Lakers 99 - Clippers 92
by Steve Perrin on Oct 28, 2009 12:29 AM PDT
in News
65 comments
As compared to a 38 point loss to the Lakers in the first game of the season a year ago, a 99-92 defeat in a game nobody expects you to win is relatively positive. And a couple of good things did in fact happen for the Clippers in this game. But there were some things areas of concern in the first game as well.
The Good
The roster is indeed deeper this time around. Even without the injured Blake Griffin, the Clippers bench outplayed the defending champs' reserves by a wide margin. Now, it must be noted that Pau Gasol did not play, forcing Lamar Odom into the starting lineup, but Phil Jackson was so distrustful of his bench that he played four of his starters between 38 and 41 minutes each. Meanwhile, Craig Smith with a dozen second quarter points and Sebastian Telfair with 8 points and 4 assists in 21 minutes were especially good for the Clippers. It's particularly nice to have an effective backup point guard - Telfair is a significant upgrade over the second string (and in several cases first string) points we've been watching the last few seasons.
Chris Kaman played well. Although Mr. Flippy did make an early appearance when Kaman missed a layup all by himself and threw two passes away in the first quarter, for the most part this was Kaman 2.0. The 18 points is nice, but the number that jumps out at me is 16 rebounds, 14 on the defensive glass. To me, defensive rebounding more than anything else distinguishes the good Kaman from the bad Kaman. A lot of people have forgotten that he was an automatic double-double until he got hurt two seasons ago. I do have one early season concern on Chris - the vast majority of his buckets came on the face up jumper. That's all well and good, and it's great that he's added that shot. But I don't remember him finishing a single back-to-the-basket post move in this game (he made one good one, but missed the shot). Is he becoming a face up shooter, to the exclusion of the rest of his varied offensive game?
Al Thornton rebounded well. It's only one game, but Al desperately needs to be a better rebounder this season, and nine rebounds in his first game of the season is a great start. Led by Kaman and Thornton, the Clippers outrebounded the Lakers tonight - not something that happened very frequently last season.
Eric Gordon looked very good. Gordon scored 21 points on 14 shots, and was actually +5 in his 33 minutes on the floor in a game the Clippers lost by seven. When Gordon picked up his second foul and went to the bench with 4 minutes left in the first quarter, the wheels came off for the Clippers temporarily. His ability to penetrate, to make shots or to create shots for his teammates, makes life a lot easier for the Clippers in the half court. It'll be nice when he starts getting some calls, but he probably has a better chance of doing so against someone other than Kobe Bryant.
The bad
Baron Davis 1 for 10. In the first regular season game of his big bounce back year, Baron scored 2 points. You know that's not what he wanted. How much was the foot bothering him? Who knows. But 10% shooting is brutal, and hard for a team to overcome. On the bright side, he did have 8 assists, and played hard on defense, often matched up against Bryant. But he was terrible shooting the ball, and after a while the Lakers were daring him to. It's something of a comfort that he's got an excuse for being bad this game - he was hurt - but at the same time, haven't we been here before? He played hurt last year, and was terrible as a result.
DeAndre Jordan was lost. After being one of the best players on the entire team throughout pre-season, Jordan once again looked lost out there. I'll readily admit that he's a victim of the high expectations he has inspired. I mean, can I really complain about 5 rebounds in 11 minutes? But he just didn't have much of an impact, and I expected him to.
20 turnovers. During one brief stretch at the end of the first quarter, the Clippers turned the ball over 8 times in 4 minutes. And most of them had nothing to do with good Laker defense. It was just sloppy passing and poor ball-handling, plain and simple. The Clippers have a chance to compete this season - but they must take care of the ball.
The game
As for the game, one presumes that the Lakers would have responded to whatever run the Clippers put together and done enough to win - Kobe (33 points and 8 rebounds) looked to be in mid-season form intensity wise, and Andrew Bynum (26 and 13) and Lamar Odom (16 and 14) were both tremendous. But even so one wonders what might have happened had the Clippers not dug a big hole with all those turnovers.
