+/- stats, Dr. Bob picks

+/- stats, Dr. Bob picks The Dr. had a 3 star best bet tonight on the Knicks against Indiana. I was hoping it would be a nice discussion to criticize his analysis on a winning bet. It would feel better that way. But the Knicks coughed up a 17 pt lead and throw in a late flagrant foul or so and what do you know it is just a loser. I had a thread a few months ago where the Dr. had Denver as a 3 star best bet against Houston and they were missing Nene, Afflalo and I think one more guy. Although Nuggets did okay for awhile they eventually lost on home court. The premise of these plays--which I call these perverse plays---is that he examines the +/- stats of these guys and concludes they're lousy so the team is better off without them. For instance tonight it was Lin and Amare are out and the Knicks get outscored in particular when Amare is playing so the "perverse" conclusion is that the Knicks are better off with Baron Davis as the PG since his +/- is better and somebody else playing forward even though Carmelo is playing out of position and whatever other damage in must do to the bench and the rotations. The other point I was reading after last Friday's game (another game the Dr. came in on the Knicks and lost with vs. Atlanta) was that Woodson was ready to drop Davis completely as the starting PG and was looking into more minutes for the other back ups. The whole write up of the game I saw was how poorly Davis played. As a long time hockey fan where +/- has been used longer in evaluating players there are obvious situations it is just not the whole story by any means. The sports will differ but a basic theory I would have would simply have to be that Amare is a starter playing against the better players all the time and someone like Davis who has joined in relatively recently and more likely as a bench player I just wouldn't think would be playing against the same level. In hockey there are many players who there+/- is practically set up to be negative. The D pair sent out to play against Sidney Crosby for 25 minutes a game. They're the BEST D pair a team would have and are likely to have the worst +/- since their job is to be on the ice against him. You're not sending out your worst D against this guy. The best D on bad teams often have the worst +/- because they're seeing the most minutes on a bad team. Are they bad then? Perhaps but they won't be as bad as the next guy. So if you're looking at a guy with a good +/- on a bad team and saying why doesn't he play more? The answer might be he's not as good and his shifts are shorter, he has less ice time in meaningful situations and it is against easier opponents. I don't want to say it is the same thing and perhaps Amare isn't having a good year. But a handicapper writing about Baron Davis and his good +/- stats is a serious RED flag to me when I've just read from a qualitative analysis in the opinion of people watching the games and his coach his work is horrible this isn't something I want 3 stars on based on his +/-.

Good Dr with a perverse winner tonight but at least Orlando had a big injury of their own in Anderson

Yes, I agree that having Anderson out was probably more the strength of the play than the Knicks without Amare or Lin. I could see from what I look at that when Anderson is off the floor buckets must be a lot harder to come by. I think I'm on the same page with the Dr. there on Anderson but I still think whenever he generates a play like this it is worth your own research. And when quite honestly when you or RAS release a play I don't do any research. Not saying that to butter you up. Those are the facts. There was a time when the Dr. didn't need any research but inconsistent results, a few write ups that just didn't make that much logical sense and I have to send the handicapper too the bench to earn back some playing time. I already put Fez on the bench and I had to him send him down to AA. AAA wasn't enough needed to build some confidence. I'm hoping with the NBA playoffs start he gets his confidence back might send him out for a few shifts.

I HAD to add to this thread as the Dr. recommended a best bet on the Knicks last night with a "perverse" play based on the fact Amare was out. He also embellished with much commentary in his analysis that the fans, media and whole public at large don't understand that losing Amare doesn't hurt the Knicks chances at beating the Heat. It is a positive. Why his advice was this game should have been a PK. Pity us fools how we don't understand the world. I'll keep it to Amare and I won't bother asking how games that should be PK for him are only 2 star best bets. I think I got it from the Dr.'s lab the whole premise is that Amare is on the floor x minutes and the Knicks outscored by a bunch of points and when he's not on the floor they outscore their opponents by a bunch of points. This type of deep analysis leads him to conclude they're just better off without him. (Somebody tell Mike Woodson this. Can't we put another fire extinguisher in the way of his other arm before the game so he doesn't have to play him.) For me the bottom line is that the Knicks most frequently used rotation during the year (and like the Bulls injuries have effected their use of players that their most frequent units have pretty low minute counts compared to other teams frequent units) could not be used. Their most frequent group is Carmelo Amare Shumpert Fields and Chandler. The unit itself isn't that great its stats but compared to other Knicks rotations isn't bad. It is pretty simple I got 2 guys injured out of this unit which is the most frequently used unit because the coach of the team has decided these are probably his best players. And no don't tell me that they have too much invested in Amare to bench him if he wasn't good. All of these teams have money invested in players that are injured, useless, have personal problems......it is not a big deal. It is what any business calls a "sunk cost". You can't get out of it anyway so it makes no difference. The Mavs did it with Odom. In an efficient world Amare would not be played at all even if available if he were that bad. It is not an efficient world but his salary wouldn't be a reason to prevent that IMO. From a stats standpoint if Amare is so terrible all I need to find now are the rotations and players who are so good that can be played in lieu of Amare and presto I got my winning team. So let's examine any good Knicks rotation and try to get it on the court. Woodson can't play any of his first 3 rotations because of Amare and Shumpert being out. Now they also have Lin out so from what I can see Woodson cannot play any of the first 9 rotations the Knicks have used by frequency. (Bonus if we know Woodson's preferred rotations without D'Antoni but not sure we can tell since Lin got hurt) From that alone I might say the Knicks got a problem. An awesome Knicks rotation I saw is not only sit Amare I would sit Carmelo. Yup. The problem with this one is you need Lin. But you stick him out with with Novak Fields Shumpert and Chandler and if that unit can go 300 minutes the way it has gone 30 minutes there is a championship on the way. But with Shumpert out you can't even use this lineup! But there are some good rotations without Amare and Shumpert. Chandler Anthony Fields Douglas and Jeffries. I can see why Amare's +/- is so bad because when these guys get together the have done very well in 20 minutes. Carmelo must have made a few nice shots there. My conclusion is that the Dr. has taken a simplified stat and although he's aware of things he totally wiffed that without Shumpert or Lin playing the Knicks just don't have the ability to be so great when Amare is not on the floor. My argument would be if they were available the whole angle is overplayed anyway because Amare was injured at a time the Knicks were playing well I recall probably just a clear example of overperformance. But without these guys? You have to be nuts to think the Knicks are better off without Amare under this scenario.

Chicago should cut Noah too based on his analysis.

John Hollinger in the NBA and KenPom in college basketball have very good ratings for players in weighing their value to a squad. Not that my eye test always agrees, but they are a nice starting point.

Hollinger's PER is god awful at explaining wins.