http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUex6mwjFTc/TQ...s+copy.jpg

From the looks of this, good things happen while Tramar is in the game.

How does he arrive at the plus/minus numbers? What do they mean other than a (+) is better to have than a (-) ?. I am sure he explained it before but I missed it.

(12-14-2010 07:06 AM)RBL Wrote:  How does he arrive at the plus/minus numbers? What do they mean other than a (+) is better to have than a (-) ?. I am sure he explained it before but I missed it.

I think it came from stats that are kept in hockey games. I sort of understand it, but I'll let one of the experts give you the exact meaning.

(12-14-2010 10:13 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(12-14-2010 07:06 AM)RBL Wrote:  How does he arrive at the plus/minus numbers? What do they mean other than a (+) is better to have than a (-) ?. I am sure he explained it before but I missed it.

I think it came from stats that are kept in hockey games. I sort of understand it, but I'll let one of the experts give you the exact meaning.

Good measure of whether a player helps or hurts a team when he is on the ice (or hardwood). Plus means that his team scores more points when he is on the floor. Minus means the other team scores more points. Probably a little distorted for a player like Muntrelle who played a lot of his minutes (and did very well) against Philander Smith who we beat by a bunch. I know when I have looked at Derek Fisher's +/- numbers they often lead the Lakers, even though he may not have scored much. Just shows the team runs better offensively and defensively when he is in the game.

I was with you until the last sentence. Good explanation though.

(12-14-2010 02:23 PM)Scotto Wrote:  I was with you until the last sentence. Good explanation though.

+1

(12-14-2010 02:23 PM)Scotto Wrote:  I was with you until the last sentence. Good explanation though.

Do you not believe the Lakers run better with Fish in the game? Seemed like a pretty noncontroversial statement, especially on this board. I've heard numerous national sports journalists say the same thing.

Agree 100% with Mr. Fisher's impact on the Lakers. What I don't agree is that there is a direct correlation with those numbers and how well a team runs. I would agree that those numbers indicate that the team scores more points (or the opponent scores less) relative to each player. But that could be for a variety of reasons, one of which is the team runs better.

(12-14-2010 03:41 PM)mjs Wrote:  Do you not believe the Lakers run better with Fish in the game? Seemed like a pretty noncontroversial statement, especially on this board. I've heard numerous national sports journalists say the same thing.

Apparently Phil Jackson does, and that's what counts. And Fish has run out of fingers. If he wins another, he'll have to wear one on his thumb. Pretty damn good career for an old Little Rock Trojan.

(12-14-2010 03:55 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(12-14-2010 03:41 PM)mjs Wrote:  Do you not believe the Lakers run better with Fish in the game? Seemed like a pretty noncontroversial statement, especially on this board. I've heard numerous national sports journalists say the same thing.

Apparently Phil Jackson does, and that's what counts. And Fish has run out of fingers. If he wins another, he'll have to wear one on his thumb. Pretty damn good career for an old Little Rock Trojan.

I agree the Lakers run better with Fish on the floor. What I don't agree with is that the plus or minus has a lot to do with anything. If Fish was on the floor without Kobe and the stars, his numbers wouldn't be so good. Same with any player. It all depends on the supporting cast at the time. I've heard Steve say in the past that one of the most important stats they look at is points per possession. And we don't get that stat as far as I know. Anyway, all stats are something for fans to look at and talk about. As some of you has said, the only one that really counts is the score at the end of the game. If you have more points than the other team, that's really important.

I'll even go so far as to say Fish was the reason they won all those rings. He keeps the egos in check (big reason why he's the president of the player's union) and made sure the team runs the way it's supposed to. Remember, when Fish was there, they won rings. When he left they didn't win a thing until he came back.

(12-15-2010 07:42 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  I'll even go so far as to say Fish was the reason they won all those rings. He keeps the egos in check (big reason why he's the president of the player's union) and made sure the team runs the way it's supposed to. Remember, when Fish was there, they won rings. When he left they didn't win a thing until he came back.

I believe there's a lot of truth in this post.

(12-16-2010 11:19 AM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(12-15-2010 07:42 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  I'll even go so far as to say Fish was the reason they won all those rings. He keeps the egos in check (big reason why he's the president of the player's union) and made sure the team runs the way it's supposed to. Remember, when Fish was there, they won rings. When he left they didn't win a thing until he came back.

I believe there's a lot of truth in this post.

Fish was as unselfish a player as you could want. He could have scored a lot more points had he desired to do so, but he is a winner, and realized that five players can usually beat one, so he always knew how to get his teammates involved in the game.