I would love to see them roll this lineup out there and see what happens.Getting White, Brogdon, and Smart on the same roster was an amazing feat. The only problem is that all three of them can‘t play at crunch time.
I would love to see them roll this lineup out there and see what happens.Getting White, Brogdon, and Smart on the same roster was an amazing feat. The only problem is that all three of them can‘t play at crunch time.
Others have already answered this better than I could, but one thing to keep in mind about rotation guys who see fewer minutes and role players is that often their +/- will be somewhat inflated because they're inserted mostly only in situations that are good for their skillset. One example was Hauser's ridiculous +/- to start the season. It's part SSS, but it was also "we don't play Sam Hauser in situations where he'll get repeatedly torched". Giannis, Tatum, Brown et al. are gonna get big minutes and see fluctuations because you don't save them for good matchups.Stupid question.....
Is plus minus "normalized"?
Like if "when DW is on the floor we have outscored the opponent by 372 points". DW may only be on the floor for 22 mins a game. or say 1000 mins this season.
Another player may have outscored the opponent by 432 points" That player ....say Giannis for arguments sake......might play 35 mins a game. Or say 2100 mins this season.
It would seem that the MORE time your on the floor .....if your an "impactful player" you SHOULD outscore your opponent in plus minus. (but maybe thats not true??)
Maybe I am wrong??
But if true....does that make the player who plays less but outscores the opponents MORE Impactful ?
Would love to get a quick explanation if I am on the right thought process.
I've seen them play together, but it's not a common lineup. Looking at the Celtics' most common 3, 4 and 5 man groups, Smart/Brogdon/White aren't in the top 20 in the 3 or 4 man lineup, but they are a part of the 16th most used 5 man lineup (those 3, plus Brown and Horford). They've played about 34 minutes together, and are -7.4 points per 100 possessions in those minutes.I would love to see them roll this lineup out there and see what happens.
You can search 3 man lineups on NBA.com.I've seen them play together, but it's not a common lineup. Looking at the Celtics' most common 3, 4 and 5 man groups, Smart/Brogdon/White aren't in the top 20 in the 3 or 4 man lineup, but they are a part of the 16th most used 5 man lineup (those 3, plus Brown and Horford). They've played about 34 minutes together, and are -7.4 points per 100 possessions in those minutes.
As others have said, raw +/- or on/off stats are typically reported as rate stats (usually per 100 possessions) rather than aggregates. That doesn’t adjust for teammate quality though. Adjusted plus minus status take than next step. Most of the common advanced stats out there these days (like LEBRON, DARKO, and RAPTOR) are built off a mix of adjusted plus minus data and box score metrics (this is super simplified and someone better versed in the details of these than i am would be necessary to break this down further). How you adjust plus minus and how different box score metrics are weighted, plus some other stuff, is why these all aren’t the same, but it’s also why there’s a decent amount of common ground.Stupid question.....
Is plus minus "normalized"?
Like if "when DW is on the floor we have outscored the opponent by 372 points". DW may only be on the floor for 22 mins a game. or say 1000 mins this season.
Another player may have outscored the opponent by 432 points" That player ....say Giannis for arguments sake......might play 35 mins a game. Or say 2100 mins this season.
It would seem that the MORE time your on the floor .....if your an "impactful player" you SHOULD outscore your opponent in plus minus. (but maybe thats not true??)
Maybe I am wrong??
But if true....does that make the player who plays less but outscores the opponents MORE Impactful ?
Would love to get a quick explanation if I am on the right thought process.
Not sure I buy the name, but agree with the concept. Chuck Hayes’ single best season in the NBA was the one where he was a 28 mpg starter in 2010/11, his only season where he played close to that much. He was also pretty good (meaning above average, but All Star or anything) the year before as a 20 mpg starter. He then left Houston, moved to a more limited bench role, and wasn’t very good at all.Sometimes we fall into the trap of not recognizing context with these small sample lineup metrics. To me, it’s the same misnomer we give bench players with positive metrics assuming that it will be sustainable regardless of matchups when they are out there in the first place many times due to specific matchup advantages. I refer to this as “The Chuck Hayes Effect” and people are fooled by this all the time.
after the TOP7, the C's are a collection of high-end complimentary role players.Sometimes we fall into the trap of not recognizing context with these small sample lineup metrics. To me, it’s the same misnomer we give bench players with positive metrics assuming that it will be sustainable regardless of matchups when they are out there in the first place many times due to specific matchup advantages. I refer to this as “The Chuck Hayes Effect” and people are fooled by this all the time.
They got some pretty good run together in the 3rd Quarter against Cleveland. Teamed with Horford/RW and Brown/Tatum for a number of different looks. I think Joe wanted to see how those groups work. Pretty well on all accounts from my memory.I would love to see them roll this lineup out there and see what happens.
I actually meant to quote more. I would love to see them try a Smart/White/Brogdon/Jaylen/Tatum lineupI've seen them play together, but it's not a common lineup. Looking at the Celtics' most common 3, 4 and 5 man groups, Smart/Brogdon/White aren't in the top 20 in the 3 or 4 man lineup, but they are a part of the 16th most used 5 man lineup (those 3, plus Brown and Horford). They've played about 34 minutes together, and are -7.4 points per 100 possessions in those minutes.
I don’t really disagree. I’m not even sure someone else will but I think there is/was a decent chance someone would if everything else fell through. Should his play since the ASB continue we won’t have to worry about that big match question now will we?after the TOP7, the C's are a collection of high-end complimentary role players.
Hence why I don't get the interest in paying up for Grant Williams? He's a candidate for your Chuck Hayes Effect
His year as the 20mpg starter his role was extremely limited as that was the great Ming/McGrady team. His skillset was perfect for his role on that team. When his role expanded as a full-time starter he was greatly exposed then after he signed with Sacramento as a FA I believe he was pretty awful.Not sure I buy the name, but agree with the concept. Chuck Hayes’ single best season in the NBA was the one where he was a 28 mpg starter in 2010/11, his only season where he played close to that much. He was also pretty good (meaning above average, but All Star or anything) the year before as a 20 mpg starter. He then left Houston, moved to a more limited bench role, and wasn’t very good at all.
You know that Smart would insist on covering the opponent's Big!I actually meant to quote more. I would love to see them try a Smart/White/Brogdon/Jaylen/Tatum lineup
Either Smart or Brogdon can handle most of the non-Embiid bigs in the East in spurts. This is one thing that makes our defense so good is it’s switchability.You know that Smart would insist on covering the opponent's Big!
He'll get it together. His corner stroke is mustard. He'll end up getting a decent long-term deal from Boston. It's fine he gambled on himself, but the increased minutes just didn't translate like he had hoped (like most role players/Chuck Hayes)I don’t really disagree. I’m not even sure someone else will but I think there is/was a decent chance someone would if everything else fell through. Should his play since the ASB continue we won’t have to worry about that big match question now will we?
He’s even worse as he physically didn’t physically match up well against starters whereas Hayes could provide plenty of resistance and switch vs bigs. The big difference with Grant is that he actually has an offensive game whereas Hayes and Davis were zeros on that end. I never liked Davis at all for this reason…..second unit guy on lottery teams isn’t an endearing quality imo.How about the Ed Davis Effect? He was always an advanced stats darling in his small sample sizes & everyone was always surprised that he never got big contracts or an expanded role, but it's because his actual skillset is rather limited.
I think I missed the entire context for this conversation & thought it was about players who were good statistically in small sample sizes, not players who were good in small lineups against certain matchups lolHe’s even worse as he physically didn’t physically match up well against starters whereas Hayes could provide plenty of resistance and switch vs bigs. The big difference with Grant is that he actually has an offensive game whereas Hayes and Davis were zeros on that end. I never liked Davis at all for this reason…..second unit guy on lottery teams isn’t an endearing quality imo.
Grant isn't even an adv metric darling, very consistent negative On-Off.I think I missed the entire context for this conversation & thought it was about players who were good statistically in small sample sizes, not players who were good in small lineups against certain matchups lol
I've always been a Chuck Hayes stan, though & I don't think it's an accident he had an on/off of +4 or better 8 of his 1st 10 years.
I honestly didn't even realize the conversation was about Grant. That's how badly I missed the context. I've been in baseball mode & rounding into football mode...Grant isn't even an adv metric darling, very consistent negative On-Off.
He's a good Corner3 shooter & situational defender (takes punishment)
He was effective next to Ming/Yao and in that system…..not so much after Sacramento paid him what at the time was a pretty big contract for his ideal role. I think we all agree Grant is not cut out for more than what his ideal role is here.I think I missed the entire context for this conversation & thought it was about players who were good statistically in small sample sizes, not players who were good in small lineups against certain matchups lol
I've always been a Chuck Hayes stan, though & I don't think it's an accident he had an on/off of +4 or better 8 of his 1st 10 years.
Yup. Sorry for the accidental derail. Some team is probably going to overpay Grant & regret it. Hopefully we can get something for facilitating it. Or the market for him falls apart or he takes a hometown discount or something.He was effective next to Ming/Yao and in that system…..not so much after Sacramento paid him what at the time was a pretty big contract for his ideal role. I think we all agree Grant is not cut out for more than what his ideal role is here.
If he continues this spiral we’ll get him real cheap.Yup. Sorry for the accidental derail. Some team is probably going to overpay Grant & regret it. Hopefully we can get something for facilitating it. Or the market for him falls apart or he takes a hometown discount or something.
WTF?Second straight season D-White has shrunk in the playoffs. That's a troubling trend.
He was great vs ATL. Not so great this seriesWTF?
REG SEASON - 28.3 mins, .604 TS%, .381 3P%, .875 FT%, 12.4 ppg
PLAYOFFS - 31.7 mins, .650 TS%, .411 3P%, .952 FT%, 14.1 ppg
He's been good in the wins and bad in the losses. Just like pretty much everyone else on the team. Why the need to call him out specifically?He was great vs ATL. Not so great this series
Lots of C's are getting called out. White was just so freaking good during the regular season that it's noticeable when he struggles.He's been good in the wins and bad in the losses. Just like pretty much everyone else on the team. Why the need to call him out specifically?
In this playoffs, he has had 6 good to great games, 3 mediocre ones, and 2 stinkers
But he is performing better overall in the playoffs than he did during the regular seasonLots of C's are getting called out. White was just so freaking good during the regular season that it's noticeable when he struggles.
He was awesome in the Atlanta series. He’s been okay this series. Probably doesn’t deserve to be called out but if he can get back to regular season Derrick White, that would be hugeBut he is performing better overall in the playoffs than he did during the regular season
Not in this series he's not.But he is performing better overall in the playoffs than he did during the regular season
Well sure. But the OP clearly said playoffs. You gotta look at the totality if that is the caseNot in this series he's not.
128 was the OP….he mistyped but I understood what he meant immediately.Well sure. But the OP clearly said playoffs. You gotta look at the totality if that is the case
I think part of the issue is, to be effective White needs to have the ball and be allowed to push the pace. In this series Celtics basically use him as a low usage spot up shooter.He was awesome in the Atlanta series. He’s been okay this series. Probably doesn’t deserve to be called out but if he can get back to regular season Derrick White, that would be huge