Yeah, I agree with the fact that Salmons = No Ben. I just don't think anyone is gonna be happy with the result. Here's adjusted plus/minus, which I don't think is perfect but everyone loves Code: Year Gordon Nocioni Hinrich Deng Salmons 2004-2005 6.83 -9.47 -1.7 4.29 -6.65 2005-2006 -0.25 0.28 -1.7 7.57 -5.47 2006-2007 3.03 -2.72 -0.62 5.58 -4.42 2007-2008 -10.16 2.71 -4.56 4.64 -7.18 2008-2009* -2.3 2.44 2.04 4.61 -7.09 The 2008-2009 figures are actually a 2 year average that includes 2007-2008 (if you're looking at the quick explanation for what this means, it means Kirk and Ben have played a lot better this year than last year). And the other years were done in slightly different fashions. However, what comes across in every result is that Salmons is consistently bad. Consistently worse than Noc, in fact, who everyone hates and is happy to see gone. So in a nutshell, if you believe in APM (I'd consider myself a mild but not fervent believer), Salmons is not only a major downgrade from Ben, who should be considered part of the cost of this acquisition, he's actually a significant downgrade from Nocioni. Because, well, Noc had his uses and had moments of being helpful. Salmons has been consistently dreadful and will be for us.
He's 25th in the league in 3pt % and is 41.6% in his 5 year career. Not exactly historic numbers. He's a great shooter, but he's not "one of the best ever". I'd put him in the top 15.
They are when you consider how many three pointers he's taken. Check out this list of guys who've made at least 300 three balls over their first 5 years and shot at least 40%. Lots of guys can shoot 40% from 3. Not many can shoot 40% from 3 when they shoot that much.
Where do you get your data? I agree it's a big concerning. p.s. Hollinger doesn't love adjusted +/-. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insi...ist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiemInsider-090210 More at the article...
I don't think BG is necessarily gone. Seems like either Hinrich or Salmons could be moved this summer instead.
Year Source 2004-2005 http://www.82games.com/lewin3b.htm 2005-2006 http://www.82games.com/lewin2b.htm 2006-2007 http://www.82games.com/ilardi1.htm 2007-2008 http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2007-2008&team=SAC 2008-2009 http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2008-2009&team=CHI I think Hollinger is partly on the money in his criticisms. The actual "annual values" used on the APM approach are either arbitrarily weighted to favor more recent seasons (which is dumb when the whole point is to remove arbitrary weighting) or have high standard errors. However, where Hollinger is a bit off is that if you lump together the data from several seasons, you reduce the standard error so that you get a pretty useful statistic. Unfortunately that's not one that's been published anywhere that I can tell. It's also true that in many cases, such as Salmons (and Deng), the SEs are low enough and the estimates are high enough to come away with a pretty consistent picture of a guy's contribution. That is, it's not a perfect stat... it reflects reality. Reality is a guy can quibble and be uncertain about the positive or negative effects of a player like Ben, Kirk or Noc. It's probably going to be situational to the team he's on. In some situations they're a positive, and in others they don't help much. It's a pretty rare guy that's consistently a positive, which is how Deng looks. And it's a pretty rare guy, like Salmons, that seems to consistently get chances and yet have a consistently negative impact.
Sure, but how much do you gain verses the raw net +/- (of 82 games)? It's not enough IMHO to justify the added error in a more complicated formula that is supposed to yield a more accurate result.
Of course, maybe I am biased because of the bbb.net statistician that tried to used his defensive adjusted +/- to convince me that Ben Gordon was one of the best defenders in the league as a rookie.
The bulls could use another slasher who gets to the rim reliably. Rose is the only guy who can do that now. Deng, BG and Kirk are all jumpshooters. But I haven't seen enough of Salmons to know if he's going to be a help or not. Salmons has played big minutes on some bad teams and those APM numbers don't look good, but they make BG look pretty bad, as well, so...
APM is supposed to provide a number for a player independent of who that player was on the court with during the game. Regular +/- isn't independent. It's a different metric.
Like BS says, it's pretty much a different measure. There isn't added error compared to raw +/-, it's just nobody's bothered to formalize a standard error for raw +/-. If they did, it'd be large(r). I don't think Dan actually went that far, but that's what one season of data indicated. The thing is, you reduce the potential for error as you add more data (just like +/- for a season is going to give you better info than +/- for a game), and you get a better sense of things. For what it's worth, here's Hollinger's take on the trade: Well, that's one negative. Another one is that he's got the Pervis Ellison Memorial One Good Season Amidst a Crappy Career Award locked up for this year. Look at that PER rating you developed, John!
Well sure, but in that way, APM is an exact measure of the net +/- filtered by the net+/- of the other players on the court. It's basically like a strength of schedule measure for +/-. What do you consider the error associated with on court vs. off court performance? Which is a better measure?
here's his raw +/- from 82Games Code: Year On Off Net 08-09 -10.9 -5.8 -5.1 07-08 -5.4 2.9 -8.3 06-07 -4.1 1.1 -5.2 05-06 -4.7 -4.3 -0.4 04-05 -4.5 0.6 -5.1 03-04 -2.8 -2.2 -0.6 02-03 1.2 2.6 -1.4 I'm seeing a trend
This just seems to me like a useless stat. The more minutes he plays, if he's playing for a bad team, the more the on will overshoot the off. And if you weighted it (is it weighted?), there are bad teams, with mediocre benches that throws tings off. I wish basketball had a Nate Silver. All of the complex stats work I've seen so far seems not that useful.
I'd love to see some +/- numbers on Jordan's early years. It'd be interesting to see how great players on shitty teams come out.
IIRC KG was always a +/- demon on the crappy TWolves teams. And we could look at Lebron Code: Yr On Off Net 8 14.9 -8.5 23.4 7 2.2 -8.4 10.6 6 5.6 -4 9.6 5 3.9 -7.2 11.1 4 2.3 -7.1 9.4 3 -2.2 -3.7 1.5
