Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Greg Oden...Iron Man


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
297 replies to this topic

#151 ifmanis5


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,733 posts

Posted 24 December 2008 - 03:06 PM

Perfectly put, Baker. If we're being harsh on the guy it's because we are grading him on the Next Great NBA Center curve, which may not be fair to him, but it's pretty accurate.

Also, before we bend over backwards in praising Perk, let's remember that he has the unique honor and privilege of going to KG graduate school which is worth its weight in uranium-tipped diamonds while Oden is currently enrolled in Joel Przybilla community college which is worth its weight in used sweat socks.

#152 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 21,423 posts

Posted 24 December 2008 - 04:50 PM

Also, before we bend over backwards in praising Perk, let's remember that he has the unique honor and privilege of going to KG graduate school which is worth its weight in uranium-tipped diamonds while Oden is currently enrolled in Joel Przybilla community college which is worth its weight in used sweat socks.

After watching Przybilla haul down 19 rebounds in 40 minutes while Oden piled up 5 fouls in 8 minutes, I think we should consider enrolment in the Prz third-rank state college, possibly even NAIA. One of the reasons Oden is spending time on the bench is because Prz is actually pretty good.

#153 D Jack's Dome


  • The Jinx


  • 1,836 posts

Posted 26 December 2008 - 08:30 AM

He really doesn't. The production he's getting is due to the fact that he's 7 feet tall and has an all star penatrater to feed him dunks. He grabs rebounds, but when he gets aggressive he fouls, which is what you saw last night. I said it at the beginning of this thread, and I'll repeat it....he lacks lateral footspeed. (and he continues to have conditioning or effort issues...I can't figure out which) I think right now he has no idea what his nitch can be in the NBA. I think if he focuses his entire game on defense and rebounding, he can come out on the Tyson Chandler end of the spectrum. (another guy who came into the league young and raw and took a while to figure out where he fit....well he sure as shit fits now) But right now he's trying to be Shaq, and its just not there. I don't think its ever gonna be there.


Um, I have Tyson Chandler on my fantasy team (dropped from my second one,) and I can only hope for Oden that he doesn't end up like the Tyson Chandler of this year. He had two solid years, both coincidently with the arrival of Chris Paul, and has slipped back into his defensive lapses of the 2001-2006 TC mold. I also don't ever really remember TC having lateral foot speed issues like Oden does (which, Oden definately does, you hit that right on the head.) I remember Chandler looking very lost on both ends of the court for prolonged stretches, but his foot speed and use of his height in the paint always seemed OK to me.

TC's frame is much thinner then that of Oden/Shaq, and he was bullied under the rim consistently for a long time. That is why Oden was considered to have a higher ceiling then Chandler (be it fair or not.) He had the ability to grow close to Shaq size whereas Chandler was never going to have that thickness. I always though Oden was a dangerous pick, and I thought so for all the same reasons that Simmons did. I hope for his sake he does pan out, and he has all the time in the world to do so. The NBA can always use a premium center to root for/against.

#154 Gunfighter 09


  • wants to be caribou ken


  • 4,387 posts

Posted 26 December 2008 - 10:30 AM

The standard that Oden has to live up to is being picked ahead of Durrant, who is scoring 23.5 a game and Al Horford who is a solid 10/8.5 guy right now. He is not there yet, and I dont know if he is going to get there.

#155 Lazy vs Crazy

  • 980 posts

Posted 29 December 2008 - 05:18 PM

http://www.boston.co...den_gameti.html

He twisted an ankle in practice, and may not play against the C's tomorrow.

#156 BigMike


  • SoSH Member


  • 18,416 posts

Posted 29 December 2008 - 06:01 PM

The standard that Oden has to live up to is being picked ahead of Durrant, who is scoring 23.5 a game and Al Horford who is a solid 10/8.5 guy right now. He is not there yet, and I dont know if he is going to get there.



Right, he was picked ahead of Durant and will always be judged by that. Horford is a nice player, I think Oden can be better than that still, but it sure doesn't look like he'll ever be better than Durant. Right now I'd have to think Portland would be pretty happy, if oden can get to being a 14/10 guy who also is an intimidator in the paint on D

#157 TheRooster

  • 1,792 posts

Posted 31 December 2008 - 02:29 PM

Right, he was picked ahead of Durant and will always be judged by that. Horford is a nice player, I think Oden can be better than that still, but it sure doesn't look like he'll ever be better than Durant. Right now I'd have to think Portland would be pretty happy, if oden can get to being a 14/10 guy who also is an intimidator in the paint on D


I think he'll end up at 18-19/11 and lead the league in blocks

#158 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,826 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 07:23 AM

Last 5 games:

28.6 minutes, 15.2 points, 9.2 rebounds, .8 blocks, 1.2 steals, 67% FG

For you PER fans, he's 17.35 for the season, that's first among rookies playing more than 20 MPG, and 65th in the NBA, ahead of Chris Kaman, Ben Gordon, and Josh Howard, among others. And way higher than Kendrick Perkins. Kevin Durant had a 15.87 last year.

