Which Player Has the Most Negative Impact on the Raps?

[dagon420]

You probably all know this but here are some interesting on/off stats from 82games.com.

Raps Points per 100 Possessions

Bosh = ON court +0.2, OFF court -5.8, NET +6.0
AB = ON -4.1, OFF +3.2, NET -7.4
Johnson = ON +2.6, OFF -4.5, NET +7.1
Jack = ON -2.1, OFF -1.7, NET -0.5
Turk = ON -3.8, OFF +0.4, NET -4.2
Calderon = ON -2.3, OFF -1.7, NET -0.5
Weems = ON +0.6, OFF -3.3, NET +3.8
Wright = ON +1.1, OFF -3.6, NET +4.7
Derozan = ON -6.2, OFF +1.2, NET -7.3
Belinelli = ON +2.3, OFF -3.6, NET +5.9

I find these stats very telling.

Basically, here are the rotation players in order of their negative impact on the teams play.

1. Bargnani
2. Derozan
3. Turk
4. Jack/Calderon

Consequently, any attempt to get better should start with moving at least the first 3 players on that list!

Moving Bosh and relying on AB, Derozan and Turk will put us in the lottery for the next 3-4 years!

[TM Williamson]

Raw +/- stats are a little misleading.

You'll notice that aside from Bosh, all of our starters (including Demar, who started 65 games) have "negative impacts", while all of our bench players have "positive impacts". (This is ignoring Calderon/Jack, as they basically split the starting job down the middle)

To me, this simply indicates that our starting unit was being beaten by the other team's starting unit, while our bench was beating the other teams bench (obviously this isn't perfect, but more often than not starting units tend to face starting units and reserves tend to face reserves) If you move Andrea to the bench next season, he would likely become a "positive impact" player. If you move Belinelli into the starting 5, he almost certainly becomes a "negative impact" player.

+/- stats can be useful, but in this case they say more about the strength of our units than they do about individual performances.

[Buddahfan]

Raw +/- stats are a little misleading.

You'll notice that aside from Bosh, all of our starters (including Demar, who started 65 games) have "negative impacts", while all of our bench players have "positive impacts". (This is ignoring Calderon/Jack, as they basically split the starting job down the middle)

To me, this simply indicates that our starting unit was being beaten by the other team's starting unit, while our bench was beating the other teams bench (obviously this isn't perfect, but more often than not starting units tend to face starting units and reserves tend to face reserves) If you move Andrea to the bench next season, he would likely become a "positive impact" player. If you move Belinelli into the starting 5, he almost certainly becomes a "negative impact" player.

+/- stats can be useful, but in this case they say more about the strength of our units than they do about individual performances.

I would tend to agree with you on this as it seems reasonable. However, Big Dawg was a + 8.2 ppg in the five games that he started last year which was better than when he came off of the bench.

In addition all of the key rotation players play some if not a good deal of their minutes on and against 5 man mixed units of starters and subs.

[Hotshot]

So belli has a NET +5.9 does that mean he deserves to be a starter?!

those stats do not tell the whole story.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

not sure if they consider blow-outs, close games, sub .500 teams, injuries on these stats. if they do, great, if not, then its useless.

[hateslosing]

"I would tend to agree with you on this as it seems reasonable. However, Big Dawg was a + 8.2 ppg in the five games that he started last year which was better than when he came off of the bench."

Buddhafan do you have the stats for the whole team for those games? I am curious.

[Tim W.]

So belli has a NET +5.9 does that mean he deserves to be a starter?!

those stats do not tell the whole story.

Belinelli is a much better player than most around here give him credit for. I would have liked to see him in the starting lineup more this past season.

[malefax]

That's why adjusted +/- is more useful: it takes into account who played against tough opposing units, and who else was on the floor at the same time. From basketballvalue.com, here's the 4 worst Raptors in 1-year adjusted +/-:

Demar DeRozan -4.72
Andrea Bargnani -4.39
Jarrett Jack -4.00
Jose Calderon -2.52

The big difference is that Turk by this measure was our 5th best player, alhough still slightly in the negatives. Adjusted =/- also puts Bellinelli as a negative impact btw. The 4 positive impact players were Bosh, Amir, Wright, and Sonny, in that order, with Bosh at +6.97 and Amir at +3.16

[Buddahfan]

So belli has a NET +5.9 does that mean he deserves to be a starter?!

those stats do not tell the whole story.

No he doesn't and you are correct the stats can be misleading in limited minutes and depending on who one plays against and which five man unit he plays on.

However, when taken over a bigger sample of minutes of a longer time frame then the results along with other stats such as offense and defense rating show whether a player has success, failure or is neutral when on the court with those he plays with and against.

One really needs to look at five man units with meaningful minutes to make some kind of meaningful judgment visa via a player's effectiveness.

Short term and within limited measuring sticks there can be anomalies and misleading stats but when taken over a longer period of time and with a larger total of minutes if a players shows that the units he is on consistently tend to perform one way or the other than it does say something about a players effectiveness or lack thereof.

[Buddahfan]

"I would tend to agree with you on this as it seems reasonable. However, Big Dawg was a + 8.2 ppg in the five games that he started last year which was better than when he came off of the bench."

Buddhafan do you have the stats for the whole team for those games? I am curious.

No but it wouldn't be too hard to compute because the sample is relatively small

If you go to basketballvalue.com here are the leading +/- NBA players two years combined data

CB4 was 12th best in the league and Big Dawg 14th best.

All of the players on the list are either all-stars or regular rotation players.

Player +/-
---------------------------
Wade, Dwyane----20.07
James, LeBron-----16.92
Nash, Steve--------13.52
Allen, Ray----------10.61
Bryant, Kobe------10.26
Paul, Chris-----------8.4
Howard, Dwight---7.71
Hilario, Nene-------7.52
Andersen, Chris----7.43
Odom, Lamar------7.08
Bogut, Andrew----7.02
Bosh, Chris--------6.97
Kidd, Jason--------6.72
Johnson, Amir----6.33

http://basketballvalue.com/topplayer...sortorder=DESC

It is highly unlikely that this data is meaningless given who is on the list.

I removed Harden who was on the list because he played only one year.

[TM Williamson]

No but it wouldn't be too hard to compute because the sample is relatively small

If you go to basketballvalue.com here are the leading +/- NBA players two years combined data

CB4 was 12th best in the league and Big Dawg 14th best.

All of the players on the list are either all-stars or regular rotation players.

Player +/-
---------------------------
Wade, Dwyane----20.07
James, LeBron-----16.92
Nash, Steve--------13.52
Allen, Ray----------10.61
Bryant, Kobe------10.26
Paul, Chris-----------8.4
Howard, Dwight---7.71
Hilario, Nene-------7.52
Andersen, Chris----7.43
Odom, Lamar------7.08
Bogut, Andrew----7.02
Bosh, Chris--------6.97
Kidd, Jason--------6.72
Johnson, Amir----6.33

http://basketballvalue.com/topplayer...sortorder=DESC

It is highly unlikely that this data is meaningless given who is on the list.

I removed Harden who was on the list because he played only one year.

Two spots below Amir on that list is Dorrel Wright.

Thirty-three spots below Amir on that list is Kevin Durant.

Kevin Durant is (arguably) a top 5 player in the NBA. Dorrel Wright is (arguably) not even a top 5 player on his own team.

The data is not meaningless, but it is also not useful if presented and viewed out of context.

[Buddahfan]

Two spots below Amir on that list is Dorrel Wright.

Thirty-three spots below Amir on that list is Kevin Durant.

Kevin Durant is (arguably) a top 5 player in the NBA. Dorrel Wright is (arguably) not even a top 5 player on his own team.

The data is not meaningless, but it is also not useful if presented and viewed out of context.

Wright only played in 6 games in 2008-09 so there is really only one year's worth of data for him. As I noted I removed Harden because he had only one year. Two years data is a lot more meaningful than one year. Three years data even more so and so on.

Maybe KD is primarily a scorer. The data is what it is. Sometimes people see only one side of the picture. The NBA and ESPN have a tendency to hype scorers and neglect defenders and energy players both of whom contribute an awful lot to a team's success.

So I would suggest Westbrook who is 22nd on the list including one year players is more important to the Thunder's overall success than KD especially because of his vastly superior defensive abilities and because he handles the ball more than KD.

I am very comfortable with that.

I stand by the data as being meaningful and reflective of a players value to a team's success.

Westbrook caused a lot more problems for the Lakers than KD did that is 4sure beyond a doubt, the straight reality of what went down in that series.

[dagon420]

Raw +/- stats are a little misleading.

You'll notice that aside from Bosh, all of our starters (including Demar, who started 65 games) have "negative impacts", while all of our bench players have "positive impacts". (This is ignoring Calderon/Jack, as they basically split the starting job down the middle)

To me, this simply indicates that our starting unit was being beaten by the other team's starting unit, while our bench was beating the other teams bench (obviously this isn't perfect, but more often than not starting units tend to face starting units and reserves tend to face reserves) If you move Andrea to the bench next season, he would likely become a "positive impact" player. If you move Belinelli into the starting 5, he almost certainly becomes a "negative impact" player.

+/- stats can be useful, but in this case they say more about the strength of our units than they do about individual performances.

According to this, Bosh and AB should have similar +/- since they are both starters.

Also, why are Jack/Calderon's +/- so much different than Turks or Derozan's. Since all of these players were starters as well as backups at different points in the season, it would suggest to me that their impact on the game is fundamentally different.

[malefax]

It seems to me that a lot of people hear 'advanced stats have to be used with caution' and think 'advanced stats don't mean anything'. The one ain't the other.

The big caution with even the adjusted +/- is that the standard error is really huge. It means you have to treat these numbers as general benchmarks rather than precise measures. So we can say that AB and DD and JJ all seemed to have a pretty negative impact on Raptor success, but we can't really say who was worse, exactly, and it's possible that for one or two of them the numbers are basically a fluke.

Just as an aside, Ab's adjusted +/- numbers for the year were pretty decent up until the all-star break, after which they absolutely submarined. I'm curious what the reason for that was, and I suspect that there was a reason, whether it was that he was hampered by his ankle or that he was really unable to handle Chris's absence and the extra attention he received.

[Buddahfan]

According to this, Bosh and AB should have similar +/- since they are both starters.

Also, why are Jack/Calderon's +/- so much different than Turks or Derozan's. Since all of these players were starters as well as backups at different points in the season, it would suggest to me that their impact on the game is fundamentally different.

Seriously, did you watch any Raptors games last season?

Johnson was the first big off the bench most of the season and if when he played his regular minutes he played with Bosh and he played with Bargnani but he never played with both. Geez

[Buddahfan]

It seems to me that a lot of people hear 'advanced stats have to be used with caution' and think 'advanced stats don't mean anything'. The one ain't the other.

The big caution with even the adjusted +/- is that the standard error is really huge. It means you have to treat these numbers as general benchmarks rather than precise measures. So we can say that AB and DD and JJ all seemed to have a pretty negative impact on Raptor success, but we can't really say who was worse, exactly, and it's possible that for one or two of them the numbers are basically a fluke.

Just as an aside, Ab's adjusted +/- numbers for the year were pretty decent up until the all-star break, after which they absolutely submarined. I'm curious what the reason for that was, and I suspect that there was a reason, whether it was that he was hampered by his ankle or that he was really unable to handle Chris's absence and the extra attention he received.

Okay give us the calculation and back that statement up or give us a link

To tell the truth this sounds like an attack without any proof to back it up.

The numbers are what they are.

People can be in cognitive dissonance all the time and that is what it smells like what is coming from those who are bashing the number. Especially when the web sites that publish these numbers are highly credible.

Chow

[TM Williamson]

According to this, Bosh and AB should have similar +/- since they are both starters.

Also, why are Jack/Calderon's +/- so much different than Turks or Derozan's. Since all of these players were starters as well as backups at different points in the season, it would suggest to me that their impact on the game is fundamentally different.

If you'll notice, I said "aside from Bosh", as Bosh is clearly the best player on the team. His +/- is better than the rest of the starters because he's a better player. That's obvious. The point I was making is that to compare a starter to a bench player based SOLELY on +/-, as the originator of this thread did, is ridiculous. Bargs having a lower +/- than Belli does not make him a worse player. That was my point...that +/- stats have to be presented IN CONTEXT to be meaningful.

So I would suggest Westbrook who is 22nd on the list including one year players is more important to the Thunder's overall success than KD especially because of his vastly superior defensive abilities and because he handles the ball more than KD.

I am very comfortable with that.

I stand by the data as being meaningful and reflective of a players value to a team's success.

Westbrook caused a lot more problems for the Lakers than KD did that is 4sure beyond a doubt, the straight reality of what went down in that series.

Westbrook caused more problems for the Lakers because he was being guarded by noted turnstile Derek Fisher. KD was being guarded by Kobe, Lamar, and Artest. The Lakers put their best defenders on him because he was the best player on the opposing team. What a novel concept!

It's a lot easier for a complimentary player (Westbrook) to look good when the other teams defense is entirely geared towards stopping the star player (Durant). Jameer Nelson has dominated more games than Dwight Howard this postseason, but to suggest he's more important would be ridiculous, because Jameer's excellent play is very much a function of Dwight's presence.

You're welcome to stand by the data, but if it leads you to make laughable claims like Westbrook being more important than Durant, you may want to re-think your position.

It seems to me that a lot of people hear 'advanced stats have to be used with caution' and think 'advanced stats don't mean anything'. The one ain't the other.

Thank you very much, sir. Some people seem to be missing that point.

[dagon420]

Ok so you still didn't reply to my second point.....

''Also, why are Jack/Calderon's +/- so much different than Turks or Derozan's. Since all of these players were starters as well as backups at different points in the season, it would suggest to me that their impact on the game is fundamentally different.''

[TM Williamson]

Ok so you still didn't reply to my second point.....

''Also, why are Jack/Calderon's +/- so much different than Turks or Derozan's. Since all of these players were starters as well as backups at different points in the season, it would suggest to me that their impact on the game is fundamentally different.''

Because Jack and Calderon split the starting job right down the middle, while DeRozan and Turk started well over half of the games.

Therefore, Jack and Calderon's +/- represents half a season of starting and half a season on the bench. DeRozan and Turk's represent primarily their role as starters (where they were both realtively ineffective) Had DeRozan and Turk spent more time coming off the bench (like Jack and Calderon did), it is likely that their +/- would have improved (like Jack and Calderon's did), due to the fact that our bench tended to play better than our starters (against generally lower levels of competition, of course).

[CB4]

I agree these stats can be misleading. But even without the numbers I would have said Bargs because he's that big of a liability on defense. When you can't protect your own paint, you will have a tough time defending as it leads to open shots too. Raptors didn't protect the paint or defend 3's well.