The Duke-Michigan State game was a complete disaster for the brothers Plumlee. Their mental errors were egregious and they were physically dominated by a tough Michigan State interior. I lost all of my optimism for the Plumlees at the end of the Michigan State game. It took a long time for me to reach the realization that the Plumlees will never play up to their potential while they wear a Duke uniform. After the MSU game I decided to temper my expectations and appreciate the Plumlees for what they are: players with copious amounts of potential, who show flashes of brilliance, but can’t put it all together. I know what the Plumlees bring the table and decided to enjoy watching them play, rather than focusing on unrealistic expectations. But, like a crazy ex-girlfriend you can’t stay away from, the Plumlees have given me a reignited and unrealistic hope in them.
Tag Archives: Michigan State
Hope!
Carolina vs. Michigan State: +/- and Defensive Charting
Before getting to the first +/- table of the season, some words of caution: single-game +/- figures are so “noisy” (i.e., influenced by randomness) that they’re rendered practically useless. Even with a complete season’s worth of data, the +/- metric (especially in this– its unadjusted– form) suffers from this noisiness. Still, when taken in conjunction with the defensive box score, traditional box score, and old-fashioned “eye test,” the single-game +/- can be a part of the total evaluation process. It also serves as a good summary of Roy Williams’s substitution patterns/rotation.
Some definitions:
Pts-Pts All.: the points scored and points allowed by the team during a given player’s minutes
Off Eff: the points scored per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Def Eff: the points allowed per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Net Eff: the scoring margin per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
+/- Stats vs. Michigan State |
|||||
| Player | Minutes | Pts-Pts All. | Off Eff | Def Eff | Net Eff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hairston | 8.9 | 19-11 | 126.7 | 73.3 | +53.3 |
| McAdoo | 16.3 | 36-27 | 124.1 | 87.1 | +37.0 |
| Marshall | 32.8 | 57-41 | 101.8 | 73.2 | +28.6 |
| Zeller | 30.9 | 52-39 | 100.0 | 76.5 | +23.5 |
| Strickland | 33.7 | 55-41 | 94.8 | 73.9 | +20.9 |
| TEAM | 40.0 | 67-55 | 97.1 | 79.7 | +17.4 |
| Henson | 30.5 | 43-36 | 81.1 | 69.9 | +11.2 |
| Barnes | 31.6 | 48-44 | 87.3 | 80.0 | +7.3 |
| Bullock | 11.7 | 19-24 | 90.5 | 106.7 | -16.2 |
| Hubert/White | 1.3 | 3-4 | 150.0 | 133.3 | +16.7 |
| Watts | 1.1 | 0-4 | 0.0 | 266.7 | -266.7 |
| +/- by Backcourt | ||
|---|---|---|
| Combo | Minutes | Pts-Pts-All. |
| Marshall-Strickland | 27.8 | 48-31 |
| Marshall-Bullock | 4.5 | 9-10 |
| Strickland-Hairston | 3.7 | 7-4 |
| Strickland-Bullock | 2.2 | 0-6 |
| White-Hairston | 1.3 | 3-4 |
| Marshall-Hairston | 0.5 | 0-0 |
| +/- by Frontcourt | ||
| Henson-Zeller | 22.6 | 31-24 |
| McAdoo-Henson | 7.8 | 12-12 |
| McAdoo-Zeller | 7.2 | 21-11 |
| McAdoo-Hubert | 1.3 | 3-4 |
| Watts-Zeller | 1.1 | 0-4 |
| Most-used Line-ups | ||
| Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Henson-Zeller | 22.1 | 31-24 |
| Strickland-Hairston-Bullock-McAdoo-Henson | 3.7 | 7-4 |
| Marshall-Strickland-Hairston-McAdoo-Zeller | 3.0 | 9-3 |
| Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-McAdoo-Zeller | 2.4 | 8-4 |
When Bullock and Hairston were paired together on the wings, I called Hairston the 2 and Bullock the 3. Continue reading →