Cumulative Plus/Minus, 2008-09

[Jumbo]

Final 2008-09 Totals ...

Individuals
Kyle Singler 2,365-1,938 (+427)
Jon Scheyer 2,400-1,993 (+407)
Gerald Henderson 2,206-1,846 (+360)
Nolan Smith 1,482-1,152 (+330)
Brian Zoubek 863-620 (+243)
David McClure 1,071-935 (+136)
Greg Paulus 1,075-994 (+81)
Lance Thomas 1,272-1,194 (+78)
Elliot Williams 1,017-943 (+74)
Martynas Pocius 226-217 (+9)
Steve Johnson 14-13 (+1)
Miles Plumlee 270-271 (-1)
Olek Czyz 74-79 (-5)

Per 40 Minutes
Brian Zoubek +22.8
Nolan Smith +18.0
Kyle Singler +14.3
Jon Scheyer +13.4
Gerald Henderson +13.1
David McClure +9.6
Greg Paulus +5.6
Elliot Williams +5.3
Lance Thomas +4.5
Steve Johnson +4.0
Martynas Pocius +2.7
Miles Plumlee -0.2
Olek Czyz -3.9


Lineups
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x68) 368-232 (+136)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x71) 281-241 (+40)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x41) 206-177 (+29)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler (x21) 69-45 (+24)
Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x16) 62-40 (+22)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Singler-Thomas (x11) 41-20 (+21)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x28) 124-104 (+20)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x6) 34-17 (+17)
Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x21) 79-63 (+16)
Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler-Zoubek (x2) 19-4 (+15)
Scheyer-Pocius-Williams-Singler-Zoubek (x2) 15-3 (+12)
Smith-Henderson-McClure-Singler-Thomas (x6) 17-7 (+10)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x21) 50-41 (+9)
Paulus-Scheyer-McClure-Singler-Zoubek (x10) 27-18 (+9)
Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x7) 20-11 (+9)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Singler-Zoubek (x7) 19-10 (+9)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek (x7) 27-19 (+8)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas-Plumlee (x4) 17-9 (+8)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Plumlee (x3) 11-3 (+8)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Singler (x14) 31-24 (+7)
Smith-Williams-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x8) 25-18 (+7)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Thomas-Zoubek (x2) 9-2 (+7)
Paulus-Williams-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x7) 20-14 (+6)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek (x4) 10-4 (+6)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Thomas-Zoubek 9-3 (+6)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-McClure-Singler 8-2 (+6)
Smith-Pocius-Williams-McClure-Zoubek 8-2 (+6)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Singler (x8) 13-8 (+5)
Paulus-Henderson-McClure-Singler-Thomas (x7) 14-9 (+5)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Singler-Plumlee (x3) 12-7 (+5)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure (x3) 9-4 (+5)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-McClure-Thomas (x2) 7-2 (+5)
Paulus-Smith-Pocius-Singler-Thomas 5-0 (+5)
Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Singler-Thomas (x19) 44-40 (+4)
Paulus-Henderson-McClure-Thomas-Zoubek (x6) 21-17 (+4)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Singler (x6) 14-10 (+4)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-McClure-Zoubek (x3) 18-14 (+4)
Smith-Williams-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x3) 9-5 (+4)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Thomas (x2) 4-0 (+4)
Paulus-Williams-McClure-Thomas-Zoubek (x2) 4-0 (+4)
Scheyer-Pocius-Henderson-Singler-Plumlee 6-2 (+4)
Smith-Pocius-Williams-Czyz-Plumlee 4-0 (+4)
Smith-Pocius-Henderson-Singler-Thomas 4-0 (+4)
Smith-Pocius-Williams-Singler-Thomas 4-0 (+4)
Paulus-Smith-Williams-Henderson-Thomas 4-0 (+4)
Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Singler-Zoubek (x9) 27-24 (+3)
Smith-Henderson-McClure-Singler-Zoubek (x4) 7-4 (+3)
Paulus-Williams-McClure-Thomas-Plumlee (x2) 11-8 (+3)
Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek (x2) 3-0 (+3)
Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas-Plumlee 6-3 (+3)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Zoubek 6-3 (+3)
Paulus-Pocius-Henderson-Singler-Thomas 4-1 (+3)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-Singler-Plumlee 3-0 (+3)
Paulus-Williams-Henderson-Singler-Plumlee 3-0 (+3)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Zoubek 3-0 (+3)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Zoubek 3-0 (+3)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Singler-Thomas (x4) 10-8 (+2)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-Czyz-Thomas (x2) 6-4 (+2)
Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Singler-Plumlee (x2) 4-2 (+2)
Smith-Williams-McClure-Singler-Thomas 7-5 (+2)
Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Thomas-Plumlee 4-2 (+2)
Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler-Plumlee 4-2 (+2)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas 3-1 (+2)
Paulus-Pocius-McClure-Singler-Zoubek 2-0 (+2)
Paulus-Smith-Williams-Singler-Plumlee 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Pocius-Williams-Henderson-Singler 2-0 (+2)
Scheyer-Williams-Czyz-Thomas-Plumlee 2-0 (+2)
Williams-Pocius-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek 2-0 (+2)
Paulus-Henderson-McClure-Czyz-Thomas 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Zoubek 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Zoubek 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Pocius-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-McClure 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Plumlee (x8) 29-28 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Singler-Zoubek (x6) 16-15 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Plumlee (x4) 11-10 (+1)
Williams-Pocius-Johnson-Czyz-Plumlee (x3) 10-9 (+1)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Singler-Zoubek (x2) 7-6 (+1)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x2) 6-5 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Thomas (x2) 5-4 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Thomas (x2) 5-4 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-McClure-Thomas-Plumlee (x2) 1-0 (+1)
Paulus-Henderson-McClure-Singler-Zoubek (x2) 1-0 (+1)
Paulus-Williams-McClure-Czyz-Plumlee 5-4 (+1)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Thomas-Zoubek 4-3 (+1)
Scheyer-Williams-Singler-Czyz-Zoubek 4-3 (+1)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Henderson-Singler 3-2 (+1)
Paulus-Smith-McClure-Singler-Thomas 3-2 (+1)
Scheyer-Pocius-McClure-Thomas-Plumlee 1-0 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x10) 21-21 (0)
Paulus-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x3) 7-7 (0)
Smith-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x3) 5-5 (0)
Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Singler-Thomas (x3) 5-5 (0)
Smith-Scheyer-Singler-Thomas-Plumlee (x2) 10-10 (0)
Paulus-Henderson-McClure-Thomas-Plumlee (x2) 4-4 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Williams-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 2-2 (0)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-Singler-Zoubek 7-7 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Williams-McClure-Thomas 3-3 (0)
Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Thomas-Zoubek 3-3 (0)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-Johnson-Czyz 2-2 (0)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Thomas-Plumlee 2-2 (0)
Paulus-Pocius-McClure-Czyz-Thomas 2-2 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Thomas 2-2 (0)
Smith-Williams-Henderson-Thomas-Plumlee 2-2 (0)
Paulus-Williams-Johnson-Czyz-Plumlee 2-2 (0)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-Henderson-Plumlee (x2) 0-0 (0)
Smith-Pocius-McClure-Singler-Thomas 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Henderson-McClure-Singler-Plumlee 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Pocius-Wiliams-Henderson-McClure 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Pocius-Wiliams-Henderson-Plumlee 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Smith-Henderson-Williams-McClure-Singler 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Thomas-Plumlee 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Williams-McClure-Singler-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Singler-Thomas (x12) 29-30 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-McClure-Thomas-Zoubek (x7) 7-8 (-1)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-McClure-Plumlee (x6) 25-26 (-1)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x6) 12-13 (-1)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Singler (x5) 9-10 (-1)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek (x4) 11-12 (-1)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Thomas (x4) 8-9 (-1)
