NBA- OU players and general (this thread only)

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.
 
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.
 
26 points for Buddy in 3 quarters. Kings lead the Mavs by 10.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
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.

What is that context? Because it's a stat that very rarely makes any sense to me.
 
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.
 
Trae had 13 points, 10 assists and 2 rebounds today in a loss to the Nets.
 
What is that context? Because it's a stat that very rarely makes any sense to me.

Makes perfect sense to me. Best teams have the best numbers.

In a large sample, if you’re play winning basketball you generally have a + score.

On a game basis it doesn’t provide much other than a description of who was on the court for the runs.
 
What is that context? Because it's a stat that very rarely makes any sense to me.

generaly over a longer period of time than just one game ..


it can work for 1 game but then specific context matters more ie did somone on the other team just have a crazy good game and was that guy a starter?
 
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?
 
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?

yes, trae is the next jason kidd
 
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.

yeah not great by any means...which is what I believe I said.
 
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?

It's generally for people who have a way of elevating the analyzing of minutia to a new level. And I say good for them.
 
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.
 
Triple Double for Blake in 3 quarters

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
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.

No right or wrong; to each their own. When it comes to Blake, Buddy and Trae, I’m looking at points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, FG/FG attempts and 3pt info. If I like what I see, the plus/minus could be -20 for all I care. If I had to click a link to see what the plus/minus was, I would never click it.
 
Buddy is hitting everything and the Kings are down 52-26

Crazy game
 
Back
Top