Washington State 76, Idaho 64
by Grady Clapp on Dec 9, 2009 11:48 PM PST
Email
Print
One of the trends I've noticed from obsessively following a sports team for the past seven years is that I tend to find positives in the losses (hey, at least so-and-so played well...) and find negatives in the wins. It's the weird counter-intuitive stuff that creeps in to your head after you've over-analyzed something for long enough. I can only imagine how crazy most head coaches must be, since they think about this stuff 24 hours a day, and their teams almost never put together a completely perfect game.
Tonight, this is probably the angriest I've felt after a win in a long, long time. The Cougars had a 27 point lead in the second half. 27 points! Then, Ken Bone's brain took the night off, essentially playing our second team (with a starter or two mixed in) for the next ten minutes and letting Idaho creep back in. Worse, a running offense became a completely halfcourt one; the equivalent of when a football team that passes like crazy but runs the ball on three straight plays because they are trying to run the clock out. That's something called 'playing not to lose', and it is horrible. More teams lose playing to avoid a loss than teams that actually play win the game (of course, when they do go for the win, like Belichick on 4th and 2 - and fail - they get plastered by the media, creating hoards of spineless coaches who continue to give up on what their team does best in the name of "just hanging on").
Like we saw in the Gonzaga game, we can no longer feel safe with a large lead like we did in the clock-controlling Bennett area. This team can blow leads in games if they lose their aggressiveness or defensive intensity. And while Idaho never seriously threatened, they cut a 27 point lead down to seven with a minute left (darn you, halfmullet!). I would love to believe that our seven point lead with a minute left is safe, but you'll have to excuse me for not: I was at the Stanford game in 2004.
I get that Idaho is a very good team, and realistically we are only 5-10 points better than them. Problem is we didn't play our best team for a good portion of the second half, and it turned a big blowout into a semi-close game. Was Bone trying to rest players? Probably. But if so, it didn't matter since the starters had to essentially play the entire final five minutes just trying to hang on. Play those guys earlier, and you don't get into that situation in the first place. Sacrificing a lead in the name of rest is never a good idea in my opinion. Charlie Enquist and Mike Harthun got a huge number of minutes during a stretch in the game where quite frankly they didn't deserve it. Give them 8-9 minutes with a comfortable lead late, not with ten or fifteen left to play. That's an eternity in college hoops.
On the other hand: wow. This was a big victory. For a moment, we dismantled a very good ball club eight miles away from their home. A 21-2 run blew it open, fueled by what we had been craving: more three-point shooting. And it wasn't just Klay: role players like Abe and Nik got into the act, and in the blink of an eye the Cougars had almost built a 30 point lead. Of course in several more blinks Idaho had nearly erased all the goodwill we had built, outscoring us by 20 until the final minute. That's not great, but then again we aren't a juggernaut, and we aren't going to bury a team like Idaho by 30 points. It was just nice to think for a second that we could have.
Anyway, it's a great win. It really is. We took down the Vandals in all four factors, defended the perimeter, protected the ball and hopefully made Mac Hopson wish he'd never have transferred.
But for goodness sakes, please finish the job. Earlier.
Player of the Game: DeAngelo Casto - A dominating night on the boards with 14 rebounds (5 offensive) and 13 points, all against a physical Vandal front line. Great night for D.
Unsung Hero: Klay Thompson - That has to be about as quiet a 25 point night as you'll ever see. A lot of it has to do with an inefficient night shooting (9 of 21) and three turnovers. However, he wins this award thanks to his nine boards and overall point production. I can't give this award to Reggie Moore every time.
It was over when... Reggie Moore hit two free throws to put the Cougars up nine with under a minute to play. It's just so sad it took that long to get to our "It was over when..." moment. Ugh.
Play of the Game: Abe's back to back threes! (Klay missed one in between, but whatever) They were huge in the context of our ridiculous 21-2 run. Downside: they were the only two shots he made and for some reason Bone still thinks Abe is good enough to start but not good enough to get more minutes than Koprivica.
