When numbers tell you a player is a net negative...what do you take it to mean?

[Kblaze8855]

We all see terms like that tossed around. Some guy generally highly regarded is by some combo of numbers considered a net negative by the advanced stats people. There are several examples right now you can look up(5-6 playing at or near an all star level) but I won’t list them so this isn’t about any individual player. Just the idea as a whole.

My questions are simple and I don’t intend to argue with any of you. I may not respond at all to remove the chance of it. I just want to know where you stand....


Plus/minus shows that player X does more harm than good largely because of his teams poor defensive play when he’s on the court.


I have two questions.....


When the team has those numbers....and so do an entire coaching staff...why do you think said player gets big minutes anyway? Stupidly? Salary too high to bench? With access to the same numbers as you why do teams keep playing players with negative or near negative ratings and giving many of them big money?

also

Do you take his net negative numbers to mean the team would actually be better if he didn’t exist at all?

If the on/off shows you hurt more than you help....should all such players be benched if not outright cut?


How serious you taking these things? If you’re a net negative should you even play?

[BigShotBob]

Depends on the player and the situation.

Lou Williams for instance is a net negative if he isn't scoring because he'll be exploited on defense. But he will still have a positive impact if he is dishing assists and is being hidden on a spot up shooter on defense.

Some players are a net negative if they play more than 15 minutes because their skill sets are limited and their impact is based on pure effort which isn't sustainable long term.

But no, I don't take it as a team is better if you didn't exist. Because you could replace them with someone that's even worse, so he's your best option at the time.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Nikola Vucevic
Zach Lavine
Bradley Beal
Brandon Ingram
DeAron Fox

[ralph_i_el]

If they don't have a better option, they don't have a better option. This is something to consider before giving the player a huge contract, because at that point you might not have the flexibility to trade them.

It's not always defense that hurts these guys on/off. Sometimes a guy puts up huge offensive stats and is still a drag on the offense, because they only way they have impact is scoring/creating shots for themselves. These players are useless without the ball in their hand, so the best option is to have them handle the ball and play their game, even if it's an overall drag on the team.


Did you know that in the 20 mpg Tomas Satoransky plays per game for the Bulls, they have the point differential of a contender? Same with Garrett Temple and Denzel Valentine. IDK what to do with this info, but their starters are consistently getting wrecked. What does that say about LaVine? Who knows.

I think a lot of this depends on who else is on the floor with you. If Zach Lavine has to defend tough scoring guards, because Coby White can't handle them at all, his numbers won't look as good as if he was playing alongside say, Marcus Smart. Also, On/off numbers depend on the quality of your bench vs. other benches. On/off numbers have been pointless for the Mavs for years, because their benches usually have a great scoring differential (which mkaes the starter's stats look bad). If my backup is god-awful, my on/off will look better.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Most people don't really care, they just want to see fancy traditional stats like PPG.

Durant was actually a huge negative in his first two seasons, he was a -11 and -9 net rating by NBA.com. So he wasn't really showing star impact until his 3rd season. While Kawhi won finals mvp in his 3rd season. So I don't see how Durant developed that much quicker, he just took more shots because he was on a garbage team like a lot of young guys.

[LoneyROY7]

Nikola Vucevic
Zach Lavine
Bradley Beal
Brandon Ingram
DeAron Fox

And a braindead collective actually voted Bradley "I just lose" Beal to start in the all-star game.

[warriorfan]

It tells you either the player sucks, or their current situation sucks, or a little bit of both. The trick is trying to decipher what is what.

You need a large sample size and even then things can get effected, like how a poster previously mentioned that the strength of a players back ups can alter their net totals. What type of minutes is a player playing, is he playing vs starters or bench squads more? Advanced impact stats have always tried to filter out this noise as best as possible. RAPM and espns RPM attempt to address this. RPM uses box score as well to attempt to normalize the results...so that makes it a little counter productive, the stat is ment to get away from counting stats and rate impact yet it still uses the counting stats to influence it.

[BigTicket]

I do take it seriously when I see some players consistently having negative numbers, Andrew Wiggins is one such player that comes to mind. He made a ton of money by looking good in highlight videos, but I think the numbers are right that his overall impact is negative.

If you have bad numbers for only one or two seasons that might be a fluke, for example Westbrook looks bad in some advanced stats right now, but I would still love to have him on my team, because I know what he can do, and how much passion he brings.

So overall I would say short term advanced stats should not be given much attention, but longterm they can reveal the truth about some players.