Raw plus/minus for 93-94, 94-95, 95-96 seasons

[colts18]

Here is the data for the 83 Sixers:

Code: Select all

         On   Off   Net
Malone   11.5   -4.1   15.6
Cheeks   12.8   -1.4   14.1
Erving   11.4   1.1   10.3
Toney   10.8   1.7   9.1
B. Jones   13.6   2.6   11.0
Iavaroni   8.1   7.0   1.1
C. Johnson   2.9   8.4   -5.4
Richardson   0.8   12.7   -11.9



Offense (O Rating)

Code: Select all

   On   Off   Net
Malone   110.5   102.3   8.2
Cheeks   109.4   106.5   2.9
Erving   111.1   103.9   7.2
Toney   111.2   103.6   7.6
B. Jones   113.8   104.0   9.7
Iavaroni   105.2   110.4   -5.2
C. Johnson   100.8   109.9   -9.1
Richardson   104.2   111.6   -7.4


Defense:

Code: Select all

   On    Off   Net
Malone   98.9   106.4   -7.4
Cheeks   96.7   107.9   -11.2
Erving   99.7   102.8   -3.1
Toney   100.3   101.8   -1.5
B. Jones   100.2   101.5   -1.3
Iavaroni   97.2   103.5   -6.3
C. Johnson   97.9   101.5   -3.6
Richardson   103.4   98.9   4.5


Cheeks looked good on defense. I will be interested to see if that holds up during other years.

[Dipper 13]

Cheeks looked good on defense.

One of the best ever at applying full court pressure on the opposing point guard.

[colts18]

Here is more plus/minus for the Sixers. This is for the 80-82 seasons where they lost in the finals, lost in the ECF, then lost in the finals.


Net Plus/Minus:

80

Code: Select all

   On   Off   Net
B. Jones   8.0   -0.5   8.4
Cheeks   5.4   1.5   3.8
Erving   4.9   2.0   3.0
Mix   5.8   3.0   2.8
Bibby   3.6   4.6   -1.0
C. Jones   2.5   7.6   -5.1
Dawkins   2.5   6.8   -4.3
Hollins   5.5   3.7   1.8
Collins   2.7   4.5   -1.8


81

Code: Select all

   On   Off   Net
B. Jones   12.8   2.0   10.8
Cheeks   9.0   5.2   3.8
Hollins   9.3   5.4   3.9
Dawkins   8.1   6.9   1.3
Erving   5.7   12.4   -6.7
Mix   9.6   6.5   3.1
C. Jones   4.6   13.3   -8.7
Toney   6.8   8.1   -1.3
Richardson   4.1   9.2   -5.1


82

Code: Select all

   On   Off   Net
Erving   8.6   -1.4   10.0
Cheeks   7.9   1.8   6.1
Hollins   8.2   2.2   6.0
B. Jones   7.5   3.3   4.2
C. Jones   5.9   5.2   0.8
Dawkins   8.4   4.6   3.8
Toney   4.7   6.5   -1.8
Bantom   5.8   5.6   0.2
Richardson   -0.6   7.9   -8.5

Here is offense using O Rating (Positive Net number is good):

80

Code: Select all

   On   Off   Net
B. Jones   107.5   102.2   5.3
Cheeks   104.0   107.0   -3.0
Erving   105.3   104.4   0.9
Mix   109.5   102.1   7.4
Bibby   106.6   103.3   3.3
C. Jones   101.8   112.3   -10.5
Dawkins   103.2   108.2   -5.0
Hollins   102.7   105.6   -2.8
Collins   103.9   105.4   -1.4


81

Code: Select all

   On   Off   Net
B. Jones   108.9   105.1   3.8
Cheeks   107.4   106.4   1.0
Hollins   108.1   105.7   2.4
Dawkins   105.2   109.1   -4.0
Erving   106.9   107.4   -0.5
Mix   108.4   106.3   2.1
C. Jones   103.7   113.5   -9.8
Toney   107.6   106.6   1.0
Richardson   105.5   107.8   -2.3


82

Code: Select all

   On   Off   Net
Erving   112.3   103.1   9.2
Cheeks   110.2   108.5   1.6
Hollins   111.4   107.1   4.3
B. Jones   110.1   109.0   1.1
C. Jones   109.2   110.2   -1.0
Dawkins   107.4   110.4   -3.0
Toney   107.8   111.2   -3.5
Bantom   106.4   110.6   -4.2
Richardson   107.7   110.2   -2.5


Here is defense using D rating (Negative Net number is good):

80

Code: Select all

   On    Off   D rating Net
B. Jones   99.5   102.6   -3.1
Cheeks   98.6   105.5   -6.8
Erving   100.4   102.4   -2.0
Mix   103.7   99.2   4.6
Bibby   103.1   98.7   4.3
C. Jones   99.3   104.7   -5.4
Dawkins   100.7   101.4   -0.7
Hollins   97.2   101.9   -4.6
Collins   101.3   100.9   0.4


81

Code: Select all

   On    Off   D rating Net
B. Jones   96.1   103.1   -7.0
Cheeks   98.4   101.3   -2.9
Hollins   98.8   100.3   -1.5
Dawkins   97.0   102.3   -5.2
Erving   101.2   95.0   6.2
Mix   98.9   99.8   -1.0
C. Jones   99.1   100.3   -1.1
Toney   100.7   98.5   2.2
Richardson   101.4   98.6   2.8


82

Code: Select all

   On    Off   D rating Net
Erving   103.7   104.5   -0.8
Cheeks   102.2   106.8   -4.5
Hollins   103.2   104.9   -1.7
B. Jones   102.5   105.6   -3.1
C. Jones   103.2   105.0   -1.8
Dawkins   99.1   105.8   -6.8
Toney   103.1   104.7   -1.6
Bantom   100.6   105.0   -4.4
Richardson   108.4   102.3   6.0


Notes:
-That 1981 -6.7 Net Plus/Minus number for Dr. J is brutal. That also happened to be the only year he won an MVP in the NBA
-His negative rating came solely based on defense
-Dr. J put up average O rating numbers in 80 and 81 before having a really good 1982
-Bobby Jones and Cheeks put up some good defensive numbers

[lorak]

Thank you fpliii! Here's my take on several players based on the data you provided:

• Dr J

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1976-77   2940   4,1   -1,9   6,0
1977-78   2429   1,1   0,5   0,6
1978-79   2802   0,6   0,7   -0,1
1979-80   2812   0,9   -2,0   3,0
1980-81   2874   -0,5   6,2   -6,7
1981-82   2789   9,2   -0,8   10,0
1982-83   2421   7,2   -3,1   10,3
1983-84   2683   7,0   2,6   4,4
1984-85   2535   -1,3   1,9   -3,2
1985-86   2474   4,9   0,3   4,6
1986-87   1918   0,4   4,2   -3,8


I don’t like what I see here ;] Late 70s numbers might be explained by bad team fit or knees, but ’80 and – especially - ’81 (WTF happened here?) seasons also don’t look good. Around +10 net in his two best years is very good result, but is that enough to be considered top 15 player of all time?

Erving also doesn’t look that impressive on defense as I thought. Definitely wasn’t liability on that end of the floor, but also nothing special here (whathis STL and BLK numbers might suggest), he looks more like around average defender.

Overall I’m very disappointed with Doc’s numbers and I would have to reconsider my opinion about him and rank him lower.

• Barkley

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1984-85   2347   0,7   -1,2   1,9
1985-86   2952   8,2   -2,3   10,6
1986-87   2740   3,2   -4,7   7,9
1987-88   3170   4,2   1,4   2,7
1988-89   3088   10,6   -0,4   11,0
1989-90   3085   8,9   0,6   8,3
1990-91   2498   11,9   3,1   8,8
1991-92   2881   14,3   8,3   6,0
            
1993-94   2298   ?   ?   6,8
1994-95   2382   ?   ?   6,8
1995-96   2632   ?   ?   7,8
1996-97   2065   ?   ?   6,4
1997-98   2245   ?   ?   6,8
1998-99   1522   ?   ?   5,9
1999-00   620   ?   ?   0,5



(note: for the sake of consistency from ’97 to ’14 on/off net is calculated the same way as for seasons prior to ’97, so using team pace from basketball-reference, team and player minutes, team and opponents points and player raw +/-)

That’s basically whole Barkley’s career except of ’93 – what probably was his the best season, but I think not that much better than his peak in Phily.

What we see here is that at the beginning of his career Barkley had positive influence on defense. He regressed later, when was demotivated with bad team situation and gained weight. Injuries also are important factor here, especially in mid/early 90s.

Offensively it’s exactly what was expected: Sir Charles was amazing on that end of the floor, but most of his career he wasn’t that great overall player, because of his defense. I think talent was definitely there to consistently play at least ok defense, but his attitude was his biggest enemy. He and Shaq are IMO two the most wasted talents in last 30 years. With better work ethic O’Neal would have been arguably GOAT and Barkley easily top10 player ever.

• Bobby Jones

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1978-79   2304   0,7   -2,7   3,4
1979-80   2125   5,3   -3,1   8,4
1980-81   2046   3,8   -7,0   10,8
1981-82   2181   1,1   -3,1   4,2
1982-83   1749   9,7   -1,3   11,0
1983-84   1761   5,5   -2,1   7,6
1984-85   1633   8,4   -2,0   10,4
1985-86   1519   1,1   -2,7   3,8


I considered Jones as a little bit overrated player, but these numbers will definitely change may opinion about him. He basically looks like Manu, but with better balance between offense and defense. Really nothing bad I can tell here about Jones. Rosters and team strategy changed but his impact was still there on BOTH ends of the floor until very last season of his career. VERY impressive.

• Cheeks

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1978-79   2409   -3,1   -2,6   -0,5
1979-80   2623   -3,0   -6,8   3,8
1980-81   2415   1,0   -2,9   3,8
1981-82   2498   1,6   -4,5   6,1
1982-83   2465   2,9   -11,2   14,1
1983-84   2494   5,6   0,1   5,5
1984-85   2616   10,4   -3,6   14,1
1985-86   3270   13,8   -6,5   20,3
1986-87   2624   0,9   -1,7   2,6
1987-88   2871   0,5   2,0   -1,4
1988-89   2298   5,0   7,1   -2,1


You were thinking that Blaylock’s numbers were impressive? Then look at Cheeks’! Great defensive point guard who also was good (and sometimes VERY good) on offense. And his ’86 on/off net is one of the best results among all players with +/- data available. That’s basically peak KG or LeBron territory and seems like it wasn’a a fluke, because in ’85 or ’83 Cheeks’ net was also great.

• Caldwell Jones

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1976-77   2023   -7,9   -9,4   1,5
1977-78   1636   -2,6   -0,3   -2,3
1978-79   2171   -2,5   -5,8   3,3
1979-80   2771   -10,5   -5,4   -5,1
1980-81   2639   -9,8   -1,1   -8,7
1981-82   2446   -1,0   -1,8   0,8


Probably one of the worst offensive players ever and sometimes even his good/very good defense wasn’t enough to make him player with overall positive impact.

• Moses

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1982-83   2922   8,2   -7,4   15,6
1983-84   2613   10,4   7,1   3,3
1984-85   2957   18,8   -2,8   21,7
1985-86   2706   8,9   1,8   7,2
1993-94   618   -7,1   -2,1   -5,0


Very inconsistent results year by year, so I’m not sure what to think about them. But no doubt Moses was great on offense and his +18.8 ortg and net +21.7 in ’85 is GOAT level stuff. But defensively there’s a lot of noise. In one year he looks like all defensive level center, while very next one like the worst defender in the NBA. Any thoughts?

[ceiling raiser]

Thank you fpliii! Here's my take on several players based on the data you provided:

Thanks for the analysis to you and everybody.

In our PM conversation you noted:

Just imagine how many of Shane Battiers or Rasheed Wallaces from the 60s we are missing, because of lack of footage and more detailed statistics.

and I agreed with you. My two questions:

1) Do you think Cheeks could be such a player?

2) Do you think there are any such interesting players in the 93-94, 94-95, 95-96 datasets?

[colts18]

Can anyone confirm if Moses +18.8 Net O rating in 1985 is the best we have recorded? The best I've seen so far is Steve Nash in 2005 with a +17.3 Net O rating. Moses offensive numbers confirm what we know of him. It also shows that the Houston offensive dropoff without him was no fluke.

[lorak]

Thank you fpliii! Here's my take on several players based on the data you provided:

Thanks for the analysis to you and everybody.

In our PM conversation you noted:

Just imagine how many of Shane Battiers or Rasheed Wallaces from the 60s we are missing, because of lack of footage and more detailed statistics.

and I agreed with you. My two questions:

1) Do you think Cheeks could be such a player?

2) Do you think there are any such interesting players in the 93-94, 94-95, 95-96 datasets?

I need to do more research about Cheeks, but yes, so far everything indicate he was such player.

