Certain teams, such as the Mavericks and Rockets, are well-known for utilizing intensive statistical analysis.  I often wonder to what degree the Bulls do so.  

KC Johnson's roundup in the Tribune reveals that they at least know the basics.  (Link here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/chi-23-bulls-bits-chicago-jun23,0,6265337.story)

Board it: Some mock drafts list the Bulls taking Pittsburgh forward DeJuan Blair at No. 16. Though he measured only 6 feet 6 1/2 inches at the pre-draft camp, Forman doesn't sound concerned about a player who averaged 10.7 rebounds in two seasons.

"If you study drafts over the last 15 or 20 years, rebounders rebound," Forman said. "That's a stat that does translate. So I think he's going to be a good player in the NBA." [Emphasis added]

Not quite PER, but the fact that he's aware of this phenomena (which Hollinger and others have pounded home relentlessly over the past few years) comforts me.  Jerry Krause was known to be a heavy tools-based scout at heart, and Forman worked his way up the industry as a scout.  Physical tools certainly have their place, but it's clear that statistical tools can bring a new dimension to scouting.  Paxson obviously has long considered college production a key component, but this confirms that they not only look at individual production, but more broadly analyze what translates.  While this may seem obvious to some, frankly I'm just happy the Bulls aren't falling too far behind.

Is anyone else aware of the Bulls' approach and operations?  They are pretty closeted about their organization, but I wonder how many, if any, stat geeks they employ, and what particular stats and skills Paxson and Forman consider critical.