Cumulative Plus/Minus, 2010

[Jumbo]

Updated through the Butler NCAA Tournament game -- final season totals.

INDIVIDUALS
Kyle Singler 2,799-2,166 (+633) (94-60, 65-40, 72-36, 79-50, 64-53, 56-49, 69-73, 80-71, 80-40, 55-30, 69-47, 81-47, 74-53, 84-58, 67-66, 67-36, 87-70, 74-86, 60-45, 70-54, 68-85, 82-61, 64-61, 64-54, 73-50, 81-74, 67-55, 62-42, 61-26, 72-79, 76-48, 48-31, 76-72, 65-61, 54-22, 68-51, 68-53, 67-61, 75-57, 61-59)
Jon Scheyer 2,853-2,228 (+625) (92-58, 65-40, 77-41, 77-50, 64-53, 63-53, 67-69, 77-69, 88-45, 63-34, 84-62, 87-49, 70-53, 84-63, 65-69, 76-47, 84-66, 74-86, 60-47, 63-56, 74-85, 86-65, 66-63, 64-54, 69-46, 72-62, 67-55, 60-42, 61-31, 68-74, 80-46, 57-46, 71-70, 60-58, 70-39, 68-48, 70-57, 78-71, 75-54, 57-52)
Nolan Smith 2,562-2,082 (+480) (XX, XX, 78-46, 78-49, 64-53, 68-57, 59-67, 62-60, 64-39, 63-30, 75-55, 71-37, 72-50, 79-60, 52-57, 69-49, 90-68, 74-88, 54-45, 70-52, 64-81, 86-65, 66-63, 64-53, 67-53, 79-70, 67-53, 62-45, 40-31, 70-77, 75-47, 53-44, 65-66, 53-49, 69-34, 68-53, 65-51, 78-71, 68-55, 61-59)
Lance Thomas 1,911-1,472 (+439) (73-41, 43-29, 47-30, 37-34, 34-27, 48-36, 27-40, 68-57, 43-33, 48-15, 52-45, 47-33, 52-37, 73-41, 16-25, 33-29, 33-21, 58-79, 49-36, 60-39, 62-63, 72-57, 38-32, 25-25, 46-28, 66-47, 53-35, 40-33, 37-24, 44-36, 42-16, 35-28, 54-47, 36-35, 45-20, 49-38, 57-44, 49-42, 63-48, 57-47)
Brian Zoubek 1,449-1,083 (+366) (46-25, 32-20, 27-27, 45-16, 29-27, 36-26, 15-19, 36-33, 58-27, 39-20, 57-32, 39-23, 33-14, 24-24, 33-32, 31-23, 12-23, 26-21, 24-20, 27-15, 2-9, 26-24, 42-37, 16-13, 40-21, 59-53, 52-36, 39-29, 29-13, 51-55, 49-20, 24-15, 60-55, 41-40, 35-18, 43-31, 38-26, 38-37, 50-39, 46-45)
Miles Plumlee 1,266-1,016 (+250) (46-36, 42-29, 70-30, 55-46, 27-23, 30-30, 50-39, 13-10, 48-29, 21-10, 27-27, 63-30, 37-39, 32-23, 29-30, 39-23, 81-47, 16-27, 36-25, 29-26, 43-51, 20-19, 11-15, 18-13, 19-18, 10-12, 14-13, 28-19, 31-28, 21-24, 33-30, 29-29, 17-19, 22-19, 30-26, 23-16, 29-27, 34-27, 28-18, 15-14)
Andre Dawkins 955-790 (+165) (34-24, 49-32, 48-31, 67-34, 32-24, 31-27, 43-43, 43-34, 68-52, 34-17, 15-16, 53-21, 8-3, 14-9, 22-26, 31-35, 27-23, 21-23, XX, 16-14, 26-32, XX, 4-2, 19-10, 22-16, 19-25, 6-11, 24-19, 29-31, 20-24, 23-13, 13-15, 12-8, 19-17, 17-22, 2-9, 8-8, 20-24, 10-5, 6-11)
Mason Plumlee 906-765 (+141) (XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, 15-15, 10-12, 47-29, 25-20, 26-15, 56-17, 22-16, 36-38, 51-46, 41-32, 32-21, 24-28, 11-13, 15-22, 31-20, 45-25, 24-27, 48-43, 37-32, 13-22, 9-13, 27-17, 34-28, 14-26, 28-24, 26-20, 29-31, 29-26, 28-24, 17-11, 13-13, 26-22, 15-9, 2-8)
Ryan Kelly 431-359 (+72) (27-26, 37-20, 46-17, 51-28, 6-5, 8-11, XX, 11-9, 56-27, 19-19, 15-16, 41-14, 2-0, 2-5, 0-4, 5-14, 4-11, 3-2, 6-4, 0-2, 15-19, 9-11, 15-15, 2-5, 8-10, 6-5, 0-4, 7-10, 6-18, XX, 2-4, 0-2, 1-2, XX, 14-10, 2-6, 2-4, XX, 3-0, XX)
Olek Czyz 129-99 (+30) (62-36, 19-17, 23-20, 23-15, XX, 0-2, XX, XX, 2-9, N/A-TRANSFER)
Jordan Davidson 88-84 (+4) (XX, 9-9, 14-7, 4-7, XX, 0-2, XX, XX, 9-5, 11-7, 0-0, 15-2, XX, 2-2, XX, 3-7, 0-0, XX, XX, XX, XX, 4-6, XX, XX, 4-6, XX, XX, 1-4, 4-10, XX, 2-1, 0-0, XX, XX, 3-5, 0-2, 0-2, XX, 3-0, XX)
Casey Peters 11-13 (-2) (2-0, XX, 0-5, 2-3, XX, XX, XX, XX, 2-5, XX, XX, 5-0, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, 0-0, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, 0-0, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX)
Steve Johnson 35-38 (-3) (4-4, 9-9, 3-5, 2-3, XX, 0-2, XX, XX, XX, 2-3, 0-0, 12-2, XX, 0-2, XX, XX, 0-0, XX, XX, XX, XX, 0-2, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, 3-5, XX, 0-1, XX, XX, XX, 0-0, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX)

PER 40 MINUTES
Olek Czyz +19.7
Brian Zoubek +19.6
Kyle Singler +17.6
Lance Thomas +17.3
Jon Scheyer +17.0
Miles Plumlee +15.3
Nolan Smith +14.2
Andre Dawkins +13.8
Ryan Kelly +12.7
Mason Plumlee +11.8
Jordan Davidson +2.9
Steve Johnson -5.0
Casey Peters -10.0

LINEUPS
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Thomas-Zoubek (x144) 82-572 (+210)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Thomas-Miles (x118) 528-416 (+112)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Mason-Zoubek (x57) 190-146 (+44)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Thomas-Mason (x32) 133-100 (+33)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Miles (x19) 57-28 (+29)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Zoubek (x20) 72-44 (+28)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Zoubek (x15) 52-28 (+24)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Mason-Miles (x67) 245-222 (+23)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Zoubek (x20) 100-80 (+20)
Scheyer-Singler-Thomas-Czyz-Zoubek (x3) 33-13 (+20)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Zoubek (x10) 33-17 (+16)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (x21) 74-61 (+13)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Miles (x10) 32-20 (+12)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly (x10) 25-13 (+12)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Zoubek (x14) 30-19 (+11)
Scheyer-Singler-Thomas-Kelly-Miles (x3) 12-4 (+8)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Miles (x16) 45-38 (+7)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Miles (x7) 25-18 (+7)
Scheyer-Singler-Thomas-Czyz-Miles (x5) 20-13 (+7)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Miles (x4) 17-11 (+6)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Kelly (x2) 10-4 (+6)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly-Miles (x4) 11-6 (+5)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Miles-Zoubek (x2) 5-0 (+5)
Davidson-Peters-Johnson-Kelly-Mason (x2) 5-0 (+5)
Davidson-Dawkins-Czyz-Kelly-Miles 5-0 (+5)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Kelly-Zoubek (x7) 21-17 (+4)
Scheyer-Smith-Thomas-Kelly-Mason (x4) 11-7 (+4)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Czyz-Miles (x2) 10-6 (+4)
Scheyer-Smith-Kelly-Mason-Zoubek (x2) 6-2 (+4)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Miles (x4) 8-5 (+3)
Scheyer-Singler-Czyz-Kelly-Miles (x3) 15-12 (+3)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Kelly (x3) 5-2 (+3)
Scheyer-Davidson-Singler-Thomas-Miles 5-2 (+3)
Smith-Dawkins-Czyz-Kelly-Miles 5-2 (+3)
Davidson-Johnson-Czyz-Miles-Zoubek 3-0 (+3)
Smith-Singler-Thomas-Kelly-Miles 3-0 (+3)
Davidson-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason-Zoubek 3-0 (+3)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Kelly-Miles (x9) 27-25 (+2)
Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly-Miles (x5) 11-9 (+2)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Kelly-Miles (x3) 7-5 (+2)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Miles-Zoubek 8-6 (+2)
Smith-Singler-Thomas-Mason-Zoubek 6-4 (+2)
Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Czyz-Zoubek 4-2 (+2)
Peters-Dawkins-Johnson-Kelly-Miles 2-0 (+2)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly-Mason 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Mason 2-0 (+2)
Davidson-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Mason 2-0 (+2)
Davidson-Smith-Singler-Mason-Miles 2-0 (+2)
Davidson-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason-Miles (x7) 15-14 (+1)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Thomas-Kelly (x5) 8-7 (+1)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Mason (x5) 5-4 (+1)
Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly-Zoubek (x2) 4-3 (+1)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly-Zoubek (x2) 3-2 (+1)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Thomas-Czyz-Miles 7-6 (+1)
Scheyer-Singler-Kelly-Mason-Miles 5-4 (+1)
Davidson-Dawkins-Thomas-Czyz-Miles 1-0 (+1)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Kelly-Zoubek (x17) 37-37 (+0)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Kelly-Mason (x7) 17-17 (+0)
Davidson-Dawkins-Johnson-Kelly-Mason (x5) 12-12 (+0)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Zoubek (x4) 10-10 (+0)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason (x3) 0-0 (+0)
Scheyer-Singler-Thomas-Czyz-Kelly (x2) 4-4 (+0)
Davidson-Johnson-Czyz-Kelly-Miles 9-9 (+0)
Smith-Dawkins-Czyz-Kelly-Zoubek 4-4 (+0)
Smith-Singler-Kelly-Mason-Zoubek 4-4 (+0)
Scheyer-Davidson-Smith-Kelly-Zoubek 4-4 (+0)
Davidson-Dawkins-Thomas-Czyz-Kelly 2-2 (+0)
Scheyer-Smith-Thomas-Kelly-Zoubek 2-2 (+0)
Davidson-Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly 2-2 (+0)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly 2-2 (+0)
Scheyer-Singler-Czyz-Kelly-Zoubek 0-0 (+0)
Davidson-Smith-Johnson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-0 (+0)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Miles-Zoubek 0-0 (+0)
Davidson-Smith-Dawkins-Miles-Zoubek 0-0 (+0)
Davidson-Dawkins-Johnson-Thomas-Kelly 0-0 (+0)
Scheyer-Singler-Thomas-Kelly-Zoubek 0-0 (+0)
Scheyer-Davidson-Smith-Thomas-Zoubek 0-0 (+0)
Scheyer-Davidson-Singler-Thomas-Kelly 0-0 (+0)
Davidson-Peters-Johnson-Thomas-Kelly 0-0 (+0)
Smith-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason-Miles 0-0 (+0)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Mason-Zoubek (x3) 2-3 (-1)
Davidson-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly-Mason (x2) 10-11 (-1)
Davidson-Johnson-Kelly-Mason-Miles (x2) 0-1 (-1)
Davidson-Peters-Johnson-Czyz-Kelly 2-3 (-1)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Zoubek (x6) 7-9 (-2)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Miles (x5) 10-12 (-2)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Mason (x5) 7-9 (-2)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason-Miles (x4) 2-4 (-2)
Davidson-Smith-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason (x3) 4-6 (-2)
Smith-Singler-Thomas-Kelly-Zoubek (x2) 3-5 (-2)
Scheyer-Thomas-Czyz-Kelly-Miles (x2) 0-2 (-2)
Scheyer-Davidson-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Czyz-Zoubek 3-5 (-2)
Dawkins-Johnson-Singler-Thomas-Miles 2-4 (-2)
Davidson-Dawkins-Thomas-Kelly-Miles 0-2 (-2)
Davidson-Dawkins-Johnson-Czyz-Kelly 0-2 (-2)
Davidson-Johnson-Thomas-Kelly-Mason 0-2 (-2)
Davidson-Peters-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason 2-5 (-3)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Mason-Miles (x15) 31-35 (-4)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason-Zoubek (x6) 10-15 (-5)
Smith-Dawkins-Kelly-Mason-Zoubek (x4) 4-9 (-5)
Scheyer-Smith-Thomas-Kelly-Miles (x3) 0-5 (-5)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Mason (x2) 0-5 (-5)
Davidson-Peters-Johnson-Czyz-Zoubek 0-5 (-5)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas (x26) 78-84 (-6)
Smith-Dawkins-Thomas-Czyz-Miles 2-9 (-7)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (x13) 30-41 (-11)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Zoubek (x8) 4-16 (-12)

NET +/-

Name Net+/- +/-On +/-Off +/- +/- +/-
****** per 40 per 40 per 40 On Tot Off Tot Net Tot
Singler 15.92 17.63 1.71 633 7 626
Scheyer 12.39 17.01 4.62 625 15 610
Zoubek 6.79 19.62 12.83 366 274 92
Czyz 3.82 19.67 15.85 30 610 -580
Thomas 3.64 17.33 13.70 439 201 238
Mi. Plumlee -1.20 15.29 16.49 250 390 -140
Dawkins -3.08 13.84 16.92 165 475 -310
Kelly -3.86 12.69 16.55 72 568 -496
Ma. Plumlee -6.07 11.75 17.82 141 499 -358
Smith -11.27 14.23 25.50 480 160 320
Davidson -13.56 2.91 16.47 4 636 -632
Johnson -21.32 -5.00 16.32 -3 643 -646
Peters -26.13 -10.00 16.13 -2 642 -644

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Radford game ...

[Spam Filter]

I have a question regarding +/-, how does FTs play into this stat? Is it completely not used in calculating +/-, is the +/- awarded to the players who was on the floor when the foul was committed, or awareded to the player who is the on floor when the FT is taken?

[Jumbo]

I have a question regarding +/-, how does FTs play into this stat? Is it completely not used in calculating +/-, is the +/- awarded to the players who was on the floor when the foul was committed, or awareded to the player who is the on floor when the FT is taken?

Awarded to the guys on the floor when the foul was committed.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Arizona State game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the UConn game ...

[Spam Filter]

There must be a mistake, how can Plumlee, Smith, Czyz, Thomas have negative +/- per 40 stats when they are net positive overall?

[sagegrouse]

Now updated through the UConn game ...

Jumbo:

I may be missing something, but Nolan is +83 but a -5.8 on a 40-minute basis. I don't think that's possible.

Also, same problem with Miles, Olek, Lance and Jordan.

sagegrouse

[Jumbo]

There must be a mistake, how can Plumlee, Smith, Czyz, Thomas have negative +/- per 40 stats when they are net positive overall?


Jumbo:

I may be missing something, but Nolan is +83 but a -5.8 on a 40-minute basis. I don't think that's possible.

Also, same problem with Miles, Olek, Lance and Jordan.

sagegrouse

Whoops! Copied the wrong column -- that was net (on-court vs. off-court). Fixing now -- thanks guys!

[FireOgilvie]

Also, I think Nolan's numbers might be incorrect in the net +/- and maybe in other categories. He missed 2 games, so his total should be lower in "+/- off."

I see that Mason is also calculated on the net without ever playing. That stat is completely meaningless the way it is calculated right now. I don't understand it. If Mason came in and played 40 minutes and we won by 158, he would be back to zero, even though he only played in one game.

[Jumbo]

Also, I think Nolan's numbers might be incorrect in the net +/- and maybe in other categories. He missed 2 games, so his total should be lower in "+/- off."

Those two games count as "off court." After all, he wasn't on the court! ;)

[FireOgilvie]

Those two games count as "off court." After all, he wasn't on the court! ;)

Okay, but the whole point is to compare how well the team does while the player is playing versus not playing within games. Nolan's numbers are flawed because he didn't play at all in two blowouts against weak competition. Now that he is back and playing a higher percentage of games against stronger competition, his numbers are lowered by the first two games he didn't play, even though we probably would have won by more if he COULD have played. I guess as long as everyone understands that the net +/- numbers don't actually mean anything for Nolan, it's fine.

[Jumbo]

Okay, but the whole point is to compare how well the team does while the player is playing versus not playing within games. Nolan's numbers are flawed because he didn't play at all in two blowouts against weak competition. Now that he is back and playing a higher percentage of games against stronger competition, his numbers are lowered by the first two games he didn't play, even though we probably would have won by more if he COULD have played. I guess as long as everyone understands that the net +/- numbers don't actually mean anything for Nolan, it's fine.

Right or wrong, this is how the season-long stat is recorded. Think about baseball -- if you swing for the fences and hit a deep fly ball to left with no one one base and it's caught, the hitter's batting average decreases, but if there's a runner on third and he scores, it doesn't count as an at-bat. It's possible to have differing points of view on the value of a stat.

Similarly, if, say, Lance Thomas had missed the first two games instead of Nolan, Duke had won a pair of blowouts, and then he returned and Duke played a couple of closer games, not only would no one be objecting to on-court/off-court including games missed; some would use it as an opportunity to bash Lance.

I agree with you that Nolan sort of gets the short end of the stick here, but it will equalize over time and there are other stats in the chart that show his value.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Wisconsin game.

[ACCBBallFan]

I agree Nolan will equalize over course of 30 games.

More than anything else Jumbo's stats show coach K is using Kelly wisely, as he always does with Zoubek.

Looking at the first set of On court Off court and differencing,

+20 Kelly
+7 0r 8 Dawkins, Scheyer, Singler, Zoubek
+2 Mikes

-12 Lance
-13 Nolan is an abberation due to suspension for 2 blowouts

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the St. John's game ...

[DukieBoy]

So, the basis of plus/minus is the points scored by us vs. them while that certain player is on the court right?

[Jumbo]

So, the basis of plus/minus is the points scored by us vs. them while that certain player is on the court right?

Yup. And lineup combos as well.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Gardner-Webb game ...

[Hermy-own]

If I see one tiny mistake, I hope I'm not being obnoxious in pointing it out. If it isn't worth fixing, don't do it. I just noticed that this line is wrong.
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Miles (x3) XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, 4-2, 12-6 = 16-8 (+6)

16-8 is +8, not +6. I don't know whether this mistake also translates in the individual stats or not.

Thanks for doing the stats.

[Jumbo]

If I see one tiny mistake, I hope I'm not being obnoxious in pointing it out. If it isn't worth fixing, don't do it. I just noticed that this line is wrong.
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Miles (x3) XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, 4-2, 12-6 = 16-8 (+6)

16-8 is +8, not +6. I don't know whether this mistake also translates in the individual stats or not.

Thanks for doing the stats.

Doesn't translate in the individual stats. Just a copy/paste issue (took the +6 from the last game).

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Gonzaga game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Long Beach State game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Penn game ...

[Jumbo]

Do you guys prefer the stats the way I'm listing them this year -- with each game's individual numbers included -- or would you rather see them the way I posted during the past two seasons, with just the totals? It's starting to get cluttered and I imagine it's becoming difficult to read. At the same time, there's some value in being able to see individual games.

BTW, the huge scoring margin the walk-ons, Mason Plumlee and Ryan Kelly enjoyed at the end of the game threw the net +/- numbers totally out of whack.

[NSDukeFan]

Do you guys prefer the stats the way I'm listing them this year -- with each game's individual numbers included -- or would you rather see them the way I posted during the past two seasons, with just the totals? It's starting to get cluttered and I imagine it's becoming difficult to read. At the same time, there's some value in being able to see individual games.

BTW, the huge scoring margin the walk-ons, Mason Plumlee and Ryan Kelly enjoyed at the end of the game threw the net +/- numbers totally out of whack.

I have used the individual game numbers a few times to look up where players got their results, but agree that it will become more difficult as the season moves along, hopefully for 28 more games. Thanks again for your efforts.

[ice-9]

Do you guys prefer the stats the way I'm listing them this year -- with each game's individual numbers included -- or would you rather see them the way I posted during the past two seasons, with just the totals? It's starting to get cluttered and I imagine it's becoming difficult to read. At the same time, there's some value in being able to see individual games.

BTW, the huge scoring margin the walk-ons, Mason Plumlee and Ryan Kelly enjoyed at the end of the game threw the net +/- numbers totally out of whack.

One suggestion is to put the total +/- nearer to the player's name and to boldface.

E.g....

(+281) Jon Scheyer 92-58, 65-40, 77-41, 77-50, 64-53, 63-53, 67-69, 77-69, 88-45, 63-34, 84-62, 87-49 = 904-623
(+268) Kyle Singler 94-60, 65-40, 72-36, 79-50, 64-53, 56-49, 69-73, 80-71, 80-40, 55-30, 69-47, 81-47 = 864-596

or

Jon Scheyer (+281) 92-58, 65-40, 77-41, 77-50, 64-53, 63-53, 67-69, 77-69, 88-45, 63-34, 84-62, 87-49 = 904-623
Kyle Singler (+268) 94-60, 65-40, 72-36, 79-50, 64-53, 56-49, 69-73, 80-71, 80-40, 55-30, 69-47, 81-47 = 864-596

This way it's easier to track visually what corresponds with what but to still preserve detail for those who look for it.

(Thanks once again for doing this thread!)

[Jumbo]

One suggestion is to put the total +/- nearer to the player's name and to boldface.

E.g....

(+281) Jon Scheyer 92-58, 65-40, 77-41, 77-50, 64-53, 63-53, 67-69, 77-69, 88-45, 63-34, 84-62, 87-49 = 904-623
(+268) Kyle Singler 94-60, 65-40, 72-36, 79-50, 64-53, 56-49, 69-73, 80-71, 80-40, 55-30, 69-47, 81-47 = 864-596

or

Jon Scheyer (+281) 92-58, 65-40, 77-41, 77-50, 64-53, 63-53, 67-69, 77-69, 88-45, 63-34, 84-62, 87-49 = 904-623
Kyle Singler (+268) 94-60, 65-40, 72-36, 79-50, 64-53, 56-49, 69-73, 80-71, 80-40, 55-30, 69-47, 81-47 = 864-596

This way it's easier to track visually what corresponds with what but to still preserve detail for those who look for it.

(Thanks once again for doing this thread!)

I like that idea. I'll go fix it now and see how it looks. Maybe the totals should be in bold at the beginning, too?

[-jk]

Do you guys prefer the stats the way I'm listing them this year -- with each game's individual numbers included -- or would you rather see them the way I posted during the past two seasons, with just the totals? It's starting to get cluttered and I imagine it's becoming difficult to read. At the same time, there's some value in being able to see individual games.

BTW, the huge scoring margin the walk-ons, Mason Plumlee and Ryan Kelly enjoyed at the end of the game threw the net +/- numbers totally out of whack.

It's going to get really cluttered.

You already do chart the individual games - perhaps you could include a link farm at the top to each individual game's charting thread. It'd be a handy reference that way, and keep the "totals" chart clean.

And thanks for the yeoman's work with this!

-jk

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the first Clemson game ...

[CameronCrazy'11]

I just had a thought. If it's not too much trouble, could you keep a running total of Duke's plus-minus as a team for the season to date and per 40 minutes? I think that might be a useful baseline of comparison.

[Jumbo]

I just had a thought. If it's not too much trouble, could you keep a running total of Duke's plus-minus as a team for the season to date and per 40 minutes? I think that might be a useful baseline of comparison.

There is no team plus/minus, since the team is never off the court. If you're looking for a baseline, just look at the team's scoring margin.

[CameronCrazy'11]

There is no team plus/minus, since the team is never off the court. If you're looking for a baseline, just look at the team's scoring margin.

Right, scoring margin is the phrase I was looking for. I just thought that Duke's scoring margin per 40 minutes would be a useful baseline to compare with the plus/minuses of individual players.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Iowa State game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the first Georgia Tech game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the first Boston College game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Wake Forest game ...

[CDu]

Now that we're starting to approach a reasonable sample size for the season, some interesting things are popping up:

1) The adj net +/- (net +/- per 40) numbers seem to illustrate just how important Singler has been to this team, in spite of the fact that he's making an adjustment and probably playing out of position (at the college level). His adj net +/- of 10.87 is double that of any of the other players. He may not currently be our most efficient or productive player, but his adj net +/- suggest the team has had much more success with him on the floor than without - moreso than anyone else.

2) Miles and Zoubek have the second- and third-highest adj net +/- among the regulars (Kelly is second, but he isn't really a regular at this point). Since they've played almost exclusively apart (there appear to be only a handful of occasions in which they've been in together, this would seem to illustrate either the importance of having a true "5" man or that Mason is struggling when he's at the 5.

3) Smith's adj net +/- is absurdly low. I have to believe this is because he was out of the lineup for the first two blowouts. Those games appear to be included (which technically I guess they should be), which results in a LOT of minutes with a very high +/- that fall in the "off" column for him. Thus, the adj net +/- for Smith is a bit misleading, because he's played a relatively more difficult schedule than anyone else on the team as a result.

4) Despite the improvements for Thomas defensively, his adj net +/- is by far the worst among any of the regulars that have played all the games (see the disclaimer on Smith in #3). Not sure what to make of this. Perhaps he's had the misfortune of having to play more in our losing efforts, which hurts his stats. That's something that even the adj net +/- can't really capture. Though even if that's the situation, I can't imagine that it would explain everything.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the NC State game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second Clemson game ...

[Trooper]

Interestingly, if you exclude the two games Nolan missed from the data, his numbers are actually worse.

Duke has outscored it's opponents by ~32pts/40 minutes while Nolan is out according to Jumbo's numbers. The two games Nolan missed, we only won by an average of 29.5pts/40 minutes. If we excluded the games, the 32pts/40 minutes would actually go up, and consequently Nolan's net +/- would be worse as the "On +/-" would remain unchanged.

I've tried to figure out why Nolan's numbers look so terrible, and frankly, it's pretty tough to figure out. Here are my best guesses as to partial explanations...

1) Nolan (like Kyle and Jon) plays a ton of minutes, and when he is out it's often been garbage time or for a quick breather. The garbage time +/- is largely arbitrary and can get skewed. With such a small sample size of minutes he hasn't played and those minutes coming in odd times and short bursts, it could just be a statistical oddity.

2) Nolan is never off the court when Jon/Kyle are off the court in meaningful game time. Nolan is our 3rd best player. Whenever Jon/Kyle are resting, Nolan has to be on the court. Which hurts his +/-. Also, when Jon is out, Nolan has to play the point, which is not his strong suit.

3) The Andre Dawkins effect. Andre most often subs for Nolan, and his game results are highly volatile. The only time Nolan has ever really sat meaningful minutes, it was because Andre was on fire and K left him in to reap the benefits of his shooting. Early in the season, Andre had some games where he hit 3-4 threes in very short spurts, often when Nolan was out. When Andre doesn't light it up quickly, he usually goes back to the bench in just a couple minutes. So, when Dawkins gets a lot of minutes, it's almost always because he's lighting it up from three and Duke is usually outscoring its opponent in bunches...at the expense of Nolan's +/- numbers.

I didn't really take the time to prove any of these theories out, but they're my best guess from looking at the data and thinking about what is happening from actually watching the games.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Florida State game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Georgetown game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second Georgia Tech game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second Boston College game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the North Carolina game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Maryland game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Miami game ...

[-jk]

Jumbo,

The lineup continues to evolve and we're done with the patsies, so I'm curious how we're trending down the stretch. Can your spreadsheet (easily) spit out a rolling per-40 (or any other version of the +/-) for the last, say, six or eight or ten games? A large enough sample to smooth the data out, but small enough to take into account the team's evolution.

And if you think it's a good idea - and if it's easy; I'm not asking for a lot of extra work here - perhaps you could update your second post ("radford") in the thread to a rolling version of the stats.

I think it would be a fascinating report.

-jk

[Jumbo]

Jumbo,

The lineup continues to evolve and we're done with the patsies, so I'm curious how we're trending down the stretch. Can your spreadsheet (easily) spit out a rolling per-40 (or any other version of the +/-) for the last, say, six or eight or ten games? A large enough sample to smooth the data out, but small enough to take into account the team's evolution.

And if you think it's a good idea - and if it's easy; I'm not asking for a lot of extra work here - perhaps you could update your second post ("radford") in the thread to a rolling version of the stats.

I think it would be a fascinating report.

-jk

I just have the games as totals, but in different files. The spreadsheet is the updated total info. I can redo some totals, but it will take time. Definitely won't be able to do a rolling progression, though.

[Spam Filter]

What I would suggest is a normalized +/- where the player's +/- for a particular game is normalized by the team's total +/- for that game.

Because doing a + 20 per 40 MP in a game that we won by 40, is not nearly as impressive as doing a +10 per 40 MP in a game that we won by 5.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Virginia Tech game ...

[CDu]

What I would suggest is a normalized +/- where the player's +/- for a particular game is normalized by the team's total +/- for that game.

Because doing a + 20 per 40 MP in a game that we won by 40, is not nearly as impressive as doing a +10 per 40 MP in a game that we won by 5.

I think that would be kind of unnecessary. For an individual game, a player with a +/- of 20 would show up way down the list relative to the rest of the team, whose +/- would have to offset that "bad" performance. So it's pretty easy to tell who had a really good +/- and who didn't.

And for the season, the per-40 +/- will reflect the average across all games anyway.

We're never comparing +/- across different games, so the situation you suggest doesn't really come up. All of the comparisons are between players within a game or between players over the course of the entire season.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Tulsa game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Virginia game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second Maryland game.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second North Carolina game ...

[-jk]

Jumbo,

Obviously my idea of a rolling 10-game +/- didn't seem to pique your interest. Could you work up the numbers for just the last phase?

-jk

[Jumbo]

Jumbo,

Obviously my idea of a rolling 10-game +/- didn't seem to pique your interest. Could you work up the numbers for just the last phase?

-jk

It's not so easy. They're in a word file, not an Excel file. If I have time, yes, but I'm pretty busy. Gotta get to Phase V while I still have a moment now!

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Virginia ACC tournament game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Miami ACC tournament game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Georgia Tech ACC Tournament game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Arkansas-Pine Bluff NCAA Tournament game ...

[npdevil27]

Now updated through the Arkansas-Pine Bluff NCAA Tournament game ...
Jumbo - is there any way you can do the player combination + / - as a per 40 minutes stat? Furthermore, could we see what the points for / points against would project for each lineup on a per 40 minutes basis? Apologies if this has already been asked for, but that would be very interesting.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo - is there any way you can do the player combination + / - as a per 40 minutes stat? Furthermore, could we see what the points for / points against would project for each lineup on a per 40 minutes basis? Apologies if this has already been asked for, but that would be very interesting.

No -- I don't track the minutes played for each lineup. Would be way too much work.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the California NCAA Tournament game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Purdue NCAA Tournament game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Baylor NCAA Tournament game ...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the West Virginia NCAA Tournament game ...

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I would just like to thank you for keeping this up for the entire season.

[dball]

Great stuff all season long. Really enjoyed seeing this info. Thanks

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Butler NCAA Tournament game and thus with final season totals.

[cspan37421]

Q: If we remove Olek from the data set as he didn't play most of the year, and not (much or at all) against ACC opponents, did Zoubek lead the team in both of the last two years in +/- per 40 minutes played?

If so, just another reason to love the Zouperman.

[oso diablo]

Q: If we remove Olek from the data set as he didn't play most of the year, and not (much or at all) against ACC opponents, did Zoubek lead the team in both of the last two years in +/- per 40 minutes played?

If so, just another reason to love the Zouperman.

yes. i remember quoting last year's +/- stats for Zoubek on another board. It was met with derision. Actually, all 4 of the top guys from last season returned this year (Henderson was only #5).