Chupacabra
Starter
I think we've talked a little bit about this before. What is the distinction that you make between talented players and talented players that make their teams win?
Talented player/players that make their teams win>?
- Thread starter Chupacabra
- Start date
I think we've talked a little bit about this before. What is the distinction that you make between talented players and talented players that make their teams win?
One just has to look at the roster makeup of the team now and compare it to the last 5 years or so. If you can't see the difference in experience and talent level on the team compared to some of those other crapty rosters then....not to mention the coaches......
I think it's easy to see that for the first time this is a quality roster...starters AND bench.....veteran oriented. Now we will see wins.
I think it's easy to see that for the first time this is a quality roster...starters AND bench.....veteran oriented. Now we will see wins.
King Baller
All-Star
Which player on the GSW is that player? Also how should we interpret this? Are we talking Lebron Domination or Mateen Cleaves waving the towel on the bench?
Chupacabra
Starter
All valid questions. Maybe KingMilz will answer them.
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
He won't/can't.
K
KingMilz
Guest
I think a lot of it comes down to the vaunted basketball play IQ and how hard (consistently) a franchise/talented player plays. Rudy Gay based on talent could easily be a top 10 player in the NBA but there's just things he's missing that have never even allowed him to be a All-Star. DMC has had question marks around him in both those areas (he's sort of answered some of them) as well which have imo stopped him from becoming even greater than he is. Players like LeBron/Curry/Durrant/Harden/Cp3 (probably the top 5 players over the last 3-5 years) have both these qualities for the most part. Some players just have the capability of making someone average look better, it's intangibles and others things we have to see out of DMC (I don't believe Rudy is ever actually going to be capable of these).
Until the Kings actually do something significant I can't really say Cousins/Rudy are anything more than good stat bad team guys. I hope they (mainly Cuz) proves me wrong
James Harden getting traded to Houston the first year his two other best players on the squad were Parsons and Lin....Durrant in the regular season has excelled without Westbrook where it's basically only him and Ibaka. That's why to me these guys are the elite of the elite and we all know about LeBron.
The great thing about this year is we barring any serious injury find out how good these two very talented players really are which is super exciting.
King Baller
All-Star
To me to judge the Kings situation the question becomes, How many games have the Kings won the last couple of years without Cousins?
Since OKC is mentioned above and we know Durant missed a bunch of games and OKC still won 45 games but missed the Playoffs
So if I treat this sort of like math and don't even use the eye test I can say with the above facts Cousins makes his team win. And if that is true..................Darn it, I guess I am not an analytics guy and certainly not 5 moves ahead
We know Durant is really good. I mean MVP good yet OKC still won. What does this say about Durant?Here is an interesting quote from nba.com:
"However, the 1993-94 Bulls proved there was life without Michael Jordan. Although Chicago didn't win its fourth straight championship, it posted a 55-27 record (for second place behind the Atlanta Hawks in the Central Division) and advanced to the Eastern Conference Semifinals." http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/Chicago_Bulls_History-24393-42.html
So those Bulls were still really good without Michael. But "Chicago didn't win its fourth straight championship"
Those Bulls won 55 games without Michael. We know Michael is the greatest.Using these examples the eye test makes me think that there is something to this "talented players that make their teams win" question. But there may be something to the rumor that basketball is a team game.
Anyway back to the question "What is the distinction that you make between talented players and talented players that make their teams win?"
For the past two seasons Demarcus Cousins makes the Kings win. If he does not play the Kings lose! Can anyone dispute this?
But OKC has Westbrook. Durant and Westbrook are neck to neck for the franchise. Durant is the better player, but Westbrook alone, could be his own franchise player. Take out Westbrook and put Jeff Teague or Mike Conley. That OKC team wins less than 20 games without Durant.To me to judge the Kings situation the question becomes, How many games have the Kings won the last couple of years without Cousins?
Since OKC is mentioned above and we know Durant missed a bunch of games and OKC still won 45 games but missed the Playoffs
So if I treat this sort of like math and don't even use the eye test I can say with the above facts Cousins makes his team win. And if that is true..................Darn it, I guess I am not an analytics guy and certainly not 5 moves ahead
Here is an interesting quote from nba.com:
"However, the 1993-94 Bulls proved there was life without Michael Jordan. Although Chicago didn't win its fourth straight championship, it posted a 55-27 record (for second place behind the Atlanta Hawks in the Central Division) and advanced to the Eastern Conference Semifinals." http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/Chicago_Bulls_History-24393-42.html
So those Bulls were still really good without Michael. But "Chicago didn't win its fourth straight championship"
Using these examples the eye test makes me think that there is something to this "talented players that make their teams win" question. But there may be something to the rumor that basketball is a team game.
Anyway back to the question "What is the distinction that you make between talented players and talented players that make their teams win?"
For the past two seasons Demarcus Cousins makes the Kings win. If he does not play the Kings lose! Can anyone dispute this?
bajaden
Hall of Famer
To me to judge the Kings situation the question becomes, How many games have the Kings won the last couple of years without Cousins?
Since OKC is mentioned above and we know Durant missed a bunch of games and OKC still won 45 games but missed the Playoffs
So if I treat this sort of like math and don't even use the eye test I can say with the above facts Cousins makes his team win. And if that is true..................Darn it, I guess I am not an analytics guy and certainly not 5 moves ahead
Here is an interesting quote from nba.com:
"However, the 1993-94 Bulls proved there was life without Michael Jordan. Although Chicago didn't win its fourth straight championship, it posted a 55-27 record (for second place behind the Atlanta Hawks in the Central Division) and advanced to the Eastern Conference Semifinals." http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/Chicago_Bulls_History-24393-42.html
So those Bulls were still really good without Michael. But "Chicago didn't win its fourth straight championship"
Using these examples the eye test makes me think that there is something to this "talented players that make their teams win" question. But there may be something to the rumor that basketball is a team game.
Anyway back to the question "What is the distinction that you make between talented players and talented players that make their teams win?"
For the past two seasons Demarcus Cousins makes the Kings win. If he does not play the Kings lose! Can anyone dispute this?
With all due respect, and I know from whence you come, it's difficult to say that Cousins makes the Kings a winner when the team can't win more than 29 games. Now that's not all Cousins fault. You talk about the Thunder still winning without Durant for periods of time, or without Westbrook. That's true, but if you look at their roster, it's a superior roster to what the Kings had. More overall talent, and better depth. Cousins is my favorite player on the team, but he still hasn't reached his potential, and the area where he lacks the most, is making not himself, but his teammates better. That comes with maturity, and I think he's getting there.
It took Michael Jordan five or six years to figure out that he couldn't do it all himself. How do you make your teammates better? By acknowledging that you need them to win. And you do that through your actions on the court. By making the pass to the open man, instead of forcing up a contested shot in the post. He may not make that shot, but he now knows he's included. When your included, you play harder. Yeah, I know. Your getting paid to play hard all the time. Blah blah blah! It just doesn't work that way. When you don't include your teammates, they start to lose interest and focus. It's not a conscious thing, but a sub-conscious thing.
You win wars by getting your army to fight harder than the other army. In the end, they fight for each other, and for their leader. Cousins is the leader of the Kings. The team will go as far as he can lead them. He's a novice in the leadership dept, but he's learning. The faster he learns, the father we go. I'll make no predictions about that. Far be it for me to know the inner workings of Cousins mind. But if he truly wants to win, he'll have to understand that it's not all about him, while at the same time, understand that it's all about him.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
What Durant and Harden have going for them is they've been to the finals all ready so they know what it takes to get there.
luckynuMBer10
G-League
Having 1 or 2 star players on your roster doesn't automatically qualify you to win at least 50 games, grab the number 1 seed in your conference, and run through your postseason competition and raise the Larry O'Brien trophy high above your head. Having a cast of 5-6 role players who, appropriately, compliment your star players' individual games also doesn't automatically qualify you to do those things. But they definitely make it a helluva lot easier to do so. Right now, we have a player who can certainly become 1 of the 2 star players we need in order to win the big prize. The problem? He needs to be in 100% commitment mode and make the best of whatever opportunities he is given. DeMarcus cannot have his annual meltdowns on and off the court if he wants to lead a team to the championship. DeMarcus needs to be that guy who steps in and prevents another player from having such meltdowns. Can he do that right now? Obviously not. Take away his annual meltdowns? Then obviously yes. I agree with Bajaden's last paragraph....Cousins needs to realize that the ownership, coach, and general manager all believe in him enough to want to make this his team. Once he realizes these things, the other players around him will start believing in him. They will start to follow his leadership. And then DeMarcus will believe in them. He will pass the ball more often to one of his teammates. He won't force up virtually impossible shots. He will be a team player.
Once that happens, we will win again. And when it happens, I hope the rest of the league starts to take notice.
Once that happens, we will win again. And when it happens, I hope the rest of the league starts to take notice.
randymoss1881
Starter
Cousins will lead us to a championship quote me!!
gunks
Hall of Famer
Easily.
Just look at our W/L with and without him.
(When focused) Cuz is an impact player on both ends of the court. Dude was generating MVP chatter early last season (before Malone-gate scandal). He can be a defensive anchor AND draw double teams (sometimes triple!) on offense.... That's the definition of an impact talent right there.
Thing is, we just haven't had good enough players (or coaching) to take advantage of Cousins' talent, which is why our record has been so awful during his career here.
