Derrick White wins POTY...again

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
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.
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.

All of the regressed plus minus indicators are 1000x better than pure +/- always, even the bad ones. I remember the Lakers when Lonzo, Kuzma and Ingram were babies and all three were near the league bottom in raw +/-. It didn't tell all that much beyond "they're kids still" and "the LAL are an abysmal team."
 
Last edited:

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,014
Imaginationland
I would love to see them roll this lineup out there and see what happens.
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.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
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.
You can search 3 man lineups on NBA.com.

Smart, Brogdan, and White have played 30 games a total of 97 minutes. They are +11.2 NRtg when they are on the court (123.6 ORtg and 112.4 DRtg).

In the last game, they were on the court for 9 minutes and had a 26.1 NRtg (143.8 ORtg / 117.6 DRtg), which was the 3rd highest NRtg for lineups of 9 minutes or more behind: (1) Horford+ JB + DW, 12 minutes at a NRtg of 31.8 (113.6 ORtg / 81.8 DRtg) and (2) JB + Brogdon + DW, 9 minutes at a NRtg of 27.8 (ORtg = 122.2 / DRtg = 94.4).

BTW, if you think the lineups with Brogdon, Smart, and White are good, the lineups with DW, TL, and either JB / JT are killing it. Just by eyeballing, it looks like these are the top two 3-man lineups with over 100 minutes. (I presume a lot of their minutes are against backups.)

DW, TL, and JB: 17 games, 135 minutes, 22.7 NRtg (115.0 ORtg / 92.3 DRtg) and
DW, TL, and JT: 24 games, 276 minutes, 21.0 NRtg (122.6 ORtg / 101.6 DRtg)









 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
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.
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.

The point that some have made above that true role players can get overrated this way if they are deployed well is something that I don’t think any basketball metric really knows how to control for yet. I think that’s not really any issue with guys who consistently play 25+ mpg, but certainly is an issue with guys who play more like 10-15 mpg. This is kind of like how in baseball you can’t assume a platoon player would be the same if they became a full time starter. If you really do a deep dive here, in basketball, there are attributes you can look for in lower minutes players that do tend to scale and ones that don’t. For example, rebound rate usually isn’t impacted by playing more but block rate usually drops as minutes ramp up.

For White, I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt the metrics. He, like Smart, has always rated as a very good player statistically and one who has a higher impact than his general reputation (this shifted a bit last year for Smart). It’s also very clear that Stevens has generally targeted guys who advanced stats love. An interesting test of that coming up will be Grant Williams, who generally rates pretty poorly statistically, as has been discussed in a good amount of detail in his thread.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
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.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
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.
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.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
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.

Hence why I don't get the interest in paying up for Grant Williams? He's a candidate for your Chuck Hayes Effect
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
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 actually meant to quote more. I would love to see them try a Smart/White/Brogdon/Jaylen/Tatum lineup
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
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
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?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
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.
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.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
You know that Smart would insist on covering the opponent's Big!
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.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
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'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)
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
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.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
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.
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.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
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.
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.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
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.
Grant isn't even an adv metric darling, very consistent negative On-Off.

He's a good Corner3 shooter & situational defender (takes punishment)
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
Grant isn't even an adv metric darling, very consistent negative On-Off.

He's a good Corner3 shooter & situational defender (takes punishment)
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...
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
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.
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.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
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.
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.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
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.
If he continues this spiral we’ll get him real cheap.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
10,016
Second straight season D-White has shrunk in the playoffs. That's a troubling trend.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I thought White was one of the best players last night, his defense was mostly quite good particularly on Maxey, who got the bulk of his points when Brogdon and Brown were on him grabbed 5 boards, tried to push pace. Didn't shoot well (or enough) but he was the best of the "PGs" I think.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
He was great vs ATL. Not so great this series
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
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
10,016
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
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.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,271
But he is performing better overall in the playoffs than he did during the regular season
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
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,271
Well sure. But the OP clearly said playoffs. You gotta look at the totality if that is the case
128 was the OP….he mistyped but I understood what he meant immediately.

And if you didn’t, I think the response should have been “wait, do you mean the entire playoffs? Or this specific series?”
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
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
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.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Let’s be clear: this trade was a win no matter what happens with the puck swap.

what a spectacular instinctual play
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,886
The way that he read that play, cut to the net, and put it back before the buzzer was amazing. Awful 3 point shooting from the team tonight, a gut punch foul with 3 seconds left. Season saved by The Buffalo.
 

SteveF

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,930
Derrick White is good at saving Joe Mazzulla from total, complete, public evisceration.