MavsBoard

MAVERICKS SMACK PELICANS AT AAC

The Mavs came in off a pretty decent showing against Boston, hoping to consolidate their progress against the injury-riddled, 1-9 Pelicans. After an uninspiring start, the home team managed to come on late for a decisive win. 


GAME NOTES

Maxi remained out, as expected, but the rest of the crew was ready to go. Zion Williamson, Brandon Ingram, and Herb Jones were out for New Orleans. Kidd went with his original starting lineup again — Luka-Tim-DFS-KP-Powell. 

FIRST QUARTER

Luka is first on the board with a nice drive. THJ with a second-chance three. Both teams missing shots right and left. Luka cross-court pass goes out of bounds. Man, I’m a little embarrassed for both these squads. 6-9 6:46

Brunson and Bullock in, KP and THJ out in the first sub of the game.  Jaxson Hayes clotheslines Brunson, loose ball foul on NO. WCS in for Powell. Bullock dunk from Luka. Oh, no. Luka down on the floor, grabbing his ankle. Timeout. 10-16 4:40

Luka back out, thank goodness. Brunson to the basket! Wow, Mavs can’t buy a bucket. Another turnover. Dang. All-bench unit now, with S Brown on. Still another turnover. Pels getting into the paint mostly at will. Brunson tough shot from the baseline. Timmy and KP coming back. KP with a three! Two in a row! 22-27 after 1 

Dallas has cut their deficit from 11 to 5, but have mostly looked like doo-doo in the first. Luckily, NO not much better. Mavs have 5 turnovers for a loss of 10 points. Get it together, Mavs!

SECOND QUARTER

Frankie with a corner three off a KP post-up! KP and-one off another post-up! Mavs running their offense through Zinger, and he’s making a great impact. Hardaway three from Brunson, and Dallas retakes the lead! Mavs on a 15-2 run. 31-29 9:41

Josh Hart breaks the NO drought with free throws. KP called for his third foul, has to leave the game. Powell in. Luka comes back, to great cheers. Powell in the low post! Frank drives and scores over Valanciunas! Bullock from downtown! 

Jonas scores ATO. Pels had missed 13 of their last 14 shots before that. Frankie steal results in DFS free throws. Misses both. Bullock three off a second-chance opportunity created by Powell OR. Bullock blocks JV at the basket! The big guy redeems himself with a three over Dwight. Powell called for a foul on Alexander-Walker in a Luka-Powell double team. Coach’s challenge. Unsuccessful. Hardaway left unguarded, makes them pay. Powell called for a similar foul to the one that was challenged. Dubious, if you ask me. Luka rides in and floats one into the basket. Luka fade over a double team! Jump ball JB-JV, both wrestling with each other on the floor.  Luka three off a Powell screen! 51-47 HT. 

This game is not exactly a display of high-level basketball from either team. But at least the Mavs have the edge. Luka leading Dallas with 13 points (including the last 9 points of the half), followed by Tim and KP with 9. JV and Hart combine for 24 for NO. Callie reminds us that KP scored 9 points in 4 minutes, then committed three fouls in 1:17, and had to sit the rest of the half. Well, he looked pretty good, anyway. Pels with a big edge in the paint (22-14), but shooting only 25% from three. Mavs have lost 13 points off turnovers. Hope our boys can sharpen up their execution a bit!

THIRD QUARTER

DFS three from KP cross-court pass! Couple of Mavs airballs here to start the half. Luka-DP slam. JV passes on shot against DP. Now DP scores over Jonas. Temple has hit four consecutive shots. THJ at the elbow! Mavs leave A-W open in the corner, he hits. 62-61 6:37

Luka to the basket, woo-hoo! Luka shredding the NO defense! Brunson pull-up at the end of the shot clock. DFS above the break! Powell draws a foul going up for a rebound. Brunson blows by Satoransky! Reggie transition three in the corner, from Brunson! 76-66 3:15

Brunson with a rainbow! OMG! 78-69 after three. 

FOURTH QUARTER

THJ great shot from three! Woot! Boban on the floor. He hits. Wild cheers! Mavs pulling away. 85-69 9:51

JB and-one over JV! Bobi pats him on the head, lol. Great transition play, Bullock from THJ! THJ contested shot from the corner! FN jumper behind Bobi! We got this. 95-75 7:01

Bobi in a gentle jaw with the ref, lol. KP-Boban form the two-big lineup! KP-Bobi alley-oop! Mavs appear to be relaxing a bit, NO on a run. 98-86 3:57

Mavs and Pels take consecutive timeouts. DFS called for offensive basket interference. JV over KP. Lead down to single digits. JB draws foul on JV. Hits both freebies. KP three! Luka basket off a Luka-Tim give-and-go. 105-92 1:20

Kidd keeping the A lineup on. Starters, with JB in place of Powell. Now the deep bench filters in for the last 48 seconds. 108-92 FT. 


ANALYSIS

The Mavericks stats were helped greatly by their improvement in the second half. By the end of the game, they were shooting 51% overall and 40% from three, which is much more like what we generally expect from the team. The Pels were a miserable 26% from long range. Maverick point differentials were +2 on points from twos, +15 on points from threes, and -1 on made free throws. Dallas’ 14 made threes were a welcome sight, and their superior three-point prowess more than offset NO’s 14-point advantage in PIP. 

The egalitarian offense was effective, with 5 Mavs in double figures — Luka 25, THJ and JB 17, and KP and Bullock 12. The bench was also a significant contributor to the win, combining for 42 points, 17 boards, and 10 dimes. 


PLAYER NOTES

DONCIC (33 min). Luka was 25-5-5 tonight, and had a few gasp-inducing plays. He would probably like to have cut down on his 5 turnovers, but we’re not going to nitpick our phenom after a win. He's the straw that stirs the drink. 

THJ (33). I thought Timmy looked really good tonight. In addition to his 17 points on 6-9 shooting (4-5 from three), he had 6 rebounds and 4 assists, and appeared to take a strong role in managing the team on the floor. Diverse offensively, was aggressive in attack, and looked fluid as part of the offense. I like it! He was awarded the post-game interview, and said that the offense is still a work in progress, but thinks they are going to be really good when the playoffs roll around. 

BRUNSON (31). Jalen played starter minutes again, and had another impressive outing. He had 17 points on 7-12 shooting, along with 4 boards and 6 dimes, and ran the bench unit with aplomb. Loved it when he took advantage of the JV mismatch, lol. Kidd observed that Luka and Brunson are still learning to play together, and commended Luka on not being afraid to give JB the ball. Also said he doesn’t think it matters to Brunson whether he is playing as a starter or sixth man. Kidd is making those decisions based on match-ups, and he thinks JB plays very well in either role. 

DFS (30). Dorian had 6 points, and took only 4 shots, but did hit 2 threes, which was a welcome development. He had a 4x2 remaining stat line, with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and 2 turnovers. With other guys filling in the gaps, he wasn’t really called on to impress with his new role as an offensive focus. 

PORZINGIS (26). KP had a 30-minute limit again, and had to sit for a good while in the second stretch. He was 12-8-3 on 4-13 shooting, and even though the shots weren't going in, he looked engaged and team-oriented on the floor. Bullock said KP is still getting into his groove, but with his shooting, aggressiveness, and defense, he’s going to be a tough nut for opponents to crack. Kidd was proud of KP’s progress, noting how well he is moving and putting the ball on the floor. Encouraging evening, I would say. 

POWELL (22).  Dwight had only 6 points, possibly due to 3 of his 7 shot attempts being threes, but contributed 8 rebounds (5 offensive) and three assists. Measuring his performance by his actual role (as opposed to an imaginary set of expectations), I thought he had a respectable night. He and Luka were simpatico, and I thought he showed good awareness and energy.

BULLOCK (21). Reggie looked pretty good out there, with 13 points on 5-7 shooting. He seems to fit it in with the Mavs’ style much better than some of his predecessors did.  

FRANK (18). I thought Ntilikina looked very good tonight, with 9 points off the bench. He is showing out much better offensively than I was expecting, demonstrating a lot of confidence and poise. Kidd thought he was great on both ends of the floor. Reggie, one of the ex-Knicks crew, ventured that Frankie never really got a proper chance in NY, and acknowledged that Reggie played a part in recruiting FN to Dallas. 

S BROWN (11). Sterling didn’t score (0-3), but he did have four rebounds, and Kidd specifically mentioned him, along with Frankie and Brunson, as being an important part of the team’s success. 

BOBAN (8). The crowd got its Bobi fix with an appearance by the Gentle Giant in the fourth quarter, and they lovingly cheered on his every move. He had 4 points and an assist on 2-3 shooting, and his looming presence in the paint had clear impact on both ends of the floor. Kidd complimented his energy. 

MENTIONS. WILLIE had 2 rebounds in a 5-minute cameo. MOSES and GREEN each came in for a minute of garbage time. BURKE was a DNP-CD. 

PELICANS. This NO team should be a lot better when they get back to full strength, but still managed a few good individual performances even in their depleted state. The Mavs had little answer for Valanciunas, who impressed with 22 points (10-16) and 11 boards. We’re just not built to stop these big bruisers, especially with Maxi out. Josh Hart was also a tough opponent, with 22 points (8-13), 6 boards, and 5 assists. Alexander-Walker had 18 points, but was 2-11 from range. Garrett Temple had 12 points and 6 boards, and Jaxson Hayes added 10 points off the bench.   


OBSERVATIONS

Kidd thought that defense won the game for the Mavs, and particularly complimented the unit with Bobi and four smalls. 

The tender subject of +/- came up in the post-game interview. Jalen and Bullock had +/- numbers in the twenties, while KP and Luka were slightly negative, and Kidd was asked to comment on how he evaluates +/-. 

Kidd made a dismissive gesture, said he doesn’t look at stat sheets on the bench, and warned that +/- numbers “can lie to you.” Said what he watches for is how the guys are playing, and whether they are playing the “right way,” and doesn’t care about “whether one guy is plus something and another guy is minus something.” 

This may represent a difference from Carlisle, who occasionally referenced box-score plus-minus as a tool he used to help decide on lineups and adjustments. The board’s passionate +/- aficionados will probably scorn Kidd’s devil-may-care approach, and may want to send him an e-mail and set him straight. 

With respect to tonight's game, some of the Mavs looked pretty good in the final analysis, but I didn’t think this was much of a model for what the team should be trying to achieve. Considering that they were playing against a decimated NO team who were horrible, we might have hoped for a more consistent showing. The slow starts continue to be an issue. It’s great that they are pulling these games out against “bad” teams, but I think they’re going to need to do better than this to compete against the big boys. 

Nevertheless, there were things to be encouraged about in this outing, and far be it from us to thumb our nose at a win of any sort. This victory brings the Mavs to 7-3, which is their best start record-wise in years. We’ll take it!


NEXT. The Mavs travel to Chicago to face the Bulls on Wednesday. That should be a bigger test. 'Til then. 

Thanks for the great recap, ML!

The bad news:

We still haven't beat a real NBA team yet (OK, maybe Toronto)

Willie is getting worse as the season progresses. 

I like Sterling's energy, but while he appears super active, he accomplishes very little

I get the KP love from Kidd (rebounding and assists and body language), but 13 shots to get 12 points isn't going to get it done.

As others have said, Luka was a mess in Q-1.


The good news:

Man the role players were on fire.  Bullock 5/7, Tim, 6/9, Jalen 7/12 and Frank 4/6.

Between Brunson, Frank, Bullock and Maxi we have a bench.

Brunson 30+ minutes (3rd on the team) coming off the bench (for a team high +26)



Two centers together was not a good look.  Powell + KP was -6.  KP + Bobi was -6.  Powell, KP or Bobi alone was just fine...Willie, not so much.

Lots of center and four guards in this one (starting to see a trend here, but both NO and Boston are light on bigs).  I define this as no Maxi, no DFS and no second center.  If you are tempted to say "what about Luka, he's got PF size", well, I did the math on that one too.  There were 14 minutes in this game with a single center and no Luka or DFS...literally four guards.  Here's what is interesting.  We were +18 in those minutes without Luka or DFS and with a single center.  KP was +13, Bobi was +9 and Willie was -4 in lineups like that.

Something has to give with the starting lineup.  I think I try Maxi for Powell first.  I get that we are light on shooting bigs if we have our only two starting together.  But, there are ways to split them after the first six minutes of each half.  With the emergence of Frank, I think there are bench lineups with Powell as the center that would work.  Bear in mind, we don't have a single "bench".  There is a KP-centric bench, a Luka-centric bench and at times (usually very briefly) a bench that doesn't include either.

(11-09-2021, 12:34 AM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]The tender subject of +/- came up in the post-game interview. Jalen and Bullock had +/- numbers in the twenties, while KP and Luka were slightly negative, and Kidd was asked to comment on how he evaluates +/-. 

Kidd made a dismissive gesture, said he doesn’t look at stat sheets on the bench, and warned that +/- numbers “can lie to you.” Said what he watches for is how the guys are playing, and whether they are playing the “right way,” and doesn’t care about “whether one guy is plus something and another guy is minus something.” 

This may represent a difference from Carlisle, who occasionally referenced box-score plus-minus as a tool he used to help decide on lineups and adjustments. The board’s passionate +/- aficionados will probably scorn Kidd’s devil-may-care approach, and may want to send him an e-mail and set him straight. 

That's EXACTLY how a good coach should handle it. Don't talk about those realities publicly, deal with them behind closed doors. Kidd should especially defend Luka and KP publicly as we know they can be sensitive. Great job Kidd on handling this IMO.

But I can almost guarantee Kidd sees that Luka is not playing the "right way" in a lot of his minutes these days. But that should not be dealt with publicly. And if the coaches are asking Luka to play differently than he has for most of his career (as many have speculated), then they have to deal with all of it more patiently.

(11-09-2021, 07:57 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]There were 14 minutes in this game with a single center and no Luka or DFS...literally four guards.  Here's what is interesting.  We were +18 in those minutes without Luka or DFS and with a single center.

I feel like these four guard lineups have been exceptional defensively. I hated the 3+ guard lineups under RC, but mostly because I thought they sucked defensively (and maybe in large part due to personnel), but man give me more of JB, FN, SB, RB together!

(11-09-2021, 08:53 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]And if the coaches are asking Luka to play differently than he has for most of his career (as many have speculated), then they have to deal with all of it more patiently.

(11-09-2021, 08:53 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]That's EXACTLY how a good coach should handle it. Don't talk about those realities publicly, deal with them behind closed doors. Kidd should especially defend Luka and KP publicly as we know they can be sensitive. Great job Kidd on handling this IMO.

But I can almost guarantee Kidd sees that Luka is not playing the "right way" in a lot of his minutes these days. But that should not be dealt with publicly. And if the coaches are asking Luka to play differently than he has for most of his career (as many have speculated), then they have to deal with all of it more patiently.

Yeah, he wasn't defending or criticizing anyone, or saying anyone did or didn't play the right way. What he said was that he evaluates the players' performance by watching how they are playing, and that he does not consider +/- in the assessment, because he considers it a misleading statistic. 

If Luka is not playing the right way, then the coach should and presumably does notice it. But, according to him, he judges by watching, rather than by consulting a +/- statistic. We don't have to agree on whether that evaluation method is right or wrong, by I think it's good to know how the coach makes decisions, especially to the degree that it might be moving on from Carlisle's judgment of what was important. Or if we need to find a way to let Kidd know how much he might be screwing up in this regard. 

On a separate note, I thought it was of passing interest that when Kidd emptied the bench in the last minute, everyone who hadn't played was sent in except Burke. It wasn't important to the game, and may not mean anything at all, but there didn't appear to be an obvious reason for his exclusion.

(11-09-2021, 10:37 AM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]But, according to him, he judges by watching, rather than by consulting a +/- statistic.

I have no problem with what Kidd said about +/-. In fact, I think he's right about +/- lying to you at times! A poster recently (too bad I can't remember who) said, accurately imo, that +/- is a noisy stat. 

BUT...having said all that... which I said just now before saying the part that I'm about to say...

I'm pretty sure JKidd looks at lineup data. And I'm pretty sure he takes a look at the data provided to him by the analytics department, which I would think includes some form of lineup data. Don't you think? 

But Kidd doesn't have to tell us that. I'm completely comfortable with the coaching profession's practice of prioritizing messaging to the team over needs of the reporter when talking to the press.

(11-09-2021, 10:44 AM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure JKidd looks at lineup data. And I'm pretty sure he takes a look at the data provided to him by the analytics department, which I would think includes some form of lineup data. Don't you think? 

Of course he does. 

Kidd isn't dumb. He knows WHY the +/- question was asked of him. He knows what the numbers are saying about Luka (and KP). Reason would suggest that Kidd was purposefully protecting his star(s) as he should.

And as I have often said: +/- actually DOES NOT and CANNOT "lie." It tells you the truth 100% of the time. However, your initial and immediate interpretations of +/- can lie. But the numbers themselves never lie.

(11-09-2021, 10:44 AM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]I have no problem with what Kidd said about +/-.