That's changed this off-season. This is easily the best roster he's had, and the best coach. We're about to take a huge leap next season (Rondo permitting).
Now a player like Gay, in his own right a top tier talent, isn't quite the impact player Cuz is when asked to be a number 1. In fact, he's quite the opposite. He's the kind of player I think of when considering talent that doesn't lead to wins. But as a second option he's proven to be more than adequate.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Last year the Kings were helpless as babes without Boogie.
We only have on/off differentials dating back to the beginning of the millenium, so we have to stick to modern bigs for comparison, but check this out.
I doubt there will be much argument that Shaq, Dwight and Yao were the greatest centers of the last 15 years. And let's throw in Duncan too even though he wasn't called a center until 2008 or so, by which time Boogie was likely better than him. Still let's call a spade a spade there and go all the way back through his prime MVP years when people still called him a PF.
Here was Cousins on/off impact last season:
2014-15 Boogie: +0.9/-8.6 = +9.5
we actually WON his minutes on the floor. Meanwhile Philadelphia would have laughed at us when he was out.
Now let's look at every prime season (i.e. not when guys were playing 20min at the beginning or end of their careers) of the 4 greatest centers of the millenium not named Cousins.:
2009-10 O'neal: +3.6/+9.1 = -5.5
2008-09 O'neal: +2.6/+1.4 = +1.2
2007-08 O'neal: -4.0/-11.2 = +7.2
2006-07 O'neal: +1.6/-1.6 = +3.2
2005-06 O'neal: +7.1/+1.8 = +5.3
2004-05 O'neal: +9.6/+3.4 = +6.2
2003-04 O'neal: +8.3/-3.3 = +11.6
2002-03 O'neal: +7.0/-5.8 = +12.8
2001-02 O'neal: +11.3/+1.4 = +9.9
2000-01 O'neal: +8.0/-7.6 = +15.6
2014-15 Duncn: +6.8/+6.2 = +0.6
2013-14 Duncn: +6.7/+9.9 = -3.2
2012-13 Duncn: +10.5/+2.8 = +7.7
2011-12 Duncn: +8.8/+7.0 = +1.8
2010-11 Duncn: +9.9/+2.4 = +7.5
2009-10 Duncn: +7.6/+2.8 = +4.8
2008-09 Duncn: +4.3/+3.3 = +1.0
2007-08 Duncn: +8.2/-0.1 = +8.3
2006-07 Duncn: +13.8/-0.7 = +14.5
2005-06 Duncn: +9.4/+0.2 = +5.2
2004-05 Duncn: +16.9/-0.9 = +17.7
2003-04 Duncn: +11.2/+2.8 = +8.4
2002-03 Duncn: +9.1/-5.6 = +14.7
2001-02 Duncn: +8.7/+0.7 = +9.4
2000-01 Duncn: +11.4/-1.1 = +12.5
2014-15 Dwight: +8.5/+1.5 = +7.0
2013-14 Dwight: +6.9/+1.8 = -5.1
2012-13 Dwight: +2.6/-0.4 = +3.0
2011-12 Dwight: +4.1/-4.7 = +8.8
2010-11 Dwight: +8.4/-0.4 = +8.8
2009-10 Dwight: +11.0/+1.6 = +9.4
2008-09 Dwight: +10.2/+1.9 = +8.3
2007-08 Dwight: +7.5/-0.5 = +8.0
2006-07 Dwight: +1.3/+0.0 = +1.3
2005-06 Dwight: +0.1/-5.1 = +5.2
2004-05 Dwight: -2.9/-2.4 = -0.5
2008-09 YMing: +8.6/-3.2 = +11.8
2007-08 YMing: +4.6/+6.6 = -2.0
2006-07 YMing: +9.0/+3.3 = +5.7
2005-06 YMing: +1.7/-4.7 = +6.4
2004-05 YMing: +2.2/+9.2 = -7.0
2003-04 YMing: +3.6/-1.6 = +5.2
2002-03 YMing: +2.9/-0.3 = +3.2
Translated = of the 44 best seasons by the best centers of the new millennium, Cousins' +/- impact this season was better than all but 9 of them, and 4 of those 9 were Duncan seasons when he was still called a PF, not a C. Dwight Howard never had a single season where his +/- impact was as great as Boogie's this past year. Not 1. Yao had 1, kinda of a freaky case in his final year. Only Lakers-era Shaq was consistently better. After he left for Miami Boogie was more important for the entire remainder of his career. And these guys are HOFers, basically THE new millennium HOF centers.
Now how can all that be true if Cousins wins 29 games? Well a) Cousins was hurt or deathly ill for 1/3 of the season; and b) look closely at those +/- splits. Remember the number before the slash is how the team did with the player on the floor, the number after the slash is how they did without him on the floor. The Kings were a -8.6pts per 100 possessions last season with no Cousins on the floor. In 44 seasons by the HOF centers of the new millennium, only ONE other time did any of them ever have such a terribly incompetent team around them, and that was in Shaq's last year in Miami when they were basically tanking. When I have said repeatedly that no HOF center has had to deal with the crap Cousins has had to deal with, I have meant every word. His impact is as great as the very greatest centers of the age, but the difference is its all wasted with Cousins elevating a 15 win roster to 30 win status, while in a fair number of the other seasons for the other HOF centers their teams were actually +.500 even without them. They took 45 win teams and made them 58 win teams. Cuz has had to bust his butt just to take a 15 win team to 29.
We only have on/off differentials dating back to the beginning of the millenium, so we have to stick to modern bigs for comparison, but check this out.
I doubt there will be much argument that Shaq, Dwight and Yao were the greatest centers of the last 15 years. And let's throw in Duncan too even though he wasn't called a center until 2008 or so, by which time Boogie was likely better than him. Still let's call a spade a spade there and go all the way back through his prime MVP years when people still called him a PF.
Here was Cousins on/off impact last season:
2014-15 Boogie: +0.9/-8.6 = +9.5
we actually WON his minutes on the floor. Meanwhile Philadelphia would have laughed at us when he was out.
Now let's look at every prime season (i.e. not when guys were playing 20min at the beginning or end of their careers) of the 4 greatest centers of the millenium not named Cousins.:
2009-10 O'neal: +3.6/+9.1 = -5.5
2008-09 O'neal: +2.6/+1.4 = +1.2
2007-08 O'neal: -4.0/-11.2 = +7.2
2006-07 O'neal: +1.6/-1.6 = +3.2
2005-06 O'neal: +7.1/+1.8 = +5.3
2004-05 O'neal: +9.6/+3.4 = +6.2
2003-04 O'neal: +8.3/-3.3 = +11.6
2002-03 O'neal: +7.0/-5.8 = +12.8
2001-02 O'neal: +11.3/+1.4 = +9.9
2000-01 O'neal: +8.0/-7.6 = +15.6
2014-15 Duncn: +6.8/+6.2 = +0.6
2013-14 Duncn: +6.7/+9.9 = -3.2
2012-13 Duncn: +10.5/+2.8 = +7.7
2011-12 Duncn: +8.8/+7.0 = +1.8
2010-11 Duncn: +9.9/+2.4 = +7.5
2009-10 Duncn: +7.6/+2.8 = +4.8
2008-09 Duncn: +4.3/+3.3 = +1.0
2007-08 Duncn: +8.2/-0.1 = +8.3
2006-07 Duncn: +13.8/-0.7 = +14.5
2005-06 Duncn: +9.4/+0.2 = +5.2
2004-05 Duncn: +16.9/-0.9 = +17.7
2003-04 Duncn: +11.2/+2.8 = +8.4
2002-03 Duncn: +9.1/-5.6 = +14.7
2001-02 Duncn: +8.7/+0.7 = +9.4
2000-01 Duncn: +11.4/-1.1 = +12.5
2014-15 Dwight: +8.5/+1.5 = +7.0
2013-14 Dwight: +6.9/+1.8 = -5.1
2012-13 Dwight: +2.6/-0.4 = +3.0
2011-12 Dwight: +4.1/-4.7 = +8.8
2010-11 Dwight: +8.4/-0.4 = +8.8
2009-10 Dwight: +11.0/+1.6 = +9.4
2008-09 Dwight: +10.2/+1.9 = +8.3
2007-08 Dwight: +7.5/-0.5 = +8.0
2006-07 Dwight: +1.3/+0.0 = +1.3
2005-06 Dwight: +0.1/-5.1 = +5.2
2004-05 Dwight: -2.9/-2.4 = -0.5
2008-09 YMing: +8.6/-3.2 = +11.8
2007-08 YMing: +4.6/+6.6 = -2.0
2006-07 YMing: +9.0/+3.3 = +5.7
2005-06 YMing: +1.7/-4.7 = +6.4
2004-05 YMing: +2.2/+9.2 = -7.0
2003-04 YMing: +3.6/-1.6 = +5.2
2002-03 YMing: +2.9/-0.3 = +3.2
Translated = of the 44 best seasons by the best centers of the new millennium, Cousins' +/- impact this season was better than all but 9 of them, and 4 of those 9 were Duncan seasons when he was still called a PF, not a C. Dwight Howard never had a single season where his +/- impact was as great as Boogie's this past year. Not 1. Yao had 1, kinda of a freaky case in his final year. Only Lakers-era Shaq was consistently better. After he left for Miami Boogie was more important for the entire remainder of his career. And these guys are HOFers, basically THE new millennium HOF centers.
