A Second Look at Luol

by YaoPau on May 27, 2009 2:30 PM CDT Comment 38 comments

1-year APMs for Bulls players since 2004-2005, along with their overall weighted average:

Name	Minutes09	APM08	Minutes08	APM08	Minutes07	APM07	Minutes06	APM06	Minutes05	APM05	WtAvg
Miller	2100.28	-0.06	2512.87	9.11	1783	3.67	2923	11.07	2089	9.76	7.19
Deng	1627.15	1.42	2128.03	4.2	3072	5.58	2604	7.57	1663	4.29	4.98
Noah	1911.23	3.07	1533.68	4.58							3.74
Rose	2977.2	0.76									0.76
Gordon	2974.18	2.66	2291.23	-8.84	2704	3.03	2482	-0.25	2002	6.83	0.71
Timmy	1230.2	3.51	1939.72	-0.62	2054	2.87	666	-3.86	1940	-5.89	-0.64
Hinrich	1338.48	7.7	2379.62	-3.4	2840	-0.62	2955	-1.7	2800	-1.7	-0.76
Tyrus	2174.83	-7.82	1330.23	4.97	966	0.23					-2.28
Salmons	2959.07	-7.32	2517.02	-7.31	2139	-4.42	2059	-5.47	993	-6.65	-6.32

APM numbers have flaws, mainly their variance from year to year (Gordon from -8.84 to +2.66 and Hinrich from -3.4 to +7.7 overnight), but it's probably not a fluke when a player is consistently positive or negative. Luol's doing something right, and to judge him with just box score statistics and isolation ability is leaving something out.

Luol's team-first mentality makes up for his lack of athleticism/talent

I've been working on a statistical plus minus, and when I use basic stats, my system always underrates the Dengs, Battiers, Stojakovics while overrating the Gordons, Salmons, Durants. And then I saw this article on 82games that shows the effect of a good passing in an offense. They sum it up nicely in this chart:

Touches/Sec	Freq.	FG%	FTA/FGA	TO/FGA	PtsPoss
.01 to .14	25%	.442	.31	.15	92.8
.15 to .24	32%	.441	.27	.13	92.9
.25 to .34	23%	.505	.23	.12	105.6
.35 to .44	7%	.519	.28	.09	114.1
.45+	12%	.585	.55	.14	122.5

So if a possession takes 20 seconds and there are 3 touches (2 passes), that's 3/20=.15 touches/sec for an expected 92.9 offensive rating. If a possession takes 11 seconds and there are 5 touches (.454 touches/sec) the expected rating increases to 122.5.

That doesn't mean it's "pass back and forth a lot then shoot and you'll do better!" but it may mean there's a reason why players who play a team-first offense (high % of shots are assisted, decent passers, few turnovers, move well off the ball) have consistently higher than expected APMs.

Here's a look at the % of Team Field Goals Assisted when Miller, Deng, Gordon, and Salmons have been on vs. off the court in the past three seasons, along with their raw averages:

Name	AST%09on	AST%09off	AST%08on	AST%08off	AST%08on	AST%08off	AvgDiff
Miller	54.9	53.1	54	45	61	52	6.60
Deng	56	54	61	59	60	58	2.00
Gordon	54	59	59	62	58	62	-4.00
Salmons	53.7	54	49	54	55	57	-2.43

The chart leaves a lot out (who plays with who, usage rates) but it gives a general sense of how a single player can affect a team's passing. Looking at the on court vs. off court Team Offensive Ratings the past three years:

Name	ORtgOn09	ORtgOff09	ORtgOn08	ORtgOff08	ORtgOn07	ORtgOff07	AvgDiff
Miller	108.7	105.3	111.1	104.1	108.9	106.3	4.33
Deng	107.5	110.7	107.3	102.7	107.6	101.4	2.53
Gordon	110.2	106.8	105.5	104.7	108	102.2	3.33
Salmons	107.1	105.9	106.5	112	106.6	108.4	-2.03

Gordon is so freakishly talented he seemingly helps the offense despite lowering its AST%. But Miller and Deng may be making up for their lack of talent and athleticism by playing team-first ball. Although it's not like Luol can't do anything on the offensive end...

Luol showed signs of his old self in 2009

I think the tendency is to look at 2009 as a lost season for Luol. It's easy to look at his overall numbers - mainly his .511 TS% and 9.0 AST% - and conclude that he didn't mesh well with Rose. But we forget that he was his old self in January before getting hurt a month later.

Here's Scotter's post reviewing that month. Deng averaged a .568 TS%, 10.5 AST% and 6.4 OREB% - numbers nearly identical to his ones in 2007 - and added a new element to his game: a 21.3 DREB% which topped Noah's and Tyrus's (think how much that would've helped in the Boston series). His raw averages from that month: 17.5ppg, 8.5rpg, 2.3apg on 50.3 FG% (at just 24 years old) remind us why Paxson gave him the big contract.

That said, I don't think Luol's worth $12 million a year. But I also don't think we're helping ourselves by trading him for an expiring contract like Camby's or Shaq's. We bought ourselves a role player for $71 million, but we bought ourselves a damn good one whose game, I think, fits well with Rose, Tyrus, and Noah going forward.

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.

8 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rec'd

but sadly im a Deng fan so..

http://irudey.mybrute.com/
Fun little Time waster!

by Rudey on May 27, 2009 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Great Post as always

You really put in work YauPau. But the only number that counts is the 12 mil he is getting paid and we’re stuck with that unless we trade him. After further review I still say trade him.

by Bullsfanla on May 27, 2009 3:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice analysis... but

The case for trading Deng, I think, is pretty straightforward and not really based on stats. Obviously he really only had one “good” month and several bad ones, but I’d be willing to overlook much more than I’m willing to overlook:

1. His injury issues. This is the elephant in the room, but unfortunately none of us are equipped to know what the truth about is body is. At best, we can assign probabilities of his future based on the facts we know. The facts as I see them are a poor match between his body and his game, a bad injury history, some dissension between him and the team in dealing with it, the fact he’s again going against advice and playing for the UK, and above all the scariness that people who get paid to assess risk looked at his MRIs and decided not to insure his contract.
2. As you concede, he’s overpaid. For a team so cost-conscious, that’s an issue.
3. His general inflexibility in game. Given his slightness and injury history I don’t think we can assume he can play lots of meaningful minutes at the 4 and given his speed and quickness I don’t think he can play lots of meaningful minutes at the 2.
4. And I think in an ideal world, my 3 would have a decent three point stroke and a better handle.
5. Opportunity cost. I tend to think that decent to good 3s are probably the least scarce type of player you need on your team.

BullsTwo

by Sports2 on May 27, 2009 3:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think it comes down to how much you trust the APM numbers

Deng’s as consistently positive as anybody in the league, despite the injuries, and despite the poor shooting. I think if you really trust the numbers, then the opportunity cost of trading Luol for Camby then finding a cheaper replacement doesn’t matter as much. It’s hard to say, especially when the box score stats aren’t eye-popping. Trading him now, though, has its own opportunity cost: the possible increase in Luol’s value if he has a good year next year.

The injury history, I wouldn’t say that’s the elephant in the room (pig in the room?) He’s had a couple issues with his wrist, had a dinged up ankle that I can remember, and then the stress fracture which (from what I’ve heard) heals without increased risk of the same injury. He doesn’t rely on quickness or athleticism to produce, so dings shouldn’t hurt his effectiveness I don’t think.

And I don’t think the Bulls have to be cost-conscious. We have just a handful of players under contract past next season, and if those APM numbers are close to accurate, $12 million for even a +3 player who plays 33mpg isn’t overpaying by much. Factoring APM, box score stats, injuries, and recent play, I’d say he’s worth around $9 million in the near future with the potential to be worth more if he stays healthy. Especially since it gives our Under-24 core of Rose, Tyrus, Noah, Deng a chance to mesh.

by YaoPau on May 27, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's the matter of his uninsurably risky back

No, I agree the Bulls don’t have to be cost-conscious. But the Bulls are cost-conscious, and thus they should be consistently cost conscious.

Deng’s salary for a guy playing to the level he’s played on his better days is perfectly fine. Deng’s salary for a guy consistently missing big chunks of time is a big problem. Whether it’s $9M or $12M doesn’t much matter to me if it’s dead money and he’s either on the bench or grossly ineffective due to injury.

So again, it all comes back to whether you think he’ll stay healthy or not. If he’s healthy, I’ll be tickled pink. If he’s not, he’s a franchise killing boat anchor owed something on the order of $63M over the next five years. Even if we have only a handful of players under contract, we don’t have a good enough team or solid enough salary structure to survive a long-term shitty contract.

My point in this is not that I think Deng has to be traded, but that I think he has to be traded if you have serious questions about his long-run health.

I don’t really trust the numbers, to be honest, but I think you’re pretty wrong a bout the opportunity cost. We basically have the following prossibilities:

Trade him, he’s healthy: We lose value and have to replace him. But my contention is SF is the easiest position to replace.
Trade him, he’s not healthy: Danger avoided.
Don’t trade him, he’s healthy: We’ve got a solid value, who’s certainly a good player, but by your own admission slightly overpaid. If the Bulls get to where I think they could get, he’s probably the 4th best player on a really top flight team. OK, I can live with that.
Don’t trade him, he’s not healthy: We’re screwed.

BullsTwo

by Sports2 on May 28, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is an intense amount of information....

but it’s nice to see, people tend to blast Deng for getting his money and then some….call it Grant Hill syndrome.

by Aisander D on May 27, 2009 3:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The elephant(s)

…in the room are style of play and roster utilization, which both fall to Vinny (and I’d argue Paxson too) and thus are either complete unknowns or complete clusterf*cks for the Bulls.

Players can only be evaluated within context, I think ultimately — that’s one of the shortcomings of basketball stats in general, even sophisticated ones (nice job, btw, YaoPau).

All Paxson has really done (his fatal flaw) is acquire talent without any real rhyme or reason. Too ften, he’s had duplicate pieces or expiring contracts and he had no idea what to turn them into. All Vinny did was throw people on the floor in odd combinations and seemingly without a plan. Combine those two “strategies” and things can get ugly, or, talent can succeed (up to a point) despite the lack of direction.

Luol could be a valuable piece on certain teams (as could Kirk)…our roster is still a mismash without a plan, unfortunately….

by RichKarp on May 27, 2009 4:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

First off, great job, as always.

But there’s one thing I don’t like about stating something based entirely on stats. They may be the only tangible things we can argue with, but they can show things that aren’t true (Rashad McCants, anyone?). While Deng can be a great passer and team player, he just doesn’t contribute that much to an offense. He doesn’t really even get that many assists. I think we need to combine things that we see while watching the games with stats to come up with accurate representations of how good a player is.

Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.

by stupidgenius on May 27, 2009 4:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

"He just doesn't contribute that much to an offense", yet he's consistently had the biggest positive

offensive impact on the team in terms of on/off court stats. If you’re genuinely combining observation with stats then you need to reconcile those two things. And if you don’t account for defense then you’re missing a lot with Deng. According to counterpart PER at 82games, he’s won his matchup every year, and usually by the biggest margin on the team.

There’s value in a guy who doesn’t do anything that really hurts the team, and can score 15-18 points per game, while hardly handling the ball. Salmons may be everything Deng isn’t, but Deng is also everything that Salmons isn’t. Only one of those players has had a consistently positive impact on his team.

by Scotter on May 27, 2009 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I'm not advocating that Salmons replaces Deng, but what does it say when you lose a guy...

…and the team seems to have not missed a beat without you? As a matter of fact, I’d argue that the Bulls played better without Deng. Now this could have coincided with more consistent play from Noah and Thomas down the stretch in addition to the “new blood” injected into the equation when Salmons and Miller got to Chicago. But by the end of the season I don’t recall anyone (other than myself in stating we could really use Deng for depth) clamoring for the return of Deng. I see what YaoPao’s numbers say, but what does this say?

I’ve argued before that despite all the things that people love about Deng, he simply is not an “impact” player. Rose is impact, Gordon is impact. Hell, Tyrus Thomas is impact. Not always a good impact, but you feel his presence on way or another at all times. Much like on the current Lakers team, Lamar Odom is impact. If he has his head in his ass then that impact will likely be negative for the Lakers. But when Odom plays like he did last night, the Lakers are unbeatable! Deng is barely noticeable for long stretches of games and if he’s going to be the Bulls second best player then that simply cannot be the case.

by lexdiamonds0730 on May 28, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Bulls "didn't miss a beat" because they got rid of their junk

Take out Nocioni, Gooden, Hughes, Thabo, Gray and replace them with Salmons, Miller, and Hinrich (who missed 31 games earlier) in a tighter rotation, and obviously the team would be better.

by YaoPau on May 28, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, Brad Miller is awesome - until he's gassed (thanks Vinny).

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on May 28, 2009 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, guys who shouldn't have been playing anyway.

My point being that the Bulls were at their best when playing the 5 guys who had been there from the beginning of the season anyway along with Salmons and Miller. So like I said, the Bulls didn’t miss a beat without Deng.