From '94 to '96 such players are also mostly better on defense, what isn't surprise, because box score recognizes offensive impact quite good and struggles to properly evaluate defense, so players with good/very good defensive impact are usually missed by most fans. Among interesting players from '94-'96 we already discussed Blaylock or McMillan. But there are others:

- Bo Outlaw, who probably was awful offensively, yet his net on/of during these three seasons is +12.1, +10.5 and +8.4. And that's not a fluke as in '97 his net is +14.8, +3.1 in '98 and +11.6 in '00 (in 99 he didn't play much)

- Shawn Bradley isn't as impressive as Outlaw, but also looks quite good

- Rik Smits might be argued as the best Pacers player

- even old Sabonis looks VERY good

- Manute Bol has some crazy results on defense (several GOAT like -17 or -14 drtg!)

- Mitch Richmond, who I see as at least equal to Pierce and now I have some data backing it up: +10.3 in '95, +10.2 in 06, +10.1 in '97 and +9.7 in '98

and honorable mention:

- Penny ;] yes, I know, he is well known as great player, but I think most people don't realize how really great he was before injuries destroyed him. As a rookie he had +5.2 net and then +12.1 in '95, + 17.1 in '96 and +12 in '97. What a sad story we lost such great player just when he entered his prime. And he was not only MVP level impact guy, but also beautiful to watch.

Can anyone confirm if Moses +18.8 Net O rating in 1985 is the best we have recorded? The best I've seen so far is Steve Nash in 2005 with a +17.3 Net O rating. Moses offensive numbers confirm what we know of him. It also shows that the Houston offensive dropoff without him was no fluke.

Using the same method to calculate net ortg there are several players since '01 with better result than Moses:

Code: Select all

ORTG   MIN   SEASON   PLAYER
24,2   3277   2005-06   Kobe Bryant
24,1   2793   2009-10   Dwyane Wade
22,3   2949   2002-03   Tracy McGrady
21,4   3295   2004-05   Stephon Marbury
20,9   3048   2008-09   Dwyane Wade
20,0   2942   2006-07   Gilbert Arenas
20,0   3239   2009-10   Kevin Durant
19,8   3006   2007-08   Chris Paul
19,6   3385   2005-06   Gilbert Arenas
19,4   3002   2008-09   Chris Paul
19,0   2846   2013-14   Stephen Curry
19,0   2975   2005-06   Jason Kidd

[colts18]

Using the same method to calculate net ortg there are several players since '01 with better result than Moses:

Code: Select all

ORTG   MIN   SEASON   PLAYER
24,2   3277   2005-06   Kobe Bryant
24,1   2793   2009-10   Dwyane Wade
22,3   2949   2002-03   Tracy McGrady
21,4   3295   2004-05   Stephon Marbury
20,9   3048   2008-09   Dwyane Wade
20,0   2942   2006-07   Gilbert Arenas
20,0   3239   2009-10   Kevin Durant
19,8   3006   2007-08   Chris Paul
19,6   3385   2005-06   Gilbert Arenas
19,4   3002   2008-09   Chris Paul
19,0   2846   2013-14   Stephen Curry
19,0   2975   2005-06   Jason Kidd

I forgot about Kobe's 06 season. He had a +18.9 Net O rating so he slightly edges out Moses. I checked all the other players real Net O rating and none of them surpassed Moses. Moses having the record would depend on what pace the Sixers played with him on the court. If they played slower with him, then he has it. If faster, then his real Net o rating is lower. I would imagine that they played slower with him because O rebounds count as 1 possession so the time of possession would be higher with him on the court.

[ceiling raiser]

What other elite offensive rebounders do we have on record for whom to check Net ORtg?

[colts18]

I compiled all of the 76ers plus/minus (Net, Offense, defense) into 1 spreadsheet.

Here it is (20 seasons of data)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... ej-jREuUo/

There is also a tab at the end of the spreadsheet that has career totals during the 1977-1996 span. For example, here is the data for the top 3 Sixers minutes players during that span:

Code: Select all

Player   Min   On    Off   Total Net    Offense on   Off off   Off Net   Def on   Def off   Def Net
Erving   28677   4.8   2.3   2.5   107.4   104.8   2.6   102.7   102.5   0.2
Cheeks   28583   5.0   -0.2   5.2   109.0   106.1   2.9   104.0   106.4   -2.4
Barkley   22761   3.2   -3.6   6.8   112.1   104.6   7.6   109.0   108.2   0.8


[aIvin adams]

today i learned that Tom Thibadeau was using his own player efficiency formula to rank each player by position as far back as 2006

(http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack ... _Stats.pdf at page 67)

thanks, PC board. yer the best

[Doctor MJ]

Some great work here folks.