Now how can all that be true if Cousins wins 29 games? Well a) Cousins was hurt or deathly ill for 1/3 of the season; and b) look closely at those +/- splits. Remember the number before the slash is how the team did with the player on the floor, the number after the slash is how they did without him on the floor. The Kings were a -8.6pts per 100 possessions last season with no Cousins on the floor. In 44 seasons by the HOF centers of the new millennium, only ONE other time did any of them ever have such a terribly incompetent team around them, and that was in Shaq's last year in Miami when they were basically tanking. When I have said repeatedly that no HOF center has had to deal with the crap Cousins has had to deal with, I have meant every word. His impact is as great as the very greatest centers of the age, but the difference is its all wasted with Cousins elevating a 15 win roster to 30 win status, while in a fair number of the other seasons for the other HOF centers their teams were actually +.500 even without them. They took 45 win teams and made them 58 win teams. Cuz has had to bust his butt just to take a 15 win team to 29.
This is an empty stat... it's not that we were great with Cousins- we sucked without him, 0.9 isn't good for a starter. now to claim he's been better last season than this guys best seasons is down right ridiculous.
Here are 5 more future Center HOF's (all from 2014/15) according to this metric:
5. Andrew Bogut: +16.6/+7.1 = +9.5 (identical to Cousins)
4. Marcin Gortat: +5.0/-5.9 = +10.9 (on 2013/14 recorded a net +11.4)
3. Timofey Mozgov (Cavs): +12.3/+1.4= +10.9
2. Zaza Pachulia(!): +7.2/-4.3 = +11.5
1. DeAndre Jordan: +11.8/-3.6 = +15.4(!!!)
So to sum it up all of this players have been better than Cousins... Zaza Pachulia is a living legend, and DeAndre last season was better than any season by Yao Ming or Dwight Howard and there are only 2 better seasons from this 4 guys (one from Duncan and One from O'neal).
Also worth noting that George Hill (+6.7/-3.0 = 9.7) is surprisingly better than Cousins, JJ Redick (+12.8/-1.3 = 14.1) is much better than Dwight or Yao ever were, and Khris Middleton (+6.9/-8.4 = 15.3) is pretty much on par with the best of Shaq.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
First, I am no huge advocate of +/- stats...UNLESS somebody has mounted a dubious challenge to a player's ability to make his team win. Because at that point these stat become precisely a way of measuring impact. And they are stats btw, not metrics. Not made up or dickered with aside from making them per 100 possessions to make for equal comparisons. All of these are in fact what happened on the scoreboard when these guys were on or off the court during their seasons. For all their fuzz, they become basically the ONLY way to statistically measure "making you win".
But one major rule of +/- stats is that if you are going to get much out of them its better to compare within classes of players, and its better to compare over time. And your above numbers show precisely why +/- stats get much shakier for also rans. They accurately tell you what happened when those guys were on court, but not why. If Timofey Mozgov and Lebron James are oncourt and the team is winning, its safe to assume that Lebron is responsible for the lion's share of the +/- . If a roleplayer has a huge +/- chances are he's either paired all the time with a star, or he's a unique specialist (often shotblocker) of which the team only has one.
Let us take DeAndre Jordan and his amazing +15.4. Truly a huge number. And at least partly honest, in that the Clips had no other size. He was their rebounder. Their shotblocker. Hawes failed. Without Jordan...
But there is also this: Chris Paul has an astounding +21.6 on/off last year. DeAndre Jordan played 2820 minutes last year. And yet if you look at the Top 20 Clippers lineups last season, you will see that Jordan played at LEAST 2242 of those minutes alongside Chris Paul (in the Top 20 lineups Jordan played 2242min with Paul, 21min without him). So, did DeAndre Jordan win those minutes in dominating fashion? Or was that Chris Paul, to whom he was joined at the hip? Those guys never got hurt. They both played in 82 games, 34+ min a piece.
Now you come over to the Kings and there is no such question. Cousins not only is the best player, he's got the best impact number. There is nobody there to carry his numbers upward, and in a chaotic season he's not consistently paired with anyone anyway.
And how does those things don't hold true to Cousins? his replacement was Hollins who is truly one of the worst back up centers in the NBA, I'd take the Clippers extra bigs from last year instead of what we had after DMC and JT.
The thing that I take issue with is that reading your post you could have thought that 9.5 is an historic stat... and it's not- not even close. but while I get what you are saying about context let's not forget that we had a very bad bench, I don't think you explained how lesser players gets higher scores if this is really a stat that can determine how important a player is to a winning team.
In 2013/14 Isaiah Thomas net was +9.4 (almost exactly like Cousins this year), Cousins at the same time had a net +3.4, Rudy was +2.4- was Thomas more valuable?
And who is the star in Pachulia/Middleton case that carried them to this great +/- ?
And who made the lion's share out of the contribution of George Hill? both Roy Hibbert and David West had negative +/- results, so I guess he is a franchise player.
Another example is Kyle Korver- is he the Hawks best player? does he has more impact than Cousins?
his net +/- is 13.6 which is way ahead of Cousins 9.5, and also far ahead of any of Atlanta's top players- Horford (+1.8), Milsap (+5.4), Teague (+5.7) and Carroll (+7.1).
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
You are hung up, or intentionally trying to distort, with "best". No Korver is nobody's "best player". But he absolutely did have the highest impact on their winning last year, and you didn't need stats to see it anymore than you needed them to feel the "oomph" when Boogie entered the game for us. Its why everybody was talking about him last year. When he was on the floor they suddenly got dangerous for whatever reason.
The thing about +/- stats is that they track decently. If they were random noise, there would be no pattern to them, but there is. They don't track 100%, there is too much year to year variance, too much need of context to understand. But in an overall sense they track decently. When I post Dwight's annual +/- stats:
2014-15 Dwight: +8.5/+1.5 = +7.0
2013-14 Dwight: +6.9/+1.8 = -5.1
2012-13 Dwight: +2.6/-0.4 = +3.0
2011-12 Dwight: +4.1/-4.7 = +8.8
2010-11 Dwight: +8.4/-0.4 = +8.8
2009-10 Dwight: +11.0/+1.6 = +9.4
2008-09 Dwight: +10.2/+1.9 = +8.3
2007-08 Dwight: +7.5/-0.5 = +8.0
2006-07 Dwight: +1.3/+0.0 = +1.3
2005-06 Dwight: +0.1/-5.1 = +5.2
2004-05 Dwight: -2.9/-2.4 = -0.5
With the possibly aberrant result this season that's an almost perfect representation of his career. You can see the young player developing, then the 5 year All NBA prime, then the Dwightmare, back injury, move to L.A. etc. as he's fallen back off. The numbers broadly tell the same story we already know. Its not nothing.
Similarly you can see in Shaq's numbers hsi dominance through the end of his Lakers run, then his decline into a #2 guy in Miami, and finally his late career fall off. You can see when Timmy hit 30 and began to decline into a support player rather than a superstar. There's noise and abberant years, but you would not see patterns like that amongst top players (who produce the bulk of the +/-) if it was an "empty stat". But the lesser the player, the shakier the stat becomes, and often as much about roster construction as anything else. You are almost never going to have a replacement for Boogie in his ballpark, but its a roster decision whether or not you have a decent backup for Darren Collison or George Hill.
The thing about +/- stats is that they track decently. If they were random noise, there would be no pattern to them, but there is. They don't track 100%, there is too much year to year variance, too much need of context to understand. But in an overall sense they track decently. When I post Dwight's annual +/- stats:
2014-15 Dwight: +8.5/+1.5 = +7.0
2013-14 Dwight: +6.9/+1.8 = -5.1
2012-13 Dwight: +2.6/-0.4 = +3.0
2011-12 Dwight: +4.1/-4.7 = +8.8
2010-11 Dwight: +8.4/-0.4 = +8.8
2009-10 Dwight: +11.0/+1.6 = +9.4
2008-09 Dwight: +10.2/+1.9 = +8.3
2007-08 Dwight: +7.5/-0.5 = +8.0
2006-07 Dwight: +1.3/+0.0 = +1.3
2005-06 Dwight: +0.1/-5.1 = +5.2
2004-05 Dwight: -2.9/-2.4 = -0.5
With the possibly aberrant result this season that's an almost perfect representation of his career. You can see the young player developing, then the 5 year All NBA prime, then the Dwightmare, back injury, move to L.A. etc. as he's fallen back off. The numbers broadly tell the same story we already know. Its not nothing.
Similarly you can see in Shaq's numbers hsi dominance through the end of his Lakers run, then his decline into a #2 guy in Miami, and finally his late career fall off. You can see when Timmy hit 30 and began to decline into a support player rather than a superstar. There's noise and abberant years, but you would not see patterns like that amongst top players (who produce the bulk of the +/-) if it was an "empty stat". But the lesser the player, the shakier the stat becomes, and often as much about roster construction as anything else. You are almost never going to have a replacement for Boogie in his ballpark, but its a roster decision whether or not you have a decent backup for Darren Collison or George Hill.
King Baller
All-Star
Ahem.........., the OP's question is "What is the distinction that you make between talented players and talented players that make their teams win?"
IMO the best way is to use the Eye Test and judge how the team plays with and without the player in question. Anyone who watched the Kings the last two seasons cannot deny Cousins makes the Kings win. They have won just a handful of games without Boogie. So in all the rest I credit Boogie for the win.
Now if the question is "What is the distinction that you make between talented players and talented players that make their teammates better?" Then you have to look at what each position brings to this discussion. Does a Center have the same impact making Teammates better as a Point Guard (Or at least a player who plays like a Point Guard at times, Lebron, Iguodala, etc.)?
IMO the best way is to use the Eye Test and judge how the team plays with and without the player in question. Anyone who watched the Kings the last two seasons cannot deny Cousins makes the Kings win. They have won just a handful of games without Boogie. So in all the rest I credit Boogie for the win.
Now if the question is "What is the distinction that you make between talented players and talented players that make their teammates better?" Then you have to look at what each position brings to this discussion. Does a Center have the same impact making Teammates better as a Point Guard (Or at least a player who plays like a Point Guard at times, Lebron, Iguodala, etc.)?
Good points. A guy who is going to handle the ball more, such a s a PG or Lebron, Kobe,etc can make his teammates better by drawing the defense to him and dishing and creating better scoring opportunities for his teammates. In reality, Cuz is not the main ball handler but he does create open scoring opportunities for his teammates when the defense sags into the paint on him. It's not Cuz' fault that we haven't surrounded him with the type of players that can knock down 3's on a consistent basis. He does make them better but they have to make the plays that he helps create for them.
I am not distorting anything, of course it's not an "empty stat" completely but you are giving it way too much value, and using it in a misleading way.
Of course the level of replacement matters- the point of this stat is on/off the court- when you are off the court and the guy that comes in is Ryan Hollins you are going to look good.
Take a look at Chris Paul for example:
2012/13: +6.7
2013/14: +9.1
2014/15: +20.9
Is it that Chris Paul changed his game to this degree? or is it more logical to asume this is about his back-up.
In 2012/13 Eric Bledsoe had his breakout season and Paul recorded just 6.7,
In 2013/14 he had DC (a great back up) and recorded 9.1,
And than this year he didn't have any back up PG of that caliber and unsurprisingly his +/- skyrocketed to +20.9.
Another example is Marc Gasol:
2011/12: +11.6
2012/13: +10.9
2013/14: -2.7
2014/15: +0.9
Did Gasol's production fell off a cliff this past two years? or is it that the team acquired in 2013/14 a pretty good back-up center named Kosta Koufos.
I'm not saying that Cousins can't lead you to wins- I'm saying that this is not the place to look for proof that he can.
And I'll offer a prediction to end this- next year Cousins net +/- would be worse than this year- it won't be because he'll suffer a setback (I'll predict the opposite) but simply because the team now have better players (especially Koufos in that sense) that can carry the team a little better when he is on the bench.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
The talent is there. The coaching is there. There is no excuse for this team not exceeding .500 ball. I don't want to hear about Cousins and the refs, Cousins and Karl, Rondo and Karl, or any other drama. Winning needs to take the place of drama on this team. Drama is the tantrum of losers. If they don't win, they can all be traded and then I'll give them a standing ovation for their last curtain call.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I don't disagree with much of what you said there, after the introduction of course (as a founding member of the Marc Gasol has become incredibly overrated club however, don't want to test me there).
HOWEVER....
This is not my debate. I think this whole question is stupid. I go so far as to severely question the intelligence or agenda of anybody who would start it. You want to know whether DeMarcus Cousins can make a team win? WATCH THE GAMES! I mean, good lord. Cousins denialists at this point are practically flat earthers, and are due just about that much respect. If you can;t see the answer to that question from doing no more than turning on a TV, then you just aren't very good at watching basketball, or you have an agenda, or both.
BUT
since this particular breed of basketball luddite hasn't been completely stamped out despite my very best efforts across a broad band of mediums, they must be engaged. And when in the face of overwhelming raw and even advanced stats, accolades, and just etc. they finally resort to vagueries of "make you win" variety, well here we are. +/- stats. Because luddites or not I am not going to concede to them that somehow wins accumulated by a TEAM is a more accurate way of judging a player's winning impact than directly looking at, well, that player's impact. That's asinine. Its like somebody intentionally looking at PPG as an indication of whether somebody is a good shooter or not, even when you present them with the actual FG%es. Sure a lot more goes into the FG% then people commonly acknowledge, teammates, PGs, is he being used right, was he hurt etc., but it sure in the hell is a lot more specific way of looking at shooting than overall points scored. And in the case of "winningess" its even more stark because wins are accumulated by 12 players, Cuz's on/off just by him. And of course the "off" is the truly telling stat there. There's no way to excuse it or find a way to pin it on Boogie. No way to remotely claim that a team that was -8.6/100 without a player on the floor was remotely ready to win games. Nerlins Noel had a -9.6/-9.7 which means that Philly as a team was at about -9.6/100 last year. Wiggins was -9.5/-7.8 while playing in 75% of Minny's minutes, meaning Minny was about -9.1/100 last year. Without Cousins, our remaining team was barely any better.
HOWEVER....
This is not my debate. I think this whole question is stupid. I go so far as to severely question the intelligence or agenda of anybody who would start it. You want to know whether DeMarcus Cousins can make a team win? WATCH THE GAMES! I mean, good lord. Cousins denialists at this point are practically flat earthers, and are due just about that much respect. If you can;t see the answer to that question from doing no more than turning on a TV, then you just aren't very good at watching basketball, or you have an agenda, or both.
BUT
since this particular breed of basketball luddite hasn't been completely stamped out despite my very best efforts across a broad band of mediums, they must be engaged. And when in the face of overwhelming raw and even advanced stats, accolades, and just etc. they finally resort to vagueries of "make you win" variety, well here we are. +/- stats. Because luddites or not I am not going to concede to them that somehow wins accumulated by a TEAM is a more accurate way of judging a player's winning impact than directly looking at, well, that player's impact. That's asinine. Its like somebody intentionally looking at PPG as an indication of whether somebody is a good shooter or not, even when you present them with the actual FG%es. Sure a lot more goes into the FG% then people commonly acknowledge, teammates, PGs, is he being used right, was he hurt etc., but it sure in the hell is a lot more specific way of looking at shooting than overall points scored. And in the case of "winningess" its even more stark because wins are accumulated by 12 players, Cuz's on/off just by him. And of course the "off" is the truly telling stat there. There's no way to excuse it or find a way to pin it on Boogie. No way to remotely claim that a team that was -8.6/100 without a player on the floor was remotely ready to win games. Nerlins Noel had a -9.6/-9.7 which means that Philly as a team was at about -9.6/100 last year. Wiggins was -9.5/-7.8 while playing in 75% of Minny's minutes, meaning Minny was about -9.1/100 last year. Without Cousins, our remaining team was barely any better.
I agree with some of that. I will take issue with a few things:
"somehow wins accumulated by a TEAM is a more accurate way of judging a player's winning impact than directly looking at, well, that player's impact. That's asinine."- first off the whole discussion is about how individual production is translated to TEAM wins (and yes, I agree it's almost impossible to answer) and the best way to test it is by... team wins, this is not asinine.
The next thing is that it seems that you assume that +/- is an efficient way of determining a player's impact, and as mentioned before with the help of many examples- I disagree.
Look, Cousins have time under his belt and in that time we haven't won over 29 games, last year we won less game than Denver- not only they don't have a player at Cousins level, I think that most here will agree that Rudy is better than any of their players. and considering all the injuries, did AD (which many here, including you if I'm not mistaken) had a this much better cast around him leading the Pelicans to the playoffs?
Of course there are a lot of points to explain why Cousins haven't lead us to a winning season (yet), and sure- watching him play it's easy to sense something special, but I don't see how can you put a guy in HOF's category when his team isn't better than any team that isn't trying to lose (and actually worse than some of those too). once he'll give a winning season (and I'm sure he will) you can go ahead and erase that question mark- but he has to prove it- by actually winning.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
He really doesn't. Not if you know the game.
+/- stats are the final resort, and the only resort for this sort of asinine argument. And yes, Cuz's +/- was basically his entire contribution to winning or losing...except the illness/injury, which is a major factor (if he had played in 82 games the numbers say we would have won 35+ despite all the chaos).
But its a complete turn brain off and plug your ears argument to somehow say that a team not being able to win with a player OFF the court is somehow in any way that player who is off the court's fault. And our team COULD NOT WIN without Cousins on the court.
In fact if my earlier calculations are right: Philly won 18 games with a -9.6/100 possesions, Minny won 16 games with a -9.1/100 possessions, then the gap could roughly be summed up as this:
Sacramento Kings w/0 Boogie -8.6/100, roughly a 20-62 team
Sacramento Kings w/Boogie +0.9/100, roughly a 44-38 team*
*Greek Freak was +0.5/+0.2 for a 41-41 team, so they were arbout +0.3 or +0.4.
*Tyreke was a +2.7/-2.5 for a 45-38 team in 68% of their minutes, so they were about +1.0
It's all good and well except he hasn't won yet, you can't say that people saying that there is a question mark on his ability to carry a team to win is "flat earthers" when he has yet to show he can carry a team. do i think he can carry a team? sure, but that doesn't mean people saying otherwise are based on nothing.
+/- isn't the "final resort" for this discussion nor the only resort as it is flawed and as shown takes into account things aside from the players contribution. as shown in the cases of Gasol and Paul (among others) how good your replacement player is affecting this stat.
At the end of the day Cousins played 59 games last season- we won 23 of them, even if you translate it to 82 games (which is a bit weird since Cousins has never logged 82 games, and hasn't passed 75 games since his rookie year) it still translates to 32 wins... and that is still really bad (the only team we would have passed is Denver).
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
