Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 92
  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
    +/- 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

  9. #9

    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh

    +/-

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Outdated states deleted to shorten thread...
    You are REALLY going to get yourself in trouble here, Jumbo. Folks are going to forget about PT for Marty and start advocating for 30+ minutes for JD and TK now that this round of stats has been posted. I don't think you know what mess you have entered into now .
    Last edited by Jumbo; 12-03-2007 at 12:39 AM. Reason: shortening thread

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Fort Myers, FL
    I think that the per minute analysis itself shows why it can be dangerous. Perhaps it should be based on a minimum number of minutes played. Of course, every such change just makes it more complicated to calculate and more complicated to explain.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by mgtr View Post
    I think that the per minute analysis itself shows why it can be dangerous. Perhaps it should be based on a minimum number of minutes played. Of course, every such change just makes it more complicated to calculate and more complicated to explain.
    There isn't going to be a cure-all approach to presenting these numbers. Any approach is going to require some sophistication in analysis. I think the 40-minute approach is fine. Obviously we understand that Davidson's +/- is driven by a small sample of minutes against inferior competition. King's numbers are driven by a small sample and a really monster game.

    Over the course of the season, we'll probably see those two drop back into the pack. However, it's very possible that King's numbers remain high. If Coach K uses him as a situational player and his minutes are based on his hothandedness, then he's probably always going to have a high +/-. If you only play a lot when you're on fire, your numbers will be biased upward.

    But I think we're starting to see some more meaningful numbers as the players start to trend toward their true impact.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    However, it's very possible that King's numbers remain high. If Coach K uses him as a situational player and his minutes are based on his hothandedness, then he's probably always going to have a high +/-. If you only play a lot when you're on fire, your numbers will be biased upward.
    Remember that there's more to +/- than just an individual player's offensive production. Guys can be hot as can be from the field, but if their teammates are all putting up bricks and the other team is shooting similarly well, it's perfectly feasible for a player to have a huge scoring night and a small, or even negative, +/-. With King on Sunday, not only did he have 27, but his teammates had 28 during his floor time, and EKY put up just 17. All three needed to come together for a +38. But against Illinois, for example, Henderson was our leading scorer with 23 (and was decently efficient in getting there), but had one of the lower +/- on the team with a +5. King's having a high +/- was not a given, even with his stellar performance.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    Remember that there's more to +/- than just an individual player's offensive production. Guys can be hot as can be from the field, but if their teammates are all putting up bricks and the other team is shooting similarly well, it's perfectly feasible for a player to have a huge scoring night and a small, or even negative, +/-. With King on Sunday, not only did he have 27, but his teammates had 28 during his floor time, and EKY put up just 17. All three needed to come together for a +38. But against Illinois, for example, Henderson was our leading scorer with 23 (and was decently efficient in getting there), but had one of the lower +/- on the team with a +5. King's having a high +/- was not a given, even with his stellar performance.
    Yes, I understand how +/- works. My point was that the way King plays may lend itself to an "all-or-nothing" strategy with regard to his playing time. If he's hot and getting open, the team can keep him in the game and feed him for 3 after 3. If he's not hot, he can be left on the bench.

    My hypothesis was because of this approach, his being hot may be more directly linked to offensive output than others, because by nature of his being hot he'll get more shots per minute. Thus, it's very possible that the team's +/- when he's on the floor (i.e., his +/-) will be biased upward because he is only in when he's red-hot and he scores in bunches (making the overall offensive output greater).

    It could also work out that Coach K does not employ this strategy at all. It could also work out that teams adjust and prevent him from getting open shot after open shot when he's in the game. I was just presenting one possible outcome. It was just a loose hypothesis, not rigorously supported.

    However, King's number currently IS buoyed by one tremendous outlier. The more likely occurrence is that this outlier will be somewhat muted as the sample gets larger, and his +/- per 40 will make more sense.

  15. #15
    Its amazing...you tell me before i saw this that scheyer was one of our top stars this year, i'd say no Gerald or Singler is, but games like today and stats like these prove how valuable he is, and how his impact off the bench hasn't dropped at all.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Indviduals
    Gerald Henderson +145
    Jon Scheyer +138
    Kyle Singler +125
    Greg Paulus +125
    Taylor King +113
    DeMarcus Nelson +106
    Very cool that there isn't much spread amongst our top 6 players. I think this makes us very difficult to gameplan against. It does show the importance of Scheyer and Henderson this year. I wonder if their numbers will level out some when we start playing more "athletic" teams? Henderson in particular relies heavily on his ability to out-jump the defense, but as of now, I'm not sure he won't be able to that against anyone he might be matched up against.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Indviduals
    Lineups (From most effective to least effect -- number of times used in parentheses)
    Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x32) 138-91 (+47)
    Jumbo, I think the coaches might be reading your posts... For some reason, they are starting the 5 that have the highest +/-

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukiedevil View Post
    Jumbo, I think the coaches might be reading your posts... For some reason, they are starting the 5 that have the highest +/-
    Well, that lineup really has the highest plus/minus because that combination has been used more than any other. If you divide the +/- by number of times used, it's not our most effective lineup. The other interesting thing is that in many of the games, other than starting each half, that group hasn't played together much.

  18. #18
    According to my calculations, Duke has so far used 76 of the possible 462 combinations possible with an 11 man lineup. Maybe Coach K will go for them all!

    I'm looking forward to seeing how the Davidson-McClure-Pocius-Thomas-Zoubek lineup performs... or perhaps Henderson-Nelson-King-McClure-Singler.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Now updated through Michigan game...

  20. #20

    Net Plus/Minus

    We've got a lot of plus/minus numbers up, but frankly most of them don't really show which guys are the main catalysts for the team's success because they're either just aggregate (rather than per 40 minute) totals and none of them include performance when a guy is off the court. As such, here is the 82games.com version of what Net +/- for the (main 9 man rotation of the) team looks like (using Jumbo's aggregate numbers):

    Net +/- On/40 Off/40 On Agg. Off Agg. Min
    King 24.7 40.6 16.0 129 93 127
    Henderson 11.8 29.7 17.9 153 69 206
    Scheyer 3.5 25.8 22.3 158 64 245
    Paulus 3.4 25.8 22.4 153 69 237
    Singler -0.0 24.7 24.7 143 79 232
    Smith -4.2 22.1 26.3 75 147 136
    Zoubek -7.1 19.6 26.7 51 171 104
    Thomas -12.1 18.8 30.9 87 135 185
    Nelson -15.2 20.6 35.8 136 86 264

    As you can see, regardless of which of the rotation players is on the court, we are pretty thoroughly dominating people. It just turns out that even within this group, some guys stand out for how well they've played, esp. taylor. As for DMarc's low +/- some of that can undoubtedly be attributed to the fact that he has played more in some of our closer games such as Illinois, Davidson and Marquette and therefore has not had the chance to have his numbers increase playing against easier teams. That said, our performance without him in the game is alarming and would seem to show that maybe we might benefit by scaling back some of his minutes and giving them to king.

Posting Permissions

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