The more important question. What is Bob thinking right now. I am waiting for a tweet that educates us on the true meaning of Luka´s +/- numbers.

(11-09-2021, 10:44 AM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]I have no problem with what Kidd said about +/-. In fact, I think he's right about +/- lying to you at times! A poster recently (too bad I can't remember who) said, accurately imo, that +/- is a noisy stat. 

lol, I see what you did there

BUT...having said all that... which I said just now before saying the part that I'm about to say...

I'm pretty sure JKidd looks at lineup data. And I'm pretty sure he takes a look at the data provided to him by the analytics department, which I would think includes some form of lineup data. Don't you think? 

I consider lineup data of the sort compiled by analytics departments a completely separate category of info than raw individual +/-, especially one-game individual +/-. Believe that multiple-player lineup data over a large enough sample can be quite useful in sorting out useful combinations of players, and as far as I know, all 30 teams use it (although, from what I understand, they have their own proprietary adjustments, and rarely make decisions based on raw data.)   

But Kidd doesn't have to tell us that. I'm completely comfortable with the coaching profession's practice of prioritizing messaging to the team over needs of the reporter when talking to the press.

Agreed, but I don't even think that necessarily came into it. If Kidd is judging how Luka and Bullock, for example, played in this game, I believe him when he says he watches what they are doing, and doesn't even care about the +/- numbers. Why? Because plus-minus numbers don't tell him a thing about how a guy played, and watching him does. No?

Excellent way to set up a discussion! I would expect no less from the board's resident Diplomat!

(11-09-2021, 11:04 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]And as I have often said: +/- actually DOES NOT and CANNOT "lie."

The English language is rough. If you want to be literal, then +/- has no vocal cords, can't speak with sign language, doesn't use body language, and can't even offer us a facial expressoin. 

I have no problem with Kidd saying that "you have to be careful, because +/-" can lie to you". He just means that "this might not mean what you think it means". 

(11-09-2021, 11:04 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Of course he does. 

Kidd isn't dumb. He knows WHY the +/- question was asked of him. He knows what the numbers are saying about Luka (and KP). Reason would suggest that Kidd was purposefully protecting his star(s) as he should.

Reason would suggest that Kidd said he doesn't care about plus-minus in assessing player performance in any particular game, because he doesn't. Because he doesn't think it gives him any information he considers reliable. Luka don't even need protecting on that account, except maybe from reporters who don't understand the significance of a data point. 

And as I have often said: +/- actually DOES NOT and CANNOT "lie." It tells you the truth 100% of the time. However, your initial and immediate interpretations of +/- can lie. But the numbers themselves never lie.

The only thing individual +/- tells you the truth about is what the point differential was when a particular player was on the floor (or not on the floor, as the case may be). It tells you absolutely nothing about how that player played. Doesn't tell you how many shots he made, how many he missed, whether he rebounded well, how many defensive plays he made, how well he played within the system, how he was progressing in areas of emphasis, anything that a coach would be looking at in evaluating the guy's performance in the game. Not. One. Thing. And Kidd said (I believe, honestly), that if you try to extract the truth about how a guy played by looking at a +/- stat, you're very likely to be misled.  

No one is saying that the +/- stat inaccurately represents the score differential. But anything beyond that one piece of raw data is interpretation. Interpretation is good, but it can be wrong, initially, immediately, or over the long term. And the +/- stat alone gives you no actionable information without interpretation. Yes, it's a verifiable fact to the limited extent it goes, but it doesn't prove anything.

(11-09-2021, 11:07 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]The more important question. What is Bob thinking right now. I am waiting for a tweet that educates us on the true meaning of Luka´s +/- numbers.

I'd love to hear what Bob has to say about Luka's early season performance! I think Bob, with all his awkwardness and "nothing to see here" lack of relational awareness, is an entertaining dude.

(11-09-2021, 11:07 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]The more important question. What is Bob thinking right now. I am waiting for a tweet that educates us on the true meaning of Luka´s +/- numbers.

LOL, I would like to see that.

(11-09-2021, 11:41 AM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]I consider lineup data of the sort compiled by analytics departments a completely separate category of info than raw individual +/-, especially one-game individual +/-. Believe that multiple-player lineup data over a large enough sample can be quite useful in sorting out useful combinations of players, and as far as I know, all 30 teams use it (although, from what I understand, they have their own proprietary adjustments, and rarely make decisions based on raw data.)   

(11-09-2021, 11:54 AM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing individual +/- tells you the truth about is what the point differential was when a particular player was on the floor (or not on the floor, as the case may be). It tells you absolutely nothing about how that player played. Doesn't tell you how many shots he made, how many he missed, whether he rebounded well, how many defensive plays he made, how well he played within the system, how he was progressing in areas of emphasis, anything that a coach would be looking at in evaluating the guy's performance in the game. Not. One. Thing. And Kidd said (I believe, honestly), that if you try to extract the truth about how a guy played by looking at a +/- stat, you're very likely to be misled.  

Maybe I'm wrong to do so, but I typically use +/- to refer to "raw +/- and it's derivitive metrics". In fact, I think I'll change that habit. 

And you may be right that JKidd waits for the math nerds to process the data and present it in various forms before he looks at it. Maybe so. You should ask him!!!

(11-09-2021, 11:54 AM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]It tells you absolutely nothing about how that player played.

It tells you how the TEAM (which includes that player) played/performed when that player was on the court. That is the fact it presents. For instance, The Mavs have been severely outscored this year when Luka has played. They have on the other hand the Mavs have handily outscored their opponents when Luka hasn't played. That is the fact which +/- is telling us and it won't and cannot "lie." It is what it is. Our conclusions beyond that are 100% debatable, but with larger sample sizes our confidence in reaching more conclusions will get higher. 

But we also have lots of other numbers and observations to add to what +/- is telling us. For instance we see Luka shooting 29.5% from three. We see the team as a whole shooting 26.7% on OPEN threes. So for instance we can safely surmise that Luka's -2.5 offensive on/off is partly (mostly?) from Luka shooting poorly himself AND from his teammates missing so many of the open looks he has gotten them.

(11-09-2021, 11:54 AM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]Because he doesn't think it gives him any information he considers reliable.

I could be wrong, but I would bet a lot of money that Kidd thinks that +/- lineup data is in fact reliable and gives useful information that he takes into account as a coach. I cannot imagine any modern coach refusing to look at that data or thinking it doesn't have something to offer. Again, I bet Kidd was protecting his players and also pushing back against knee-jerk interpretations of such numbers. 

One thing I feel like I can be quite certain of: the analytics department guys for the Mavs are not blowing off Luka's +/- numbers so far. I bet they are digging into those numbers trying to make sense of what is going on. Nothing may need to change and things may "correct themselves," but if you care about the team then you don't just watch the Mavs getting outscored by a rate of 10.6 pts when Luka plays and not pause with concern and curiosity.

Would love to see what @"dirkfansince1998" thinks about raw +/- and how useful it is in the hands of us message board folk, or in the hands of a coach. 

I think the following is a legit quesiton, but am willing to be coached up if I'm wrong: Do coaches look at raw +/- or do they wait for the analytics department to gather sufficient data, process the data, and issue reports to the coach and others?

(11-09-2021, 12:39 PM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]Do coaches look at raw +/- or do they wait for the analytics department to gather sufficient data, process the data, and issue reports to the coach and others?

Based on what we know about analytics departments, ALL the numbers are there for the coach to look at if they want. But they are looking at them while having their hand held, so they don't rush to false conclusions. The analytics department will do the leg work, sort through what they deem most important, and then place that in the face of the coach while guiding the coach to certain tentative/contingent conclusions and possible solutions/ways forward.  

It is also important to qualify how we are defining "raw +/-." I would argue that ALL +/- numbers need context and therefore aren't really "raw" when looked at properly. For instance, last night....


I come to you and say, "Luka was -2 last night." You say, "Ok, but did the Mavs win or lose?" You know that if the Mavs lost that -2 might be a pretty good number. But I say, "They won." Now you immediately know that -2 isn't a real good number, BUT the game might have been close. So you say, "Well how many did they win by?" I say, "They won by 16." Immediately everything is different. The number -2 which might have been a good number in a loss, especially a blow out loss becomes very different. You now realize that the Mavs outscored their opponent by 18 points when Luka didn't played versus being outscored by 2 points when Luka played. Then beyond that you could ask about specific lineup variations. "How did Luka do with KP during the game?" You could ask, "Well who were they playing? Who was the star playing opposite of Luka? Who was defending Luka most of the game?" Etc. 

Point is, +/- numbers need to be put in context. But all numbers do.