Statistical +/- for the Bulls 06-07, 07-08, and 08-09 (so far) seasons

by fundamentallysound on Mar 20, 2009 6:44 PM CDT Comment 58 comments

Over the last couple of days I've gotten to work on using Neil Paine's version of Statistical +/- to look at the Bulls so far this year. I shared some of my results in the post on Hollinger's critique of Rose vis-a-vis Brook Lopez when the discussion got somewhat sidetracked. I decided I would take it as an opportunity to make a FanPost about the results and share them all in one place so as not to distract too much from the focus of that discussion (whether or not Derrick deserves the Rookie of the Year).

Methodology:

Using the metric is relatively straightforward. I pulled the Bulls season totals data from basketball-reference.com and put it into an excel spreadsheet. Then, I used the b-r.com data on pace to adjust the numbers and figure out each players' pace adjusted per 40 minute stats. I calculated the relevant statistics for calculating statistical +/- as outlined here by Dan Rosenbaum. The relevant stats are:

PTS - points per 40 minutes
TSA - true shooting attempts per 40 minutes
FTA - free throw attempts per 40 minutes
TA - three point attempts per 40 minutes
AS - assists per 40 minutes
OR - offensive rebounds per 40 minutes
DR - defensive rebounds per 40 minutes
ST - steals per 40 minutes
BK - blocks per 40 minutes
PF - personal fouls per 40 minutes
MPG - minutes per game

True shooting attempts just = FGA+.44*FTA. Then I used the coefficients provided for by Dan Rosenbaum in the previously mentioned link to calculate raw statistical plus minus for offense and defense. After that, I used Neil Paine's method of forcing the Bulls offensive efficiency differential relative to rest of the league and defensive efficiency differential relative to the rest of the league to fit with the numbers. He explains it here to me. So I did this for the Bulls through 69 games this season and posted those results and Scotter and YaoPau mentioned they'd like to see more seasons. Thus far, I've been able to do the 06-07 and 07-08 seasons in addition to the current season.

Results:

Note: OSPM = Offensive Stat. Plus Minus, DSPM = Defensive Stat. Plus Minus, and TSPM = Total Stat Plus Minus

2006-07 Chicago Bulls by Statistical +/-

Player	Minutes	OSPM	DSPM	TSPM
Ben Wallace	2697	-1.10	5.37	4.26
Kirk Hinrich	2839	2.84	0.59	3.43
Luol Deng	3071	0.54	0.98	1.52
Tyrus Thomas	966	-3.68	4.99	1.31
Chris Duhon	1906	0.77	0.33	1.09
Ben Gordon	2704	2.19	-1.32	0.87
Andres Nocioni	1406	-0.49	0.83	0.34
Viktor Khryapa	231	-3.09	2.13	-0.96
Adrian Griffin	585	-2.43	1.42	-1.01
P.J. Brown	1456	-4.21	1.63	-2.57
Mike Sweetney	385	-4.38	1.67	-2.71
Thabo Sefolosha	868	-4.15	0.76	-3.39
Malik Allen	638	-4.00	0.33	-3.67
Andre Barrett	29	-4.68	-2.40	-7.08

2007-08 Chicago Bulls by Statistical +/-

Player	Minutes	OSPM	DSPM	TSPM
Ben Wallace	1627	-2.27	3.48	1.21
Joakim Noah	1534	-1.25	2.30	1.05
Drew Gooden	558	-0.99	1.51	0.51
Kirk Hinrich	2380	0.68	-0.30	0.38
Tyrus Thomas	1330	-2.80	2.52	-0.29
Ben Gordon	2291	1.89	-2.34	-0.46
Chris Duhon	1490	0.22	-1.17	-0.95
Luol Deng	2128	-0.05	-1.08	-1.13
Larry Hughes	810	-0.84	-0.55	-1.38
Joe Smith	1146	-0.85	-0.58	-1.43
Andres Nocioni	2021	-0.76	-0.81	-1.57
Aaron Gray	613	-2.44	0.60	-1.84
Thabo Sefolosha	1436	-2.59	0.70	-1.89
Viktor Khryapa	105	-3.45	0.34	-3.12
Demetris Nichols	30	-4.86	0.04	-4.82
Adrian Griffin	222	-3.58	-1.33	-4.91
Thomas Gardner	45	-2.96	-6.40	-9.36
Cedric Simmons	19	-14.40	-4.95	-19.35
Shannon Brown	22	-18.84	-2.28	-21.12

2008-09 Chicago Bulls by Statistical +/- (through 69 games)

Player	Minutes	OSPM	DSPM	TSPM
B. Miller	385	1.81	0.69	2.50
J. Noah	1554	-0.95	3.12	2.17
K. Hinrich	964	1.37	-0.13	1.25
J. Salmons	519	1.78	-0.59	1.19
Ty. Thomas	1735	-2.45	3.16	0.71
C. Simmons	61	-0.72	1.19	0.47
B. Gordon	2499	2.28	-2.20	0.08
L. Hughes	792	0.36	-0.40	-0.04
L. Deng	1665	-0.84	-0.03	-0.87
D. Gooden	918	-1.57	0.51	-1.06
A. Nocioni	1278	-0.96	-0.21	-1.17
A. Gray	703	-2.67	1.33	-1.34
T. Sefolosha	735	-1.98	0.63	-1.36
L. Hunter	259	-0.64	-0.96	-1.60
D. Rose	2540	0.80	-2.49	-1.69
Ti. Thomas	135	-0.77	-1.52	-2.30
A. Roberson	23	-1.48	-5.69	-7.17
D. Nichols	5	-5.51	-5.40	-10.91
L. Johnson	14	-11.85	-1.61	-13.46

Some quick thoughts:

One thing that jumps out about last season is just how few positive Stat. +/- guys we had and how low the magnitudes were on those positive contributors - Ben Wallace leading the way at 1.21? yikes. Especially when we compare that with 06-07 where there 7 players contributing positively with Ben Wallace again leading the way but this time at a much higher magnitude of +4.26.

Another couple of trends that immediately leap out to me. Luol hasn't had a positive season by Statistical +/- this year or last year, but was a positive in 2006-07. This seems to fit with my subjective notions of last year and this year where Luol hasn't looked nearly as sharp, but doesn't fit with the pure adjusted +/- numbers that Luol put up last year and this year, via 82games.com (07-08: +4.95) and basketballvalue (08-09: +2.11), respectively. What might explain some of the discrepancy is that 82games's Ilardi numbers use data from five years to reduce the noise level, so Deng was still getting credit for his 06-07 season and the seasons prior where he was very good. As far as basketballvalue goes, their estimates are still noisy and as they've gotten less noisy over the course of the year, due to more observations / larger sample size, Luol's adjusted +/- has continued to free-fall from around a +4 to now around a +2 with a 2.8 standard error, so it's certainly within the 95% confidence interval that Deng could be a negative contributor.

Kirk Hinrich ends up looking quite good, which strikes me as strange because it's a boxscore based metric and Kirk never puts up stats that wow anybody. However, it appears that he may be doing things that contribute more than they get credit for traditionally.

Tyrus also ends up looking pretty good and you can really see how great his defense is using this metric. And Jo Noah looks like the beast that I've always believed him to be (bad on O because he doesn't space the floor or score a lot, but great on D).

One last point is that Derrick looks like one of our worst players, but that's actually to be expected. Point guards typically don't do very well by statistical +/- or pure adjusted plus-minus, especially with regards to defense. Further, rookies, as you'd expect, tend to be pretty bad by Stat +/-. In his opening post on using Stat +/- as a predictive tool, Neil Paine wrote:

I also went back and found that the minute-weighted average SPM for all rookies in the lottery era was -2.16, so I assigned that value for every rookie (clearly this understates the value of your O.J. Mayos and Derrick Roses, but I wanted to keep things relatively simple).

So we can see (and Neil even acknowledges Derrick by name), that Derrick's -1.69 Stat. +/- isn't THAT worrisome, because it's better than the average for rookies in the lottery era and because Derrick is playing a position that typically looks pretty poor by this metric. We might even say Derrick is ahead of the curve. Which is certainly a good thing.

Anyway, I'm sure there's plenty more insight to be added by looking at these numbers, but I'll leave that to you all. Those were my initial thoughts based on a quick gloss over the numbers.

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.

10 recs | Comment 58 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: advanced stats, 06-07, bulls, Chicago Bulls

Comments

Great job, thanks for putting the numbers into perspective

Confusion breeds success. If they don't know each other, opponents can't have strategy. GENIUS.

by Ozzie Montana on Mar 20, 2009 6:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Seconded

…especially as to rookies and point guards.

...there's some folks that, if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.

by Envy on Mar 20, 2009 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, just looking at the offensive +/- for Gooden/Noce compared to Miller/Salmons

That just adds even more credit to Paxson’s trade, and it probably saved the Bulls slide into (even further) oblivion.

Confusion breeds success. If they don't know each other, opponents can't have strategy. GENIUS.

by Ozzie Montana on Mar 20, 2009 7:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed. Miller and Salmons have been so so so much better than Gooden and Noce

and it’s been fantastic to have Salmons in there for the 9 games that Deng has been out (where the Bulls have gone 6-3, probably due in part to Vinny’s being forced to shorten his rotation).

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 20, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

for an idea of just how much better the Bulls are with Salmons and Miller versus Gooden and Noc

consider this little thought experiment:

I took the TSPM for Salmons and Miller respectively and multiplied them times the minutes that Noc (for Salmons) and Gooden (for Miller) had played. Then I divided it by the total minutes played through 69 games by all the Bulls in sum and divided by 5 to determine, how different the point differential (and thus the Bulls’ record) would have been, if hypothetically Salmons and Miller had taken the place of Noc and Gooden from the beginning of the season.

What I came out with was that the Bulls would have been an additional 1.872 points better on TSPM. Adding this on to their efficiency differential per 100 possessions and adjusted for the Bulls playing speed (93.2 possessions per game). Then I used the Pythagorean win% formula to determine how many games the Bulls would have won out of the first 69 had they had Salmons instead of Noc and Miller instead of Gooden for the whole year. I came out with a 54% win%, which would be a record of 37-32 thus far. Over an 82 game season that would put them at 44 wins. Going back to the 37-32 record, that record would put them a 1/2 game ahead of the Heat for the 5th seed in the East. If only Pax had been able to make that deal at the beginning of the season!

In any event, the deal was a real coup for the Bulls, but as Sports2 and others have pointed out, if it means losing Ben Gordon, it probably loses a lot of its value.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 21, 2009 1:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does this take into account the decline of Thomas since the trade?

I’m sure it considers his season total, which makes sense. However, if one thinks he played best in the time before the trade when Gooden was out and Nocioni wasn’t playing, but that he’s dropped off since, I think one should apply his numbers since the trade in this exercise since I have little doubt Del Negro would have been using him in the same manner. Has Noah declined a little as well, even if a seemingly insignificant amount?

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Mar 21, 2009 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't take this into account because I hadn't calculated Tyrus's SPM since the trade

and I was just making a relative quick and dirty calculation. What you suggest would be much more accurate, but I just don’t have the time at the moment for that kind of calculation.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 21, 2009 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No problem. I was just curious.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Mar 21, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks again.

I wanted to see what Deng’s SPM numbers looked like at his peak for comparison’s sake. I still think he brings things to the table that don’t show up in the boxscore, but the magnitude of those things have diminished some in my mind because of SPM.

I also wanted a sense of what Noah and Tyrus are bringing to the table in terms of offense/defense splits compared to Ben Wallace. The results make sense. It’s an indication of why Thomas and Noah are so much more important than Gordon, Deng, or Hinrich. They can continue to improve their offense, but you can’t teach guys to make the defensive plays that they make. They’re the one’s that can become difference makers.

by Scotter on Mar 20, 2009 7:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I definitely agree that Noah and Thomas are the most important players (save for Rose)

on the team because of their defensive contributions. It also doesn’t hurt that they are our youngest players so they have the highest room for improvement.

I think that Deng might be able to be lumped in with them because I still think he has a lot of areas he can get better at and even when he’s just doing the things that he’s best at and healthy, he’s a positive contributor, especially on defense.

Gordon is basically what he is at this point. He might be able to get a little bit better on offense, but I doubt it, and I think he’s reached his ceiling in terms of defense, unless he gets put into a better defensive scheme.

Finally, Hinrich plays good defense clearly, and can be a slightly positive offensive contributor, but he’s older than the core group of guys and is best suited to play at the spot as our new franchise player, so he should probably go.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 20, 2009 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the things that stands out is Joe Smith's SPM.

That fits how I thought about him, despite his supposed great play. He felt like Drew Gooden to me without the glaringly obvious dumb plays. They both felt like they had empty stats to me.

by Scotter on Mar 20, 2009 7:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah, I liked Joe because he was a mentor to Tyrus and was a decent player

but his stats do ring kind of hollow when looking through the lens of SPM. His impact was even worse than Gooden’s by SPM, so tough to see how him playing over Tyrus was a productive use of playing time.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 20, 2009 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll second the thoughts on Smith

but the comparison that always stood out to me was that he appeared an obvious downgrade from PJ Brown to me, despite putting up better stats nearly across the board.

I don’t think there’s any statistical measure I know of by which Brown came out looking more useful than Smith, but if I wanted to win a particular game, I’d rather have Brown under most circumstances.

BullsTwo

by Sports2 on Mar 21, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, thanks for taking the time to calculate and post all this

I find it really interesting. And I’ll probably have more to say as I look through it again and take a chance to think about it. For now I’ll just say Kirk doesn’t totally surprise me because he’s pretty solid across multiple statistical categories, in spite of not being spectacular in any. It seems to be reflected in a lot of the composite fantasy-type rankings, too, where he’s tended to rank among the top Bulls (won’t win you a category on his own, but won’t lose it for your either). A composite type ranking that includes a defensive measure (as opposed to PER) should only help him.

I think I was more surprised by Lu ranking fairly low on both. Ben, Tyrus and Joakim living large on one measure and dying on the other seems pretty reasonable. ;)

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Mar 20, 2009 8:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Suspicions confirmed, if you know what I mean

So what should Pax do. Kirk is worth what he’s getting. Deng and BG aren’t worth nearly $10m (Noc and Gooden all over again.) I just don’t know how he would trade that mess for Bosh, etc.

by hlac on Mar 20, 2009 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think in a vacuum Kirk is worth what he's getting.

On this team, it’s a bit of a problem. I know most people tend to think of him as nothing more than a highly overpaid backup on the Bulls – I think a somewhat overpaid glue-type guy is more accurate, but still creates a money problem on the team given the size of his contract, the fact that Derrick is going to continue to start barring a complete and total collapse, and the need to upgrade in other areas. However, I also think Kirk’s contributions to the team will be more missed than a lot of people realize – not that his contributions are irreplaceable, but his strengths happen to be areas that compensate for weaknesses in Derrick’s, Ben’s and John’s games. I actually think Kirk is pretty nearly back, not quite to 06/07, but getting close – how much of that is playing decreased minutes and still being fresh, I don’t know. I also happen to think he’s playing better with Derrick these days, although I think most people made up their minds long ago that pairing wasn’t going to work and would be pissed to go forward with Kirk starting with Derrick next year, even as a stopgap measure heading toward 2010.

Ben, I think, is worth about the same as Kirk in a vacuum. However, to the Bulls, I think he’s probably worth a little more because his position is not blocked by the designated face of the future, and because he has been a reliable scorer where the Bulls don’t have a lot of those. It’s unfortunate for Ben that the state of the team (struggling to make playoffs) and state of the economy (in the crapper) have changed in the years since Kirk signed his contract extension, and I do think it will be tough for him to get as much or more on average than Kirk got. The other problem is the whole defensive thing – I do think he’s improved and can hold his own, but unless Derrick steps his defense way up it could still be a problematic backcourt defensively. If Kirk is still here or has been replaced by another defensive minded guard, I don’t worry so much. There’s also the issue of whether Ben even wants to stay and how much others could offer. I just really don’t want to rehash that whole argument again.

Lu, I just don’t know about. It totally depends on whether the crappy play has all been due to injuries and, if so, whether Lu can get and stay healthy to play consistently like he did in that one really good stretch. I want to think he can, but I certainly wouldn’t bet money on it. If he can’t, his contract is far more of a crisis than Kirk’s, both more expensive and with more years on it. And this is what makes it potentially tough to trade Lu – I’m sure there are teams that would want him, but I’m not sure he’d bring back what the Bulls want/need in return.

So basically, I’m really glad I’m not Pax. I think Kirk is more tradeable than Lu at this point, but I don’t know how he helps Pax get Bosh specifically. And I don’t know how much more Pax would have to throw in with Lu, assuming Toronto would want him. I think Lu and a sign-and-trade Ben for Bosh would be pretty sweet (not that the deal would look exactly like that, but as a starting point), but I’m not holding my breath. And I’m not set on any specific scenario for the summer – there are so many variables that go into whether any potential deal would be good or bad – but I am excited to see what happens!

Sorry, I’m long-winded today – no Bulls basketball to keep me occupied. ;)

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Mar 20, 2009 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

you know, I was of the mind for quite a while that Ben Gordon couldn't be replaced

and that to try to do so with Hinrich alone would be a fool’s errand.

But now that Salmons has come in and been so effective and Hinrich makes up for Derrick’s defensive deficiencies in a lot of ways, I’m not sure that it couldn’t work. I obviously think that holding on to been would be preferable because he is a positive contributor and that losing him for nothing would be a colossal failure by the Bulls. I mean, you have to get something for a guy that productive. You just have to. That being said, I don’t think that Ben’s irreplaceable anymore.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 20, 2009 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

on to Ben*

d’oh!

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 20, 2009 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

These stats should wake Vinny up to utilize TT, Noah and Kirk more when defensive stops are needed in crunch time and the Bulls don't need instant offense. .

I believe one of the main reasons VDN keeps blowing close games down the stretch is because he fears our young bigs will make a game changing mistake and many times it results in our defense leaking like a sieve while being murdered on the glass.

With the Nets and Bobcats winning tonight, the Bulls ability to hold on to the 8th spot is precariously in doubt. If they lose to the Lakers tomorrow, Charlotte will be only 1 win away from drawing even with the Bulls, having played one less game.

If the Bulls somehow keep the game close in the 4th quarter, I hope Vinny doesn’t bring in TiT or go small. Vinny is not going to outsmart Phil Jackson and Larry Brown is in a different league when comparing his coaching smarts to our novice slow learner.

I’m not as in love with Chris Bosch as some Babr’s. If he was such a game changer why are the Raptors so pathetic this year? Some say he plays soft at times although he is great at getting to the line. Although Toronto lost tonight, he concerted 19 of 20 FT’s.

If the Bulls have to give up a bunch of key players and lose Tyrus to get him, I would rather see them go all out for D Wade, Milsap or Kirelinko whose defensive skills and shot blocking abilities could go a long way in making the Bulls a much better defensive team without sacrificing their uptempo pacing.

If we can keep both Tyrus and sign Bosch he could be moved to the 3 and since he does most of his scoring in the high post it would keep the lanes open for D Rose and Salmon (and Luol, if he’s still around).

If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost. You can still call him vile names.
Elbert Hubbard

by Tyrusmancrush on Mar 20, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Salmons replaces Deng.

He seems better as a 3 anyways. I don’t know how effective that slashing will be against faster 2’s.

"You remember the first time you picked up a basketball video game and you had no idea how to run plays, so you just gave the ball to your shooter and you ran around the court aimlessly until a defender was far enough away and then you jacked up a shot? THAT IS LARRY HUGHES!"
-Anonymous fan letter, heylarryhughespleasestoptakingsomanybadshots.com

by Prevenge on Mar 20, 2009 11:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And then there is Deng.

Our SF will be Deng if Salmons moves over and Gordon leaves. What has been so nice lately has been having Salmons skills at the 3. He’d probably do ok at the 2, but our SF limitations will still be there. Some are not bothered by that, but we need to put that into perspective. Deng could very likely have nagging injuries next year too if he doesn’t get to rest over the summer due to his commitments. Then we might end up with a backup guy playing the SF spot for stretches next season, not just backup minutes. So it isn’t just dealing with having Deng as our SF but dealing with NOT having Deng available and having someone else. Who would that be? Hinrich? Tim Thomas? Our draft pick? Maybe they’d shift Salmons over to the three and Hinrich to the 2 with all of his magically dull stats to light the way. That makes me feel ill. We’d have Hunter backing up both Rose and Hinrich? With Deng the way he is it really fortunate we have Salmons, but we are going to lose some depth over the summer.

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Mar 21, 2009 12:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we can trade Deng for basically anything,

I’d say do it and sign Gordon.
Sad that it’s come to that, but …

by Prevenge on Mar 21, 2009 1:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I started thinking in early February, before the trades...

…and I e-mailed Scotter just to see how crazy I was and apparently, I wasn’t, that losing Gordon might be in the best interests of the team long-term. This comes from my belief that Thomas would/could flourish as a 2nd option on offense for a year or two behind Derrick Rose. I was looking at the plus-minus of Hinrich and thinking that while it’d be ugly leading with Rose, Thomas then Deng, followed by Hinrich at SG and Noah, it might actually be effective. Hinrich would still need to be traded and if he tanked statistically as a SG (well, PPG-wise, since that would be all anyone would care about), it might make it hard to trade him eventually.

I think if the Bulls kept Gordon, it would be hard to develop Thomas’s play-making instincts into a more-refined game.

But then the trade happened and they got John Salmons and my post, which is mostly written, has gone to the side. Since he looked to be Gordon’s replacement and is a similar ball-hoggy player, if Gordon leaves, they’ll probably just make Salmons the No 2 option w/ no regards to the future.

FWIW, while I think I appreciated Gordon’s abilities more than most, my main reason for wanting to sign him long-term has been a) he makes the team better in the short-term and b) another team will want a good player, maybe two, for a sign-and-trade for one of the superstars in 2010. Having Gordon and Deng to choose between is better than just having one.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Mar 21, 2009 8:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

(I don't want to imply any of these thoughts are Scotter's, just FYI.)

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Mar 21, 2009 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Getting something for a guy that productive"

Losing BG to Free Agency this Summer will not be the end of the transaction. For example, Detroit traded Billups for AI. From Detroit’s point of view, the trade isn’t over yet because they will let AI go and use the cap space for someone else. When they do that, then the trade will be over for Detroit.

Same for the Bulls. The BG transaction will be over when they use his cap space for another player. How they actually end up doing that has been a source of consternation on these pages.

by hlac on Mar 21, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the bulls will have cap space this summer?

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Mar 21, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn't that assume

that BG was taking up the same space as a guy like AI was taking? BG isn’t signed to a large contract right now. Him leaving isn’t going to eventually reveal a pocket of money to work with.

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Mar 21, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree and I agree

The Bulls won’t have CAP space this summer, and BG doesn’t take the large space AI takes. But one way or another the Bulls will be able to use BG’s current space under the LT to do something-“losing BG this summer for nothing” is not the end of the story. For example, they might be able to take back 125% of the salary they send out in a trade with other pieces and still stay under the LT threshhold.

by hlac on Mar 21, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

For example

Jerome James and Tim Thomas would be enough for Bosh, and Toronto would save about $3M. How plausible is this-not very, but the Bulls would be able to be more creative in making trades.

by hlac on Mar 21, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe if the Bulls included 4 first round picks?

Maybe we can (but probably not)?

by Granny Waiters on Mar 21, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus unprotected. Two from this year and one each every other year.

by hlac on Mar 21, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This has to be one of the best fan posts I've seen. Thanks for putting all this together.

by Reacharounder on Mar 21, 2009 8:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I've always thought BG's "bad" defense was all hype, but I guess the data here supports his reputation

by Reacharounder on Mar 21, 2009 8:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Ben's a bad defender all things considered. He's a worker on defense, but ultimately

and I hate to say this, because it seems to be the conventional wisdom and I’ve always written it off as lazy analysis, but Ben’s lack of size really seems to hurt the Bulls defensively.

He’s just not big enough to prevent guys from easily shooting over him or posting him up (thoughts of Kobe and Ariza taking it to him from the other night jump to mind). Adjusted plus-minus has not been kind to him, and stat plus-minus shows the same trend, so I’m beginning to agree that he’s not all that effective on defense, but it certainly isn’t for a lack of effort. He’s just limited by his genetics.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 23, 2009 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

i tend to agree.

i don’t like the cliche, but there is some truth to it. he does try (most of the time) and if he were taller, he’d be mediocre but at least he could stick a hand in the guy’s face. this way, even if he tries, he can still have guys shoot over him with ease.

"They should. They better. I'm Vinny Del Negro!"

by Jaina on Mar 23, 2009 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rose's +/- doesn't surprises me

Since, in some games, he misses a lot of shots and his assists are not that high. Plus, he’s not defending that well either. So, I was already expecting this. Let’s hope he gets better next year

Great post, by the way. Keep the great work

by bull83 on Mar 21, 2009 8:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd

Thanks FS, I like how consistent the numbers are from year to year, especially defensively where I’d expect more fluctuation with the lack of defensive box score numbers.

I’m interested mostly in Luol’s offensive APM in your system. His OAPM last year was +4.52 while he rated a -.05 in yours. He rated a +1.028 in my system (will post tomorrow), so either we both underestimated him and he really has so many intangibles, or his noise has (by sheer coincidence) overvalued him these past few years.

Either way, your system would’ve been nice to have in Paxson’s hands eight months ago :) Deng at a negative APM the last three seasons seems maybe a tad harsh, but based on my own perceptions it seems closer than the wildly high APMs (with comparably high noise) he’s posted over the same timeframe.

by YaoPau on Mar 21, 2009 6:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah, the SPM system I used, as it was developed by Dan Rosenbaum (the father of adjusted plus-minus as we know it)

was meant to be a noise reducing tool for looking at pure adjusted plus minus. That way you don’t have such high noise levels in a given year, but still can use just data from that particular year, rather than the approach Ilardi used for his numbers from last year which used data from the past five years heavily weighted towards last year to reduce the noise. I’m partial to Rosenbaum’s approach because it utilizes just the data from the given year, but there are arguments for both methods.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 21, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at the defensive numbers from these three years.

06-07 – 12 guys out of 14. All but BG and Andre Barrett were positive in the defensive cat.
07-08 – Only 5 rotation players were in the positive and that includes the players from the trade.
08-09 – Only 6 (if you include Gray and Thabo).

It certainly seems to coincide with what I have seen on the court. This is why I think we could use Avery Johnson. He is a good defensive coach, but he doesn’t kill the offense.

Defense wins championships!

by Unrealcity on Mar 22, 2009 12:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I read a well written article

not that long ago, that said coaching and the coaching scheme influenced defense far more than any other part of the game.

Statistics and watching the game make me believe it’s true. The Bulls players weren’t that great, abilities wise, on defense when Skiles arrived and they didn’t lose all of their abilities when Skiles left. What I don’t understand is why it’s not emphasized and improved on more for the current Bulls team.

Lack of discipline for the players? Lack of knowledge in the coaching staff?

by runningman on Mar 23, 2009 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to go ahead and say it's probably the latter.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 23, 2009 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing that I noticed as I was observing Tyrus's numbers

is that while he’s still a net negative on the offense end, he’s been making steady progress on that end since his rookie season.

His defense has jumped from amazing in his first year, to less amazing, but still good his second year, and has actually improved this year despite the fact that the Bulls don’t appear to have a coherent defensive philosophy.

If Tyrus can continue to improve his offensive effectiveness while maintaining his defensive contributions, he will be much much more valuable.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 23, 2009 1:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Boozer-Milsap effect

I haven’t heard anyone address the weight of starting vs. coming in off the bench on +/- stats. It would seem obvious to me that this with have an effect, but I never hear anyone talk about it. The reason I bring it up is because of an article I read at Espn.com. It insider only, but the relevant passages are quoted below -

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/news/story?id=3973104&addata=2009_insdr_xxx_sce_nba_xxx

“It sounds like a math problem with no solution: How do you add a player with neutral plus/minus and take a team from good to great? But that’s exactly what the Utah Jazz managed to do in ripping off 12 straight wins (before Wednesday night’s loss to the Hawks) to quietly emerge as the NBA’s hottest team.”

"Thankfully, there’s an answer embedded in plus/minus stats, too, and it starts with forward Paul Millsap, Boozer’s backup. The budding third-year big man capably stepped in while Boozer was out, putting up All-Star-caliber numbers as a starter (16.0 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 54.5 percent FG). Even accounting for his increased playing time, Millsap has been more effective this season as a starter. His per-40-minute averages went up in every major category save blocks, including slight improvements from 17.9 points and 11.1 rebounds per 40 minutes as a reserve to 18.6 and 12.0, respectively, when he starts. Millsap’s shooting percentage is also better as a starter.

In terms of team impact, however, Millsap has been much more valuable as a reserve. Pairing him with Andrei Kirilenko has given head coach Jerry Sloan two overqualified players to use off the bench, and the result has been impressive plus/minus numbers for Millsap. In Boozer’s first game back, the Jazz outscored Atlanta by 20 points with Millsap on the floor. The next outing, Utah was plus-19 in Millsap’s 17 minutes of action despite being outscored by eight with Boozer in the lineup.

Add up Millsap’s plus/minus figures from each game along with the season totals provided by 82games.com, and the pattern becomes clear: A healthy Boozer’s biggest contribution to the Jazz this season has been pushing Millsap to the bench role in which both he and the team thrive."

I would be really interested in seeing how +/- stats are effected by whether a player starts or not.

by Basketball Smurf on Mar 23, 2009 4:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It's an issue with raw +/- stats, which only look at how much a team scores and is scored against

That’s why raw +/- is a limited use stat. You need a ton of context for it to have any meaning, it has virtually no correlation to how well a guy plays as an individual (think BG going for 40 on 10/15 shooting but having a -17 for the night), and you can’t compare across teams as it is so dependent on whether a players’ team is good or bad.

Adjusted +/- was intended to compensate for this defect, by accounting for the quality of teammates and opponents. Statistical +/- further incorporates a players’ boxscore stats into his adjusted +/-.

(At least that’s my basic understanding – any of the stats gurus can correct me or add greater detail!)

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Mar 23, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you are correct, sir.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 23, 2009 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

or miss. I'm not sure, your handle leaves it ambiguous.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 23, 2009 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

nice catch

by Scotter on Mar 23, 2009 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is the latter, in fact.

I tend to prefer anonymity to start with on sports blogs – I’ve had far too many experiences in life with people assuming I know nothing about sports because of my sex.

I may in fact know nothing, or very close to it – I just prefer that this be judged on the merits. Plenty of people think I’m an idiot with good reason. :-)

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Mar 23, 2009 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're consistently one of the more informed posters on this site

(despite the Hinrich love, I keed, I keed :-P) so I’d say that any sex-based bias against you has been unfounded.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 23, 2009 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, thanks!

I didn’t mean here, though – don’t want to offend anyone! You just don’t really know till you start posting, so this way there’s a chance to establish some credibility first.

Most of the really crazy experiences have been in person, but there’s not much chance to go anonymously there.

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Mar 23, 2009 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just wear a mask all the time.

When people ask you what you’re doing, say you’re dressing up like Rorschach. Also wear an extremely lumpy coat.

by Prevenge on Mar 23, 2009 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yay, Watchmen reference!

so disappointed with the film version, though. It was so much more disjointed and less coherent than the graphic novel.

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 23, 2009 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was going to see it ...

got free tickets, but they expired the day I tried to go and we were 30 minutes late … they wouldn’t let us into the theater.
It was a good graphic novel though. :D

by Prevenge on Mar 24, 2009 1:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol - I'll try it and let you know how it goes

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Mar 23, 2009 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can make a Youtube video!

by Prevenge on Mar 24, 2009 1:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought this had been talked about before on her.

Not on this post, but plenty of times on Blog-a-bull. I know I’ve been in game threads when someone other than me has shot someone down for using Nocioni’s positive plus-minus stats.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Mar 23, 2009 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I think it's come up before, too.

But it seems like with +/- a lot of times it just gets shot down as a crap statistic with no explanation. And while in one sense that’s generally true, it doesn’t help explain to someone why +/- isn’t saying what they think it’s saying. It just magically started appearing in players’ box scores without much explanation, so it seems like some people assume it’s a valid measure of individual performance.

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Mar 23, 2009 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

while I also tend to ridicule people for using it, there is

something to be said for raw +/-. Yes, it is highly dependent on the lineup and in the small sample size of one game, it is not super useful, but raw +/- has the highest r (.73) with adjusted plus-minus of any other metric, including statistical plus-minus (which has an r of .49 with adjusted plus-minus).

So, net +/- is pretty highly correlated to adjusted plus-minus, so there’s certainly a little bit to it, but on the whole, I agree that in the context of one game it’s useless, and over a season, it’s limited because of teammate effects. Which is incidentally why adjusted plus-minus is so great! :)

Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger

by fundamentallysound on Mar 23, 2009 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs