analyzed years going back into history. I don't think anyone has hit this number before. Not Jordan, not Kareem, not Wilt, not Russell.

So yeah, it's really something that we're seeing in this...and also that we're seeing this from the guy who is not the one we're calling maybe the new GOAT on his team.

Where did you find all of that data to do the analysis a lot of people have been looking for it?

[lorak]

We can make educated guess based on minutes played and team pts diff. And I think both Oscar and KAJ in 1971 had more than +1000 +/-, as well as 1967 Wilt.

[Volcano]

I think Curry could have made the top 10 without Draymond, but Draymond would have never made it without Curry

[LA Bird]

We can make educated guess based on minutes played and team pts diff. And I think both Oscar and KAJ in 1971 had more than +1000 +/-, as well as 1967 Wilt.

67 Wilt, no. 76ers had to be around -50 points per 48 min without him on court and they weren't that bad.
71 Kareem/Oscar and 72 Wilt/West most likely had over 1000 Net +/- though.

[LA Bird]

I think Curry could have made the top 10 without Draymond, but Draymond would have never made it without Curry

Curry would fall out of the top 10 if the Warriors DRtg declined by 2.2 with him on court. Draymond Green's defensive on off this season is a GOAT-level 12.2. Neither is making the top 10 without the other and it's about time Green gets recognized as a highly impactful player in his own right and not just a sidekick role player leeching off Curry's success.

[tsherkin]

it's about time Green gets recognized as a highly impactful player in his own right and not just a sidekick role player leeching off Curry's success.

I think it's pretty clear that when people talk about Dray benefiting from Curry, they're talking about the offensive end. His rebounding and defense are of his own doing, and it's also pretty clear that the success they had last year and this season was enabled in more than one way by his play. More over, it's not any player who can fill the offensive role he does as well as he does, even as a complementary offensive player. He's showing us quick reaction to the reversal pass, he's making timely, crisp passes to teammates in a way they can use the pass to score rapidly after receiving the ball, he's a vicious threat in transition, he screens well and he's hugely effective spotting up. IOW, he's doing a fair bit on either side of the ball, and not all of it is just standing there like an arse waiting to grab a pass from Curry to fling to someone else after the D has rotated.

Anyone can see that stuff with perfunctory statistical analysis or by watching him play for 5 or 10 minutes, you know?

[Texas Chuck]

it's about time Green gets recognized as a highly impactful player in his own right and not just a sidekick role player leeching off Curry's success.

I think it's pretty clear that when people talk about Dray benefiting from Curry, they're talking about the offensive end. His rebounding and defense are of his own doing, and it's also pretty clear that the success they had last year and this season was enabled in more than one way by his play. More over, it's not any player who can fill the offensive role he does as well as he does, even as a complementary offensive player. He's showing us quick reaction to the reversal pass, he's making timely, crisp passes to teammates in a way they can use the pass to score rapidly after receiving the ball, he's a vicious threat in transition, he screens well and he's hugely effective spotting up. IOW, he's doing a fair bit on either side of the ball, and not all of it is just standing there like an arse waiting to grab a pass from Curry to fling to someone else after the D has rotated.

Anyone can see that stuff with perfunctory statistical analysis or by watching him play for 5 or 10 minutes, you know?

I hope Volcano wasn't trying to diminish Green so much as pointing out that we would be foolish to take these numbers as some kind of sole representation of the exact impact Green is having isolated from Curry. Curry's fingerprints are in fact all over these numbers for Green--just as Green's presence is benefiting Steph(and the others in GSW--I mean look at this year's list of +/- its naturally chock full of high minute Warriors).

It's one of the reasons I refuse to put all my eggs in the +/- basket for individual players. I think its highly informative when you look at high minute 5 man units but the noise is still too large for us to reach sweeping conclusions on individuals. I mean the idea that Draymond Green is having more positive impact on his team than anyone in history is not something I'm prepared to buy into.

[tsherkin]

I hope Volcano wasn't trying to diminish Green so much as pointing out that we would be foolish to take these numbers as some kind of sole representation of the exact impact Green is having isolated from Curry. Curry's fingerprints are in fact all over these numbers for Green--just as Green's presence is benefiting Steph(and the others in GSW--I mean look at this year's list of +/- its naturally chock full of high minute Warriors).

It's one of the reasons I refuse to put all my eggs in the +/- basket for individual players. I think its highly informative when you look at high minute 5 man units but the noise is still too large for us to reach sweeping conclusions on individuals. I mean the idea that Draymond Green is having more positive impact on his team than anyone in history is not something I'm prepared to buy into.

Yes, I have very little faith in +/- data for individuals as a general rule, though many of my objections apply equally well to various box score numbers. I find unified metrics are usually a waste of my time unless I do little more than include them in a broad sweep of numbers. They require too large a sample and too much context and filtering to really be that valuable, and they still turn up nonsense from time to time (although that is reduced when you properly understand what each is actually describing, of course).

That said, Green is clearly a guy who is excelling in his role, and this is the result of his own ability and being fitted to a well-suited role on a high-quality team with many minutes alongside very good players. It's win-win.