Paulus-Williams-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x4) 4-5 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Plumlee (x2) 3-4 (-1)
Paulus-Williams-McClure-Singler-Thomas (x2) 1-2 (-1)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Thomas (x2) 1-2 (-1)
Smith-Williams-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 4-5 (-1)
Smith-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Plumlee 3-4 (-1)
Paulus-Pocius-McClure-Thomas-Zoubek 2-3 (-1)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Plumlee 0-1 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-McClure 0-1 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-McClure-Singler-Thomas (x19) 41-43 (-2)
Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Singler-Plumlee (x6) 17-19 (-2)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek (x2) 7-9 (-2)
Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 3-5 (-2)
Paulus-Pocius-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x2) 2-4 (-2)
Paulus-Pocius-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x2) 2-4 (-2)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-McClure-Singler (x2) 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-Henderson-Singler (x2) 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-McClure-Singler-Plumlee (x2) 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Thomas-Plumlee 4-6 (-2)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-McClure-Thomas 3-5 (-2)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-Singler-Thomas 2-4 (-2)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-McClure-Czyz 2-4 (-2)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-Czyz-Zoubek 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Singler-Plumlee 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Pocius-Williams-Thomas-Plumlee 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Plumlee 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-McClure-Thomas 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Williams-Thomas 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Smith-Williams-McClure-Singler 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Pocius-Williams-McClure-Czyz 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Smith-Pocius-Williams-McClure 0-2 (-2)
Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Singler-Zoubek (x4) 10-13 (-3)
Paulus-Smith-Williams-Singler-Thomas (x4) 8-11 (-3)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Singler-Plumlee (x3) 4-7 (-3)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 1-4 (-3)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 0-3 (-3)
Paulus-Pocius-Czyz-Plumlee-Zoubek 3-6 (-3)
Smith-Pocius-Williams-Henderson-McClure 2-5 (-3)
Paulus-Williams-Henderson-Thomas-Plumlee 2-5 (-3)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek 2-5 (-3)
Williams-Pocius-Czyz-Thomas-Plumlee 0-3 (-3)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Zoubek 0-3 (-3)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x5) 5-9 (-4)
Smith-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x3) 6-10 (-4)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Plumlee (x2) 2-6 (-4)
Paulus-Scheyer-Williams-McClure-Thomas (x6) 17-22 (-5)
Paulus-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x4) 9-14 (-5)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas-Plumlee (x2) 0-5 (-5)
Scheyer-Pocius-Williams-Thomas-Plumlee 0-5 (-5)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-Czyz-Plumlee (x8) 30-36 (-6)
Smith-Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Singler (x7) 14-20 (-6)
Paulus-Smith-Pocius-Singler-Zoubek 2-8 (-6)
Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler-Thomas (x4) 6-13 (-7)
Paulus-Williams-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 9-16 (-7)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x6) 5-13 (-8)
Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas-Zoubek (x4) 12-20 (-8)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x35) 128-138 (-10)
Paulus-Pocius-Williams-Thomas-Plumlee (x4) 11-21 (-10)
Scheyer-Williams-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x53) 251-264 (-13)