Although it was a small sample, the Bulls were 2-3 in games where Deng played with the new guys But the Bulls finished a solid 14-8 without Deng and had a strong playoff showing.

by lexdiamonds0730 on May 28, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's my one question about Deng

How does he help Rose? Is he athletic enough to consistently be a factor on the fastbreak. Can he consistently knock down an open 3, which is vital when you have a penetrating PG that demand so much attention? Canaid it before he be a mismatch on the offensive end? He’s been in the league for 4 years and I have yet to see him have great success on the low post.

Said it before, I’ll say it again: Deng is a jumpshooting, non-athletic, injury prone,nsmall foward. Does he play decent defense? Yeah. Does he rebound great at his position? Yes. At this time, those are the only redeeming qualities the guy has.

by Dils on May 28, 2009 10:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

When Deng is good, he's good....not great, but good.

But he doesn’t make his presence felt often enough. And when you’re making $72M over 6 yrs your presence is being felt on the salary cap everyday and it becomes an expectation for you to make your presence felt on the court just as often.

Deng is too often a non-factor and that’s bothersome.

by lexdiamonds0730 on May 28, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's a phenomenal finisher

Deng’s not just a jumpshooter who just stands on the wing waiting for the ball to come. Back in 2006-2007, 39% of Deng’s field goal attempts (almost 6 a game) were in the paint, and he made them at a ridiculous 66.2% rate.

That 66.2% is about as good as you’ll see from a wing player, and it opens up some easy buckets if Rose breaks down the defense then passes to a cutting Deng. Add in that he’s a decent passer that doesn’t turn the ball over, and I think it’s a good fit overall. Obviously I’d like him to develop a 3 point stroke.

by YaoPau on May 28, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"That 66.2% is about as good as you’ll see from a wing player"

hmm…I demand you reconcile this with his lack of confidence and softness and weak sudanese frame.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 28, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Year: % Inside eFG / % Inside eFG
08-09: 34% .600 / 36% .721
07-08: 39% .606 / 28% .690
06-07: 39% .662 / 37% .641
05-06: 38% .627 / 50% .653
04-05: 36% .642 / 46% .694

The Player on the left is Luol Deng. The player on the right is ???

BullsTwo

by Sports2 on May 28, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

heh

I admit I was taking YaoPau’s word on what is ‘as good as you’ll see’. Plus he cherry-picked a bit on the year, clearly.

But I’ll bite! Who?

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 28, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Andre Iguodala

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 28, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That'd be Andre Inguodala

Of course, I could be cherry picking too, he’s just the first guy I thought of as a good finisher.

Doing a quick scan through this season’s stats on 82 games, my guess is Deng is above average, but not spectacular.

To me though, a wing type player is a 2-3 in today’s NBA. A guy like Iggy or Ronnie Brewer (52% .646) or Caron Butler (29% .640).
I look at Deng and still think he’s more of a 3/4 in the mold of Jamison (34% .643) or David West (29% .615) or Josh Smith (53% .650). Just in a stringier, more injury prone body :(

I don’t mean all this Deng negativity to mean I hate Deng and want him gone. I actually like him as a healthy player. It’s just that the health concerns scare me a lot. If the Bulls trade him, I’ll assume it’d because they know there’s a good chance he can’t stay healthy. If the Bulls don’t trade him, I’ll put my faith, if not my full confidence, in the fact he’ll be pretty healthy going forward.

BullsTwo

by Sports2 on May 28, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jesus you guys are nitpicky

66.2% would’ve been 4th among wing players last year (Iguodala, James, Durant). All I said was Deng’s 2007 percentage was “about as good as you’ll see” and suddenly I’m cherry picking years and declaring he’s the best in the game :)

Well, according to the 82games detailed shooting page, only 20 wing players (not including Deng) topped 60% inside last year. Deng’s done that five years straight. Screw off, both of you. I win.

by YaoPau on May 28, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs

awesome

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on May 28, 2009 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the Bulls don't trade him,

it could also be because other teams are scared away by his injury history.

Unfortunately, I’m very skeptical of his abilities on a Bulls squad constructed around Rose.

"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

by bullhockey on May 30, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Deng is a classic example of a guy where stats don't tell the whole story.