One also wonders what MDsr was thinking with his first quarter substitutions. All of the talk in the wake of the Griffin injury was of front court depth, and how Smith and Jordan would get more minutes, and how both of them had played so well in pre-season. So when Marcus Camby picked up his second foul in the first quarter, I fully expected to see Smith come in. Instead, it was Rasual Butler. Then, a few minutes later when Gordon got his second, it was obvious that Butler would slide over to shooting guard and Smith would finally enter the game. Only that's not what happened, and we got our first look at Ricky Davis. Ricky was minus 6 in a measly 4 minutes, and it would have been worse than that had he not banked in a three. Why? Where was Smith? I mean, I know that Odom sometimes plays small forward, and that he would be a tough cover for Smith. But he's also a tough cover for Rasual Butler, as he showed. At any rate, the Lakers lead stretched from 3 to 13 in short order as the Clippers began turning it over on almost every possession. The fact that Smith started the second quarter and led a comeback for the team only makes the situation all the more frustrating. Ricky Davis? Why?
The Clippers battled back to within one point to start the fourth quarter, and actually had the ball with a chance to take the lead a couple of times. But early in the fourth, the Lakers and the refs seemed pretty determined to set things right. Early in the period, the Clippers lost a basket on a loose ball foul on Smith and another on an incorrect basket interference call on Jordan, while the whistles continued piling up against the Clippers. The Lakers used a 15-2 run to put the game out of reach. Overall, there were 27 fouls called against the Clippers, 15 against the Lakers, and the Lakers took 21 more free throws.
But as is often the case in the NBA, there's not really any time to brood on this game. Phoenix comes to town tomorrow night. Let's hope the good from this game sticks around and the bad gets better.
0 recs |
65 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Trouble is with back to backs is that Baron’s foot isn’t going to get better overnight. Does this mean we’ll get the same excuses? Maybe Baron could, I don’t know, shoot the ball less if he’s shooting that bad!
I’m so glad Kaman is back. My fave player with a sweet double double.
We want the same intensity tonight guys with better levels of concentration.
We may have lost but it’s not knocked my optimism in this team.
Bingo! Oh me oh my!
by ClippersUK on Oct 28, 2009 12:52 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Seriously...about the subsitution
You hit it right on the nail, Steve. I was thinking EXACTLY the same when Camby got two fouls. I was like, “alright. Time for Rhino to come in to show the what’s up.” And Rasual Butler comes in. I was fine with it until Ricky DAVIS comes in for EJ. WTFREAK was that?! And do you guys remember that UGLY, BRUTAL stretch during the end of the first quarter? Baron was randomly forcing shots and Ricky just banks in a stupid three pointer. Even MDsr was shaking his head…
My first impression for tonight was also the starting lineup. I thought Rhino should’ve started in the 4. Rhino played SO WELL against the Lakes and the they couldn’t even stop him during the preseason. Seriously what was going through MDsr’s mind?!
Second of all, I’m sure the Baron we saw out there tonight WAS NOT the BARON we saw in preseason/practice. He didn’t look comfortable, and was constantly frustrated both at himself and the refs.
As a Clipper hopeful, tonight was honestly a disappointment despite the fact that we only lost by seven. Awful game.
Clippers 09-10. Prepare for a revolution.
think about the match up
It was when camby got 2 quick ones they moved AL to PF cause he’s a better match up with artest. why they put in ricky i have no idea. but i assume its cause MDsr didn’t believe that rhino can handle artest…=T
by Viking Clipper Fan on Oct 28, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
I would consider this season a success...
…if the Clips go 37-45. That would be an 18 game improvement. That would be great! Then in 10-11 they could try and make the playoffs. Consistency please!!!
Not too bad
What I saw in the game tonight was very promising. The good definitely outweighed the bad IMO.
BD was not playing at 100% and AT offense stayed at home, but the rest of the Starters had great games. Camby and Kaman both played solid in the 2nd half. EJ is an emerging star!!! He practically scored at will vs the LAKERS!!! That’s definitely a great sign for us.
On top of that, we now have a supporting cast. A pretty daym good one at that.