No, he won't be Russell or Shaq. But Dikembe Mutombo and Rik Smits are well within reach, and the potential is probably greater than that.

Edited by moondog80, 27 January 2009 - 07:25 AM.


#159 mikeford


  • woolwich!


  • 18,574 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 11:29 AM

Last 5 games:

28.6 minutes, 15.2 points, 9.2 rebounds, .8 blocks, 1.2 steals, 67% FG

It may be a pretty small sample size, but how does a guy his size average 1.2 steals over any number of games?

Upon investigating the data, I see that he got three 2 steal games and two 0 steal games in that 5 game span. I would love to see how he managed 2 steals in a game. Huge arms in the passing lane? Blocks+Strips?

Interesting stat.

#160 BigSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,042 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 11:36 AM

It may be a pretty small sample size, but how does a guy his size average 1.2 steals over any number of games?

Upon investigating the data, I see that he got three 2 steal games and two 0 steal games in that 5 game span. I would love to see how he managed 2 steals in a game. Huge arms in the passing lane? Blocks+Strips?
Interesting stat.


I think it's more interesting how a good with his size/athleticism only average 0.8 blocks.

#161 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,826 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 12:03 PM

I think it's more interesting how a good with his size/athleticism only average 0.8 blocks.


Both steals and blocks are small enough numbers that the small sample size makes them very suspect (a couple of 0 or 2 games will really throw it off, and they don't neccessarily mean you are good/bad at steals/blocks). The general point is that he's been playing very well lately and better than you might think on the balance of the seasn.

#162 steeplechase3k

  • 1,873 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 12:43 PM

The biggest reason that Oden has been playing better lately is that he has stayed out of foul trouble. He's able to stay on the court longer so he has time to actualy score, rebound, block shots.

#163 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:33 PM

Oden and Durant FINALLY meet in a "head to head" matchup. Durant with 31 on 12 of 24 shooting.....Oden with 4 and 2. OK wins102-92. Looks like Danny Ainge was onto something if the rumors were true and he would have taken Durant if the C's had "won" that lottery.

Season stats:

Durant 25.2/6.7/2.8 47.7 fg%

Oden 8.7/7.1/.6 55.4 fg%

#164 BigSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,042 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:39 PM

I haven't watched Oden that much this year but it seems like he's had a million of these shitty "4 and 2" games. Pretty pathetic for a former #1 pick, if you ask me.

#165 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 11:02 PM

The more disturbing thing about Oden is that he is averaging only 1.05 bpg (2.19 b/48, 28th in the NBA) and the man he guards is averaging a PER of 21.1.

Although at this point the disparity between the two is more of a matter of praising Durant than criticizing Oden.

#166 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4,347 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 11:47 PM

Oden and Durant FINALLY meet in a "head to head" matchup. Durant with 31 on 12 of 24 shooting.....Oden with 4 and 2. OK wins102-92. Looks like Danny Ainge was onto something if the rumors were true and he would have taken Durant if the C's had "won" that lottery.

Season stats:

Durant 25.2/6.7/2.8 47.7 fg%

Oden 8.7/7.1/.6 55.4 fg%


Except for all practical purposes this is Oden's first pro season being compared to Durant's second pro season.

At this point in Durant's first season, his numbers were 19.4/4.1/2.3 -- 40.2 FG%, compared to Oden's 8.7/7.1/0.6 -- 55.4 FG% you cited above. Doesn't change things all that much, but does seem a more fair comparison. Durant obviously has improved in his second year (in part aided by his position switch) and it's fair to say that Oden will improve as well, with perhaps even more room for improvement down the road as bigs develop more slowly than others.

Does this mean Durant was a better pick than Durant? Probably. But it doesn't mean that Oden is or is going to be a huge disappointment except to those who predicted he was the second coming of Bill Russell...a rather unfair expectation for anyone.

#167 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:15 PM

Oden Has Bone Chip In Left Knee:

http://realgm.com/sr...p_in_left_knee/

Well, that was a nice run of "health" while it lasted. Greg Oden meet Sam Bowie, Sam Bowie meet.................

http://www.basketbal.../bowiesa01.html

http://www.basketbal...o/odengr01.html

And while we're at it, Kevin Durant meet Michael Jordan?

http://www.basketbal.../duranke01.html

http://www.basketbal.../jordami01.html

I know I know, different players different positions, but you get my point.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 15 February 2009 - 09:19 PM.


