LunaticWolf
Well-Known Member
God, you are just using On-Off court. Use the simple rating, combines Production and On-Off. On-Off by itself is absolutely meaningless.
Early (crazy) +/-
- Thread starter Jazz4ever
- Start date
LunaticWolf
Well-Known Member
Ok, if you just use On-Off, which is meaningless by itself.
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
Hardly meaningless, and accurate more times than not. By isolating it from production you can really identify defensive liabilities or chemistry problems. Clearly Jefferson is a problem - we are getting blown out by an average of 21 points/48 minutes with him on the floor vs one of our centers. There is no way to sugar coat that, but I welcome you to try.
Now if you want to get more technical you can use adjusted +/- which accounts for quality of players they face, but the trend is usually the same as we see Jefferson at a gruesome -30!! This is the system Houston GM Daryl Morey uses to evaluate players.
https://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2010-2011&team=UTA
This is inaccurate.
I think it's pretty well established that Morey uses a variety of systems to evaluate players, many of which are proprietary and not publicly available.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Both of these sites support then notion that DW-CJ-AK-PM-KF is among the most effective lineups in most situations, which a few JazzFanz have been stating for some time now--before it was published. This combination provides shooting, height, physicality, reasonable speed, and defense. (You have to use CJ's one-year basketballvalue average to get there). Realistically, this lineup has a maximum per-game presence of 15 minutes, because that's the maximum per-game presence of Fesenko (unless fouls bench him first, which has been incorporated in his +/- to date).
For a meaningful stretch, I'd just like to see the lineup once; not sure if it has been played for more than a few accidental minutes at a time. All of them are returning players, too, so they know the system (except for Fes grasping it slowly, not that Al has proven to know it much better).
Addendum: 82games also has a page showing the perfomance of the 20 most-used lineups. (It's WAY early; only five combinations have been used for more than 20 minutes). The contrast of the top three lineups is striking.
-16 Williams-Bell-Kirilenko-Millsap-Jefferson (This is the most-used starting linup, btw, and it has a negative +/-)
+46 Williams-Miles-Kirilenko-Millsap-Jefferson (Sometimes the first substitution of the game.)
+0 Williams-Hayward-Kirilenko-Millsap-Jefferson (probably mostly the OKC game where Hayward started).
This is obviously not adjusted for the opposition, but what this may suggest is that Bell has also been a weak link in the starting lineup--perhaps more so than Jefferson. I'm not betting anytime soon that AJ is coming out of the starting lineup in favor of Elson or Fesenko, but I think that the coaching staff ought to think about starting Miles, which is something that he did for a long time in earlier years. For whatever reason, CJ seems to do well with the starters, and it might help him not come out so cold-shooting. Maybe they might warm up to the idea, given the example of Hayward starting the OKC game and ending up being the only starter with a positive +/-. The 82games stats, however flawed (but lacking any or many superior metrics), points to CJ as a starter being a sound choice.
For a meaningful stretch, I'd just like to see the lineup once; not sure if it has been played for more than a few accidental minutes at a time. All of them are returning players, too, so they know the system (except for Fes grasping it slowly, not that Al has proven to know it much better).
Addendum: 82games also has a page showing the perfomance of the 20 most-used lineups. (It's WAY early; only five combinations have been used for more than 20 minutes). The contrast of the top three lineups is striking.
-16 Williams-Bell-Kirilenko-Millsap-Jefferson (This is the most-used starting linup, btw, and it has a negative +/-)
+46 Williams-Miles-Kirilenko-Millsap-Jefferson (Sometimes the first substitution of the game.)
+0 Williams-Hayward-Kirilenko-Millsap-Jefferson (probably mostly the OKC game where Hayward started).
This is obviously not adjusted for the opposition, but what this may suggest is that Bell has also been a weak link in the starting lineup--perhaps more so than Jefferson. I'm not betting anytime soon that AJ is coming out of the starting lineup in favor of Elson or Fesenko, but I think that the coaching staff ought to think about starting Miles, which is something that he did for a long time in earlier years. For whatever reason, CJ seems to do well with the starters, and it might help him not come out so cold-shooting. Maybe they might warm up to the idea, given the example of Hayward starting the OKC game and ending up being the only starter with a positive +/-. The 82games stats, however flawed (but lacking any or many superior metrics), points to CJ as a starter being a sound choice.
Last edited:
How many minutes have Fes and AJ played together? If Fes is subbing for AJ and playing with PM then maybe PM is inflated and AJ deflated. I've also noticed defenses are pretty damn lax on defending Fes. He's been surprising teams with his quickness by driving from the high post. He goes all Ostertag on them and looks to pass, then BAM! he's at the basket for an easy two. He has also caught some good passes from D-Will low because nobody is paying attention to him yet. That's going to inflate the + of everyone else who's on the floor with him.
Using NBA's +/-, I can't find any time where AJ and Fes are on the floor together. Fes + PM have a + 15, which is 15th down the list. AK + AJ are 2nd to last at -14. Maybe this explains why AJ has been so low +/-. He plays too much with AK and not at all with Fes.
D-Will, CJ, Fes, AJ, + one situational could be interesting as well.
Using NBA's +/-, I can't find any time where AJ and Fes are on the floor together. Fes + PM have a + 15, which is 15th down the list. AK + AJ are 2nd to last at -14. Maybe this explains why AJ has been so low +/-. He plays too much with AK and not at all with Fes.
D-Will, CJ, Fes, AJ, + one situational could be interesting as well.
LunaticWolf
Well-Known Member
A player could have post eggs for their boxscores and happened to be on the court when his team went on a 20-0 run, and his On-Off becomes amazing, even if he never contributed to the run at all. You have to include production to eliminate the luck factor, and, when you do, it falls into an order that actually makes sense.
LunaticWolf
Well-Known Member
On-Off relies too much on what other players are doing on the court. The reason why their On-Off is terrible is because they are being replaced by players who are currently performing better than they are.
If I had two LeBrons, and I played each 24 minutes, assuming they performed exactly the same, their On-Off would be 0.
Likewise, if I had two Treton Hassels, their On-Off would be zero.
Now lets say I had a Lebron and a CJ Miles, CJ's on-off court is now terrible, because LeBron is amazing.
If I had a CJ and a Treton Hassel, CJ's On-off is now just as good as Lebron's was.
Are you telling me you see nothing wrong with that?
If I had two LeBrons, and I played each 24 minutes, assuming they performed exactly the same, their On-Off would be 0.
Likewise, if I had two Treton Hassels, their On-Off would be zero.
Now lets say I had a Lebron and a CJ Miles, CJ's on-off court is now terrible, because LeBron is amazing.
If I had a CJ and a Treton Hassel, CJ's On-off is now just as good as Lebron's was.
Are you telling me you see nothing wrong with that?
LunaticWolf
Well-Known Member
Lets also say we have Marc Blount playing center when James is on the court, and Mark Madsen playing center when CJ is on the court.
Blount's On-Off matches Lebrons while Madsens matches CJs.
Clearly Blount is 10x better than Madsen.
Blount's On-Off matches Lebrons while Madsens matches CJs.
Clearly Blount is 10x better than Madsen.
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [Vizzini and the Man in Black drink ]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly,his smile frozen on his face and falls to the right out of camera dead]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
"
End +/- conversation/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [Vizzini and the Man in Black drink ]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly,his smile frozen on his face and falls to the right out of camera dead]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
"
End +/- conversation/
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
But that is the point. At what point do we stop blaming a player's poor performance on others? The law of averages catches up. For instance Jefferson has been a net negative player 2 of his last 3 years and this year is going to make it 3 out of 4. Can you find another star big man who was consistently worse than his replacements? I can't.
In the extreme case of two superstars yes it could be misleading. If you want to disregard a players sub just look at on court. Looking at Miami now we see this situation with Wade who has a Net -6.9, but his +8.9 on court means they are still beating their opponents like a drum with him in. Looking at Jefferson without taking into account Fes or Elson, we see he is -4. That's not a terrible rating if your a cellar dwelling team, but terrible for the Jazz. Last year we did not have one rotation player with a negative on court rating!
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
Well these perfect sub patterns without crossover do not happen in reality and what are their minutes? If James and Blount are playing 80% of the time it means Madsen and CJ are playing 20% and I'm not overly concerned with low usage bench players. I'll be the first to admit Fesenko isn't as good as his +18 would indicate, but I do believe such a wide margin this year and last year shows our weakness of lacking a real center.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
No system is precise, and these numbers are on a very low sample size of minutes. The magnitudes aren't very meaningful. The relative values are a bit more meaningful.
According to this analytical system the top five players (not overlapping in position) are Miles, Millsap, Kirilenko, Williams, and the backup centers (basically a tie). There's one of your core lineups right there. Keep starting Jefferson if you want, but think about swapping Miles into the starting lineup (or at least notching his minutes up) and playing more of the true C's. That's what this is telling us, and it's plausible.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
OK, but this doesn't exist.
Likewise, if I had two Treton Hassels, their On-Off would be zero.
Then use on-court +/-, too (or instead), which would still tell you to play more of Miles & the centers and less of Bell & Jefferson. I don't think that it's a coincidence that Raja and AJ talk a good talk and are getting more minutes than what might be optimal, but Fes & Miles probably don't (and Elson is new to the team) and are probably playing less. (Another big factor, though, is Miles huge swings from being abysmal to amazing.)