Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 92

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Cumulative Plus/Minus

    Now complete through the 2007-08 season.

    Individuals
    Jon Scheyer +353 (2,036-1,683)
    DeMarcus Nelson +345 (2,204-1,859)
    Kyle Singler +342 (2,055-1,713)
    Gerald Henderson +316 (1,839-1,523)
    Greg Paulus +314 (1,954-1,640)
    Taylor King +180 (721-541)
    Nolan Smith +168 (1,041-873)
    Lance Thomas +157 (1,164-1,007)
    Brian Zoubek +101 (523-422)
    Dave McClure +39 (491-452)
    Martynas Pocius +19 (74-55)
    Jordan Davidson +9 (46-37)

    Per 40 Minutes
    Martynas Pocius +23.8
    Taylor King +21.8
    Jordan Davidson +18.0
    Brian Zoubek +15.4
    Jon Scheyer +14.7
    Gerald Henderson +14.2
    Kyle Singler +14.1
    Nolan Smith +13.4
    Greg Paulus +13.3
    DeMarcus Nelson +13.1
    Lance Thomas +10.6
    Dave McClure +5.8

    Lineups (From most to least effective -- number of times used in parentheses.)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler (x79) 353-283 (+70)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x92) 438-376 (+62)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x32) 101-60 (+51)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Singler (x21) 76-52 (+24)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Singler (x9) 33-10 (+23)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x22) 86-66 (+20)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Singler (x18) 72-53 (+19)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Singler (x21) 57-41 (+16)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Zoubek (x10) 40-24 (+16)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x6) 26-10 (+16)
    Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-King-Zoubek (x4) 35-19 (+16)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-King (x2) 17-2 (+15)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Thomas (x9) 35-21 (+14)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler (x13) 46-33 (+13)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x5) 23-10 (+13)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek (x19) 74-62 (+12)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x13) 34-22 (+12)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Thomas (x11) 38-26 (+12)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek (x6) 23-12 (+11)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Thomas (x43) 131-121 (+10)
    Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-King-Thomas 13-4 (+9)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Zoubek (x10) 31-23 (+8)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-King (x5) 16-8 (+8)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-King-Thomas (x6) 20-13 (+7)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Zoubek (x2) 9-2 (+7)
    Scheyer-Pocius-Nelson-King-Thomas 7-0 (+7)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Zoubek (x7) 18-12 (+6)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Singler (x6) 17-11 (+6)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas (x6) 16-10 (+6)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-King (x6) 13-7 (+6)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-King (x7) 26-21 (+5)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-King (x6) 18-13 (+5)
    Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King-Zoubek (x5) 16-11 (+5)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-King-Singler 9-4 (+5)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas (x23) 57-53 (+4)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Singler (x16) 50-46 (+4)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-King-Singler (x7) 21-17 (+4)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson (x4) 8-4 (+4)
    Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x2) 7-3 (+4)
    Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Nelson-King 6-2 (+4)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-King-Singler (x4) 13-10 (+3)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Zoubek (x3) 7-4 (+3)
    Paulus-Pocius-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek 7-4 (+3)
    Scheyer-Pocius-Henderson-King-Singler 6-3 (+3)
    Paulus-Pocius-Nelson-Henderson-Singler 3-0 (+3)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Zoubek 3-0 (+3)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek (x14) 44-42 (+2)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Thomas (x9) 17-15 (+2)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x6) 19-17 (+2)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-McClure (x5) 17-15 (+2)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Singler-Zoubek (x3) 12-10 (+2)
    Davidson-Smith-McClure-King-Zoubek (x3) 10-8 (+2)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x2) 2-0 (+2)
    Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King-Thomas (x2) 2-0 (+2)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-King-Singler (x2) 2-0 (+2)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Henderson-King 6-4 (+2)
    Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-King-Zoubek 5-3 (+2)
    Paulus-Smith-Henderson-King-Zoubek 4-2 (+2)
    Paulus-Pocius-Henderson-McClure-King 2-0 (+2)
    Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-King 2-0 (+2)
    Davidson-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler 2-0 (+2)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 2-0 (+2)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-King (x8) 14-13 (+1)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Singler-Thomas (x4) 10-9 (+1)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek (x3) 11-10 (+1)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Zoubek (x3) 5-4 (+1)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x3) 3-2 (+1)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-King-Zoubek 8-7 (+1)
