Interesting stat encapsulation of the Bulls' weakness

by California Al on Jul 12, 2008 9:31 AM CDT Comment 20 comments

Sorry if this is old news for those who spend more time researching the game by the numbers, but I recently surfed my way to 82games.com, This particular ranking of the teams by position seemed to be an accurate predictor of their net result for 2007-2008, and a good expression of what the BaB community expressed in wildly and humorously diverse ways.

We underperformed last year, and should have been one of the marginal playoff teams. We should have been better than 9th worst, but not even close to contending for the title. Look at the teams with the lowest (good) total rankings, and they were the favorites going into the playoffs; finalists, conference, division, etc. In Boston's case, dominant at 3 positions, very good at the other 2. All of the other top 8 teams have a "big three" ranking of 21 or less; Cleveland was the exception, showing that a player being #1 might not indicate just how #1 he really is. Our best "big 3" has a rank of 45.

My takeaway from this was that the Bulls' problems can't be directed simply at your least favorite player, unless you invent a scenario where Pax somehow converts, say, Larry Hughes into LBJ, Kobe, or Howard. They're just not very competitive across the board; look at how far they have to go to get into the ranks of the Denvers and Sixers of the leagues, and those teams still seem to be on the other side of the Grand Canyon from Boston, Detroit, LA and Utah.

No wonder any poster suggestions for how to fix the team gets met with 100 posts why it either won't work or is ludicrously unrealistic. It appears that we're beyond mediocrity at the guards and center, and just ok at the forwards. Hopefully Noah and Rose mature into top 5 rankings at those positions, but that still only makes us marginal. Without citing the particular stats I'd had in mind, I posed this dilemna to HSCS and I liked his response:

Rose is a pretty big upgrade

and the Bulls dropped so far defensively last season that there really isn’t a clear need. Thomas and Noah haven’t played enough, and it will be really hard to upgrade on Deng and Gordon for the amount of time the Bulls could lock them up for.

Well, here's hoping that Rose can "make the players around him better"; a LOT better.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

We're not that bad

Comparing the Bulls’ PER difference at each position from 2008 and 2007.

Position, 2008, 2007

PG: -3.1, +4.7
SG: -2.6, +1.8
SF: +0.2, +3.6
PF: +2.2, +1.7
C: -1.9, -1.8

So there was a big drop off at PG, SG, and SF with the same players in place. We don’t have to change our entire roster for our team to compete… we just need to play as well as we have in the past.

Look at the Lakers, Hornets, and Magic rankings. They basically had one superstar, one complementary piece, and three others who held down the fort. You can get deep into the playoffs with a one-star team and good complementary pieces, and the Bulls may have that in a couple years, starting with Derrick Rose.

by YaoPau on Jul 12, 2008 9:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That's kind of oversimplifying the difference

Add up all of the positional rankings, and LA has us 47 to 89. And in the other two examples, it’s more like an elite star with 2 very good other positions. Our performance was more like one very good, one passable and three very subpar. The Roland rankings painted a similar to worse picture. Seems to indicate that our young team needs to get much better with the staff/contract changes, or our potential best isn’t that exciting.

by California Al on Jul 12, 2008 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Translating 2007 numbers

I realize our PG, SG, and SF were subpar this year, but my point was that in 2007, with the same players, they were very good.

The +4.7 at the PG position in 2007 would’ve ranked 6th in 2008. (I couldnt find the 2007 rankings)
The +1.8 at the SG position in 2007 would’ve ranked 11th in 2008.
The +3.6 at the SF position in 2007 would’ve ranked 5th in 2008.

If our PF and C position can be average next year, and we go back to 2007 form at PG, SG, and SF (certainly possible with a better point guard), our ranks would be 6th, 11th, 5th, 15th, 15th, for a total of 52… pretty close to the Lakers’ 47.

Combine that with our being the youngest team in the league, and it seems our problem isn’t a lack of talent, but a lack of focus/effort. Hopefully the new coaching staff changes that.

by YaoPau on Jul 12, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Definitely worth considering

One has to wonder about the mix of players. I was reading somewhere recently that based on 2003-05 stats that Ben Gordon was an above average defender. So was Tyson. But neither were when the other wasn’t in the game. Go figure.

by California Al on Jul 12, 2008 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That article covered 02-05, but that only included Gordon's rookie year.

It was an early adjusted plus/minus article from Dan Rosenbaum.

Gordon and Tyson Chandler played a lot of minutes together. Looking at 82games lineup data for Gordon and Chandler, it appears that the Bulls played very good defense in the few times when Gordon played without Chandler. When Chandler played without Gordon, the Bulls played pretty poor defense. Statistically, this implies that it is Gordon who is the better defender and thus he is getting the lion’s share of the credit for the good defense played when both were in the game. This does not square with anyone’s perception of who should get credit, but it will be interesting to see if this pattern continues into next season.

by Scotter on Jul 12, 2008 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was the one

but I couldn’t link to the APBR message board to confirm it. So, what’s your take on the 82games’ ranking system?

by California Al on Jul 12, 2008 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The ranking system from this article?

by Scotter on Jul 12, 2008 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes

Your thoughts on the system itself

by California Al on Jul 12, 2008 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's about as good as it gets for measuring defense as long

as you have more than one year of data to work. Especially, if you have all the numbers that he shows in that chart, especially having both Adjusted +/- and Statistical +/-. If you look at the lists, they make sense for the most part. It shows the defensive value of a Jason Collins as well as a guy that racks up blocks and steals like a Josh Smith.

Unfortunately this type of data hasn’t been available since this article was published. The author was hired by the Cleveland Cavaliers so his work left the public. When Eli was getting close to being able to replicate these type of ratings this summer, he was hired by the Rockets. The guys behind Basketball Value are supposed to be improving their work this summer, but who knows how long until they get hired by an NBA team.

by Scotter on Jul 13, 2008 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought I would add that you can tell that

Gordon’s ranking was likely a fluke just by looking at the huge difference between his adjusted +/- of 97 and statistical +/- of 52. His statistical +/- suggests that he’s likely to be a middle of the pack defender.

by Scotter on Jul 13, 2008 1:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are ratings systems like these good predictors?

Or are they chicken v egg arguments? Is there evidence that a team ranks low at each position because they didn’t play well vs the alternative explanation? As an example, assuming the Knicks’ coaching change has optimal results, would they expect significantly better rankings with the same personnel?

Just curious what you feel a GM ought to take away from a report card like this.

by California Al on Jul 14, 2008 7:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think they're as good as anything if they have big enough

sample sizes to work from at least on the defensive end. If the Knicks somehow became a good defensive team it wouldn’t matter as much because adjusted +/- is ranking the players’ impact within their team, not their impact against the league. Eddy Curry would still look like a terrible defender unless the team was actually playing better defense with him on the court.

It was interesting that only adjusted +/- predicted that the Celtics would be as good as they were this year.

by Scotter on Jul 14, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the Bulls actually dropped defensively more than anything else

by hscs on Jul 12, 2008 10:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Causes? Opportunities?

I’m afraid that they overachieved by playing 82 games with an effort that became unsustainable for various reasons. I.E., can you expect that kind of effort from players after 3-4 years of wear and tear, and the general jadedness and complacency of players once they achieve their way past the rookie contracts? It seemed to result in Skiles and B*&$ decrying their “effort” night after night, and benching the players who didn’t “run” down the court.
I agree the current roster can play better. But if you depend on optimal team effort and selfless play, one could probably make that argument for almost every team in the league. Hell, what would the Knicks look like if all that potential played right with 100 effort on both ends?

by California Al on Jul 12, 2008 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But the argument could be made ...

that this is why Paxson is a ‘character guy’, trying to draft for that and talent. I mean … most of the people on the Knicks, no matter what, will NEVER play selfless team ball. Except for Duhon, who came from us. [And a couple of their young guys.] :P

by Prevenge on Jul 12, 2008 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well thats why the basketball gods gaves us the no.1 pick

so we could draft derrick rose and build our whole team around him, thereby making the bulls a whole lot better

by Rose1 on Jul 12, 2008 11:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Really hope you're right

I can really see everyone getting better if he’s the real deal. It’s ironic that he doesn’t do the pick plays very well; those were the plays that had me screaming at the TV last year. Even when the pick was set right and rolled wide open, the pass never came.

by California Al on Jul 12, 2008 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two points

Especially with Hinrich and TT, Noah and Gray.

2nd—doesn’t the above discussion really mean that Pax will stay pat until he figures out what he has.

by hlac on Jul 12, 2008 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just like you could see

everyone getting worse as Hinrich’s PER went from 17 to 13.13 last year.

yikes.

by gman2849 on Jul 14, 2008 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

I would if I were Pax. He knows the value of these players. If the right offer comes today, pull the trigger. If not, wait until the right set of needs materializes and insure he gets value for value. I think Rose pushes our window out 3 years further, 2010 and beyond; so, no rush to dump anyone, or deal with BYC issues unnecessarily.
I can’t see any of their assets depreciating their 2007-8 performances, so moving them later ought to produce better returns.

by California Al on Jul 14, 2008 7:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs