27 points, 8 rebounds, 6 assists for Blake as the Pistons beat the Celtics 113-104. For some reason Blake has a -3 which continues to show that stat is bunk.
I agree. Basketball is way too much of a team game for that stat to have any real significant use. All things being equal, I'd much rather see one of our guys score 25 points with a -10 than 8 points with a +10.
It's simply a statistic. Like nearly every statistic, it means something, but it has limitations. It has to be viewed in the right context.
26 points for Buddy in 3 quarters. Kings lead the Mavs by 10.
Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
Buddy finished with 28 points, 4 Rebs and 2 assists in a 120-113 win over the Mavs.
What is that context? Because it's a stat that very rarely makes any sense to me.
What is that context? Because it's a stat that very rarely makes any sense to me.
This used to be where I introduced Jason Kidd. But there are so many other examples in the NBA now that I don't even feel the need to start. Do you think he has the shooting potential of Blake Griffin?
The stats definitely showed Kidd becoming a good shooter. For about the first half of Kidd's career(1997-2004) he was a 30% 3 point shooter or around there. He had one or two years that were outliers but mostly around 30-32% a few years under 30%. The last half of his career(2004-2013) he was around 35+% for the most part.
yes, trae is the next jason kidd
All I know is, game after game, I see players (usually I'm checking our three former Sooners) saddled with =/- numbers that don't remotely reflect what they achieved in that game. I appreciate being clued in that this stat is best viewed over the long term, but if so, then they might as well leave it out of the individual game stats, because it often as not is absurdly inaccurate in reflecting what a player accomplished in that particular game.
So if Blake has a monster outing, scoring 40 points and pulling down 20 rebounds and further, he's on the court for nearly the entire game, sitting for just a couple of minutes, he's likely to get a minus rating if his teammates all play like crap throughout and the Pistons lose by 30? All because the team's results were lousy while Blake was on the court (which, in my hypothetical example, was virtually the whole game) Do I have that right?
yeah not great by any means...which is what I believe I said.
What is that context? Because it's a stat that very rarely makes any sense to me.
You can't look at any statistic in a vacuum. For instance, if all you looked at was TOs, that wouldn't be very helpful, either.