    Paulus-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Singler 4-3 (+1)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Thomas (x31) 70-70 (0)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Thomas-Zoubek (x8) 12-12 (0)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King (x5) 12-12 (0)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-King (x4) 9-9 (0)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek (x3) 18-18 (0)
    Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 9-9 (0)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 4-4 (0)
    Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Thomas 4-4 (0)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-McClure-Zoubek 3-3 (0)
    Paulus-Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-King 2-2 (0)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-Nelson-King 0-0 (0)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-King-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
    Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
    Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-King-Singler 0-0 (0)
    Smith-Nelson-McClure-King-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
    Paulus-Davidson-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler 0-0 (0)
    Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-McClure-King 0-0 (0)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-King 0-0 (0)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Thomas 0-0 (0)
    Paulus-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas 0-0 (0)
    Davidson-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas 0-0 (0)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Thomas (x8) 27-28 (-1)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x5) 5-6 (-1)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas (x2) 1-2 (-1)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek 3-4 (-1)
    Smith-Pocius-Nelson-McClure-Singler 2-3 (-1)
    Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Thomas 2-3 (-1)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-King-Zoubek 2-3 (-1)
    Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-King-Zoubek 2-3 (-1)
    Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King-Singler 0-1 (-1)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Thomas 0-1 (-1)
    Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-1 (-1)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Singler (x7) 24-26 (-2)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Zoubek (x6) 13-15 (-2)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek (x4) 11-13 (-2)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Thomas (x4) 3-5 (-2)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure (x3) 5-7 (-2)
    Paulus-Pocius-Nelson-McClure-Thomas 1-3 (-2)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-King-Singler 0-2 (-2)
    Smith-Pocius-Nelson-King-Singler 0-2 (-2)
    Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas-Zoubek 0-2 (-2)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Thomas (x2) 0-2 (-2)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler (x24) 79-82 (-3)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x7) 10-13 (-3)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas (x4) 3-6 (-3)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x3) 5-8 (-3)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Singler-Thomas (x2) 4-7 (-3)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure (x2) 0-3 (-3)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x2) 0-3 (-3)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-Henderson-Thomas 0-3 (-3)
    Paulus-Pocius-Nelson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-3 (-3)
    Paulus-Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson 0-3 (-3)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler (x9) 21-25 (-4)
    Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x4) 5-9 (-4)
    Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King (x4) 3-8 (-5)
    Smith-Pocius-McClure-King-Zoubek 3-8 (-5)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 2-7 (-5)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-King-Zoubek 0-5 (-5)
    Smith-Nelson-Henderson-King-Thomas (x4) 2-8 (-6)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Thomas-Zoubek (x3) 2-8 (-6)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Thomas (x11) 25-32 (-7)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-King (x3) 5-13 (-8)
    Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x15) 21-30 (-9)
    Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Singler (x5) 4-13 (-9)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x10) 16-34 (-18)

    Net +/-
    Code:
    Name        Net+/-     +/-On  +/-Off    +/-    +/-    +/-
    ******        per 40    per 40  per 40  On Tot Off Tot Net Tot
     
    King         10.65    21.82    11.17    180    289    -109
    Pocius       10.25    23.75    13.50     19    450    -431
    Davidson      4.32    18.00    13.68      9    460    -451
    Scheyer       3.12    14.66    11.54    353    116     237
    Zoubek        2.07    15.42    13.35    101    368    -267
    Henderson     1.27    14.19    12.91    316    153     163
    Singler       1.15    14.07    12.93    342    127     215
    Smith        -0.48    13.44    13.92    168    301    -133
    Paulus       -1.37    13.32    14.69    314    155     159
    Nelson       -2.67    13.13    15.80    345    124     221
    Thomas       -5.58    10.59    16.17    157    312    -155
    McClure      -9.86     5.82    15.68     39    430    -391
    Last edited by Jumbo; 03-27-2008 at 08:52 PM.

  2. #2

    A Thought On Time Bias

    Hey Jumbo,

    I like the statistic, but it occurs to me that player efficiency might better be measured if you were to divide each of your resulting values by the number of minutes the player (or group of 5) plays.

    Here's an example as to how the suggestion would remove time bias from your statistic. Assume that every combination on the floor outscores the opponent at the same rate. Based on this assumption, all players should be equally efficient regardless of minutes. That means that the net result will be the player with the most minutes has the highest number. Dividing by the number of minutes played would remove the bias.

    The resulting numbers won't be nice integers, but you'd have a better relative measure of each player as a catalyst for efficient play in Net Points per Minute value.

    Just a thought.

    Larry
    DevilHorse

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilHorse View Post
    Hey Jumbo,

    I like the statistic, but it occurs to me that player efficiency might better be measured if you were to divide each of your resulting values by the number of minutes the player (or group of 5) plays.

    Here's an example as to how the suggestion would remove time bias from your statistic. Assume that every combination on the floor outscores the opponent at the same rate. Based on this assumption, all players should be equally efficient regardless of minutes. That means that the net result will be the player with the most minutes has the highest number. Dividing by the number of minutes played would remove the bias.

    The resulting numbers won't be nice integers, but you'd have a better relative measure of each player as a catalyst for efficient play in Net Points per Minute value.

    Just a thought.

    Larry
    DevilHorse
    For individuals, it's easy to do plus/minus on a per-minute basis. But I don't have the time or resources to track the amount of time a lineup spends on the floor together -- it's tough enough to track who is on the floor after subs have been made, let alone mark the exact time. If anyone else wants to track that, please do so. I'll do plus/minus per minute in a little while.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    I don't understand these numbers, Jumbo. They seem to contradict numerous posters in the other thread who insist Coach K only ever uses 7 guys. I'm confused.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  5. #5
    dont get cocky throaty.

    K really only used 8 guys the last 2 games, so its not much of a change. Technically he used 9, but King Taylor only played 3 minutes total so its really 8 players. And Z only played 5-6 minutes against marquette, and while I realize that was partially a product of the fact the size/style of the marquette frontcourt its still indicative of the fact that K still has this urge to stick with his smaller rotation...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Who is King Taylor?

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Thanks for taking the time to do this, Jumbo. It'll be interesting to see how the +/- plays out. The five-game cumulative numbers look somewhat like what one would expect, with Singler, Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, and Nelson (arguably the five best Duke players) leading the way. King's and Zoubek's +/- look good, but they may be subject to a lot of volatility given their reduced minutes (comparatively). Still too early to tell, but as of now the numbers don't seem to support the idea that Smith should be playing ahead of Paulus.

    Nice to see these in a cumulative format. I'm glad someone is taking the time to do it (I'm way too lazy), and I look forward to seeing how the numbers progress throughout the year.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Now updated through the Virginia game...

  9. #9
    +/- per 40 minutes

    Gerald Henderson +17.5
    Kyle Singler +17.4
    Taylor King +17.4
    Greg Paulus +16.5
    Jon Scheyer +15.3
    Brian Zoubek +13.5
    DeMarcus Nelson +11.4
    Nolan Smith +5
    Lance Thomas +4.6
    Martynas Pocius -1.3

  10. #10

    Per 40 Minutes

    Quote Originally Posted by bdh21 View Post
    +/- per 40 minutes

    Gerald Henderson +17.5
    Kyle Singler +17.4
    Taylor King +17.4
    Greg Paulus +16.5
    Jon Scheyer +15.3
    Brian Zoubek +13.5
    DeMarcus Nelson +11.4
    Nolan Smith +5
    Lance Thomas +4.6
    Martynas Pocius -1.3
    Thanks bdh! It is interesting that Thomas graded lower than Zoubek.


    Larry

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Now updated through Michigan game...

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Now updated through the Michigan game...


    Lineups
    (From most effective to least effective -- number of times used in parentheses)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x35) 147-101 (+46)
    Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Thomas (x9) 10-24 (-14)


    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek (x8) 41-27 (+14)
    Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Zoubek (x3) 3-9 (-6)
    What struck me is the disparity between the top couple of lineups not including Pocius and the bottom few.

    Smith and Scheyer in for Paulus and Henderson, with Nelson, Singler and Zoubek in both cases was a +/- difference of 60.

    Subbing Henderson in for Singler with Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Zoubek constant for both was a net difference of 20.

    I am sure this takes hordes of time to compile. So thanks for doing that, Jumbo.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Louisville, KY

    Sample size

    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    What struck me is the disparity between the top couple of lineups not including Pocius and the bottom few.

    Smith and Scheyer in for Paulus and Henderson, with Nelson, Singler and Zoubek in both cases was a +/- difference of 60.

    Subbing Henderson in for Singler with Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Zoubek constant for both was a net difference of 20.

    I am sure this takes hordes of time to compile. So thanks for doing that, Jumbo.
    Good points. But I think there may be a sampling margin of error applicable to the comparison. the number of times the lineups were used shows a sample size discrepancy but more importantly the number of possessions utilizing each lineup is not given. My guess is that there were much fewer possessions for the less successful lineups, given the much lower number of points involved. Lack of experience playing together in that lineup could also account for its reduced effectiveness.

    While there is some validity in one lineup as superior to the other, its not exactly an apples-to-apples measurement.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by mus074 View Post
    Good points. But I think there may be a sampling margin of error applicable to the comparison. the number of times the lineups were used shows a sample size discrepancy but more importantly the number of possessions utilizing each lineup is not given. My guess is that there were much fewer possessions for the less successful lineups, given the much lower number of points involved. Lack of experience playing together in that lineup could also account for its reduced effectiveness.

    While there is some validity in one lineup as superior to the other, its not exactly an apples-to-apples measurement.
    Exactly what I was going to say. If anything, the starting lineup is not one of Duke's most effective lineup, since it is outscoring opponents by less than 2 ppg every time it's used.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Va
    Thanks, Jumbo!! GO DUKE!! GTHC, GTH!!!!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Exactly what I was going to say. If anything, the starting lineup is not one of Duke's most effective lineup, since it is outscoring opponents by less than 2 ppg every time it's used.
    I have a small quibble with this suggestion. What the +/- specifically doesn't adjust for is the quality of the opposition. Obviously a +/- of 5 in 10 minutes against starters is much better than a +/- of 5 in 10 minutes against a team of walk-ons. Thus, one might argue that part of the reason our starting lineup doesn't have a more prolific +/- is because they are playing against the other team's best unit (their starters) more (and for a greater percentage of minutes) than any of our other configurations of players. That's assuming that other teams generally start their best configuration. That's obviously not a definite, but it's probably not wildly off the mark, either.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I have a small quibble with this suggestion. What the +/- specifically doesn't adjust for is the quality of the opposition. Obviously a +/- of 5 in 10 minutes against starters is much better than a +/- of 5 in 10 minutes against a team of walk-ons. Thus, one might argue that part of the reason our starting lineup doesn't have a more prolific +/- is because they are playing against the other team's best unit (their starters) more (and for a greater percentage of minutes) than any of our other configurations of players. That's assuming that other teams generally start their best configuration. That's obviously not a definite, but it's probably not wildly off the mark, either.
    That's true, but some of that should even out as the season goes along. Plus, you've got to consider that Duke tends to substitute earlier than other teams. Scheyer is almost always in before the first TV timeout, and Smith (today it was Paulus) and a reserve forward usually are in soon after. Duke's most frequent lineups are still generally going against the opponents' starters most of the time.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Updated through the Albany game...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Now updated through the Pittsburgh game...

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Calling all stats geeks...

    I'm adding on-court/off-court stats and Net Plus/Minus to the mix (the table isn't working at the moment). But in tabulating that, should I only include games in which a player appears? In other words, should Jordan Davidson's "off-court" plus/minus only apply in the five games in which he saw action? I don't think that makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong. Thanks in advance for any help.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •