# Amazing Stat on Micheal Redd



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

According to www.82games.com the Bucks play their best ball with Micheal Redd on the bench! He's last on his team in +/- production.

Another interesting stat is that despite the criticism Francis makes his teammates way better than Malbury/Wade does. Francis has a bigger on court impact on his team than Yao does!


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

which is exactly why those stats are relatively meaningless.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

How are they meaningless? Statistics always have a place in sports. It's just a fact that the Bucks offense/defense runs smoother with Redd on the bench.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

General +/- statistics are not that valuable in and of themselves. Milwaukee wouldn't be a better team without Michael Redd, obviously. When you're talking about a team who has guys like Damon Jones, Desmond Mason, Dan Gadzuric, and Toni Kukoc coming off the bench playing against other team's second units, I think that makes Redd's +/- suffer compared to his teammates. Milwaukee's entire starting lineup is in the bottom half of the team's overall +/- leaders. I think the Grizzlies have a similar situation with Watson, Outlaw, Battier vs. Williams, Gasol, Posey. Posey was clearly one of, if not the biggest component to that team's overall success, not Bo Outlaw and Shane Battier (though those guys definitely played significant roles).


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> How are they meaningless? Statistics always have a place in sports. It's just a fact that the Bucks offense/defense runs smoother with Redd on the bench.


does anyone really believe the bucks are a better team without michael redd?

no. therefore, +/i is pretty meaningless. there are other examples of this.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

I think whats even more important than Redd having the worst +/- on the team, is that he's the worst out of all the starters on the team. 

That kind of negates the fact that their starting five is pretty sorry in comparison to others in the league, and that their secondary is actually superior the most other teams.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

no i dont think +/- is important in basketball because players go 1 on 1 so much. And i'm not even sure if these stats are right. Take a look at the Spurs for example, they dont have a single player under +1.7 when they're off the court. They're whole team is on the positive side. They shouldn't even play the games any more!


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> does anyone really believe the bucks are a better team without michael redd?
> ...


Exactly. +/- puts Reggie Miller as the best Pacer this season, ahead of Artest and O'neal.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jcs83md</b>!
> I think whats even more important than Redd having the worst +/- on the team, is that he's the worst out of all the starters on the team.


He's _still_ their top scorer and only all-star, so you really can't say that he's the Buck's worst starter.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

I definitely think its possible for a team to play better without their leading scorer. A lot of times when teams have 1 player who is unquestionably their best, they tend to just stand around and watch him play or the rest of the team totally relies on him when he's out there on the court. The Sixers also had something like a 5 game win streak without both AI and Big Dog. 

Look at baseball with the Texas Rangers, they are suddenly one of the better teams in baseball and they just lost A Rod and Palmeiro. Those two moving on made the other players on that team step up, and not rely on those 2 big bats. Last year they averaged just over 5 runs a game, this year they are getting 6.25 a game.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

By that logic, say Michael Redd was in a bike accident (lol) and couldnt play at all next year, the Buckd would do better? Don't think so


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

That's what happens when you take 82games.com too seriously.


----------



## RunToFreeForFly (Jul 16, 2003)

So, a team with two fransice is better than one yao one Franceise?


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theo4002</b>!
> By that logic, say Michael Redd was in a bike accident (lol) and couldnt play at all next year, the Buckd would do better? Don't think so


No not at all, teams can excel without their star only for short periods of time, but not consistently. The Sixers at 1 point had won 6 of 7 games without Iverson and Big Dog, so for that short period they were able to excel without them, but they closed the season by losing 6 of 7 without them, with the only win being an overtime win @ Atlanta. 

In Redd's case he plays 37 minutes a game, so for those 37 minutes the defense is keying on him, and the rest of the Bucks are looking to get him the ball. So if the defense is effective on Redd the rest of the team could struggle. Now for those 11 minutes that he is out of the game the defense isn't really keying on anybody and the offense isn't focusing on getting 1 person the ball. Since they have plenty of capable scorers their offense can still run very smoothly, except there is no player in the game that the defense is really focusing on, so it can make it even easier to score for the Bucks.

Now say you take Redd off the team for an entire season and leave the rest of the roster the same, now you make Van Horn the star, and the defense will focus on stopping him and making Desmond Mason and Co. beat them, which would make the Bucks a much worse offensive team. Now Mason is the 3rd option, and Van Horn was once a 20 ppg scorer, so with him as your 2nd option your team can still put up points if your star is taken out of the game.

I don't think it's a difficult concept, some teams don't know how to play with their star, so at times they can perform better without him. This was Redd's first year not only as the man of the team but even being a starter, next season the Bucks will definitely know how to play with each other, and you will see his +/- rating go way up.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> In Redd's case he plays 37 minutes a game, so for those 37 minutes the defense is keying on him, and the rest of the Bucks are looking to get him the ball. So if the defense is effective on Redd the rest of the team could struggle. Now for those 11 minutes that he is out of the game the defense isn't really keying on anybody and the offense isn't focusing on getting 1 person the ball. Since they have plenty of capable scorers their offense can still run very smoothly, except there is no player in the game that the defense is really focusing on, so it can make it even easier to score for the Bucks.
> 
> Now say you take Redd off the team for an entire season and leave the rest of the roster the same, now you make Van Horn the star, and the defense will focus on stopping him and making Desmond Mason and Co. beat them, which would make the Bucks a much worse offensive team. Now Mason is the 3rd option, and Van Horn was once a 20 ppg scorer, so with him as your 2nd option your team can still put up points if your star is taken out of the game.
> ...


Excellent, just a great post. I wholeheartedly agree.:wordyo:


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

*Dan Rosenbaum* developed a system which measures isolated +/- for a given player over an average player. According to Dan the Bucks would lose 4.0 PPG if they replaced Michael Redd (ranked #42) with an average player. This number is a combination of player ability and how effectively a team utilizes that player. *Here* is the full list.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

The Roland Rating has its limits, but I don't care how many points a player scores, the fact that his team has an overall -35 with his in the game and +165 when he's out creates some doubts.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Theirs definetly flaws, but you can't totally discount stats.


----------