Stat of the Game: I'm not usually into plus/minus, but tonight it was very telling of how this ball game played out. It also features a ridiculous spread from top to bottom. Hat tip to BigWood:
Thompson 33
Moore 27
Lodwick 25
Casto 21
Capers 17
Watson -15
Enquist -27
Koprivica -35
Thames -37
Harthun -39
Like I said, we aren't as good a team out there when our best players are on the bench. Duh. Now, Kenneth, please play Abe Lodwick more. He's actually pretty good.
One final thought: ZZU CRU - it would have been nice if you had shown up for this game. I get that it's cold, but this was a rivalry game against a quality opponent. I could tell the Vandal fans understood that, but outside of a couple key stretches, most of our student section didn't. Yes, I'm calling you out, because you're better than that.
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That version of plus/minus is completely invalid.
And everytime it gets posted, it does my head in.
Let’s say, for example, the Cougars beat Portland State by 50. John Allen comes in with a minute left with the Cougars up 45. So, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe, by the way BigWood calculates it that would mean that Allen had a +/- of -40 because he came into the game at -45.
What happens when a player isn’t on the floor shouldn’t be included in the +/- calculation. You just look at what happens when the player is actually on the floor. Have a look at the +/- on espn.com and tell me how often you see guys playing 8 or 9 minutes a game having +/- scores of -27 or -39.
by Coug Friendly Canuck on Dec 10, 2009 12:04 AM PST reply actions
Haha I was gonna say..
Some of those minuses are WAAYYY off. No way was Thames out on the court long enough to be down to a -37. As Coug friendly said a plus/minus is the score differential when the player steps on to the court until when he leaves to court and only the points scored while on the court count towards the plus/minus.
I’ve never seen this version of a plus/minus before, but it’s wrong which is probably why you never put too much stock into it in the first place! Either way though I’m sure the numbers were lopsided, but just not by that much.
sigh
you’ve made it clear you don’t agree with how basketball does plus/minus. i’m not just pulling a stat out of thin air….
read up
http://www.82games.com/rolandratings.htm
OF COURSE you have to compare a what a player does when he’s on the court compared to when he’s off it. otherwise there’s no basis in the stat whatsoever.
ex: Let’s say Capers plays 20 minutes. In those 20 minutes we are beating opponent x by 3 points. In the 20 minutes he’s on the bench, we are beating our opponent by 17 points. Obviously we are a MUCH better team that game when Capers is on the bench, no? By saying Capers was a “+3” in that game is completely invalid because there is nothing to compare that 3 to.
perhaps this is my fault
I think from now on, I can show a 3-column view of the plus/minus so people don’t see harthun’s -36 and want to know how the hell he got there.
Hope this makes more sense
On Court Off Court Plus/Minus
Thompson 24 -12 36
Moore 21 -9 30
Lodwick 20 -8 28
Casto 18 -6 24
Capers 16 -4 20
Watson 0 12 -12
Enquist -6 18 -24
Koprivica -10 22 -32
Thames -11 23 -34
Harthun -12 24 -36
Might want to think about uploading it to google docs
Then publishing and linking. I do that when I want to share a spreadsheet
I guess that sort of makes sense
The problem is that “minus” implies a negative contribution. Unfortunately, that’s not necessarily what this stat means, as you can have a “minus” rating by simply having the team play well when you’re on the bench. In my mind, that shouldn’t be counted against a player — he had no control over that.
Maybe the issue is the term “plus/minus.” Maybe it should be called something else. I don’t know.
Maybe it would be better to figure out a way to weight the stat to account for percentage of minutes or something. I mean, if a guy plays 10 minutes or less, this seems to be out of whack, given that the time he’s on the bench has three times as much influence as the time he’s on the floor. Or maybe the solution is just not to look at individual games, since this is a pretty small sample size.
I have been thinking about the plus/minus this morning
I tend to agree that the Roland ranting is useful but flawed. Now, I understand the normal way that we think of plus/minus is flawed as well. It is greatly influenced by who is in the game at the same time. If I were in the game with Lebron James, I would have a decent plus/minus.