Bassy and Rhino played very well. DJ wasn’t the DJ I expected, but he’ll get there. Saul had an off day as well. Now imagine if all 4 are playing well, then add Blake Griffin to the mix in about 6 weeks. We’ll be alright. Give them time. We’ll get there. We’ll win a lot of games.
Plus It’s not easy to beat the Lakers at HOME lol… as much as I hate those guys, you have to give them credit.
They are the Defending Champs.
The Bad
The truth is that neither team looked good tonight. While several individual players had good numbers, both teams had some really ugly stretches.
Two things bothered me about the Clips tonight:
1) Lack of chemistry…again – We’ve been hearing all summer/training camp/pre-season that the chemistry is amazing this year. And sure enough, it seemed that way during the pre-season. Most of that centered around Blake. With him out I saw the same lack of chemistry and frustration out there tonight that we saw all of last year. There were several times when I saw players look at each other and throw their arms up when a defensive rotation was blown or a turnover was made. Even worse, they genuinely seemed confused about the offense. In one sequence in the 4th, Camby told EJ to go to one end of the court, only to have Baron scream out and tell him to get to the opposite end. EJ just ran back and forth clearly frustrated. They finally gave him the ball (with the shot clock running down) and he took it to the rack for an And 1. Was it really necessary to have EJ go back and forth if the plan was to clear out and have him just create? Just stupid. They STILL don’t know how to run the offense?
2) Bad Baron…again – I said this earlier but one year later and we’re in the same place we were last year, with Baron injured and questionable for Opening Night. Just like last year I knew he’d play, but just like last year he didn’t play particularly well. Like UK said above, I understand being hurt, but that doesn’t explain taking horrible shot after horrible shot. He STILL seems unsure about when he should look for his shot and how to get his points within the offense. That bothers me. He was definitely looking to create more for others, but settled for that disgusting fade-away three way too many times. He worked hard during the opener last season too. But if the wins don’t come, how long before he starts sulking again?
I thought the chemistry was okay
I thought they couldn’t get into their offensive sets fast enough, there wasn’t a lot of open basket opportunities and they appeared frustrated with all the calls that killed any chance of momentum
by Qlippers on Oct 28, 2009 7:22 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
This is where Lucas can be so incredibly valuable.
It stands to reason that he and Baron will break down the film or at least have a conversation about all of these issues: shot selection, calling plays, etc. If Baron is open to listening (and I believe that he will listen to Lucas), then I expect to see him refine his game in the areas where we want to see it (and where we did see it during the preseason).
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Oct 28, 2009 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions
That is true, but
Baron is an injury-prone player and if he’s hurt as he is now the team will not win consistently, period, Lucas or no Lucas. The only year he played 82 games in recent memory was his contract year, not the case now.
We just have to get used to it.
I agree completely...
I’d love to talk about how the Clippers have improved over the offseasons, but these weaknesses were glaring. Once again, their offense was stagnant in the halfcourt and the ended up jacking up a lot of bad shots. They’ve got some talent, but MDsr doesn’t know how to utilize it. The Clips don’t have a guy like Kobe who excels in iso situations, yet their offense continues to revolve around match-ups and isos. If they develop some chemistry, they can be an effective offensive unit. Right now, though, it doesn’t look good.
And I really hope that it’s an injury with Baron. I didn’t watch the preseason, but things seemed to be looking up for him from what I heard/read. I definitely didn’t see it last night. If he’s injured, he should take some time off. If not, he’s got to find a way to be the player the Clippers signed him to be. I’m sick of the poor shot selection. Where’s the guy who used to take it to the rack? Are we ever going to see him?
I’m not saying this won’t be a good year. I just wasn’t encouraged by game 1. Hopefully, the Clips can turn it around.
"If a Clippers fan is reading a newspaper in his living room and the ceiling falls on him, he'll just shrug and move to another room." -Bill Simmons
by WestsideBrandon on Oct 28, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
The Good
Just to balance out my last post, I did see some encouraging things, most of which Steve already noted.
1) Depth – This team is CLEARLY deeper than last year, and that alone will guarantee a better season. Like SP mentioned, I thought Telfair was great. His alley-oop to Camby in a half-court set displayed impressive court vision. There aren’t many players in the league who see that play, let alone execute it. And on the break, the guy is simply excellent. He was even hitting his mid range jumper and playing solid on the ball defense. I will say though that should Baron go down, Telfair will struggle having to play 38+ minutes.