#168 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:29 PM

At this rate, there isn't any way Oden is healthy enough to play into his mid 30s. Depressing.

#169 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,540 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 09:47 AM

At this rate, there isn't any way Oden is healthy enough to play into his mid 30s. Depressing.


mid-30s? mid-20s. this guy is a total disaster

#170 Bunk

  • 19 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 10:21 AM

At this rate, there isn't any way Oden is healthy enough to play into his mid 30s. Depressing.


As has been mentioned before, there were similar concerns about Ilgauskas's feet early in his career. Dude injured both feet, one of them multiple times, missed a ton of games early and has managed to come back from that. I'm not sure anyone should be ruling out the possibility of a largely healthy/productive career for Oden yet, but, I'm thankful that the C's franchise isn't staked upon it. Still, I'd rather see him healthy than not. I enjoyed watching him play in college and what I've seen of him professionally. Also, I was one of those that predicted he'd be more valuable (not statistically superior, necessarily, just that he'd be a 15-20 point/10-12 rebound guy that played quality defense at a vital position) than Durant. I'm not giving up on that prediction just yet.

Edited by Bunk, 16 February 2009 - 10:25 AM.


#171 johnmd20


  • voice of soccer


  • 17,351 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:05 AM

mid-30s? mid-20s. this guy is a total disaster

Yeah, thinking that immediately after reading Euc's post. If he keeps going at this rate, he's not going to be in the league in 5 years.

#172 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,826 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:57 AM

Let's not dance on his grave after a day-to-day injury.

It's obvious some people here are just dying for the kid to fail. But what's a fair assessment of the kid so far? His numbers are getting better -- double/doubles becoming more frequent, but still some dud games and still trouble staying out of foul trouble. If I were a Blazers fan, I'd be at least content with what he's shown on the court (17.9 PER is very good for a rookie, better than Kevin Jordan Durant's 15.9 last year when he shot only 43%). I'd also be nervous about his ability to stay healthy, but seeing as he's missed the same amount of games so far as Kendirck Perkins, I wouldn't be ready to bury him just yet.

#173 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 12:43 PM

My post was partially in jest, looking at the comparison to Bowie who, despite being unable to stay healthy, was still playing in the NBA when he turned 34. I'm rooting for the guy, I'm just not sure his health will allow him to be anywhere near the player everyone thought he could be two years ago. Regarding what he's shown on the court...his offense is about where I expected, very raw. But his defense has been underwhelming, to say the least. Just 1.2 bpg, and the Blazers do better with him on the bench than with him on the court. Considering that he is being replaced Joel Przybilla, this is something to worry about.

Edited by Euclis20, 16 February 2009 - 12:46 PM.


#174 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5,920 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 03:06 PM

So if Durant joins a contender in a couple years, and James still hasn't won a title by then, who will we be 'witnessing' then?

Edited by dolomite133, 16 February 2009 - 03:06 PM.


#175 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 05:15 PM

Nobody, really. And Durant doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with LeBron yet, not by a long shot. The Sonics were +8.8 when he sat on the bench last year, and the Thunder are +5.6 this year when he is on the bench. Bad +/- numbers for a starter are a real problem, and even in his early years with a brutal Cleveland team, LeBron's teams were always worse off when he sat.

#176 SpacemanzGerbil

  • 2,919 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 05:56 PM

Nobody, really. And Durant doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with LeBron yet, not by a long shot. The Sonics were +8.8 when he sat on the bench last year, and the Thunder are +5.6 this year when he is on the bench. Bad +/- numbers for a starter are a real problem, and even in his early years with a brutal Cleveland team, LeBron's teams were always worse off when he sat.


Any metric that implies Matt Bonner getting run is more important to a team's success than Tim Duncan sitting should never be used to make definitive statements about a player's value on the court. That entire Thunder team was an abortion for the first two months of the season. There is very little similarity between that early team and the one of the past month and a half, that has basically gone .500. +/- does nothing to identify the fact that PJ Carlesimo is a drooling cretin, responsible for the early failures of that team.

#177 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:05 PM

Any metric that implies Matt Bonner getting run is more important to a team's success than Tim Duncan sitting should never be used to make definitive statements about a player's value on the court. That entire Thunder team was an abortion for the first two months of the season. There is very little similarity between that early team and the one of the past month and a half, that has basically gone .500. +/- does nothing to identify the fact that PJ Carlesimo is a drooling cretin, responsible for the early failures of that team.


Show me a star who has a negative +/-. If the entire Thunder team was an abortion for the first two months, you'd think that they would be even worse when Durant wasn't playing (you'd be wrong).

I was bored during the ASG, and nobody on the Eastern team did (although AI and Mo Williams were close, both around +1.5).

Durant is good. What I'm saying he has no business being mentioned in the same sentence with the best player in the NBA (who btw is +23.4) until his team actually does better with him on the court than off it.

#178 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:24 PM

Show me a star who has a negative +/-. If the entire Thunder team was an abortion for the first two months, you'd think that they would be even worse when Durant wasn't playing (you'd be wrong).

I was bored during the ASG, and nobody on the Eastern team did (although AI and Mo Williams were close, both around +1.5).

Durant is good. What I'm saying he has no business being mentioned in the same sentence with the best player in the NBA (who btw is +23.4) until his team actually does better with him on the court than off it.


Ugh the +/- debate again. Basketball and numbers like that just don't mesh. Never have, and never will. Durant is surrounded by bad NBA players. In basketball every action SHOULD have a reaction from your other 4 teamattes on the floor. If they react the wrong way there isn't gonna be success on the court. It real hard to pin the blame on which player is causing the +/- to plummet. Its why as Gerbil mentions you take Matt Bonners positive +/- and throw it out the window. Same with Durants.

I was skeptical of Durants numbers and success at first becaue they were losing games at a historic rate. They're not doing that anymore and they are in fact competing well in most contests. And the last two months.......holy shit he's been fucking on a different planet the last two months. Check this out:

http://sports.yahoo....roXHA.NOx6LPaB4

Given what he showed in college and now in the pros its not at all premature to speculate we might be looking at something special. Something real special.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 16 February 2009 - 06:24 PM.


#179 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:32 PM

He is going to be special. He isn't close to LeBron James, not yet.

Still bored, so here's a list of all the players who have played 50% or more of their team's total minutes, and have a negative +/-

Atlanta: Marvin Williams (2.1)
Chicago: Derek Rose (6.5), Tyrus Thomas (5.9)
Cleveland: Anderson Varejao (6.9)
Denver: Anthony Carter (1.0)
Detroit: Rip Hamilton (1.7), Rodney Stuckey (1.4)
Golden State: Andris Biedrins (2.7), Jamal Crawford (6.1)
Houston: Luis Scola (0.4)
Indianapolis: Troy Murphy (0.8), Jarret Jack (0.1)
LA Clippers: Al Thornton (4.2)
Memphis: OJ Mayo (5.4), Rudy Gay (5.8)
Minnesota: Mike Miller (1.2), Ryan Gomes (5.9)
New Jersey: Keyon Dooling (6.4)
New Orleans: Rasual Butler (8.0)
New York: David Lee (5.5), Wilson Chandler (2.8), Chris Duhon (9.4)
Oklahoma City: Kevin Durant (5.6), Earl Watson (6.2)
Portland: Travis Outlaw (5.2)
Sacramento: John Salmons (5.1), Spencer Hawes (9.6)
San Antonio: Michael Finley (3.3)
Toronto: Anthony Parker (.8), Andrea Bargnani (5.1)
Utah: Deron Williams (.8), Mehmet Okur (.2), Ronnie Brewer (6.2)
Washington: Antawn Jamison (.4)

The list is mostly a mix of young talent not yet fully realized, bench players who happen to play behind more talented starters, and a few good players having bad years. There are certainly not any superstars on that list. +/- is too rough to compare players who are similar in production, but Durant isn't in the same ballpark as LeBron.

*edit-Former All Stars in bold.

Edited by Euclis20, 16 February 2009 - 06:36 PM.


#180 SpacemanzGerbil

  • 2,919 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:35 PM

Show me a star who has a negative +/-. If the entire Thunder team was an abortion for the first two months, you'd think that they would be even worse when Durant wasn't playing (you'd be wrong).

I was bored during the ASG, and nobody on the Eastern team did (although AI and Mo Williams were close, both around +1.5).

Durant is good. What I'm saying he has no business being mentioned in the same sentence with the best player in the NBA (who btw is +23.4) until his team actually does better with him on the court than off it.


I had to search a little but - Deron Williams. There are only five or six seasons worth of +/- data. I'm sure there are a couple top 20 all-time players who had poor on/off ratios. The metric tells you very little definitively when applied to an individual player. That's my beef.

Durant is being compared with LeBron because he is averaging close to 30 PPG as a 20 year old, while his other skills are blossoming concurrently. He will never be a solid comp with LeBron because of Bron's passing but there should be no doubt left that this is the next great NBA scorer, packaged in a body that will likely average 10 RPG and 2 BPG for a few seasons once he physically matures.

#181 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:48 PM

I had to search a little but - Deron Williams. There are only five or six seasons worth of +/- data. I'm sure there are a couple top 20 all-time players who had poor on/off ratios. The metric tells you very little definitively when applied to an individual player. That's my beef.

Durant is being compared with LeBron because he is averaging close to 30 PPG as a 20 year old, while his other skills are blossoming concurrently. He will never be a solid comp with LeBron because of Bron's passing but there should be no doubt left that this is the next great NBA scorer, packaged in a body that will likely average 10 RPG and 2 BPG for a few seasons once he physically matures.


Deron Williams was the one real anomaly I found...He's been around -1 for each of the last 3 years. But then again, I have trouble calling a player a superstar if he hasn't even made an all star team yet. If you have to look that hard to find one player whose reputation doesn't match the data, then it seems that the numbers are pretty decent. Durant has the potential to be the best in the league(and he's starting to look like it, at least on offense), but he isn't there yet. The most amazing thing about LeBron wasn't that he had that potential, it's that he's actually found it. Durant is just as likely to end up like Carmelo (26.5 ppg at age 21, which is none too shabby), but I will hold off on the LeBron comparisons for now. It is really, really far from a given that he ends up that good, and +/- hints toward a problem that can't readily be gleaned solely from looking at his ppg numbers over his last 20 games.

I won't even go into PER (which I know you all are huge fans of), which really makes his performance look nothing like LeBron's sophomore season.

Edited by Euclis20, 16 February 2009 - 06:50 PM.


#182 HomeRunBaker


  • sloppy seconds


  • 10,597 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:53 PM

Show me a star who has a negative +/-. If the entire Thunder team was an abortion for the first two months, you'd think that they would be even worse when Durant wasn't playing (you'd be wrong).

I was bored during the ASG, and nobody on the Eastern team did (although AI and Mo Williams were close, both around +1.5).

Durant is good. What I'm saying he has no business being mentioned in the same sentence with the best player in the NBA (who btw is +23.4) until his team actually does better with him on the court than off it.


Durant is better than good but i agree that he is not LeBron......shit, nobody has ever been LeBron at this stage of his career so that isn't a knock on Durant. It is pretty clear at this point that Durant's struggles last year were a result of him not yet having an NBA body or NBA strength. Now that he has improved those areas as well as the maturation process of going through the league once he HAS taken the leap to his next level. Considering his age, what he accomplished at Texas and the fact that his body/strength still have a long way to go before fully maturing........i would not hesitate to list Durant as a perennial top tier player in this league for the next dozen years.

#183 SpacemanzGerbil

  • 2,919 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 07:16 PM

Deron Williams was the one real anomaly I found...He's been around -1 for each of the last 3 years. But then again, I have trouble calling a player a superstar if he hasn't even made an all star team yet. If you have to look that hard to find one player whose reputation doesn't match the data, then it seems that the numbers are pretty decent. Durant has the potential to be the best in the league(and he's starting to look like it, at least on offense), but he isn't there yet. The most amazing thing about LeBron wasn't that he had that potential, it's that he's actually found it. Durant is just as likely to end up like Carmelo (26.5 ppg at age 21, which is none too shabby), but I will hold off on the LeBron comparisons for now. It is really, really far from a given that he ends up that good, and +/- hints toward a problem that can't readily be gleaned solely from looking at his ppg numbers over his last 20 games.

I won't even go into PER (which I know you all are huge fans of), which really makes his performance look nothing like LeBron's sophomore season.


Just a couple cool outliers while I was bored and just looking at 82games - during the '05 season, both Yao Ming and Dwayne Wade would be dinged by the on/off ratio. Wade was All-Defensive 2nd team and All-NBA 2nd team that season while finishing 8th in MVP voting. Yao didn't get any end of the season honors but he did finish 3rd in FG%, 8th in blocks and 9th in efficiency rating while playing in 80 games that season.

#184 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 07:32 PM

A handful of outliers from 4 years ago isn't enough imo to say the stat is meaningless. Thinking about +/-, it seems that it would be more likely to penalize good players on good teams (since presumably their good teammates would continue playing reasonably well in the absence of the star) than it would be to penalize good players on bad teams (if the good player has bad teammates, it makes the star look even better by comparison). Both Yao and Wade played on very good teams that won 50+ games. Durant is on a terrible team with terrible teammates; I was honestly pretty shocked when I first saw his +/-. Either he is a glaring exception on the above list, or there is a flaw in his game that we haven't seen clearly yet. Maybe a mix of both.

To make my opinion clear, I'm of the same mind that HRB is. Durant is, and will be, great. But the LeBron comparisons aren't fair, not yet.

Edited by Euclis20, 16 February 2009 - 07:34 PM.


#185 SpacemanzGerbil

  • 2,919 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 07:53 PM

A handful of outliers from 4 years ago isn't enough imo to say the stat is meaningless. Thinking about +/-, it seems that it would be more likely to penalize good players on good teams (since presumably their good teammates would continue playing reasonably well in the absence of the star) than it would be to penalize good players on bad teams (if the good player has bad teammates, it makes the star look even better by comparison). Both Yao and Wade played on very good teams that won 50+ games. Durant is on a terrible team with terrible teammates; I was honestly pretty shocked when I first saw his +/-. Either he is a glaring exception on the above list, or there is a flaw in his game that we haven't seen clearly yet. Maybe a mix of both.

To make my opinion clear, I'm of the same mind that HRB is. Durant is, and will be, great. But the LeBron comparisons aren't fair, not yet.


I'm not sure +/- can tell you anything definitive about a player's effectiveness, especially taken as a cumulative metric. It can be a function of loads of factors - good vs shitty bench, coach's substitution patterns, strength of division/conference opponents. With a player like Durant, on that bad team, his sample consists of 40 MPG on the floor and 8 MPG off. Off the cuff, it wouldn't be too big a leap and assume his net +/- is heavily influenced by the near-endless blowouts that team suffered the first two months of the season, where he played until garbage time and the scrubs chiseled a 25 point beating down to 16.

Shame 82games doesn't list game logs for the players.

#186 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 08:11 PM

I'm not sure +/- can tell you anything definitive about a player's effectiveness, especially taken as a cumulative metric. It can be a function of loads of factors - good vs shitty bench, coach's substitution patterns, strength of division/conference opponents. With a player like Durant, on that bad team, his sample consists of 40 MPG on the floor and 8 MPG off. Off the cuff, it wouldn't be too big a leap and assume his net +/- is heavily influenced by the near-endless blowouts that team suffered the first two months of the season, where he played until garbage time and the scrubs chiseled a 25 point beating down to 16.

Shame 82games doesn't list game logs for the players.


Blowouts are a possibility, although it's worth noting that OKC's net points have been slightly worse in the 4th quarter (-1.2) than in the 3rd quarter (-1.1). Sample size is more likely an issue, as Durant is 1st in the NBA in total minutes played. I'd be more convinced of that if his +/- wasn't similarly brutal last year (-8.8). Yes he's gotten better since then, but I'd say a good chunk of that improvement is indeed reflected in his +/-.

If you are looking for a real glitch, look at Jamison. His numbers this year are identical to those in recent years, and with the decline in talent around him, you'd figure that his +/- would have improved. He is at -.4 this year, after being +14.7, +6.5, +6.5, and +7.5 since arriving in Washington. Sample size is likely the issue here, as his career +/- is excellent, and he is second in the league in total minutes played this year.

Edited by Euclis20, 16 February 2009 - 08:11 PM.


#187 D Jack's Dome


  • The Jinx


  • 1,836 posts

Posted 17 February 2009 - 02:59 AM

A handful of outliers from 4 years ago isn't enough imo to say the stat is meaningless. Thinking about +/-, it seems that it would be more likely to penalize good players on good teams (since presumably their good teammates would continue playing reasonably well in the absence of the star) than it would be to penalize good players on bad teams (if the good player has bad teammates, it makes the star look even better by comparison). Both Yao and Wade played on very good teams that won 50+ games. Durant is on a terrible team with terrible teammates; I was honestly pretty shocked when I first saw his +/-. Either he is a glaring exception on the above list, or there is a flaw in his game that we haven't seen clearly yet. Maybe a mix of both.

To make my opinion clear, I'm of the same mind that HRB is. Durant is, and will be, great. But the LeBron comparisons aren't fair, not yet.


Where common sense would agree with you, for some reason your stats dont. Of the top 6 current conference leaders, only Anderson Varejao (6.9), Anthony Carter (1.0), and Michael Finley (3.3) show up on your list. Of the 6 current conference losers, on the other hand, Anthony Parker (.8), Andrea Bargnani (5.1), Troy Murphy (0.8), Jarret Jack (0.1), Antawn Jamison (.4), Kevin Durant (5.6), Earl Watson (6.2), John Salmons (5.1), Spencer Hawes (9.6), OJ Mayo (5.4), Rudy Gay (5.8). Thats an astounding 3 to 11 ratio. The +/- system, for some reason or another, tends to penalize the worst teams in the league. Again, look at your list. Most of the teams on it, specifically teams with mutiple players in the negative, are on bad teams. I have no idea why, but it's quite obvious that the +/- system does not penalize good players on good teams.

Edited by D Jack's Dome, 17 February 2009 - 01:58 PM.


#188 CzarAlexander

  • 654 posts

Posted 27 March 2009 - 02:23 PM

"Not too good," Oden mumbled after the game. "I wasn't really a factor. I didn't rebound like I wanted to. Didn't score. Couldn't stop Shaq."

But over in the Phoenix locker room, there was little-to-no buzz about Oden's arrival. Amare Stoudemire practically rolled his eyes at the mention of Oden, clearly unimpressed. And O'Neal scoffed at the notion that anyone would project Oden to be the next Shaq.

"The next Shaq lives with me. Seriously. My youngest son will probably be the next Shaq if he decides to play," O'Neal said. "I was a special case. David Robinson... there is only a couple special cases that only come around once every while. Yao (Ming), he's a special case."



#189 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:28 PM

I ask this in all honesty.......is there anyone out there that still thinks Greg Oden isn't a "lumbering" big man? Sportsguy points out his historic fouling rate:


159. Greg Oden
A Human Foul Machine the likes of which we haven't seen in nearly two decades. He's averaging 21.6 minutes and 4.0 fouls, which prorates to 8.8 fouls per 48 minutes. (I'm almost positive nine fouls gets you disqualified from any NBA game.) I asked Jeff Bennett's ESPN research crew to find the last player who averaged 20-plus minutes and topped that 8.9 number. The answer? Stanley Roberts with 9.5 in 1992. Wait, it gets worse. Here are Oden's rookie comps compared to Roberts' rookie season in '92:

Oden: 21.3 mpg, 8.7 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 1.1 bpg, 56.3 FG percent, 63.3 FT percent
Roberts: 20.3 mpg, 10.4 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 1.5 bpg, 52.8 FG percent, 51.5 FT percent

(Chilling when you remember that Roberts' nickname was "Fat Stanley." How long do we have to keep pretending Portland didn't massively and totally screw up the 2007 draft? I feel like we're trapped in a bad marriage where we have to pretend everything's good for the sake of the kids. Again, STANLEY ROBERTS!!!!)


http://sports.espn.g...=simmons/090415

After a year to digest his play, what does his upside look like? I think its safe to say we can throw out Bill Russel, Alonzo Mourning, and others of that ilk. I would think his absolute ceiling would be Mutombo. His floor is either Bowie (injuries) or Dampier. Of course none of these players fouled like Oden, which makes the Stanley Roberts comparison all the more chilling.

#190 Euclis20

  • 2,498 posts

Posted 16 April 2009 - 10:16 PM

Neither here nor there really, but in 24 games with Boston, Mikki Moore is averaging 19 minutes and 4 fouls...which prorates out to 10.11 fouls per 48 minutes. Although I wouldn't call Moore lumbering...more of a spaz.

#191 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4,347 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 12:58 AM

cut the big guy some slack, this was his first active pro year after sitting out a year with an injury, preceded by a single year of college ball (in which he dominated while playing injured)....others have fared much better at a similar point in their careers, but come on. don't write him off just yet...even if his offense doesn't develop, he will be a defensive force and rebounder, perhaps as valuable as prime Ben Wallace was. Would that be a disappointment? Of course, given the hype, but that would be a very respectable and valuable career if that's how he turns out.

#192 CzarAlexander

  • 654 posts

Posted 17 April 2009 - 10:10 PM

cut the big guy some slack, this was his first active pro year after sitting out a year with an injury, preceded by a single year of college ball (in which he dominated while playing injured)....others have fared much better at a similar point in their careers, but come on. don't write him off just yet...even if his offense doesn't develop, he will be a defensive force and rebounder, perhaps as valuable as prime Ben Wallace was. Would that be a disappointment? Of course, given the hype, but that would be a very respectable and valuable career if that's how he turns out.


Oden's perphiral stats are pretty good and much, much better than Stanley's at the same age. I'm not ready to write him off yet. I don't think that he will be as good defensively as Ben Wallace, but he will be a much better offensive player than Wallace is or ever was.

#193 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 18 April 2009 - 01:02 PM

Greg Oden has a sinus infection and is a gametime decision for game 1 of the playoffs. You can't make this stuff up.

#194 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,826 posts

Posted 19 April 2009 - 11:00 AM

Greg Oden has a sinus infection and is a gametime decision for game 1 of the playoffs. You can't make this stuff up.


15 points (6-7 shooting), 5 boards, and a block in 22 miuntes.

#195 ifmanis5


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,733 posts

Posted 27 April 2009 - 09:11 AM

Not to beat a dead horse, but look at last night's line:

11 minutes, 0-1 from the field, 3 rebounds, 1 turnover and 5 FOULS! for a -5.


Dude still has a long way to go.

#196 bball831

  • 4,787 posts

Posted 27 April 2009 - 10:45 AM

Not to beat a dead horse, but look at last night's line:

11 minutes, 0-1 from the field, 3 rebounds, 1 turnover and 5 FOULS! for a -5.


Dude still has a long way to go.


Mikki Moore and Greg Oden should guard each other and see who can foul out first. It would be "amazing", the NBA can even create a commercial with the fouls and the great part is they could show all the fouls in real time.

I fully believe that the people in Portland are kicking themselves for not taking Durant. To pair up with Roy would give them two absolute stud scorers and take the pressure of Aldridge who is probably better suited as the third option instead of the 2nd. They'd certainly being doing better than they are right now against Houston and they'd be a nightmare to defend.

#197 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,826 posts

Posted 27 April 2009 - 10:07 PM

Not to beat a dead horse, but look at last night's line:

11 minutes, 0-1 from the field, 3 rebounds, 1 turnover and 5 FOULS! for a -5.


Dude still has a long way to go.


He very clearly has work to do and right now, of course Durant look like the better pick. However, it's just as clear to me that there's some real talent there, I hope he just works on being the best he can be and doesn't worry about living up to his billing.

#198 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 27 April 2009 - 11:18 PM

He very clearly has work to do and right now, of course Durant look like the better pick. However, it's just as clear to me that there's some real talent there, I hope he just works on being the best he can be and doesn't worry about living up to his billing.



Just out of curiosity, but what would be "the best that he can"? (I think thats a HUGE part of this arguement) Kendrick Perkins? Tyson Chandler? Motumbo? Eric Dampier? And are you now willing to concede that he might just be "lumbering"? (sorry, but I just took SO much heat for that......I need a "re assesment" to make sure I wasn't seeing things)

Edit; I'm not just talking to you, but to the army that screamed and yelled at me for calling out this guys skill set.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 27 April 2009 - 11:21 PM.


#199 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,826 posts

Posted 28 April 2009 - 06:31 AM

Just out of curiosity, but what would be "the best that he can"? (I think thats a HUGE part of this arguement) Kendrick Perkins? Tyson Chandler? Motumbo? Eric Dampier? And are you now willing to concede that he might just be "lumbering"? (sorry, but I just took SO much heat for that......I need a "re assesment" to make sure I wasn't seeing things)

Edit; I'm not just talking to you, but to the army that screamed and yelled at me for calling out this guys skill set.


I don't know. But his per-minute numbers were very good, which tells me his potentital is at least in the Chandler range, if not Mutombo. Of course, if he doesn't stay healthy get his foul rate down, he'll never be on the court enough to reach that point. You also could say that his stats are somewhat artificially high because the same reckless play that results in so many fouls also gets a few more rebounds and blocks. But that's why it's only potential. It's easy and somewhat understandable to call him a bust given the hype, but I think if he were say, the 14th pick in the draft, he'd be looked at as a guy who had an intriguing but flawed rookie year.

#200 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,139 posts

Posted 28 April 2009 - 09:12 AM

I don't know. But his per-minute numbers were very good, which tells me his potentital is at least in the Chandler range, if not Mutombo. Of course, if he doesn't stay healthy get his foul rate down, he'll never be on the court enough to reach that point. You also could say that his stats are somewhat artificially high because the same reckless play that results in so many fouls also gets a few more rebounds and blocks. But that's why it's only potential. It's easy and somewhat understandable to call him a bust given the hype, but I think if he were say, the 14th pick in the draft, he'd be looked at as a guy who had an intriguing but flawed rookie year.

Al Jefferson, a former 15th pick in the draft, comes to mind; here are Oden's and Al's rookie years side-by-side (per 36 minute stats since Oden played 50% or so more minutes):
NamePtsFg %FT %ORBDRBRebAstsStlBlkTOPF
Jefferson16.3.528.6304.16.610.70.80.81.92.36.7
Oden14.8.564.6374.67.011.60.80.71.92.46.5
The statistical similarities are pretty incredible, even though the background differences (small HS vs large college, body type, offensive and defensive skill sets, Oden coming off missing a full year, etc.) are pretty great. For what it's worth, this is Al's age 20 season and Oden's age 21; I'm not sure that matters though because Al's age 21 season was actually a bit worse. The equality in blocked shots is maybe the most surprising thing here, but that was Jefferson's high water mark.I guess this just reinforces that the problem is the overblown comparisons, not Oden. We were all pretty excited by Big Al's performance after that season. Relative to the expectations of a typical lottery pick, Oden's career so far has shown plenty of promise. He's shown more early than big men who were never more than mediocre (Olowokandi, LaFrentz, Traylor, for instance); at the same time, I think a Duncan / Olajuwon "best player on a championship team" ceiling is probably already out.
Edit: switched PF & TO columns

Edited by Super Nomario, 28 April 2009 - 09:36 AM.