Net +/-

Name        Net+/-     +/-On  +/-Off    +/-    +/-    +/-
******        per 40    per 40  per 40  On Tot Off Tot Net Tot
Zoubek       15.77     22.76     6.99    243    185      58
Singler      14.18     14.32     0.14    427      1     426
Smith        12.76     17.98     5.22    330     98     232
Scheyer      10.31     13.41     3.10    407     21     386
Henderson     6.09     13.11     7.03    360     68     292
McClure      -3.16      9.58    12.74    136    292    -156
Johnson      -7.58      4.00    11.58      1    427    -426
Paulus       -9.70      5.61    15.30     81    347    -266
Pocius       -9.75      2.67    12.41      9    419    -410
Williams    -10.10      5.26    15.36     74    354    -280
Thomas      -13.06      4.53    17.59     78    350    -272
Plumlee     -13.24     -0.24    13.00     -1    429    -430
Czyz        -16.00     -3.92    12.08     -5    433    -438

[Lulu]

Are we allowed to post in this thread? If not please just delete this.

Sorry for being new to this, but I'm guessing the numbers are:
"Duke pts-Opponent pts (difference)"
thus giving the scoring disparity for each player and lineup. Correct?

If so, then I have a very humble suggestion... What if we took the ratio DukePts/OppPts and reported that, perhaps in place of the difference? Then we know how many points Duke scores for every point the opponent scores with that player/lineup. This not only removes the time bias, but also the pace bias, because when it comes to winning I'd think the ratio at which we outscore the opponent is an even better measure than the rate. (That said, if we want purely offensive or defensive measures, per time or preferably per possession would take precedence.)

For the present numbers, the ratio would look like this:
PLAYER Duke Opp Ratio
Nolan Smith 47 19 2.474
Jon Scheyer 56 24 2.333
Lance Thomas 41 19 2.158
Brian Zoubek 14 7 2.000
David McClure 36 19 1.895
Marty Pocius 19 11 1.727
Kyle Singler 51 30 1.700
Elliot Williams 36 26 1.385
Greg Paulus 43 36 1.194
Miles Plumlee 14 12 1.167
Gerald Henderson 37 34 1.088
Olek Czyz 6 8 0.750
DUKE TEAM 80 49 1.63

Note that instead of above we could also take similar ratios:
DukePts/(DukePts+OppPts); or
(DukePts-OppPts)/OppPts; or
(DukePts-OppPts)/(DukePts+OppPts); etc etc etc.
All with their own meanings. But I think I'd personally just prefer the first.

Technically, the best numerical indicator for the effectiveness of a player/lineup and cross-game analysis is probably to compare the ratios reported above to that of the team as a whole in the last row. Probably something like (Player Ratio/Duke Ratio)-1, which for the above yields:

Nolan Smith 0.5151
Jon Scheyer 0.4292
Lance Thomas 0.3217
Brian Zoubek 0.2250
David McClure 0.1605
Marty Pocius 0.0580
Kyle Singler 0.0413
Elliot Williams -0.1519
Greg Paulus -0.2684
Miles Plumlee -0.2854
Gerald Henderson -0.3335
Olek Czyz -0.5406

This basically says that Duke's scoring ratio increased 52% with Smith in the game, and fell 33% from average with Henderson... at least in today's game. [EDIT: Fine, I guess it isn't technically correct to say "increased" since we are comparing Smith's presence to an average that was also computed with him partially present, instead of when he wasn't playing at all... but the idea is the same...]

I know there are a lot of smart people here, so this has probably already been discussed...

Over the course of the season I also think it would be interesting to add weight to these numbers depending on the ease of the win. This would account for numbers getting overblown in easy wins, and the fact that easy wins are when some players see the most playing time. It's a little arbitrary trying to decide how much more an even game is worth as opposed to a game with an overmatched opponent, but one example would be to use the inverse of the ratio given for the Duke Team above for the weight (in other words OppPts/DukePts for the entire game). Games we lost would actually have the highest weight then, presumably against the toughest opponents. We should also add a weight for the number of minutes the player played each game, since a 5:1 ratio in 1 minute of playing time isn't worth a 2:1 ratio in 30 minutes. Then we take a weighted average of the totals over all games played.

However, that's getting far more complex than I intended when I began this comment. A cumulative season-long ratio is far more simple.

Out of curiosity, how do you get your numbers Jumbo? Just from watching the game and lineup when a score occurs? Must be a bit of work if that's the case. I was just wondering because I was going to play with a code to make all of this easier if the numbers were readily available somewhere.

[Jumbo]

If so, then I have a very humble suggestion... What if we took the ratio DukePts/OppPts and reported that, perhaps in place of the difference? Then we know how many points Duke scores for every point the opponent scores with that player/lineup. This not only removes the time bias, but also the pace bias, because when it comes to winning I'd think the ratio at which we outscore the opponent is an even better measure than the rate. (That said, if we want purely offensive or defensive measures, per time or preferably per possession would take precedence.)

I've never really seen a site do this as a ratio. No reason you can't add it on, but I think end-of-the-bench guys will be overvalued. The way I do it is the most common format, and it tends to normalize as the season goes on. Check out last season's numbers when you get a chance. I don't think you could weight it by strength of opponent -- way too tough.

Out of curiosity, how do you get your numbers Jumbo? Just from watching the game and lineup when a score occurs? Must be a bit of work if that's the case. I was just wondering because I was going to play with a code to make all of this easier if the numbers were readily available somewhere.

It's just a simple game log. All you have to do is track substitutions and note the score.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Georgia Southern game ...

[Lulu]

I've never really seen a site do this as a ratio. No reason you can't add it on, but I think end-of-the-bench guys will be overvalued. The way I do it is the most common format, and it tends to normalize as the season goes on. Check out last season's numbers when you get a chance. I don't think you could weight it by strength of opponent -- way too tough.

I didn't realize it was a standard format. This definitely makes sense if you are looking for the MVP, but it's difficult to try to identify an undervalued player or one that is making intangible contributions to the team's performance. I thought the ratio helped in that regard. The raw scoring difference means little without considering minutes played, if the intent is to compare player effectiveness. I just wanted to remove the minutes played and pace factors.

I asked about the source of your stats because I was going to explore things such as guard combinations and look for correlations. However, I think there's enough info in the numbers you do post to do this. Also, once I realized there were "On" and "Off" columns and what that meant it helped. Thanks!

[ACCBBallFan]

Thanks for continuing to do this, Jumbo.

It always adds some insight, for example most observers would say Kyle Singler was clearly player of the game both games, but is not the plus/minus leader.

I use a more simplistic attempt to factor in all the box score stats both raw score and on a per 40 minutes basis and for GA southern came up with:

Rating Name (min)

81 Singler (22)
65 Henderson (20)
54 Scheyer (22)
53 Smith (18)
48 Paulus (21)
48 Zoubek (14)
44 McClure (11)
43 Pocius (17)
35 Thomas (13)
34 Williams (14)
32 Plumlee (14)

I draw an arbitrary distinction for at least 10 mintes played vs. < 10 minutes

57 Czyz (9)
06 Johnson (5)

Ratings can get skewed in a single game but tend to normalize over course of the season.

[CDu]

I didn't realize it was a standard format. This definitely makes sense if you are looking for the MVP, but it's difficult to try to identify an undervalued player or one that is making intangible contributions to the team's performance. I thought the ratio helped in that regard. The raw scoring difference means little without considering minutes played, if the intent is to compare player effectiveness. I just wanted to remove the minutes played and pace factors.

I asked about the source of your stats because I was going to explore things such as guard combinations and look for correlations. However, I think there's enough info in the numbers you do post to do this. Also, once I realized there were "On" and "Off" columns and what that meant it helped. Thanks!

The problem with the ratio approach, as Jumbo alluded to, is that it explodes for small numbers. In other words, say you have a guy who only plays a few minutes during which Duke outscores its opponent 6-2. The ratio there is 3. Now, say you've got a guy who is there when we outscore the opponent 50-30. The ratio there is 1.67. Now, how do you compare those two? I'd say it's very misleading to suggest that the guy with the 3 ratio did better, because it's just too small a sample size with too much room for random variation. But simply going by the ratio one would say that the bench guy did better.

Jumbo gives a +/- per 40 minutes, which sort of does what you want (takes the time out of it). It is subject to some of the same concerns for small-minute players. He also presents the overall totals. Between the two, you can discern who is productive in more limited time and who is productive in a lot of time.

[CDu]

Ratings can get skewed in a single game but tend to normalize over course of the season.

Yup. This is the small sample size issue. Too much can happen in a single game to skew the stats and make a player's individual +/- look much better (or worse) than his actual performance would suggest. This is especially true for a team game in which a player may have little influence at all on many (if not most) of the baskets during any given stretch of the game.

Last year, we saw the +/- for the key players eventually cluster right around the team's average margin of victory by the end of the season when the sample size got a bit bigger (still small, but bigger). Some players were a bit above, some were a bit below. I'd expect more of the same this year. Of course, it may vary a bit more if Coach K goes into a deeper rotation, or if he goes to more distinct team units.

[Lulu]

You'd think I had suggested rewriting the Bible... I was just suggesting an idea for an additional informative number we could look at. It could just be a 4th column. Sorry for using the word "replace" earlier; the difference column seemed redundant but it's nice to have there if you don't feel like doing the math. The point totals alone indicate how much Duke is using a particular player.

I also already made note of the issues regarding players with fewer minutes and their potential for skewed results in my initial post.

The problem with the raw scoring numbers is that it becomes little more than a measure of how many minutes a guy plays. Fine, we've acknowledged this. And yes, per minute (or per 40 minute) numbers are given as well. Fine, that's very nice too. I only thought that looking at a per opponent point ratio would be nice as well, for the reasons mentioned. Wasn't supposed to be a big deal.

The other, and probably bigger, problem with any cumulative and unweighted difference (or ratio) is that the easy games carry by far the most weight. A player might stand to earn +40 against an easy opponent, but will be lucky to earn even a couple points, if not lose a few, in a close win against a good opponent. This is why comparing to a team average on a game-by-game basis was an idea.

If you look at last year's numbers, the top 3 vary by only 11 pts on the season. The next 2, Henderson and Paulus, vary by only 2 points from each other. It's virtually the same as total minutes played, seeing as these point differences are insignificant. (We all know a single 3 minute stretch could account for 11 points, not to mention the effect if someone has to sit out a 30-point blowout.) Perhaps Scheyer's number should be strengthened by the fact he played fewer minutes, but it's not. Perhaps Nelson should be penalized for playing almost 2 full games more than anyone else, but you also can't forget that any player who plays 40 minutes in a tough game that's decided by 1 point has earned virtually nothing in the raw scoring difference for that game. It's the big wins (insignificant games) that contribute the most to these numbers.

The only real outlier seemed to be Taylor King, but it's pretty clear that can probably be attributed to his performance early on, especially considering the fact he saw considerable time in the early blowouts. His numbers will therefore be "artificially" high no matter what type of score in computed; barring some measure of opponent strength which we all agree is unnecessary.

So... I guess I'm sorry for even having an idea. I'll just look at my own numbers if I get curious. Thought it was all for fun anyway.

[CDu]

So... I guess I'm sorry for even having an idea. I'll just look at my own numbers if I get curious. Thought it was all for fun anyway.

I think you're wildly overreacting. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. The way you presented it made it sound like the information Jumbo was presenting was somewhat useless and the ratio thing was the solution.

If Jumbo is willing to add your ratio as an additional measure, I'm certainly not opposed to the idea. I was just stating the flaws in your suggested metric as you were stating the flaws in his metrics. I don't see the need to get huffy about my (or his) response.

Both approaches have flaws, that's all. Ultimately, creating an individual stat for a team-oriented result is going to have flaws. This is especially true when you have a game with lots of substitutions, lots of points scored under random circumstances, and not a lot of games played.

[Jumbo]

I think last year I did ACC-only plus/minus, too. No reason why I can't do that again.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Rhode Island game ...

[Abraxas]

A valid point of Lulu was pace. There are levels of intensity at different times of the game that current metrics are not capturing. +/- per possession might be able to give you a better measure of the effectiveness of a player.

In regards to the strength of the opponent, one could use the "rating factor" of Sagarin (divided by 100) at the time of the game, or use an average of several computer rankings.

Lastly, a further "unreachable level" is to factor opponent players (who was your defensive assignment?). It is doable in K's system because our traditional man-to-man defense, but that metric would break down with different zone defenses or when we attack zones (as compared to M-to-M).

Like others, I truly appreciate Jumbo keeping these stats. They do add to the analysis of the game.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Michigan game ...

[ACCBBallFan]

I guess what surprises me the most is Lance and Dave having very favorable +/- given their lack of Offense, a testament to their defense.

So far Duke has not played any really big teams where IMO Zoubek and Miles are key. I expect Greg will improve as well once he heals a bit.

Hopefully these Montana and Duquesne games give Duke a chance to not play anybody more than about 25 minutes and to get the frosh more oriented, before coach K has to revert back to 8 or 9 man rotation for Purdue game.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Montana game ...

[BlueintheFace]

The Zoubek numbers are very very encouraging...

[bdh21]

Can we pin this thread to the top of the EK forum?

[Jumbo]

Oddly, I find that when things are stickied, they are noticed less. That's why I just bounce it to the top after each game. But if people want me to sticky it, I will.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Duquesne game ...