2) EJ – Good things happen when he gets the ball. I just wish he’d get the ball more often. He’s clearly more confident and more assertive this season. Probably needs to work on his decision making and protecting the ball though. He’s clearly no PG. But the bottom line is that tonight, the only time I felt comfortable was when EJ had the ball. He can get to the rack at will and his jumper is water. I’m sad to say that I’m actually starting to worry that our “vets” are actually impeding his development. Watching him defer to Camby and Baron telling him to do conflicting things was ridiculous.
"He’s clearly no PG"
Completely agree. When he has the ball, I want him to take the shot. He is the perfect shooting guard, but at times it looked like he was trying to create for others and ended up making strange passes to Camby or Baron—— I’d much rather have EJ go it alone.
This is important because if Baron does go down, then we’re right back in the “lack of depth” at PG department. Telfair is a nice player to be sure, but after that its Mardy Collins and I guess EJ. That’s not going to get it done.
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions
One thing worth noting....
Collins was on the inactive list last night. Not a huge thing, but I find it interesting. With Baron less than 100%, MDsr choose to go into that game with EJ third on the depth chart at the point. A turned ankle, foul trouble, whatever, and EJ is getting some PG minutes. It tells you that MDsr thinks he can do it, at least for short stretches.
As for EJ creating for others, he’s not bad at it. But I do agree that on a couple of occasions last night, I wanted him to shoot when he passed. On the final possession of the third with a chance to take the lead, he beat his man and got into the lane, and instead of challenging Odom, he dished to the corner to Camby. Sure, it’s a wide open three, but it’s Camby. I’ll take my chances with EJ in the lane against the rotating defense.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 28, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Spot minutes are ok
That comment was more a reference to some who actually think he could be a PG going forward. That’s CLEARLY not the case. In spot minutes, I’d rather have him over Collins.
That play you were talking about is a good example. For other players, they see a wide open flash of red in the corner and they think “great! Wide open teammate!” and make the pass. That’s what EJ did. For a pure PG, you already know where your teammates and you know that’s your PF/C. It’s not a big deal. He’s made it before. But that’s probably not a play a quality PG makes. Again, it’s not a knock on EJ at all. Just let him be an SG who can at times create for others.
That was an interesting play...
I was surprised and happy that EJ waved off his teammates and let the clock wind down so he’d be the one making the play. It was an assertive moment that I don’t think would have happened last year. Like you Steve, I wanted him to take the shot himself, but you could make an argument it was the correct basketball play- Camby was wide open.
by Z-Bo's Revenge on Oct 28, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
BD needs to play better and toughen up…..he cant lead the team sitting on the bench with various injuries like last year.
He can't lead the team
while taking off-balance, fadeaway threes early in the shot clock.
He’s clearly trying to be a leader out there. But at some point nobody will listen when you’re taking the worst shots of anyone. It’s like “Dude, if YOU stopped sucking, we wouldn’t be having issues. So just shut up and start playing better.”
Another thing to add
The refs. Wow, it was like playing against New England on a Sunday afternoon.
When EG got his 4th foul and went to the bench the game was lost. We were already in the 4th qtr and the game was within reach, putting EG on the bench with his 4th foul made no sense to me if we wanted to win. By the time he came back it was already to late.
EG has already shown he’s the man on this team. B Davis may have a bad ankle but his shooting form blows. Why bother playing. Just give Telfair 35 minutes and let Gordon slide over with Butler taking the SG role.
DJ let me down.
Smith was a beast in the 2nd qtr, but felt he hurt the team during his 2nd half appearance.
Agree about Smith
particularly in the second half. It seemed the Lakers had figured him out at that point, and running ISO plays to Smith (in fact even leaving him in at this point) was questionable.
Great second quarter though.
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Nice 3rd quarter comeback
was nullified by the bad 4th quarter.
Overall, saw some of the bad from last year (shot selection) but noticed general improvement.