Now, if you look at the way that Roland adds together plus/minus while a player is on the court and while a player is off the court, it does two things that I can think of right off the bat.
First, it rates each player as if all minutes were equal. If Klay played 35 and Harthun played five, the contribution number for each player would be based on the full forty minutes of a game. As Nuss wrote, not all minutes are the same and it is easier to penalize a player.
Next, the way that Roland does his plus/minus, it indirectly counts the players contribution twice for the same information. I like the regular plus minus that we all know is when a player is on the court. I also like the plus/minus when a player is off the court. But, like I said, to add them together indirectly counts the contribution twice.
Here is something that I found while looking around right now.
http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/06/01/calculating-adjusted-plus-minus/
i guess its because the stat is supposed to compare players within the team
When player X has a +5 when he’s on the court, it does a disservice to the team to say he’s a +5 when we are a +15 when we’re using someone else.
You’re 100% right about sample sizes. My in-game plus/minus is intended to be fun, not gospel
I’m sure the nba has a minimum minute algorithm that I’m just too lazy to figure out. When I do my per 40 stats I generally leave out players that haven’t played x minutes yet or who only play in garbage time. You can generally ignore those stats anyway in the same way you ignore garbage time itself. Tonight was not one of those cases. Everyone, save Watson, played significant minutes and it really showed who was on the court when we built our lead and who was on when we blew it.
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 10:00 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Pehaps part of the issue is that plus/minus implies contribution
It seems a better place to start is to interpret it as value. Would we agree that Klay Thompson was the most valuable player for the Cougs last night? Absolutely. Would we agree that Harthun was the least valuable player on the floor last night? Maybe. Would we agree that Thames was almost as valuable (in a bad way) as Harthun? Um …
I don’t think I need to explain to this community why it’s important to look at rates rather than raw accumulation of stats. So how about this? Thames played 14 minutes. In those 14 minutes, the team was -11. In terms of per-minute contribution, he was -.79. In the other 26 minutes, the team was +23. In terms of per-minute performance when he was on the bench, the team was +.88. On a per-minute basis, the margin becomes -2.46. That then equalizes the minute problem, no?
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 10, 2009 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
well -2.46/min at 14 minutes is -34.44
So we’re arriving at the same point :)
I do have a per minute and a per 40 chart on my home laptop that I can show you this evening when I get home. I guess I’d never intended to break that down per game as I figured this was supposed to be FUN rather than have the hockey fans tell me how I must be doing this wrong :). It shouldn’t be too hard to break it down by minute, but it seems easier for the reader to break down the larger numbers on the fly.
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 10:40 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
It is fun BigWood
I hope you don’t get frustrated with all of us. So far, the best idea that I have seen is the one where you post all three columns.
I think it's fun to have the conversation
Understanding is important. It’ll allow us to put the stat in context, since no stat is perfect.
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 10, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
It does, but I if am understanding you correctly
That is flawed as well. Let’s take player A and player B. Let’s say that play A has a rating of -2.46 and plays 10 minutes per game and player B has a rating of -2.46 and plays 1 minute per game.
Now, if you looked at your data, you would regard them as equally having contributed to each game the same.
True
I think the main issue still comes in when you try factor in how the team performs when a player is on the bench. Still just seems odd to try and factor in something he has zero control over, I guess.
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 10, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
i think thats where people hit the crossroads
Its not a matter of “control” as much as its a matter of “value”. eg: why would I give player X minutes at +7 when I could be giving player Y those minutes since he’s at +14
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 11:02 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I agree
But I would argue that a player sitting on the bench while the team does well doesn’t make him less valuable.
Let’s look at it this way: Let’s say the Cougs are killing a team. Klay is +20 in the 30 minutes he’s on the floor. The team is +10 in the 10 minutes he’s off the floor over the course of a 30-point victory. In that case, Klay is +10, as he’s been penalized for the team playing well while he’s on the bench.
I guess that makes the obvious point: This is a stat that has to be looked at over the course of a season, not in the context of one game. Obviously, you’re not going to kill every team by 30, so looking at it over a season would start to cancel that sort of stuff out.
