+/- for the triumph over Purdue

[SmellyCat]

Thanks PWB. Interesting. So as dominant as Edey seemed, he was barely better than Berry.

I'm shocked that Purdue was -2 with Edey on the floor (which also means they were -2 when he was OFF the floor). I suppose that makes sense since he played nearly the entire second half (when NU was +8 in regulation and +4 in OT). Even still, I would've thought he'd be a positive score overall and that NU outplayed Purdue with him on the bench.

And Smith showed his carelessness was extremely costly, as his overall numbers might impress some who aren't looking under the hood, but he was not helpful. NU 7, Purdue 5 with him on the bench, although in only three minutes.

Jones is a shock to me - hadn't really watched him before, but I was worried about him before the game and saw how good he could be during his second-half flurry against Iowa last night. He really struggled both against NU with his shooting and his D, which is supposed to be his strength.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

So as dominant as Edey seemed, he was barely better than Berry.

I am not making that particular claim. Everything else you wrote makes sense to me.

I'm just skeptical that you can directly compare the "Net +/-" across opponents.

I think it does a reasonably good job of indicating which players deserve credit or blame for their team's performance.

So Buie was the best player on the floor for NU, Berry had a good game from a team perspective and a personal perspective and Edey was easily the best player on the floor for Purdue.

How Edey's game measured up against Berry's seems more complicated - but I'll give it some thought.

 

[Hungry Jack]

PWB, correct me if I am mistaken on this.

If NU wins by 4, our collective +|- should be 20 (5x4). And PU’s should be -20. If Berry accounted for 12 of our team's +20, that's pretty darn good. And if Edey was +13 while the rest of his team was -33, he should get a free burrito or something.

 

[EagerFan]

But NOT a chicken sammich.

 

[rwhitney014]

Okay SmellyCat, here's a table to evaluate the enemy...

Player	Minutes	PU Pts	NU Pts	Raw +/-	Player Adjust	Net +/-
Edey	38	74	76	-2	+15.1	+13.1
Heide	18	36	33	+3	+0.3	+3.3
Morton	8	15	13	+2	-2.1	-0.1
Furst	11	18	22	-4	+3.2	-0.8
Loyer	34	73	79	-6	+2.9	-3.1
Gillis	28	54	55	-1	-3.1	-4.1
Colvin	2	2	5	-3	-1.2	-4.2
Kaufman	13	30	31	-1	-5.5	-6.5
Jones	31	57	59	-2	-6.1	-8.1
Smith	42	81	87	-6	-3.4	-9.4

Obviously Edey was and is their best player.
Loyer, Heidi and Furst played okay individually.
Braden Smith had 9 assists and 6 rebounds, but 6 turnovers.

This supports the premise I keep thinking about when I watch Purdue, which is that they’re in big trouble moving forward unless Painter can find a lot of talent elsewhere.

Teams reload, and the bottom won’t fall out of a program like theirs. But Edey is such a singular player that it’s hard to imagine this style working with literally anyone else who will be available.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

This supports the premise I keep thinking about when I watch Purdue, which is that they’re in big trouble moving forward unless Painter can find a lot of talent elsewhere.

Teams reload, and the bottom won’t fall out of a program like theirs. But Edey is such a singular player that it’s hard to imagine this style working with literally anyone else who will be available.

Well Purdue looked a lot better against Iowa.
It is possible that they just didn't play well against NU, I think we can all agree that NU matches up well with them. Iowa does not.

I don't think Purdue is in "big trouble" but I agree that Purdue is ultimately vulnerable - the simple fact that Matt Painter has taken to constantly lobbying the refs to call fouls on the guys guarding Edey - that is not a good sign. Even though it has been working - people are going to get tired of that, especially outside of the Big Ten - Edey doesn't need or deserve that sort of special treatment. He's the biggest player on the court in every game.

Matt Nicholson did not foul out of a single game last year. Against Edey or anybody else. Last year against Purdue he played 27 minutes and picked up 2 fouls. This time he lasted 12 minutes before fouling out. I respect Matt Painter a lot as a coach, but 9 months of crying about refs is embarrassing.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Well Purdue looked a lot better against Iowa.
It is possible that they just didn't play well against NU, I think we can all agree that NU matches up well with them. Iowa does not.

I don't think Purdue is in "big trouble" but I agree that Purdue is ultimately vulnerable - the simple fact that Matt Painter has taken to constantly lobbying the refs to call fouls on the guys guarding Edey - that is not a good sign. Even though it has been working - people are going to get tired of that, especially outside of the Big Ten - Edey doesn't need or deserve that sort of special treatment. He's the biggest player on the court in every game.

Matt Nicholson did not foul out of a single game last year. Against Edey or anybody else. Last year against Purdue he played 27 minutes and picked up 2 fouls. This time he lasted 12 minutes before fouling out. I respect Matt Painter a lot as a coach, but 9 months of crying about refs is embarrassing.

I think Big Matt is rounding into shape and was ultra hyped for the match up. Unfortunately, Big Matt has to be much smarter when it is very obvious the refs were calling a tight game. He just needs to calm down and there are times to be very aggressive and times to play within the flow of the game. Just about all of those looked like fouls to me. We need Big Matt to play more than 12 minutes.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

PWB, correct me if I am mistaken on this.

If NU wins by 4, our collective +|- should be 20 (5x4). And PU’s should be -20. If Berry accounted for 12 of our team's +20, that's pretty darn good. And if Edey was +13 while the rest of his team was -33, he should get a free burrito or something.

Interesting question... You are definitely right about the collective +/- being 20 when we win by 4.
But to be honest, I started with Raw +/-, which I still think is essential, and moved onto the Players Adjustments because I wanted to tell a more complete story. The "Net +/-" number was just something I did reflexively. Add them together! Of course! So I appreciate the questions you asked, along with SmellyCat. Made me think about it.

[As a side note - something I just discovered - when Buie, Berry and Langborg were all out there together, NU handled Purdue 71-58 in 29 minutes . We were shredding them at a 98 point pace. The other 16 minutes we lost 30-21. We weren't scoring at all (54 point pace). Defensively we gave up about 2 points a minute either way.]

I'm thinking it probably makes more sense to take Berry's raw +8 and divide it by 5 (allocate it equally) then apply the Player adjustment on top of that...

So Berry gets a +1.6 for general team play, then a +4.3 for his own performance. So +5.9.
Buie gets a + 1.6 for general team play, then a +10.2 for his own performance. So +11.8.
Barnhizer gets a -0.2 for team play, but a -8.5 because he didn't play as well as several others. So -8.7.
Langborg had a Raw +5, so he gets +1 for that, with an adjustment of -0.3, for a +0.7.
The rest of our guys range from Martinelli at -4 to Hunger at +0.7. Playing fewer minutes of course.

The total of all those is +4, which was the final margin.

I'm still not 100% certain that this is the better way to go, but wanted to respond to your question.