And I'd agree that this certainly says great things about Jones and Cheeks, while not making Erving look so good. I still think it's easy to go too far with data like this pretty easily, but yeah, I don't think Erving had the night & day impact we'd ideally like to see players have in the NBA. I believe he did in the ABA, and that there isn't any reason why he wouldn't have in the NBA with a better fit, but in the early years the 76ers were a fit-mess, and later on, well Erving was still a great player, but he wasn't one of these guys who seems to have prime "hang time" because his BBIQ and team stability compensates completely for his loss of athleticism.

[Doctor MJ]

You were thinking that Blaylock’s numbers were impressive? Then look at Cheeks’! Great defensive point guard who also was good (and sometimes VERY good) on offense. And his ’86 on/off net is one of the best results among all players with +/- data available. That’s basically peak KG or LeBron territory and seems like it wasn’a a fluke, because in ’85 or ’83 Cheeks’ net was also great.

Also interesting about Cheeks in '86:

He led the entire league in minutes that year.

So, this isn't a low minute guy, this was a huge minute guy with obscene on/off. I don't think I've ever seen that happen without all the regression data agreeing with the raw data.

[colts18]

He led the entire league in minutes that year.

So, this isn't a low minute guy, this was a huge minute guy with obscene on/off. I don't think I've ever seen that happen without all the regression data agreeing with the raw data.

You got it wrong. It makes perfect sense that he led the league in Minutes played while having a crazy good on/off. Look at all the on/off leaders, they all played high minutes. The highest on/off we have seen came from KG's 03 season. It was propelled by a -17 off rating. KG played a ton of minutes that season. Lets say he played half of the minutes, I guarantee you his on/off would be much lower. His on rating would stay similar, but his off rating will increase because of larger sample. No chance the 03 TWolves finish with a -17 off rating if KG only plays 2000 minutes that season. The lower the off minutes, the higher the on/off rating will be.

[Doctor MJ]

He led the entire league in minutes that year.

So, this isn't a low minute guy, this was a huge minute guy with obscene on/off. I don't think I've ever seen that happen without all the regression data agreeing with the raw data.

You got it wrong. It makes perfect sense that he led the league in Minutes played while having a crazy good on/off. Look at all the on/off leaders, they all played high minutes. The highest on/off we have seen came from KG's 03 season. It was propelled by a -17 off rating. KG played a ton of minutes that season. Lets say he played half of the minutes, I guarantee you his on/off would be much lower. His on rating would stay similar, but his off rating will increase because of larger sample. No chance the 03 TWolves finish with a -17 off rating if KG only plays 2000 minutes that season. The lower the off minutes, the higher the on/off rating will be.

So, you're trying to use the similarity with Kevin Garnett to show me how UNimpressive Cheeks really was?

I catch your drift though: You're saying playing so many minutes makes the OFF numbers all the more susceptible to noise, and you're quite right. Still if I'm being asked which on the face of it is more meaningful: Big +/- in big minutes or in small minutes, I'll certainly say big minutes. Do you disagree?

[ronnymac2]

I need to do more research about Cheeks, but yes, so far everything indicate he was such player.

- Bo Outlaw, who probably was awful offensively, yet his net on/of during these three seasons is +12.1, +10.5 and +8.4. And that's not a fluke as in '97 his net is +14.8, +3.1 in '98 and +11.6 in '00 (in 99 he didn't play much)

and honorable mention:

- Penny ;] yes, I know, he is well known as great player, but I think most people don't realize how really great he was before injuries destroyed him. As a rookie he had +5.2 net and then +12.1 in '95, + 17.1 in '96 and +12 in '97. What a sad story we lost such great player just when he entered his prime. And he was not only MVP level impact guy, but also beautiful to watch.

— Cheeks is an underrated player of the late 70s/80s, almost as much as peak Mo Lucas. Cheeks was a ball-hawk who could keep up with the point guards of the era and deny penetration better than most. Very efficient player — shot 57% one year! Made good decisions feeding all the great offensive players Philly had in the 1980s. When people gawk over Rajon Rondo today, I just imagine what would happen if Cheeks played now and was given the primacy and ball-control Rondo has gotten since 2009. I think Rondo is overrated, but I'm honestly not sure if he's half the player Cheeks was.