For those of us who harp on AT’s bad +/- scores, he was only -3 tonight. Pretty good for him.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
Seriously what was up with DJ
He was a monster in summer and preseason. What happened to him out there.
First game jitters?
by dulciusEXasperis on Oct 28, 2009 8:14 AM PDT reply actions
A Few More Observations
Lots of good, a fair amount of bad, but on the whole a pretty good start for the the Clips, all things considered.
-Kaman looked very good, did a great job rebounding, seemed more effective against Bynum than in the preseason matchup. Cleaning up the defensive boards made a big difference. But Bynum still got plenty of points. His total was helped by getting to the free throw line, where he converted effectively. Bynum is a force, and let’s not forget that Pau didn’t play. Kaman made a big adjustment and took Bynum outside. SP will be happy to note that another one of his “Keys to Kaman,” along with rebounding, was how decisive he was in taking his short to mid-range jumper. This was probably a conscious strategy, as Kaman struggled with his back to the basket against Bynum in preseason. Let’s see if 2.0 is here, and if he breaks out the post moves against lesser competition.
—I don’t agree with CMDSr’s plan, but I think I see the logic of it. And thanks to Craig Smith, it worked. The idea was to play straight up against the Laker starters, and then to unleash Smith and Jordan on the Laker bench. It worked, sort of, as the Clips came back and got into the game against Mbenga and Powell. Telfair did well against Farmar. The Lakers bench is weak, and it really shows when Pau is out. But who cares, when guys like Kobe, Artest and Odom can run 40+ minutes and keep making plays?
—There were a couple of big problems with the 2nd quarter strategy. The end of the first was especially brutal. The foul trouble of Gordon and Camby messed it all up, and the Clips were in a pretty big hole, scrambling to catch up, rather than pressing their advantage and taking a lead. Plus, obviously, having Gordon on the floor makes all the difference in the world. But the second big problem was that the strategy put DeAndre Jordan into some kind of funk. Jordan should be above that, and it’s just one game, but he was flat and ineffective and seemed lost, and my own view is that going small, playing Thornton-Butler-Davis against Odom-Artest-Kobe, and leaving Jordan on the bench compromised his effectiveness and energy. I was looking forward to seeing some Jordan-Kaman, and CMDSr avoided it at all costs. John R mentioned that the Clips would run into trouble playing Thornton at PF, and that’s what happened. The Kaman strategy was effective, Thornton rebounded well, and Smith did his thing in the 2nd quarter. But without Jordan joining in the Clips fell short.
-Also worth noting, however, that we saw some very nice Kaman-Camby work. Camby was limited in the first quarter, but Kaman and Camby went the distance in the third, and they were very effective, helped by the way that Gordon was able to stay in the game. Camby just gets his rebounds, and he’s slicing and moving around and effective. The ankle didn’t seem to bother him at all, although it perhaps explains the limits on his minutes-he didn’t come back in the 2nd quarter, and I thought that he sat too long in the 4th. That, and sitting Eric Gordon down after he got his 4th foul, seemed to kill the Clips chances of battling to the finish. Don’t know what the reason was for pulling Gordon, or why Camby was sitting when Odom started making plays. There was the hope that DJordan would step up, and the bad goaltending call on him was a killer, right when the game could have tipped towards the Clips.
But it was the Lakers, it was their ring night, and Kobe was in mid-season form. Good, respectable start by the Clips. Now let’s see what happens from here.
Oops
Must have hit the cross out button by mistake.
by citizen zhiv on Oct 28, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions
just say no to dashes...
dash dash text dash dash is the over strike shortcut.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 28, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Helps to preview...
Only takes a moment… avoid those unsightly blemishes.
Opening Day Post Jitters
Gotta get it together
by citizen zhiv on Oct 28, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
If Baron took better shots last night, or at least made a few more than one
…who knows? Could’ve changed things. But Kobe was a little too much last night, and it didn’t even look like he was playing that hard.
Having Griffin would have helped, too. The Clippers basically only had one PF last night, despite how well Camby played at the 4.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
The Stern Button
Clippers win the possession battle, the FG% battle, pretty much everything but FTA.
Some games the toughest matchup in the building is a lawyer from New York.
Thornton only -2 overall but I have him at -8 at the 4 which is the end of the 1st quarter. After that its a center and Camby or Smith the whole way.
Camby at +14. Need more Camby.
Heavy minutes for Kaman on the first night of a b2b. Perhaps MDSr plans to go small tonight. Or maybe he is just that confident in his fitness?
More Camby (more cowbell)
He’s creating a dilemma. The Clippers should be tyring to ween off of their 35 year old free agent-to-be, but the fact remains that he is the most productive player they have.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
Weening
Will be easier with Griffin in uniform of course.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 28, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
He's the most productive PF on the Clips
because one is hurt and the other one was traded away. If you’re arguing he’s more productive than Skinner or AT (who’s not even a PF) then you are correct of course.
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Thornton at the 4
On the matchups, they actually left Thornton on Ron-Ron and put Butler on Odom. But yeah, that was a brutal stretch. Again, it’s early and there’s no telling how the game goes if they don’t go minus 8 that stretch, and you can only blame one of the 8 turnovers on Al (that was a group effort, including two passes thrown away in the backcourt), but why a team with such depth in the front court went to that lineup is beyond me.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 28, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I was only listening to the game on radio
when Butler was guarding Odom, but that had to look rediculous. Milph was basically talking it up like Odom could do anything he wanted to Butler. BTW, clearly not Butler’s fault, that is a terrible matchup for him.
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
It was just weird
Odom and Artest are both unique players. Both could be considered small forwards, but clearly both are difficult covers for traditional 3s. Butler, given his frame, is barely a 3, and of course played 2 most of the season last year. So why did MDsr eschew the legitimate bigs on his bench? Sool/Al guarding Lamar/Ron was just a bad idea. Would Smith have had trouble with Lamar’s length? No doubt – but certainly he had a better chance than Rasual. Or maybe you put Smith on Artest and move Al to Lamar.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 28, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I think that works better
Length wise, Al matches Odom, and Smith (what is he really? 6’7"?) matches ronron. Who cares what position they play – a 3 or a 4 – when it comes to defense?
by RockyMountain on Oct 28, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Same ol Clippers
From what I saw in the first half, this was the same old Clippers.
The same old plays.
The same old confusion.
The same old frustration (they were definitely getting frustrated at each other).
No running, no gunning.
I didn’t expect to win, but I thought it looked ugly. The lead could have been far greater, but the Lakers tend to play down to the level of their opponent (that and their bench looks extremely weak without Odom).
Same ol AT
He’s still a ball stopper.
I mean as a person, I like the guy, but he makes me cringe a lot when I watch him play now.
I'd give the Lakers some credit on some D
It’s tough to run when they are battling on the Offensive boards, our turnovers and their bigs were collapsing in the lane quickly.
I do agree on AT, he did good job on the wing. BUT it’s getting harder to separate him from corey.
Those bad stretches
As already noted, we lost serious ground at the end of the 1st quarter and the beginning of the 4th. For most of both stretches, EJ was out of the game. This makes it pretty clear that hIs presence is important.
I’ve been complaining recently that the /- statistic often raises more questions than it answers. So here’s a different idea. Why not measure a starter’s value by how much his team loses/gains when he leaves the game? Basically, subtract the starter’s +/- from the team’s +/- for the game (5 for EJ, -7 the Clip, giving us a difference of -12) and then divide by the minutes that the starter is out of the game (so, -12 / [15 minutes that EJ was out]). This shows how much a team “bleeds” for the short stretches that a starter sits.
Here’s the “Bleeding +/-” for each of our starters below.
EJ -.80/min
Camby -.78/min
Kaman -.27/min
AT -.31/min
Davis -.35/min
Basically, with EJ out, we were bleeding almost a point per minute.
For the game, Camby had a +14, vs EJ’s +5. But we could all see that EJ was more important than Camby. The bleed +/- better reflects this. Had Camby played for more of the game, so that he was out for only short stretches, my stat would likely be even more representative.
Not that there aren’t problems with it. You certainly wouldn’t want to do this with subs. But it’s something to look at.
Kobe was +9 for the game. His bleed +/-, though, was just -.2/min.
You'd have to do something a little different
For instance, Ricky Davis was -6 (with a lucky 3), and the team was -7. So by my formula, the team bled a modest -.02 with Ricky out. But that’s rather absurd. The team was not hurt, however slightly, when Ricky left the game.
I’m doing this quickly in my head (I’m at work), but for subs, a better measure might be a different sort of +/- per minute comparison. While Ricky was in, the team was -1.50/minute (-6 in 4 minutes). With him out (for the remaining 44 minutes), the team only lost one additional point, or (as already calculated above) -.02/min. Subtracting the two, the team’s bleed rate was -1.48/min worse with Ricky in there.
That’s really on the fly, but that’s some of what I’m thinking.
Alright, come to think of it...
…you could take this last idea and apply it to starters as well.
I like that, Silverman...
It’s simple too, could easily replace +/- in the boxscore.
You are talking about a psuedo value over replacement per minute stat
Where in this case the replacement isnt a generic player but like the team’s own bench. It seems like a lot of work but I’m not sure what it proves. For example, with Camby he was +14 but the team was -7. So obviously Camby was making a big contribution and the damage of a whopping minus 21 was done when he was out. So the team compared plus/minus per minute already tells us he made a big contribution.
Why I asked about the bench is that it gets to where the weakness was. So Al was minus 8 in the 7 minutes in his stint at PF which is really bad by the bleed-ish method. Now Craig Smith was minus 12, but that was over 20 minutes. So per minute he is the better replacement at the 4. This is where the value is to me if you want to look at per minute +/- stat. So you can combine those and come up with Camby’s bleed per minute, but its much more interesting to see where the damage was done precisely.
So Camby+Smith at the PF, the Clippers end up still +2 over their 41 combined minutes. Thornton’s minutes at 4 closely maps to the overall damage for the game. So if you drill down and yes look at plus/minus with a discerning eye, there is your lesson. NO THORNTON AT PF.
Now historically the problem with plus/minus is the noise and the tiny sample sizes.
(Writing out minus to fight the dreaded strikethrough)
bleed method
It has merit, but it also has the same issue that regular plus/minus has. Namely, the player on the floor is one of 10, and someone in the other 9 may be the real reason things are changing. The easiest example from last night is John R’s Thornton at PF issue. It happened to coincide completely with Ricky in the game. So is it a disaster to have Ricky in the game, or Al at the PF? Or both? And how do you assign responsibility for each?
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 28, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah its the teeny tiny samples
So before RDavis replaces Gordon, they are actually doing worse for that 1.5 minute stretch, then settle into a slow burn with RDavis.
But 1 minute proves nothing. It does give us one data point to watch as the start of a potential trend, for both players.
Exactly
Plus / minus is interesting, but it doesn’t really tell us much that we don’t already know and it can be misleading.
The premise being
We can’t learn anything we don’t already know.
AKA I’m Jax and I’m still afraid of advanced stats.
Actually
IMO people who try to argue that we should determine who should be playing in an NBA by analyzing things like plus / minus don’t really understand the game, because it’s not very difficult to just watch the game and figure out that EJ is critical to the team’s success.
So when I said what it is we already know, what I meant was that we gain that knowledge through watching the game, tape of the game, etc. Did you know that basketball players and coaches watch alot of game videotape? Did you ever just sit down and say “hey, I wonder why they are doing that?”
Of course, it’s par for the course with you to argue that I’m “afraid” of statistics because I, like Steve, believe plus / minus has some serious issues as it relates to basketball.
But I understand why you said it. You’re peeved because I said that you’re pomposity in a previous post is covering for your insecurity. Why not, instead of insulting me, try to have a rational discussion? I understand that you like statistics. I like them too. But there are some issues with them as applied to basketball.
Agree, Agree, Agree, Agree
I agree with John R that more insight can be gained if we dig deeper still. Popcornmachine.com is very helpful.
I agree with swamigusto that a simple statistic, good for an everyday boxscore, is desirable. (It was in this spirit that I suggested the Bleed +/-)
I agree with Jax that the present +/- stat is merely interesting on occasion, that it’s often misleading, and that it usually only tells us what we already knew (provided we were able to watch the game). This doesn’t detract from what John R is saying, that closer numerical analysis can teach lessons. It doesn’t mean Jax is wrong either: Looking at videotape is probably the most useful way to draw conclusions, provided you have video.
I also have pleasant things to say for SP’s comment, that Bleed +/-, taken alone and for one game, is a clumsy tool for determining who’s really at fault.
Everybody’s right, then. Group hug.
But what I’m still after is an everyday boxscore stat that might be of good “ballpark” value, something to give a fan who missed the game a reasonably good sense of what happened the night before. Even when I see the game, I usually like to look at the numbers to get a more objective measure of things I just witnessed.
For the Laker game, the +/- stats once again strike me as very “non-reflective”: By looking at them, I don’t get much sense of the game I just saw. The Bleed +/- seems more representative, at least in this particular case. I’m interested to see what refinements might be possible or necessary in the games to come.
But I can’t resist throwing in one line of argument in support of Bleed +/-. SP’s argument is right only if we are limited to a small sample size. For instance, it’s possible that the bleeding that occurred w/o EJ in the game was really an issue of someone else horrible playing (such as Ricky). In this particular game, then, maybe EJ got lucky in that he was always playing with 4 relatively strong teammates. I wouldn’t expect that luck to last, though. Over the course of several games, sometimes Ricky will play with EJ, or else sometimes he won’t play at all. Because of this scrambling effect, I can say with some justification that if EJ’s bleed +/- continues to be significant, then that must be due to HIS performance. When EJ leaves the game, then, the Clips suffer.
It does not appear that the same can be said for the regular +/- stat. As EJ is starting with the same 4 others on most nights, a consistent + reading might be attributable to him, or perhaps to one of the other 4. He might just be a lucky Joe Blow on an otherwise very good team. With +/-, taken at face value and without popcornmachine, we don’t get any insight.
Mercifully, I’ll stop now.
Just a comment on this
I like the idea, but equalizing for Ricky Davis’s lucky 3 shouldn’t be considered (I’m not sure if you did or not.) Basically all people make lucky shots, and the fact remains it did go in….
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Do we need plus / minus to tell us we need EJ in the game?
No, no we don’t.
NOPE
I need more EJ, and I think the refs understood that he is our best player on offense and maybe even defense b/c they took advantage of every foul call. In all honesty EJ may have committed 1 of his 4 fouls.
But you're missing something, Jax...
Which is… “what if you didn’t see the game?”
As SilverClip (nee Silverman) mentioned, a lot of this argument is about the value of stats in a very simple format… like a boxscore.
I look at boxscores all the time… usually relating to games I didn’t see. I’m curious what Elton Brand, Kevin Durant, OJ Mayo, even Shawn Livingston are up to… but I don’t go to the trouble of watching their games. Lately boxscores show plus/minus along with the standard stats. The question, for me is, is there a better simple stat that could be listed in a boxscore? Bleed +/- is a valid candidate because, at first glance, it seems like it might be more relevant to the “truth” of the game..
EJ was the best player on the floor for the Clips, if you saw the game. But did the stats show it? Yes, all of them except plus/minus! And therein lies the argument. It’s not a good individual game stat. Is there a better one?
I wish Plus/Minus did not exist,
it really tells nothing of the game and is just a waste. The Fakers did not look so great in this game but yet almost all their players had a plus game in the Box Score.
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
That tends to happen...
On the winning team. Go figure.
Lakers starters were all in plus territory. Subs almost all negative. Again, makes sense. It’s not useless, but like anything it can be misused and misinterpreted.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 28, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
BAD BARON / BAD OFFICIATING
Great game!!!!!! If baron would have played better and the officiating wasn’t so
lopsided i think this game might have had a different result. EJ was awesome
and Rhino was doing anything he wanted with laker bigs.
Clippers mvp EJ and Smith (Rhino)
Clipper bench B+
Baron Davis D-
CMDRS D(bad substitutions and bad matchups)
Tonight the result will be different. This team can play with any team even
without Blake Griffin
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
