Was looking at players stats as part of research for possible trades and came across some very probative stats for VC. For those that decry the importance of "pretty" but empty statistics like points, rebounds, and assists, how's this: Vince had the league's third highest on/offcourt differential (+13.3), behind only Nash (14.5) and Jamison (14.2). He was directly followed by Nowitzki, Garnett, and Bosh. LeBron James was 8th at +11.3. Iverson, Pierce, Ginobli, and Paul finished 11th, 13th, 14th, and 16th, respectively. About half the players in the top 20 (excluding the couple who played less than half of their teams' minutes and are therefore statistically less meaningful) have either been league MVPs, Finals MVPs, or serious candidates for league MVP. Almost all of the remainder are (multiple) allstars. This is the single most probative statistic in judging the impact an individual player has on his team's performance. It is the epitome of "bottom line" in contrasting the simple degree to which a team can outscore its opponents with and without a player's participation. And yet some refuse to give Vince his due as a franchise caliber talent, even though he posted these incredible numbers while deferring to Jefferson for half a season. I haven't thoroughly checked, but from glancing through the list, I'd bet that no other team in the league suffers the same gap in net on/offcourt stats between its top two players. Kidd was second for the Nets at +3.9, a 9.4 point drop from Carter (Jefferson and Boone next with +2.6 and +2.2, respectively.) In contrast, Marion and Stoudemire finished at +6.9 and 6.4 and Bell wasn't far behind at +5.0, solidifying Nash's paramount importance to the Suns' success but also underscoring that his numbers are more inflated than Vince's because of the superior and complimentary talent that shares the floor with him. Antawn Jameson, a multiple all-star who had a career year, had Butler and Stevenson chipping in at 10.4 and 7.4, so he was hardly an island. Even LeBron James, who seems the quintessential star with marginal support, had Daniel Gibson finishing at 5.5, a modest 5.8 points behind James. I agree that these numbers certainly support the notion that the Nets are a poorly constructed team (or, at the very least, poorly coached) with players that don't really mesh well or play in a system that maximizes their compatibility. But if Carter can make that much of an impact without having ANY bona-fide shooters to relieve the defensive pressure on him and increase his offensive options, I relish the day when/if he's able to play beside a Mike Miller/James Jones combo or with a big man that can finish consistently inside.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This is the single most probative statistic in judging the impact an individual player has on his team's performance.</div> Unfortunately it's also influenced by the other 4. I just can't take it seriously because when the dependent variable is being measured, there are 4 times as many identifiable confounding variables as there are independent variables. I'll pass, but I'm sure someone will want to discuss this.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Apr 23 2008, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Unfortunately it's also influenced by the other 4. I just can't take it seriously because when the dependent variable is being measured, there are 4 times as many identifiable confounding variables as there are independent variables. I'll pass, but I'm sure someone will want to discuss this.</div> At least four factors neutralize the facial validity of your statement: (1) if the stat was as meaningless as you portray, the players that are consensus elite players wouldn't consistently dominate the top of the list, but they do (year after year); (2) by eliminating consideration of players that play significantly fewer minutes than others, you also greatly reduce the natural unpredictability and statistical irrelevance of small sample (playing time) sizes; (3) the variables in the form of the other 4 players are very limited and known, since only a few players actually make the rotation and will share comparable time with other players from the same team; (4) viewing the results for any one player in context with the net on/offcourt figures of his teammates (especially those that share a lot of his court time) completes the picture of how important that particular player (as opposed to a particular 2, 3, 4, or 5-man unit) is to his team's success. And that was precisely why I compared the impact of the nearest Nets to Vince and the nearest teammates of others in the top 20. The emerging use of Lenovo stats confirms that on/offcourt numbers are the single best tool for judging the impact a subset of a team's players, including a subset of one. It's not perfect, but it's darn good. And in Vince's case, you can always go back to 21/6/5.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The 10-year veteran was one of only three NBA players (Kobe Bryant, LeBron James) to average more than 20 points, six rebounds and five assists throughout the season.</div>
To a large extent, this stat measures how good a player is compared to the other players on his team at the same position. When Carter was off the court, that typically meant Wright (pre-trade), Hassell (post-trade), Nachbar, or Marcus Williams was on the court. I hope that Carter's stat is lower next season because management significantly upgrades the backup SG position.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pinetar @ Apr 24 2008, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To a large extent, this stat measures how good a player is compared to the other players on his team at the same position. When Carter was off the court, that typically meant Wright (pre-trade), Hassell (post-trade), Nachbar, or Marcus Williams was on the court. I hope that Carter's stat is lower next season because management significantly upgrades the backup SG position.</div> If that was the only significant thing it was measuring, Kidd's numbers should have been much higher since Marcus (and occasionally Armstrong) were his replacements (Marcus played very little this season beside Kidd, i.e., as a 2-guard replacement for Vince). When you consider that both Kidd and Jefferson finished significantly below Carter, and that they both played the majority of their minutes with him, it helps isolate Carter as the biggest contributor to team success or, in this case, the smallest contributor to team failure.