Seems to me there should be two different kinds of plus/minus:
1) If you’re looking at one game, what you’re really trying to measure is contribution to that game’s outcome. In that case, it would be better just to measure what happened while the player was on the floor (a la hockey).
2) If you’re looking at a season, what you’re really trying to measure is value to the team. In that case, I’ll bet the system you use is great, even if flawed (because no stat measures everything well).
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 10, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
and in turn
If we were able to outscore our opponent by 10 without Klay, just how valuable was Klay during that game?
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 11:19 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I suppose
But if the plus 10 in the 10 minutes was the result of garbage time, or some coincidental hot shooting, or free throws at the end of the game, etc. … then we’re not really measuring value any more, are we? There are just too many variables in a one-game sample size.
Maybe if we had a way to measure “leverage” as in baseball …
Man, we are making this complicated!
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 10, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
ok, to answer the garbage time question
Roland requires a player play 30% of the team’s minutes to be eligible for the stat, which is 12 minutes per game. so we can throw out the whole “john allen shouldn’t get a -35 for going into a blowout” idea.
True, but that he has to do that shows the inadequacy of the stat
Roland created his stat because he thought the regular stat was inadequate. I like the plus/minus rating when a player is on the floor and when a player is off the floor. IMO, I think adding them together is just too misleading of a stat.
It is almost like if I showed you a quarter. I showed you heads and said the coin was worth 25 cents. Then I showed you heads and said the coin was worth 25 cents. Then, I added them together and said the coin was worth 50 cents.
I hate plus/minus in basketball.
It’s completely misleading. It takes 5 players all playing together to make a good team so how can you give one player a plus minus rating for the time they are on/off the court? The other four players have a much larger affect on the plus minus then the single player who is receiving the rating. For example, say you have Enquist out there with Casto, Capers, Thompson, and Moore. This lineup has enough talent to put up a good plus/minus even without Enquist scoring any points. Then, if you put him out there with all the walk-ons, against the same competition, the plus/minus would be very different no matter how well Enquist played.
that is a well-documented criticism of the stat
And you’ll get some outliers because of that very fact. Also, you’ll have better plus/minus stats based on how good your team is (hence, the durant hissyfit over the summer)
I’ve found its really only beneficial to see where each player ranks on their team, as it HELPS figure out which lineups might work best. To say you lead the league in plus/minus is completely relative. But to say you led your team is very valid.
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 10:51 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
and to add to your example
That’s why basketball calculates on court minus off court.
In your example, if charlie comes in and plays at a +5 with the starters, it becomes negated once casto comes back in and they put up a +10
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 10:56 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I can see how that makes it valid stat to consider.
I guess I didn’t really understand how it worked. It still seems like one player can get penalized for another players mistakes. Obviously it’s not perfect and it’s just another stat to consider.
a real world way of looking at this
In your office, how much work do you take on? A lot? There’s your on-court performance.
If you’re out sick or on vacation, does the office still run well without you? Do other people cover for you or does your workload just keep stacking up while you’re gone? There’s your off-court performance.
So its not so much being “penalized” for not being on the court, but how much your team could or couldn’t get by without you. Eg: how valuable are you?
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 11:17 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, that makes sense
And, again, I think the sample size makes all the difference in the world in that respect. An office can get by for a day for any number of reasons. Can it get by for a week? Two weeks?
You know what you should do? Write a page or a post at your site kind of compiling all of this and put it in plain English, explaining the calculation and acknowledging the limitations. Then, when you post the stats, you can just drop the link in with it and people can go there to see how it’s calculated.
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 10, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
Thanks for doing the work for us BW
I hope you continue to do the work for us. I still think that both on and off court contribution is a useful stat. Personally, I don’t like them added together, as I believe it counts related information twice.
As I linked above, they have come up with a formula to take away the bias of who is on the floor at the same time. It’s complicated, so what BW come up for us is fine with me.
ill have to take a look at that sheet
I wonder if its feasable to use his method on the cougs, as you could fill a canyon with the difference in readily available raw stats for the nba vs. College.
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 11:31 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
NO DOUBT
30 games is such a small sample size. I mean, WSU’s season is already almost a third over. The whole college season is roughly 1/3 of an NBA season. That’s why every college stat has to be taken with that in mind.
Speaking of small sample sizes, we jumped from 111 to 98 in Pomeroy’s rankings thanks to last night!
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 10, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
More good news!
Our offensive efficiency came back down to earth a bit, but our defensive efficiency rose!
An according to Pomeroy, only 3 Pac-10 teams are in the top 50 in his rankings: Cal at 10 (Huh?), UW at 28, and ASU at 31 (Again, huh?).
by Brian Floyd on Dec 10, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
Yea,
the student section was pretty bad. I was in the upper section and half the people were just ignoring the game and talking to each other. The girl behind started screaming down the seconds… 31! …30… the problem was that it was Idaho’s ball and the shot clock was below ten… not sure why she was screaming down the game clock in that situation lol.
Another thing that bothered me was when Butch points for the “GO….COUGS….” chant. He pointed to the student section who were trying to be loud for the “GO” and the quiet alumni section for the “COUGS” part. The thing is, the visitors also sit on the alumni side, so while the alumni squeaked out “cougs” the visitors screamed out “VANDULS!” There wouldn’t be this problem if Butch just pointed to the alumni for the “GO” part. <—There’s my rant for the day :)
I was at the game in the second row of the Zzu Cru section.
I was also disappointed with the lack of noise from the students. Maybe it has something to do with everyone thinking Idaho is really bad. A girl told me after the game that she was really disappointed that we didn’t completely destroy such as crappy team as Idaho. I then informed her that Idaho actually wasn’t that bad which seemed to make her feel better. The intensity definitely was missing from Zzu Cru tonight and I hope that doesn’t remain the case in the future.
I like the idea for the “Go Cougs” chant. Might be worth giving a try.
I was also in the second row of the Zzu Cru section
I have to agree as far a Zzu Cru goes and the rest of the student section as well we really did not preform like we should have. There were one or two times that we preformed like we should have, but as a whole it was very disappointing, I only wish that we could continue that intensity throughout the entire game instead of like 3 possessions. They are introducing a thing called ultimate Zzu Cru where if you miss a game, or sit down when you aren’t supposed to you get kicked out. I am really excited to see where this goes. Thats all for now.
Best part of this post
Of course in several more blinks Idaho had nearly erased all the goodwill we had built, outscoring us by 20 until the final minute. That’s not great, but then again we aren’t a juggernaut, and we aren’t going to bury a team like Idaho by 30 points. It was just nice to think for a second that we could have.
All I really can say to that is, "Yup." We’re not 30 points better than Idaho.
On a different note, I don’t really take issue with how Bone handled the rotation. He’s trying to get a feel for what he can do with different guys in different game situations. This week, he lamented how he handled the lead against Gonzaga, where he left the starters out there and it ended up burning him. So he tried something different. Clearly, it didn’t really work. But it gives him a teachable moment to use with those reserves.
On yet another note … where the heck was Motum, the guy who Bone said had been earning more minutes?
When I was ready Grady's article
I was thinking more along the lines of your way of looking at the situation. These are all teaching moments and the bench really needs to improve or this team is going nowhere. The bench cannot improve unless they are put in stressful situations.
While in the short term this is an ugly win, it the long term the GU, KSU and UI games are all teaching moments.
agree completely
I’d much rather have Bone toy with the lineup vs Idaho than at Oregon.
We’re a ridiculously young team and its still December. I would think Bone was doing something wrong if he DID have his lineups and minute allotments finalized already. Sometimes we’ll blow leads with these experiments and sometimes we’ll lose because of them. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying them.
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 10:05 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Watching the Arizona-La Tech replay.
Apparently Washington played Idaho last night, not our Cougs. The announcer has reported the score multiple times and not corrected himself. It must be true. Sorry guys, I know we got all excited about this game, but it didn’t actually happen.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
He was also discussing Karl Malone
and said it was amazing he played his entire career with the Jazz. Facts baby!
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
by Craig Powers on Dec 10, 2009 8:46 AM PST up reply actions
Abe and Nik were having solid games, and I think that is what kept Motum on the bench. As much as you want to get Motum some minutes, you also have to reward Abe and Nik for playing well, especially since they are essentially splitting minutes. Motum simply needs to get stronger, because he is a very skilled player.
As far as the rotation goes, I don’t really have a problem. I think Bone is just trying to get a feel for this team, and was trying not to repeat the mistake at Gonzaga of not resting his starters. I would have liked to see him insert the starters a little sooner, just because they cut a huge chunk out of our lead pretty quickly.
On a side note, I really like how Thames is progressing. He seems to look more comfortable every game. If Moore and Thames can learn to compliment each other, and get on the floor at the same time, they will be a fun back court to watch for the next few years.
Here's my negative pts in a win.
Shoot I’m negative also in losses, so at least I am consistent.
Reggie Moore is starting to really irritate me. The guy is a serious offensive talent, but he gets lackadasical in handling the ball and passing and he is generally disinterested in guarding his guy when his guy is moving around without the ball.
Bone or even Ben Johnson needs to crack the whip on him and emphasize how good he can be. It is nerve wracking to watch Moore block out or own guy on the defensive boards because he has completely lost track where his guy is at.
I did like Bone giving guys like Enquist and Harthun minutes because we really need to work on depth. These guys need time.
The question with Enquist is whether you actually believe that minutes are actually going to create a return on investment
I’m starting to think he’s going the way the Lobbestael. He is what he is with limited upside.
I just don't know. Would've like to see Watson, but the Bjornstad kid
is scary. I think Brian Paine was more athletic. He reminds me of the big guys during the Graham era, for some reasons those names escape me at the present moment (maybe it is a subconscious block to protect me).
by ptowncoug3012 on Dec 10, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
WAAYYYY too early for Bjornstad
Just remember Baynes as a freshman…that was scary. I don’t think he could catch a ball, shoot it, dribble it…I can only remember him taking up space, rebounding, and fouling. Then look what happened come his Junior and Senior year.
In the championship game in Alaska (i think that was the game) Bjornstad caught a half court pass while running, and in one motion spun and laid it in…I don’t think Baynes could have done that his freshman year. While Bjornstad needs lots of work, you can’t count him out yet, so give him time. Watson too.
And if Enquist can put on some pounds, he will be our next Caleb Forrest.
Bjornstad needs to put on the pounds
And there’s no way Enquist is Forrest
by Brian Floyd on Dec 10, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
He will never be Caleb Forrest
Sorry. Will never shoot like him, won’t offensive rebound like him. And there’s only so much room left on that frame for more pounds. There’s a reason Robbie Cowgill never weighed 240 pounds …
by Jeff Nusser on Dec 10, 2009 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
ok, i'll concede that
all i was saying is that enquist is lots of hustle, and he would be that forrest-type player…but yes, without the shooting ability.
and the frame doesn’t really matter…cowgill ate like four fat guys at a buffet, his metabolism just didn’t allow him to add weight. Frame matters more in football when you’re trying to add 50lbs to play on the line.
But frame DOES matter
If your job is to defensive rebound and guard the post. Which is what Enquist’s job is, since he doesn’t bring anything else to the table …
Justin Kordsmier that's his name! However, with regard to Baynes
he was tipping the scales at a ridculous weight. Bjornstad actually has to put on weight. If the kid isn’t ready, then he should be redshirting. Ain’t good enough to play, then he shouldn’t be playing. Or maybe Motum should be redshirting. We don’t have great depth in the frontline, but one of those two guys needed to RS, especially if we are going to continue to play Abe and Nik at the 4 for much of the game.
by ptowncoug3012 on Dec 10, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
Still not sure why we didn't redshirt Bjornstad
I get that we’re small up front, but if he’s not getting the minutes seems like it would have been better to save his eligibility
The two conversations here kind of tie together.
Whether you prefer BW’s +/- or one that doesn’t factor in time that a player is off the court, the performance of the line-up that Bone had in when Idaho went on their run in the 2nd half illustrates the weakness of the bare stat without some much more complicated math to factor in the impact of who the player plays with.
Putting in as many bench players as he did at one time gave me horrifying flashbacks to Brian Hill’s time with the Grizzlies. Almost every game I went to when he was coaching here had the same pattern: down about 7 going into the 4th, put the entire bench in for the first four minutes of the 4th, be down 17 when you put the starters back in. Terrible.
Anyhow, I think my point about not factoring in the off court stuff in plus/minus is just that what happens when you’re off the court is already factored in because those points are automatically attributed to the players we seek to compare you to, since it’s a closed set of data or whatnot.
by Coug Friendly Canuck on Dec 10, 2009 12:21 PM PST reply actions
Different situations
Up 20+ I’m fine with him putting in the reserves and seeing how they do. Obviously they showed their shortcomings last night. Once it got closer, he did put the starters back in to seal up the game. Putting in the reserves wasn’t the issue at all, but how they performed was. They need to get valuable in game experience and then was as good a time as any. If the situation were different, say down 7, I guarantee the regular rotation would be on the floor the whole time.
by Brian Floyd on Dec 10, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
again, it's not "my" stat
This just might be semantics, but this is how its calculated in basketball. I didn’t just wake up and decide to start a revolution.
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 1:57 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
It's not how it's calculated in the NBA.
Not at all. Here’s the box score for last night’s Heat-Bulls game.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=291209001
Randolph Morris from the Hawks was a +4 in 8 minutes. Under your system, for that to be possible in a 35 point win, the Hawks would have needed to have been losing by 4 when he came into the game, then they would’ve needed a 39-0 run or something in his time on the floor.
by Coug Friendly Canuck on Dec 10, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions
ESPN uses the hockey stat
I gave you the three colums so you could intepret the data how you like. I’ve explained why the hockey style is worthless for basketball ad naseum in this thread.
Again, I do this for fun…lighten up.
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 3:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
sorry, i forgot the emoticon
i loathe emoticons, but i realize they are necessary to show i’m not angry.
Yeah, I'm not angry either.
I think it’s a good conversation.
I looked at the Roland link, and I still think that way of doing it is totally invalid for anyone that isn’t playing starter’s minutes and unnecessary for comparisons within a team. However, I can see how it’s useful for showing how dependent different teams are on their best players, i.e. when this guy goes off the floor we’re really screwed.
by Coug Friendly Canuck on Dec 10, 2009 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
Wow. “Halfmullet” = best thing I’ve heard all day. I was seriously sitting in my living room thinking, “WOW. His hair is even worse – way way worse – than Steven Gray’s.” And the headband had an even girlier effect. I empathize with the frustration – ultimately I’m glad we got a W, but it looked kind of [really] sloppy for periods of time. They were not taking good care of the ball for stretches of time, and it was a little scary.
I thought the bow on his headband.
Tie it all together nicely.
by Coug Friendly Canuck on Dec 10, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions
They had their lowest TO percentage since IPFW
And third lowest of the season. You’re not the first to say it was sloppy, and I’m really not sure where that comes from.
perhaps because the turnovers came in bunches
Particularly the first 10 minutes of the game.
by BigWood on Dec 10, 2009 3:14 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
9 TO's the whole game
And the TO’s were not the reason Idaho started coming back. A stagnant offense that couldn’t buy a bucket was, though.
Post on TO% and importance to this team is up
Couldn’t resist. I really didn’t have an hour to spend on it, but I did it anyway!
So you are addicted to Cougar basketball
Bet you wouldn’t spend an hour you didn’t have on football right now!
Correct, it was 10
I was looking at the ESPN box score and they had 9. There must have been a team turnover in there somewhere not accounted for. Also notice that none of the bench players had a TO, Capers also had none, and Abe only had 1. Once they settled in they really did take care of the ball.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
