But I have to ask, am I the only one that has quarrels with a 6th man award going to a player that has been a starter for almost a 1/3 of the season? And that has played his best and most important ball mainly in that 1/3?
I like Manu and think he's been great but really, shouldn't 6th man come with a cut off point on starter minutes (or something)?
]]>But Okl is 8.6 Pts/100 possessions better than Toronto on defense.
So being 10 pts worse (defensively) than an avg Okl 100 poss
is equivalent to being 1.4 Pts/100 worse for Tor.
Is this right?
If so, any player with on/off worse than -1.4 for Tor would be worse than Jeff Green?
(Assuming +/- actually measures something).
adjusted +/-, as it regards defense, seems to be way too heavily linked to team performance to be any sort of measure of individual ability / contribution.
I remember looking at the numbers back when Scott Skiles was coaching the Bulls, and most of their rotation players had terrific defensive +/- numbers - even guys like Gordon who really weren't that special at the defensive end.
This season a lot of the Bucks look like terrific individual defenders based on +/-.
Scheme just seems to be too determinate to really measure player by player contribution.
]]>I know Hollingers method is trying to elminate opinion/bias out the equation but to just use previous winning percentage in the way he does as deducing the crucial "expected wins" figure misses out some big factors that coaches have to actually handle.
Brooks may still be deserving the award (and should definitely be in the conversation)but theres now way Id accept that hes achieved so much more then expected then his peers.
I mean, not only is he benefitting in this calculation by the 3-27 start he had at the start of last season but he hasnt had the injury problems that Skiles (Michael Redd) and McMilan (Oden, Przybilla etc) have had to deal with.
]]>