This guy simply does not compete every night. He can’t be counted on to consistently perform. All those fancy calculations are fine and dandy but they do not tell you what Luol Deng really is. They don’t guage his impact. Bulls Two has Deng’s numbers right next to Iguodala’s numbers and on paper they don’t look much different. But the impacts that both have couldn’t be more pronounced. Deng just doesn’t make much of a difference on the court. He does many things well but he doesn’t make you know he’s there. He can go an entire quarter and you could wonder if he was even out there. That’d be okay if here were just a regular rotation guy. But he’s pretty much the guy the Bulls staked their future on before that stroke of luck befell them and Derrick Rose fell from the sky into their laps.

Do you guys realize this? That Deng was the MAIN BUILDING BLOCK around which this team was going to be constructed. If you’re going to be that guy then you’d damn sure better play like it.

by lexdiamonds0730 on May 28, 2009 6:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

And yet the Bulls consistently score more points than they give up when Deng is on the floor.

Is Shane Battier an impact player? He can’t create a shot to save his life, but he helps his team win. Try entertaining the notion that an above-average defender and rebounder doesn’t have to score in crunch time to be an asset. The points count the same in the 1st three quarters as the 4th, and rebounding and defense still matter in the 4th. Try entertaining the notion that guys who can get an efficient 16-18 points per game without needing the ball have significant value.

He’s paid like the 3rd best player on a championship team. And that’s a realistic expectation for his play. I’ll take what he was in 06/07. There’s no need for him to be anything more than that to earn his contract.

by Scotter on May 28, 2009 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Shane Battier should be traded.

He doesn’t have “the dog”.

Three things you must know:
-"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
-Pau Gasol: The defense of a seven foot ladder paired with the post presence of Manute Bol.
-Joakim Noah is better than you.

by Prevenge on May 28, 2009 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Any mention of "the dog"

get’s instantly rec’d

by torch on Jun 2, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather have Battier than Deng at this point.

As for Deng being paid like the 3rd best player on a championship team….that would be fine IF THE BULLS WERE A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM!!!! But the truth is he is probably the 3rd best player on a first round of the playoffs team and HE’S THE GUY WITH THE BIGGEST CONTRACT and as such he’s got the biggest bullseye on his back until he either earns that money or the Bulls do win a championship….and he’s the 3rd best player on the team. But tell me Scotter, why can’t he score at crunch time? It’s not like the Bulls couldn’t use it. People beat Ben Gordon up on a daily basis because he’s pretty much had to carry the Bulls down the stretch 4 of the last 5 years because nobody else would step up. You can’t tell me that the Bulls couldn’t use a more assertive Deng down the stretch. Display some of that wonderful skill when the game is on the line. And I don’t give a damn what you say, if you’ve played so much as a pick up game at the YMCA you know that certain guys want no part of the ball when the game is on the line. Deng seems to be one of those guys.

And to your point, yes Battier is an impact player. Nobody on that Houston roster can give Houston what Battier gives them. He’s not impact in the Kobe Bryant mode or even Ben Gordon mode for that matter but he’s an impact player. He’s a defensive specialist, a heady team player and can knock down open 3’s. He also makes about $6.5M/yr. Now if he had a $72M contract then he’d be HIGHLY overrated/overvalued…kind of like Luol Deng is at this point. If Deng made the same money as Battier then you would never hear a bad word out of my mouth about Deng. Not one single, solitary utterance of a negative phrase at any time. But I was on him about 2 years ago though because it was evident to me at that time that the Bulls had decided that Deng was worth more than Gordon. Gordon was the most important player on the Bulls roster since Michael Jordan until Derrick Rose got here, yet Deng and Hinrich got paid. In actuality I don’t have a problem with Hinrich getting what he got because Hinrich plays balls to the wall style basketball. I really don’t wanna see him leave Chicago. But if this same Deng shows up next season then he and his bloated contract can go.

Next season will be year 6 for Luol Deng. Nobody hopes he returns to his 18 and 8 form more than I do. But if he fizzles out again then at some point you guys gotta quit hanging on his nut sac!

by lexdiamonds0730 on May 29, 2009 4:06 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

keep the faith, lex

Nobody hopes he returns to his 18 and 8 form more than I do.

keep the faith.

"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!

by marionette on May 29, 2009 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What if Deng learns to shoot 3s?

The he becomes a spot up shooter who plays good defense, and rebounds very well from the 3 spot. Plus, he can slash a little bit, so defenders can’t camp right in his face.

Would he be worth his contract then?

by tuluse on Jun 8, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Luol Deng

Deng is so soft, what happen to him, does he have any mental toughness at all?

by Calvin X on May 30, 2009 10:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Luol Deng

has the DOG !

"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 30, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs