How Good This Bulls Team Is Next Year
by YaoPau on May 19, 2009 4:06 PM CDT
Email
PrintI was anti-Paxson for awhile. His style of acquiring character and experience over talent didn't make sense to me. I looked at the past champions - Jordan, Olajuwon, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Pierce, Garnett...and thought "stars win championships... we need a star!"
Then I started learning more about adjusted plusminus - the stat that takes every lineup every player is in each year, the opponents every one of those lineups faced, and the score differential from each shift, allowing smart people with PhDs to separate each player's value from those of his teammates and opponents - and I realized: stars typically win because stars are just really really good.
How good? Kevin Garnett had a +14.47 adjusted plusminus (APM) last year, which means he's 14.47 points better per 100 possessions than an average NBA player. That's more than Shawn Marion (+3.83), Josh Howard (+3.79), Tracy McGrady (+2.85), Joe Johnson (+2.04), Richard Hamilton (+0.93) and Ray Allen (+0.92)... combined. Surround a true superstar with an average team (think LeBron this year), and you automatically put yourself in contention for a title.
But the Nuggets are in the semifinals this year without a superstar. The Rockets without Yao and McGrady took the Lakers to seven games without a superstar. The Pistons won a championship without a superstar. And it's because those teams have/had plenty of rotation players with a positive APM. Each individual player may only be a +1 or +2, but add 'em up and they compete.
There's been a lot of talk about going balls out for Wade or Bosh in 2010. If we get one of them, great. But I think there's an easier way to get back into contention, and it started with the moves Paxson made this past season. Here's a look at the estimated APMs for our Bulls players this year (estimated using EOPM and fundamentallysound's defensive statistical APM).
| 2008-2009 | % of min | TS% | OREB% | AST% | TOV% | USG% | EOPM | Net Effect | EDPM | Net Effect |
| Gordon | 0.75 | 0.573 | 2 | 15.9 | 11.9 | 25 | 2.00 | 1.50 | -2.20 | -1.65 |
| Rose | 0.75 | 0.516 | 3.7 | 28.8 | 13.3 | 22.6 | 2.11 | 1.58 | -2.49 | -1.87 |
| Tyrus | 0.55 | 0.525 | 7.8 | 5.5 | 13.6 | 19.4 | -1.90 | -1.05 | 3.16 | 1.74 |
| Noah | 0.49 | 0.594 | 14.5 | 8.1 | 15.4 | 12.3 | -0.01 | 0.00 | 3.12 | 1.53 |
| Deng | 0.42 | 0.511 | 5.5 | 9 | 9.6 | 20 | -0.65 | -0.28 | -0.03 | -0.01 |
| Hinrich | 0.34 | 0.551 | 1.4 | 22.7 | 16 | 18.1 | 0.29 | 0.10 | -0.13 | -0.04 |
| Nocioni | 0.32 | 0.547 | 3.1 | 7.4 | 12.7 | 20.1 | -1.12 | -0.36 | -0.21 | -0.07 |
| Salmons | 0.25 | 0.596 | 1.9 | 8.8 | 9.7 | 20.2 | 1.41 | 0.35 | -0.59 | -0.15 |
| Gooden | 0.23 | 0.514 | 10.3 | 7.7 | 12.6 | 21.9 | -0.86 | -0.20 | 0.51 | 0.12 |
| Hughes | 0.20 | 0.525 | 0.9 | 11.9 | 9.5 | 21.4 | -0.07 | -0.01 | -0.40 | -0.08 |
| Miller | 0.19 | 0.574 | 10.3 | 18 | 14.5 | 19.4 | 1.91 | 0.36 | 0.69 | 0.13 |
| Thabo | 0.18 | 0.503 | 4.1 | 13.1 | 16.1 | 14 | -3.16 | -0.57 | 0.63 | 0.11 |
| Gray | 0.18 | 0.508 | 13.5 | 9.6 | 17.2 | 14.5 | -2.72 | -0.49 | 1.33 | 0.24 |
| Hunter | 0.07 | 0.433 | 0.9 | 20.4 | 18.4 | 17.3 | -4.61 | -0.32 | -0.96 | -0.07 |
| Timmy | 0.06 | 0.531 | 3.6 | 7.4 | 9.2 | 19.1 | -0.59 | -0.04 | -1.52 | -0.09 |
| Simmons | 0.02 | 0.515 | 7.6 | 5.4 | 0 | 19.8 | 2.03 | 0.04 | 1.19 | 0.02 |
| Nichols | 0.01 | 0.25 | 0 | 34.2 | 0 | 35.7 | 0.51 | 0.01 | -5.40 | -0.05 |
| Roberson | 0.01 | 0.353 | 10 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 34.9 | -1.81 | -0.02 | -5.69 | -0.06 |
| Linton | 0.01 | 0.409 | 8.2 | 6.9 | 15.4 | 13.8 | -6.43 | -0.06 | -1.61 | -0.02 |
| Exp O: | 0.55 | Exp D: | -0.26 | |||||||
| Actual O | 0.10 | Actual D | -0.40 | |||||||
| Exp Net: | 0.29 |
By taking each player's Estimated Offensive (EOPM) or Defensive (EDPM) Plus Minus and multiplying it by the % of minutes played, we get each player's net effect to our team per 100 possessions over 82 games. According to EOPM, the Bulls should've been +0.55 points per 100 possessions better offensively than league average. They turned out to be +0.10 better, pretty close. (Note: defensively, fundamentallysounds system already adjusts for team defensive rating, so the expected total will always resemble the actual.)
What you'll notice in the chart, though, is almost every negative player (found by adding EOPM and EDPM) from the 2007-2008 Bulls is gone.
Nocioni (-1.33), Gooden (-0.35), Hughes (-0.47), and Thabo (-2.53) were all shipped out at the deadline, Gordon (-0.20) likely won't be re-signed, and Gray (-1.39), Hunter (-5.57), Roberson (-7.50), and Linton Johnson (-8.04) likely won't be in the rotation next year. Maybe Pax is looking at this APM stuff too?
We have eight rotation players coming back. Adjusting their % of minutes so they add up to 90% instead of the current 65%, and adjusting their USG% so they average 20%, here's our team for next season:
(Edit: The formatting below got screwed up, but it comes out to +4.13 for next season, or around a 50-win team. That's before the final 10% of minutes are accounted for, but it's also before adjusting for improvements from Rose, Tyrus, and Noah. The second half later in the week.)
| 2008-2009 | % of min | TS% | OREB% | AST% | TOV% | USG% | EOPM | Net Effect | EDPM | Net Effect |
| Rose | 0.75 | 0.516 | 3.7 | 28.8 | 13.3 | 25 | 2.43 | 1.83 | -2.49 | -1.87 |
| Tyrus | 0.60 | 0.525 | 7.8 | 5.5 | 13.6 | 20 | -1.82 | -1.09 | 3.16 | 1.90 |
| Noah | 0.65 | 0.594 | 14.5 | 8.1 | 15.4 | 14 | 0.22 | 0.15 | 3.12 | 2.03 |
| Deng | 0.65 | 0.511 | 5.5 | 9 | 9.6 | 22 | -0.38 | -0.25 | -0.03 | -0.02 |
| Hinrich | 0.50 | 0.551 | 1.4 | 22.7 | 16 | 19 | 0.42 | 0.21 | -0.13 | -0.07 |
| Salmons | 0.70 | 0.596 | 1.9 | 8.8 | 9.7 | 22 | 1.66 | 1.16 | -0.59 | -0.41 |
| Miller | 0.45 | 0.574 | 10.3 | 18 | 14.5 | 17 | 1.59 | 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.31 |
| Timmy | 0.20 | 0.531 | 3.6 | 7.4 | 9.2 | 18 | -0.74 | -0.15 | -1.52 | -0.30 |
| % of min: | 0.90 | Exp O: | 2.56 | Exp D: | 1.57 | |||||
| Actual O | ? |
Actual D |
? |
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.
33 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd really like to see the whole table.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
There's a character limit on each post
and I think when I copy and paste excels in it accounts for a shit-ton of characters. I wrote the second half up and I lost it all when I clicked save. I’ll re-write the rest after I finish moaning.
could you also
add a player into the tables from another team and see how they would affect the outcome? For example, say the bulls were to trade hinrich for blake and outlaw, could you add those players and take hinrich out and predict expected offense/defense for next year? Or how about doing the same with bosh and taking out tyrus thomas (and gordon). Or would that just contain too many variables too give you any realistically expected numbers?
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!
Are you just writing in the intro paragraph section?
If you use the Entry Body section as well I don’t think there’s a character limit. I’ve written some really long fan posts.
now, dammit now!!!
;-P
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Did you change from "Narrow" to "Wide"?
Worked for me. (Look in the box to the right of the thread title.)
"Whoever was responsible for pulling that offer [to Ben Gordon] off the table...bring him before me and I'll punch him right in the face " - Frederick Pfeiffer
by Granny Waiters on May 20, 2009 5:07 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Can we accurately predict things
when the roles on the team will change (like players playing different positions – aka Salmons at SG or Rose getting more double teams since he will be our #1 option), and other uncertainties (Deng)?
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.
You're right, but
I think YaoPau is doing the best he can given the available information. But it’s more fun to think that everything will go smoothly and we’ll have an awesome season.
This is probably as accurate as anything that can be done relatively easily statistically.
In this specific case I don’t think the role changes are that big of a deal. These are the numbers I’ve had in my head when I was writing about just letting Gordon walk, and then making big changes in the summer of 2010.
I'm still up in the air about Gordon.
I’d rather they sign him because I think it facilitates a sign-and-trade better, and I think he’s the only besides Hinrich that I have confident in being a good 3-pt shooter next year. But Rose, Gordon and Salmons on the same team and no trade of Thomas will absolutely ruin whatever little value he has left, as he won’t get any better playing the same role as he did this year. If they re-sign Gordon, they should trade Tyrus Thomas, and I don’t think that’s a net win in any form.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
You are right,
Deng is an uncertainty.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
Great post, YaoPau
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
Umm.. the Nuggets have Billups…not a true star but Finals MVP and someone who’s been an All-star numerous times.
Umm.. the Nuggets have Billups…not a true star but Finals MVP and someone who’s been an All-star numerous times.And Carmelo Anthony who is just short of being a true superstar….still young and a 23+ ppg scorer who is just starting to become more well-rounded and a top 5 SF in the whole league.
You're getting way to caught up in the example and missing the point.
The point of the post is that the existing players on the roster have the potential to win 50 games next season. Which is perfectly reasonable for a team with 7 starting caliber players if they all stayed healthy. Denver was a +4 team this year, but they had a ton of a lot of missed time by their best players. This post wasn’t an argument that the Bulls=Denver,
Just like Denver, until we commit to playing all out team D, we are going nowhere. Yes there’s a lot of talent on the Bulls, this is something everyone knows. If we even just become average on D, then this is for sure a 45-48 win team. It all boils down to defense and whether the coaching staff will commit to teaching it and whether the players buy in to practicing it every single day. That is the key not BG leaving or what to do with Hinrich…
nailed it, it's all about defense, can we interview thibbs from the celts?
Chicago: Where Derrick Rose happens
by Juan dela Cruz on May 21, 2009 5:32 AM CDT up reply actions
I'll definitely agree with one thing I "observed" but never decided to check statistically...
These teams without that true superstar that seem to do well, they just don’t have any bad players in their rotation. As you said, their best players may only be +3, +5 and +7 guys, but their end-of-the-rotation guys are all right around average. They don’t have someone that’s -7 getting 35 mpg.
If you think that this year for Thomas was an aberration as I do (his 1-year APM was -7.82 but his 2-year APM was -1.80), if he at least gets back to NET 0.0, John Salmons will be the only real drain on the team. Of course, he’s a horrible drain, and he’ll probably average 30 mpg. My ideal situation is that he sees only 15-20 behind Luol at SF (Gordon and Hinrich splitting SG) unless Luol gets hurt. I really wish it weren’t Hinrich or Gordon but rather Gordon or Salmons.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
the Bulls should really deal Salmons because he has value around the league. Even the Spurs wanted him from the Kings.
There should be other teams around the league still interested and the Bulls could conceivably get something of value for him.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on May 21, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
The Spurs would kill for Salmons, too bad they have nothing of value
Unless you think Tiago Splitter is going to be a good player.
That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT
by Ozzie Montana on May 21, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions
john salmons
loved by spurs, hated by tyger.
spurs: play in western conference with/against salmons. multiple nba championships. tyger: posts comments on blogabull. multiple identical posts.
hmmm….
"As a basketball player gordon is a useless as tits on a a whore" - BigWay (Dec 2, 2008). BigWank, I'll miss you more than all the others. This song is for you, my brother!
If Salmons at 0.82 should get 15-20 mpg under this philosophy
how much time should BG get at -0.2? Also, if the Bulls keep him, how much should he be paid?
I hav no idea what numbers you're citing.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
That's the whole thing with Gordon
The numbers say he shouldn’t be re-signed. We remember his brilliance late in games, but he does little else. In theory, with a better SG we wouldn’t need to be bailed out by a Gordon buzzer-beater. Instead, we’d be up 1 with the ball.
Another thought
What if VDN and BG are cut from the same cloth and made for each other-heaven help us.
What numbers are these?
Gordon had a good APM this year and was near identical in the playoffs. That hardly be said for anyone else in the league. It’s like everyone but Yao Ming and Kobe Bryant took a hit on their APM come playoff time. And Ben Gordon.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
As much as I like the idea behind basketballvalue
Those numbers are basically useless. Gordon’s standard error (3.71) was higher than his APM (2.54), meaning there’s a 68% chance his actual APM is somewhere between -1.2 and 6.2… eesh.
The only APM numbers I can mostly trust are the 5-year APMs posted after last season. Gordon ranks at -3.37, which seems low, but to expect him to be significantly higher than +0 is optimistic.
I completely disagree.
A) Five years is too long for attempting predictive value, especially at the beginning of a player’s career. Baseball studies have settled in around 3 years. Five years might be good reduce noise for how good a player has actually been, but to use something that happened 4 years ago as any weight into guesstimating how a player might do is illogical. The NBA has changed, so too, almost certainly, has the player.
B) This is especially true when 4 years back (now 5!) includes a 21-year-old rookie guard. Guards typically struggle coming into the league, usually for a few years. Using those first few years in evaluating what a player going into his peak doesn’t make sense to me.
C) On Gordon specifically, he had a bad year last year, which those APM numbers are most-weighted towards. I’d first wait to see how it turns out after this season (I’d guess right around zero, maybe a little less), then I’d still ignore the first two seasons. At ages 23, 24 & 25, Gordon has had 1 very good season, 1 good season and one slightly above-average season. I honestly don’t understand how someone thinks including an age 21 rookie season into trying to figure out what a 26 year old is going to do is a good idea.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Well, those 5-year APMs weight 2007-2008 the most, 2006-2007 less, and so on
so 5 years ago has a very low weight, but does its job to reduce noise.
It’s the high noise levels that I have a problem with. The other side of the coin of the Gordon example I gave above is that there’s a 32% chance Ben Gordon’s actual APM this year was below -1.2 or above +6.2. There’s really nothing to gather from 1 year of APM data, especially since it fluctuates so much from year to year. The baseball analogy doesn’t hold up because baseball is an individual game.
I know it is.
You’re using past performance based on statistical data to attempt to predict future performance of an athlete. That’s why it’s an okay analogy.
But, pointing out that it’s a team game, and that the team has changed so drastically over five years, that shows how ridiculous it is to weight something from five years ago. No matter how little weight you give it.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
