According to basketballvalue, Andre Iguodala should feel miffed.

[rickortreat]

If you go to the site, you'll see a list of the top NBA players ranked by an adjusted plus/minus stat.  This stat should at least theoretically be better than PER since it captures the defensive performance of the player as well.  There is noise, since the performance varies based on the players teamates and who he is matched up with.

At any rate by their ranking, the best NBA player by far is LeBron James. Second is Mr. Iguodala and Third is Chris Paul. followed by Wade, Garnett, Nash, Foy, Rashard Lewis, LaMarcus Aldridge and Russel Westbrook.

It seems that Iguodala deserves to be in the all star game after all.  Frankly, until I became aware of this stat I didn't think he was entitled based on his early season performance.  Lately, since Brand got injured, Andre has taken his game to a higher level, but I didn't think it would show up on any objective measure.

Based on PER there are other players who's stats look better, but when you add in defense, which IMO, is a huge part of the game (just ask Pops and Bruce Bown!) it shows who really plays a good all-around game.

Since this is a new type of stat, it doesn't have a long-term track record, but it does appear to be fairly accurate, as the top players on the list are top players in the league, with a few changes.  The problem with all-star selections is that everyone is scoring oriented.  Who ever puts up the most points is the player they select. But some guys take too many shots to make their points, which hurts their team.  People don't consider shooting percentage very well. This stat takes everything into account in terms of actual results. 

The site is pretty cool for stat geeks.

[Lurker]

And Matt Bonner is the best Spur ranking #11 in the whole league.  And Lamar Odom the best Laker ranking #7.  Then there is Randy Foye at #8 who is the obvious leader of the Wolves.

I am a big stat fan, rick, but you have to look at other information also.  Iggy has a good argument but IMO he doesn't deserve it.

But to play along...who would you remove?  And why?

[westkoast]

Wouldn't this stat be inflated due to the people around the player?  That is why you see Igs, Aldridge, and Westbrook high on the list but don't see Tim Duncan, Dirk, or Dwight Howard.  The one problem with the stat is it does not factor in leadership or confidence.  While most of the people on the list are leaders certainly Foy and Lewis are not.  Can't really speak on Aldridge or Westbrook.  Players also have more confidence in their team and their own play when they have a Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant on the court with them.  Having someone on the floor that can dominate the game and change it at any moment is something that will never be captured by stats.

There is more to the all-star selections than just scoring.  Obviously starters are picked based on popularity first.  I don't think turning your game up a notch while a star player is out for 3 weeks warrants an all-star selection.  You have to play like an all-star from the start of the season up until they pick the reserves.  Also, while I don't fully agree on sending people mainly based on their teams record, it has to be a factor.   This is why I think Pau Gasol deserves to be in the all star game.  With out him the Lakers do not have the same record they do.  Even if someone has better numbers or ranks higher in this stat you cannot deny the impact that is not measured just based on stats. 

[rickortreat]

What other info should you use to pick and all-star besides the most objective stats?  The fans get to vote for the starters and I would rather delist one of them then the reserves who were picked by the coaches.

If there is anything other than the individual stat, it should be the quality of the team.  The East reserves Grainger and Harris play for teams that will likely miss the playoffs.  Both of them benefit from the lack of talent among their teamates.  Harris and Carter put up gaudy numbers because they're the only ones who can play on New Jersey.  (I can't wait to see Iguodala take it out on the Nets backcourt!)

The best teams should be represented but why should Orlando have 3 go and Boston 2?  Boston still has the better record.  Iggy's hurt by the Sixers record, but they're still better than NJ, and I suspect they will end up ahead of Atlanta by the end of the season. I would say that either Pierce, Nelson, Lewis, Carter or Grainger should have been left off instead of Iguodala.

But in fairness, I don't think the coaches pour over the stats at basketaballvalue, although I think they should.  The combination plus-minus stats show which groups on which teams perform the best and worst against the various lineups other teams throw at them.  If I was a coach, I would never put out a group that had a negative number out against a specific unit of another team.  I would try some other combination in the hopes of finding one that works.  

I suppose when you consider the Sixers record and how Iggy's scoring stats aren't quite as impressive as the others, it's not a terrible oversight. Andre could have had better numbers at the beginning of the season, and the Sixers could have a winning record if they didn't start the season with Cheeks as their coach.  So I'm fine with it him not getting the recognition this year, but now that I know about this stat, I think that this shows he's a much better player than he gets recognition for.

There are still people in Phila. who say and think that Andre can't shoot. It's amazing how some opinions seem to stick in spite of conflict with direct observation and the stats. Anyone who saw him put in three-three pointers to end the quarters against San Antonio wouldn't say he can't shoot!


And koast, this stat is supposed to be weighted to take the players team-mates into account.  That's why it's called adjusted plus/minus.  By that measure it also takes into account leadership.  I wouldn't say that Iguodala is the leader Kobe is, but then again Kobe has been around for years and Iguodala is still a very young player.  This is about as objective a measure of the players impact with his team as there is. The other players you mention are on the list, they're just not at the top. Meaning their rep is held in higher esteem than their actual performance. 

[westkoast]

If the stat is based on how much a player impacts their team and that team is not doing well then wouldn't these stats reflect negatively(in a way) on that player?

Is Kevin Durant's 25 points a game really more important than Dirk's when it comes down to it?

I don't think Orlando should send 3 players.  In fact I don't think any team should have more than two players going period.  I didn't agree with 3 Pistons were sent, I don't agree with the Big Three being all sent, and I don't agree with Orlando having 3 guys.

[Lurker]

Rick, I agree that his metric supposedly takes into account who else is on the floor.  But let's look at the Spurs.

Bonner is the highest ranking Spurs player on this list.  He is usually on the floor with Duncan, Parker, Mason and Finley.  When Finley or Mason go out the sub is Manu.  In a pickup game who is going to pick Bonner ahead on any of those other 5?

I would say that either Pierce, Nelson, Lewis, Carter or Grainger should have been left off instead of Iguodala.

Reserves are picked 2 guards, 2 forwards, 1 center 2, wildcards.  Iggy is a guard thus you can't replace Pierce, Lewis or Grainger who are all forwards.  Carter isn't on the team.  That leaves Nelson on your list...and since Orlando already has 2 players I could agree with Iguodala replacing Nelson.

[rickortreat]

The basic plus minus stat is a raw number.  You take a look at the points when the player goes in, and again when he goes out.  That's his plus or minus number for that time in the game, and obviously how the other players play affects the score during that period.

The adjusted plus/minus tries to minimize the effect of others by considering the other players on his team and also the relative strength of the opposing teams players.  Through a complex analysis, they come up with a massaged number, that supposedly reflects that individual players actual offensive AND defensive value.

I don't think less of Grainger because he plays for a loosing team.  But since he shoots .441 from the floor and Iguodala shoots .471 I'm not so sure he's the better player. Even with that, he has a higher PER than Iguodala, but not nearly as good an adjusted plus/minus. Based on this information, Iguodala deserves to go. But until today, I didn't know about this stat or the site.  Based on that stat, I would say Grainger is more relied upon to score than Iguodala, but that Iguodala is really the better player.

The one thing that would make me feel more confident about the adjusted plus/minus would be for them to apply the formulas for data from all of the NBA seasons.  I'd like to see how the best players on that list would compare with the list of the top 50 players. If it had more of a history behind it, I would trust it more as being a more accurate measure of a players true value.  Over time, it should be able to bear itself out as to it's true merits.  Currently the formula says that Dirks a better player than Durant, but that neither one is a true all star! I think that it's very hard for Durant to get a good plus minus because he is on such a lousy team, and that it's much easier for Dirk.  But Dirks numbers look bad considering that he is on a team that wins, he's not close to the best on his team.  

I'm not entirely sold on the stat. It says that Odom is a better player for the Lakers than Kobe, and that he should be the all-star. There's no question that Kobe has great offensive stats and that he is a big part of the Lakers success, could it really be that Odom's all-around game is what makes the Lakers such a good team? I always thought it was Kobe, Gasol and Bynum in that order. I don't get to watch the Lakers play that often, so I don't know, but this is sort of a stealth stat- it shows the effect of the player on his teams performance.  For some reason the Lakers play better when Odom is on the floor.

[rickortreat]

Rick, I agree that his metric supposedly takes into account who else is on the floor.  But let's look at the Spurs.

Bonner is the highest ranking Spurs player on this list.  He is usually on the floor with Duncan, Parker, Mason and Finley.  When Finley or Mason go out the sub is Manu.  In a pickup game who is going to pick Bonner ahead on any of those other 5?

I would say that either Pierce, Nelson, Lewis, Carter or Grainger should have been left off instead of Iguodala.

Reserves are picked 2 guards, 2 forwards, 1 center 2, wildcards.  Iggy is a guard thus you can't replace Pierce, Lewis or Grainger who are all forwards.  Carter isn't on the team.  That leaves Nelson on your list...and since Orlando already has 2 players I could agree with Iguodala replacing Nelson.

Actually the list shows that the difference between Bonner and Duncan is slight, and TD plays more minutes, so you would go with TD first. I don't know who I would pick next, but I know it wouldn't be Parker, Bowen or Finley!  I'd probably pick Ginobli.

Is Iguodala a two or a three?  Even the Sixers can't make up their mind(s).  I think that ultimately, Andre will wind up as a 2, but that is only because the Sixers have a taller talented player to play the 3 spot. If they sit Thad Young and have a front line with Brand and Iguodala then they are saying he's a forward. If they play them both, he's a 2.  I don' think there's any doubt he can play the 3 spot, so Pierce, Lewis and Grainger would all be in play. Out of all of them I'd be more in favor of dropping Grainger.  It has been customary for the best team in the conference to put up 3 players. Besides I like Jameer, having gone to St. Joe's.

[Lurker]

Rick, I agree that his metric supposedly takes into account who else is on the floor.  But let's look at the Spurs.

Bonner is the highest ranking Spurs player on this list.  He is usually on the floor with Duncan, Parker, Mason and Finley.  When Finley or Mason go out the sub is Manu.  In a pickup game who is going to pick Bonner ahead on any of those other 5?

I would say that either Pierce, Nelson, Lewis, Carter or Grainger should have been left off instead of Iguodala.

Reserves are picked 2 guards, 2 forwards, 1 center 2, wildcards.  Iggy is a guard thus you can't replace Pierce, Lewis or Grainger who are all forwards.  Carter isn't on the team.  That leaves Nelson on your list...and since Orlando already has 2 players I could agree with Iguodala replacing Nelson.

Actually the list shows that the difference between Bonner and Duncan is slight, and TD plays more minutes, so you would go with TD first. I don't know who I would pick next, but I know it wouldn't be Parker, Bowen or Finley!  I'd probably pick Ginobli.

I would pick Manu next also.  But I would also pick the other 3 BEFORE Bonner.  But then if you look closer at your beloved stat site Duncan has a negative net on/off rating.  So that means that the Spurs would be a better team with Duncan playing less minutes, right?

But then you are still missing the point because you are hung up on thinking that a Sixer was snubbed.

[westkoast]

Rick, I agree that his metric supposedly takes into account who else is on the floor.  But let's look at the Spurs.

Bonner is the highest ranking Spurs player on this list.  He is usually on the floor with Duncan, Parker, Mason and Finley.  When Finley or Mason go out the sub is Manu.  In a pickup game who is going to pick Bonner ahead on any of those other 5?

I would say that either Pierce, Nelson, Lewis, Carter or Grainger should have been left off instead of Iguodala.

Reserves are picked 2 guards, 2 forwards, 1 center 2, wildcards.  Iggy is a guard thus you can't replace Pierce, Lewis or Grainger who are all forwards.  Carter isn't on the team.  That leaves Nelson on your list...and since Orlando already has 2 players I could agree with Iguodala replacing Nelson.

Actually the list shows that the difference between Bonner and Duncan is slight, and TD plays more minutes, so you would go with TD first. I don't know who I would pick next, but I know it wouldn't be Parker, Bowen or Finley!  I'd probably pick Ginobli.

I would pick Manu next also.  But I would also pick the other 3 BEFORE Bonner.  But then if you look closer at your beloved stat site Duncan has a negative net on/off rating.  So that means that the Spurs would be a better team with Duncan playing less minutes, right?

But then you are still missing the point because you are hung up on thinking that a Sixer was snubbed.

That's what I was trying to get at....

[Derek Bodner]

I find +/- to be a fairly mediocre stat in terms of measuring effectiveness.  It can be fine when comparing players with similar minutes, but when you start comparing a guy playing 22 minutes per game (Bonner) with a guy playing 35 mpg (Duncan), it can be drastically skewed.

I find PER differential to be far more useful.  It directly compares the overall production of you vs the man you're playing against.  It's not all encompassing (i.e. weakside help defense isn't perfectly measured), but I haven't found a singular stat without flaws.  This comes as close as we currently have (in mainstream use) to gauging the net effect of a player IMO.  PER differential ranks the spurs:
1) Duncan (+10.9)
2) Ginobili (+9.7)
3) Parker (+6.6)
6) Bonner (-0.2)

In this respect, Iguodala is still a borderline all-star.  +8.2 is very good. 
Devin Harris: +6.7
Danny Granger: +9.6
Bosh: +7.9
Johnson: +5.5
Lewis: +6
Nelson: +6.4
Pierce: +5.5

The reason for the discrepancies is Iguodala is having, far and away, the best defensive year of the group.

It should also be noted that Pierce would probably have a higher PER if it wasn't for Ray Allen and KG (likewise, his opponent might have a higher PER if he didn't have KG behind him).

You can probably make a fair case that Iguodala is more deserving than Rashard.  Lewis is scoring more, but he's not relied upon as much.  He's gotten open looks by playing with Dwight, and he deserves props for making them, it's much easier to stand around at the 3 pt line and hit shots than it is to generate the looks for teammates and play the defense Iguodala played.

Granger, Bosh and Johnson were the locks.  Pierce deserves it as well for the numbers he's put up on a winning team.  I think Lewis and nelson got boosts because they're playing on a winning team, and looking at their individual productivity were questionable selection.  Harris is a no-brainer if he's healthy.

Iguodala's start to the season killed his all-star bid.

[WayOutWest]

Any number crunching site that shows Bonner should be ahead of TD or Odom ahead of Kobe is not worth the domain name it's attached too.

This is exactly why IMO it's GREAT that the coaches pick the reserves.  Case in point, Odom.  Odom puts up very good numbers across the board when the Lakers are "flowing".  When things start to go bad or it's "crunch time" or it's a one possesion game, Odom is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list of who gets the ball.  Just like a players putting up great numbers on a crappy team, the example was Carter and Harris, Odom is a player who puts up good numbers when there is very little pressure on him.  Igs is a border line all-star, I don't have a problem with him not making the team even though I think players like Jameer and Lewis don't deserve to be there as well.

[Lurker]

I find +/- to be a fairly mediocre stat in terms of measuring effectiveness.  It can be fine when comparing players with similar minutes, but when you start comparing a guy playing 22 minutes per game (Bonner) with a guy playing 35 mpg (Duncan), it can be drastically skewed.

I find PER differential to be far more useful.  It directly compares the overall production of you vs the man you're playing against.  It's not all encompassing (i.e. weakside help defense isn't perfectly measured), but I haven't found a singular stat without flaws.  This comes as close as we currently have (in mainstream use) to gauging the net effect of a player IMO.  PER differential ranks the spurs:
1) Duncan (+10.9)
2) Ginobili (+9.7)
3) Parker (+6.6)
6) Bonner (-0.2)

In this respect, Iguodala is still a borderline all-star.  +8.2 is very good. 
Devin Harris: +6.7
Danny Granger: +9.6
Bosh: +7.9
Johnson: +5.5
Lewis: +6
Nelson: +6.4
Pierce: +5.5

The reason for the discrepancies is Iguodala is having, far and away, the best defensive year of the group.

It should also be noted that Pierce would probably have a higher PER if it wasn't for Ray Allen and KG (likewise, his opponent might have a higher PER if he didn't have KG behind him).

You can probably make a fair case that Iguodala is more deserving than Rashard.  Lewis is scoring more, but he's not relied upon as much.  He's gotten open looks by playing with Dwight, and he deserves props for making them, it's much easier to stand around at the 3 pt line and hit shots than it is to generate the looks for teammates and play the defense Iguodala played.

Granger, Bosh and Johnson were the locks.  Pierce deserves it as well for the numbers he's put up on a winning team.  I think Lewis and nelson got boosts because they're playing on a winning team, and looking at their individual productivity were questionable selection.  Harris is a no-brainer if he's healthy.

Iguodala's start to the season killed his all-star bid.

Maybe I need to have Derek write my arguments for me from now on.  Well stated and points out what I was trying to say...that you need to look at various measurements not focus on one.

And I agree that Iguodala is a borderline all-star.

[rickortreat]

In the first place, it's not plus/minus, but adjusted plus/minus.  One of the things it corrects for, or at least attempts to is minutes played as well as minutes not played.

I also had no attachment to Iguodala making the team. I didn't vote for him and didn't think he deserved to get in.  Like most of you, I thought that he was a borderline all star and didn't think his performance was good enough.

But that was before I looked at the adjusted plus/minus.  A stat that attempts to value a player by his actual performance and effect on his team.  I am not familiar with the PER differential. (Where did you get that one?)

I'm not going to say the adjusted plus/minus is the "gold standard" for evaluating NBA players, or even that it's the best, but you shouldn't say it's not worth anything just because it makes your favorite player look bad.  That's using subjective perception over an objective stat.  I trust the objective stat more than my opinion.

I will say that since the stat made a player I like look better, makes me wonder about the stat's validity, and be more inclined to think of it as a valuable tool.  I also think that the stat shows which areas the player needs to improve upon. Andre would be a better player if he did more offensive rebounding.   

[WayOutWest]

I'm not going to say the adjusted plus/minus is the "gold standard" for evaluating NBA players, or even that it's the best, but you shouldn't say it's not worth anything just because it makes your favorite player look bad.  That's using subjective perception over an objective stat.  I trust the objective stat more than my opinion.

Same goes for you rick, don't hook onto a stat line cause it makes a player on your favorite team look better.  You have a history of extreemly over valuing (sic?) players just because they play for the Sixers.  Again, any stat line that makes Bonner better than TD or Odom better than Kobe has NO merit to me.