Iguodala is the 2nd best player this year...

[DuckyNinja]

...according to Adjusted +/-. 

http://basketballvalue.com/topplayers.php?year=2008-2009

So if anybody has any clue what adjusted +/- is and whether or not it's a good stat, please share.  Because I sure as hell don't.

[tk76-]

I posted about this last week: http://forums.phillyarena.net/index.php?topic=5277.0

It has something to do with trying to adjust for pace and how lousy your teammates are...

[Derek Bodner]

Matt Bonner, Russell Westbrook and Randy Foye are top 15 in that list.  I think that alone makes it not good as a standalone stat.

[tk76-]

It basically reflects if a player who brings something to a team that is a huge diffence to their success or failure.
 
In Bonner and Westbrook's case their teams need their skills to be effective.  I'm sure Bonner's 3 pt shot makes Tim a more effective threat in the post- esp if Bonner is drawing a big out of the lane.

[rickortreat]

That's a subjective opinion, Dabods.  You'll have to do better than that.  There may be something wrong with the methodology or the weighting of the number, or maybe it's simply that it is right, but we're so used to evaluating players in other ways that it gives unusual results.

I don't know, but it appears to be the only stat that takes into account a players impact on both ends of the floor. And if it makes Kobe look bad in the process so be it.  

I do think the stat could be improved upon. I notice that Marreese Speights has a negative adj. p/m.  Maybe that's because they put him out there a lot of times with Reggie Evans and Royal Ivey. Or maybe it is because the Sixers don't play good defense when he is in the game, and he should have an impact on that one way or another. He has a great PER. but a lousy +/-.  I wouldn't say he was an accomplished defender, and doesn't do a great job of blocking out, but he does seem to come up with a lot of balls.

The thing the stat does is shows who really contributes on the team and how they compare with the other top 49 players.  It shows that Andre Iguodala is the best Sixer and that the 2nd best is Thad Young.  I would have thought it was Andre Miller, but that's why I like the stat, it makes me think there's more merit to look at it this way then through my own opinion.

[Derek Bodner]

That's a subjective opinion, Dabods.  You'll have to do better than that.  There may be something wrong with the methodology or the weighting of the number, or maybe it's simply that it is right, but we're so used to evaluating players in other ways that it gives unusual results.

Yawn.  Rick, I've been into sabremetrics for ages.  Don't come here preaching the "stats don't lie" and watching the games matters.  I'm into stats.   Just because I don't think this one's the be-all end-all doesn't mean I devalue them.

Yes, my response wasn't lengthy and detailed.  I do sometimes do work at work.  But it is truth.  Any metric that ranks Matt Bonner as the 15th most valuable player in the league is inherently flawed.  And sometimes it is that simple.

[tk76-]

Andre Miller has been near the bottom (4th worst in the NBA) for adjusted +/- over the last 2 years.  He certainly is not one of the wort players in the league...

[rickortreat]

Andre Miller has been near the bottom (4th worst in the NBA) for adjusted +/- over the last 2 years.  He certainly is not one of the wort players in the league...

I'm inclined to agree.  But that's my perception.  Maybe he really is that bad, that he gives up so much on the defensive end that it overwhelms his offensive contribution.

The thing is, if I was a coach, i would use this to determine who to play and who to play with against another team's group.  Maybe what happens is that some players just burn Miller or someone he is on the floor with at that time.

I'm just asking is it me or the stat?  There are players I thought we lousy and over the hill, like Jason Kidd.  But you look at the adjusted =/- and it turns out he's a pretty good player.  And it explains or justifies how he personally killed the Sixers the last time they played with some 3-point shooting.  Somehow he makes his team win.

[tk76-]

Other than the fact that it makes Iguodala look great, why have you chosen this stat to be all and end all of player eval?

[DuckyNinja]

Other than the fact that it makes Iguodala look great, why have you chosen this stat to be all and end all of player eval?

Read the 3rd line of my post?

[tk76-]

Sorry, that was not directed at you.

[DuckyNinja]

Rather than make a new topic about it, I'll just post this here, it's the Dallas Mavericks' version of adjusted +/-:

http://blogmaverick.com/2009/02/08/nba-all-stars-by-the-numbers/ 

Interesting notes:

-Iggy is 5th.  Maybe we have our superstar already.
-Thad is 28th.  And I thought he was having a down year personally.
-Kidd is 2nd.  Might this system explain why the Mavs coveted him so much last year?
-On the flipside, Harris isn't there.
-Bassy Telfair clocked in at 22.  Really?

[rickortreat]

I'm no longer enammoured with that stat. All I have is annecdotal evidence, but I've seen players have an outstanding individual performance yet get saddled with a lousy +/- because of their team-mates.  I understand that the adjusted version is supposed to compensate for that, but I really don't see how it can be done, effectively.

Kobe Brynat is playing out of this world, with a great PER.  How could he have a bad adjusted +/- when he
is playing that well and the Lakers are winning?

Andre Iguodala is a great player and he is continuing to improve, buy I wouldn't consider him the 2nd best player in the NBA.

[DuckyNinja]

PER is a seriously flawed stat.  It really doesn't account for defense and big men are weighed much higher than other players.  And Kobe doesn't have a bad +/- (he shows up as a top player on BV), he's just not having as much of an impact as Odom or Gasol.  That's all it's saying.  And from accounts about his 61 point game, that may not be wrong.  3 assists, no rebounds, and scoring just for the sake of scoring.

[Derek Bodner]

PER is a seriously flawed stat.  It really doesn't account for defense

That's what PER differential is for.

big men are weighed much higher than other players

How so?

can you explain to me, in terms of the formula, where this is true?

Even taking a quick glance at the top 20 for this year, it doesn't appear very big man heavy.  5 of the top 7 are guards/wing players (LeBron, Paul, Wade, Kobe, Roy).  Overall there are 4 pg's (Paul, Harris, Tony Parker, Jameer Nelson), 6 wing players (James, Wade, Kobe, Roy, Granger, Durant), and 10 big men.  Which, considering big men account for 40% of the starting position, isn't all that off (from a statistical standpoint, big men should account for 8 of the spots, not all that out of line).  Last year there were 9 big men in the top 20 for PER.  The year before that 9 as well.  Seems about right to me.