[bondom34]

I'll probably catch some flack for this, but don't really know where to put it or how else to. I keep coming back to the threads a year ago on Green, and him being a top 5-10 player by a lot of people here. The main metrics used were constantly PM, and they were showing his amazing impact despite the fact that he's been playing next to Curry, who's being regarded as having possibly the GOAT season right now.

Now, my problem here is, if your point is Dray is showing out so well in said metrics, and by that he is indicated as top 10 at worst, top 5 possibly, why does it stop there? These numbers (some at least, I know single year did) are showing more impact than Curry, but there's no reasoning given to why not just put him ahead of Curry in rank if they are the reasoning he's so high in the first place. I do think he's really really really important to them, and these numbers are showing that. I don't mean to derail the thread, but the problem I have here is there seemed to be a debate last year he was ranked so highly and now this year its turned to "well he is but he's not more impactful than Curry even if numbers seem to indicate so". To me it should be one or the other.

[mysticOscar]

I'll probably catch some flack for this, but don't really know where to put it or how else to. I keep coming back to the threads a year ago on Green, and him being a top 5-10 player by a lot of people here. The main metrics used were constantly PM, and they were showing his amazing impact despite the fact that he's been playing next to Curry, who's being regarded as having possibly the GOAT season right now.

Now, my problem here is, if your point is Dray is showing out so well in said metrics, and by that he is indicated as top 10 at worst, top 5 possibly, why does it stop there? These numbers (some at least, I know single year did) are showing more impact than Curry, but there's no reasoning given to why not just put him ahead of Curry in rank if they are the reasoning he's so high in the first place. I do think he's really really really important to them, and these numbers are showing that. I don't mean to derail the thread, but the problem I have here is there seemed to be a debate last year he was ranked so highly and now this year its turned to "well he is but he's not more impactful than Curry even if numbers seem to indicate so". To me it should be one or the other.

Curry and Dray play soooo many minutes together, Kerr purposely designed it that way since these 2 complement each others game so well when together. Any plus/minus outside of that is really just a small sample size to get any real meaning.

However, how some posters deny that Dray's importance isn't up there or close with Curry in relation to the way the Warriors are winning in both ends (as a whole) is not watching there games closely.

[Doctor MJ]

Let me also add that I've analyzed years going back into history. I don't think anyone has hit this number before. Not Jordan, not Kareem, not Wilt, not Russell.

So yeah, it's really something that we're seeing in this...and also that we're seeing this from the guy who is not the one we're calling maybe the new GOAT on his team.

Where did you find all of that data to do the analysis a lot of people have been looking for it?

I'll go through my logic below, but I'll say this before I do so:

My statement above was based on what I saw earlier in the year. To the extent the Warriors slipped (and back then Curry was on a >1200 pace), it may not hold true any more.

At it's simplest, if I'm looking at, say, Wilt in '66-67, then I can make an equation like this:

(76ers Raw +/-) = (Wilt Raw +/-) + (No-Wilt Raw +/-)

Now we split the No-Wilt time based on minutes played and an "Off" number for Wilt (as in On/Off)

(76ers Raw +/-) = (Wilt Raw +/-) + (Total MP - Wilt MP) * (Wilt Off +/- per MP)

Okay now, let's say Wilt's raw +/- was +1000. Then the equation looks like this:

765 = 1000 + 221 * (Wilt Off +/- per MP)

Which means:

Wilt Off +/- per MP = -1.06

Eh, what does that mean? Well, about 48 minutes in a game, so multiply that number by 48. In order for Wilt to break a +/- of 1000, that would mean that for every 48 minutes Wilt was off the court, his team would be on average outscored by about 51 points.

If we convert that into a per 100 possessions thing, then I believe that would be -41.5.
Not remotely realistic. No way Wilt was even close to +1000.

Okay so I started there so you could see the basics, and see why you shouldn't expect that more minutes would help here when we start from already knowing the team's total dominance. But let me move over to Kareem in '71-72 here because that probably is the serious question now.

If Kareem in '71-72 was +1000, then the Kareem Off +/- that year would have been +0.3. That isn't insane at all so Kareem may well have surpassed it. The question really is how much time Kareem and Oscar spent apart that year. If they basically played together then I'd expect Kareem and Oscar both broke 1000, if they played a good amount of time apart, then probably neither one broke it.

I might look at this further later, but this is what I can give you right now.

[bondom34]

Curry and Dray play soooo many minutes together, Kerr purposely designed it that way since these 2 complement each others game so well when together. Any plus/minus outside of that is really just a small sample size to get any real meaning.

However, how some posters deny that Dray's importance isn't up there or close with Curry in relation to the way the Warriors are winning in both ends (as a whole) is not watching there games closely.

Understood, my question/problem is that there seems to be a random cutoff, where it can be said "Green is more impactful than player X, look what PM numbers say" but at the same time "he's not more so than Curry, despite what PM numbers say".

[Dr Spaceman]

Understood, my question/problem is that there seems to be a random cutoff, where it can be said "Green is more impactful than player X, look what PM numbers say" but at the same time "he's not more so than Curry, despite what PM numbers say".

What is confusing about that? Curry looks like the clear GOAT by box score numbers and passes the eye test in terms of how defenses are responding to him. Obviously the former isn't true for any other player and the latter isn't either for most people.

So I don't see why 1st team All-NBA but not clear GOAT is an unreasonable cutoff.

[bondom34]

Understood, my question/problem is that there seems to be a random cutoff, where it can be said "Green is more impactful than player X, look what PM numbers say" but at the same time "he's not more so than Curry, despite what PM numbers say".

What is confusing about that? Curry looks like the clear GOAT by box score numbers and passes the eye test in terms of how defenses are responding to him. Obviously the former isn't true for any other player and the latter isn't either for most people.

So I don't see why 1st team All-NBA but not clear GOAT is an unreasonable cutoff.

Because there's a clear cutoff that lies to a lesser extent for other players who Green is put above. If the idea is Green's PM numbers are showing something that say he's better than others even if box score numbers don't, that premise should carry through to Curry (I'd note here I'm NOT saying he's better than Curry, but this line of thought was around last year when he was passed off as above other players).

[Dr Spaceman]

Understood, my question/problem is that there seems to be a random cutoff, where it can be said "Green is more impactful than player X, look what PM numbers say" but at the same time "he's not more so than Curry, despite what PM numbers say".

What is confusing about that? Curry looks like the clear GOAT by box score numbers and passes the eye test in terms of how defenses are responding to him. Obviously the former isn't true for any other player and the latter isn't either for most people.

So I don't see why 1st team All-NBA but not clear GOAT is an unreasonable cutoff.

Because there's a clear cutoff that lies to a lesser extent for other players who Green is put above. If the idea is Green's PM numbers are showing something that say he's better than others even if box score numbers don't, that premise should carry through to Curry (I'd note here I'm NOT saying he's better than Curry, but this line of thought was around last year when he was passed off as above other players).

Curry has a 31.4 PER. The 9th best player has a 25.1 PER. It's pretty obvious why you could hold that position and not be inconsistent.

[LA Bird]

it's about time Green gets recognized as a highly impactful player in his own right and not just a sidekick role player leeching off Curry's success.

I think it's pretty clear that when people talk about Dray benefiting from Curry, they're talking about the offensive end. His rebounding and defense are of his own doing, and it's also pretty clear that the success they had last year and this season was enabled in more than one way by his play. More over, it's not any player who can fill the offensive role he does as well as he does, even as a complementary offensive player. He's showing us quick reaction to the reversal pass, he's making timely, crisp passes to teammates in a way they can use the pass to score rapidly after receiving the ball, he's a vicious threat in transition, he screens well and he's hugely effective spotting up. IOW, he's doing a fair bit on either side of the ball, and not all of it is just standing there like an arse waiting to grab a pass from Curry to fling to someone else after the D has rotated.

Although I do agree with what you wrote, I do not see how it pertains to my post.
I wrote about Green's defense being overlooked and you replied about his offense instead.

Anyone can see that stuff with perfunctory statistical analysis or by watching him play for 5 or 10 minutes, you know?

Is this kind of personal attack necessary? Who on this board hasn't watched Draymond play for 5 minutes?

[tsherkin]

Although I do agree with what you wrote, I do not see how it pertains to my post.
I wrote about Green's defense being overlooked and you replied about his offense instead.

I was responding to the comment itself, which was vague and not explicitly about his offense. The preceding components of that post you'd made were about defensive value anyway, which further threw your intent into doubt for me, which is why I responded with a more general comment.

Is this kind of personal attack necessary? Who on this board hasn't watched Draymond play for 5 minutes?

Eh? That's not a personal attack, I wasn't talking about you at all. Don't get your fur up for no reason. I was saying that the point you were making about Green should be evident to people who pay heed to Green's game.

[Texas Chuck]

What is confusing about that? Curry looks like the clear GOAT by box score numbers and passes the eye test in terms of how defenses are responding to him. Obviously the former isn't true for any other player and the latter isn't either for most people.

So I don't see why 1st team All-NBA but not clear GOAT is an unreasonable cutoff.

Because there's a clear cutoff that lies to a lesser extent for other players who Green is put above. If the idea is Green's PM numbers are showing something that say he's better than others even if box score numbers don't, that premise should carry through to Curry (I'd note here I'm NOT saying he's better than Curry, but this line of thought was around last year when he was passed off as above other players).

Curry has a 31.4 PER. The 9th best player has a 25.1 PER. It's pretty obvious why you could hold that position and not be inconsistent.

I think part of bondom's issue is once we accept that despite Green's +/- numbers outshining Curry's we are able to use other factors to state Curry is the superior player. But in some other cases some posters are using Green's +/- numbers to justify rating him higher than some other players who might seem more impressive via other tools(box score production, eye test, etc..).

It's like the Korver stuff last year where he was getting top 5 hype from some--including you if I recall and it was based really heavily on +/-.

My concern is that there simply aren't enough minutes with either Green or Curry without the other to use +/- as the primary argument for Green over other players not named Steph Curry without further analysis. I'm assuming most everyone uses further analysis, but to bondom's point--often times all that gets posted is how well he rates in these areas.