— Bo Outlaw's boxscore stats look great, too. Most years, he used the possessions he got efficiently (good amount of years with an ORTG over 110). Scored efficiently — career 57.2%TS. Defensively, check this out http://bkref.com/tiny/UvUnP.

— Penny is one of my YouTube favorites. Might have the best peak of any player left in the top-100. How much do you guys think the shortened 3-point line affected Penny's production/impact? His best 3 seasons came with the line shortened.

[ronnymac2]

One other I think is going to be Battier-like is Derrick McKey. Efficient player who was a threat out to the arc and one of the most versatile defenders of the era. Solid blocks/steals numbers, too.

Looking at the mid-90s roster of Indy, I'm not sure I see a top-10 defense. It's hard to distinguish McKey's impact from Larry Brown's influence on the team since they both entered in 1994, but McKey looks like the best defender on the team, though I'll give Dale Davis a shout out for his post defense and toughness. Smits was a poor help defender. Miller and Antonio Davis were solid. They were top-10 in defense in 1994 and 1995, which were also the 2 years where McKey played his biggest minutes with Indy.

[RSCD3_]

Some great work here folks.

And I'd agree that this certainly says great things about Jones and Cheeks, while not making Erving look so good. I still think it's easy to go too far with data like this pretty easily, but yeah, I don't think Erving had the night & day impact we'd ideally like to see players have in the NBA. I believe he did in the ABA, and that there isn't any reason why he wouldn't have in the NBA with a better fit, but in the early years the 76ers were a fit-mess, and later on, well Erving was still a great player, but he wasn't one of these guys who seems to have prime "hang time" because his BBIQ and team stability compensates completely for his loss of athleticism.

Doctor MJ, how do you think Mo cheeks would compare to point guards nowadays in impact. Ronnymac said that he had a game like rondo with more scoring prowess BUT the teams he was on were great offensively compared to what boston did.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

Some great work here folks.

And I'd agree that this certainly says great things about Jones and Cheeks, while not making Erving look so good. I still think it's easy to go too far with data like this pretty easily, but yeah, I don't think Erving had the night & day impact we'd ideally like to see players have in the NBA. I believe he did in the ABA, and that there isn't any reason why he wouldn't have in the NBA with a better fit, but in the early years the 76ers were a fit-mess, and later on, well Erving was still a great player, but he wasn't one of these guys who seems to have prime "hang time" because his BBIQ and team stability compensates completely for his loss of athleticism.

Doctor MJ, how do you think Mo cheeks would compare to point guards nowadays in impact. Ronnymac said that he had a game like rondo with more scoring prowess BUT the teams he was on were great offensively compared to what boston did.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Rondo's exactly the guy who comes to mind for me as well. This is what I wrote in a Rondo vs Cheeks thread last year:

I'm bummed this hasn't gotten more responses, I think it's a great comparison. Cheeks is the guy Rondo reminds me of, being a super quick, all over the place, master thief guy. He didn't have the freakish aerials & rebounds going though. In a lot of ways, Rondo feels like a supe'd up Cheeks - except for that damned shooting.

So here's the thing though:

I do think Cheeks was more effective than we've ever seen Rondo be.

Part of it is that despite Rondo's great vision, his actual assists in Boston were typically very weak assists. Not saying it's his fault, but Boston had a tendency to shoot mid-to-long twos...which are the types of shots teams know to let the offense have. So we're in this weird situation where Rondo's talent is greater than his proven value...but neither one may be as good as what his assist totals make people think he is.

Cheeks was not given the same primacy. He worked within the talent that existed there having to be both efficient and aggressive. I knew he did it well, but the +/- numbers here open my eyes a bit further.

I cannot claim that I think Rondo could have done it as well. Not the all-around game. The shooting is just too much of an issue.

What about in the other direction? Could Cheeks have thrived with more playmaking primacy? I don't know, but given the issues I've identified with Rondo's Boston playmaker, well, he could at least do that. Rondo may have a ceiling north of Cheeks, but through only what we've seen thus far, the only thing that keeps me from saying "Cheeks by far" is the rebounding.

[ceiling raiser]

snipped

OT, but now that we have three more years of the Illegal Defense Era, I think I'm more interested in ever in looking at something we discussed in the project threads a couple months back (about the paradigm of the defensive anchor shifting from a Mutombo type -> KG type). The on/off numbers obviously aren't as clean as dRAPM, but maybe they're enough to perform cursory analysis of guys we suspect as elite.