Slow Starts Not Because of Low Energy... (or How Keith Bogans Is Ruining My Life)

by ryoo.i.85 on Jan 13, 2011 1:45 PM CST

How is it not obvious to everyone alive and that watch the game of basketball that relying on ambiguous and amorphous reasoning like "low energy" is just not true for the Bulls recent struggles on the road versus bad teams? When was the last time a team lost and "low energy" was not a reason behind it? Has anyone ever heard a postgame comment referring to a team having butt loads of energy during a loss? Pointing to this is an easy and idiotic cop out.

The real reason for our slow starts is plainly obvious... We are playing 3 on 5 on offense to start all and every game and this leads to easy hoops for the opposing teams against our D when Booz and Thomas are slowly jogging back during transition. I love Booz, he has been a godsend for our team but his D isn't exactly First Team or Second Team or Third Team (or any Recognized Team). Thomas is a great starting option against certain teams. Teams that have big, back-to-the-basket centers whom Kurt would need to defend one-on-one. At no other times should Kurt be our last of defense. He's solid but there're only so many charges a center can take. And as he can't jump any higher than a new born seal, we don't have anybody contesting layup's and shot's near the basket. Kurt starting against the Celtic's? Brilliant. Kurt starting against Bobcats? Not so brilliant. When the frontline of Kwame Brown and Boris Diaw lead to a 36-22 lead, there's just something really, really wrong going on here. I'm all for consistency and veteran leadership, but I'd rather take the match-ups over it. Starting Taj or even Omer would have been the far more prudent thing to do in my mind. You can't counter pure athleticism with lead-footed skills.

Finally, Bogans... sigh... what more can be said about Mr. Bogans. There really is no more reason to be using Bogans. If he's starting because of his defense (and it can only be for his defense, god help me if Thibs is starting him for any sort of reference to his offensive game... i will have an aneurysm) than why is he not used at any other point in the game as a defensive stopper? If, as Thibs is saying, Bogans brings solid enough defense against the starters of the opposing team, how could he not be put in during the final seconds of a close game to stop the opposing teams last possession? I could be wrong, but I can't recall Bogans being in the game in such a situation. Mind you, this is not what I'm asking for. I would like nothing more than Bogans to become best friends with Scal. They could start taping themselves and create some sort of reality tv buddy comedy. Old, grizzled black guy and a goofy, tall ginger? Yes, please. If you want to keep Brewer as a second unit energy guy and give him the 25+ minutes that he usually gets, I'm actually fine with it. At least start Kyle at the 2 over Bogans. Kyle spaces the floor and from my observations, Kyle has not been that much of a downgrade on D from Bogans. The purpose of basketball is to score more than the other team. Thats the alpha and omega of basketball. You can get to this goal either by stopping them or scoring for us. So in regards to this simple idea, I present to you the following chart:

PLAYER 1	TEAM	+	-	+/-	MIN	+/- /MIN	G

D. Rose	Bulls	2,916	-2,733	183	1396:40	.131	37
K. Korver	Bulls	1,646	-1,472	174	797:17	.218	38
L. Deng	Bulls	3,023	-2,877	146	1485:01	.098	38
C. Boozer	Bulls	1,542	-1,411	131	740:44	.176	23
R. Brewer	Bulls	1,732	-1,655	77	884:37	.087	38
J. Noah	Bulls	1,847	-1,771	76	882:34	.086	24
O. Asik	Bulls	892	-841	51	444:43	.114	38
C. Watson	Bulls	1,007	-958	49	521:32	.093	38
K. Thomas	Bulls	777	-735	42	400:10	.104	19
T. Gibson	Bulls	1,581	-1,543	38	809:17	.046	36
K. Bogans	Bulls	1,374	-1,346	28	671:18	.041	38
J. Johnson	Bulls	255	-235	20	121:44	.164	12
B. Scalabrine	Bulls	171	-173	-2	79:09	-.025	13

I realize the +/- statistic is not exact science. There are matchups to consider, playing against the opposing teams second unit, etc. However, this is so goddang irrefutable that it makes my eyes hurt. Please, please me. Just take out Bogans. Just imagine how easier the offense would flow and the incredibly greater spacing on our end of the floor. Our defense is elite status right now. There is no denying that. We are sixth in Points Allowed, second in D Rating, and first in Schedule Adjusted D-Rating (http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8566). However, our offense is what is holding back our team. We are only average when it comes to any and all offensive numbers. Replacing Bogans 12+ minutes with Korver or Korver/Brewer or Korver/Watson or Brewer/Watson or anything would be a boon to our team overall. This has to be done. And it has to be done now. There just are no more excuses.

On a side note, just imagine the jump in numbers for D.Rose. Instead of kicking out to Bogans, Derrick would be passing to a career 40%+ sniper. Also, how much bigger are those driving lanes and passing lanes going to be when opposing D's can't just leave our 2 guard to trap/double Rose. It just makes sense. I've been giving Thibs the benefit of the doubt because we were winning and I've been on a sort of high not seeing VDN on our sidelines with his bemused/confused face. But it's about time we've moved on with this whole ridiculous Bogans experiment. It was nice while it lasted, but it's over now.

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.

Tweet Comment 71 comments | 11 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I still think the bench bogans brigade is overstated, but props to you for making a reasoned argument...

The catch 22 is that I don’t think Thibs will bench bogans unless the team starts losing more than they have been. It’s an “if it ain’t broke…” kind of thing coupled with a relatively conservative coach. The other thing to consider is the trade deadline and Bogans’ value. If a guy as respected as Thibs gives up on the guy, he must not be worth very much, would be the reasoning. If the goal is to contend deep into the playoffs this year, then an upgrade over any of our current two guards may be indispensable. With that in mind, anything that keeps the perceived value of people like Bogans and Taj high is a good thing.

by DisCUBbobulated on Jan 13, 2011 1:57 PM CST reply actions

It is broke though, that's the point.

7 consecutive games we’ve fallen behind, and we’re not playing world beaters here. It is broken.

The league knows who Keith Bogans is, playing him or benching him isn’t changing his value, this is a veteran, he is what he is. I could buy that argument if it was James Johnson and we were trying to pump him up, but everyone knows what Bogans can do. If anything, playing him is hurting his value, exposing that he has nothing left in the tank.

by Grinder in Training on Jan 13, 2011 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs

Dammit

you stole the title of my autobiography

"I'm broadening my horizons past basketball to vocabulary." - Jeff Van Gundy

by paddyfairview on Jan 13, 2011 2:12 PM CST reply actions

It is bad when your announcers announce that the other team is using a "free safety"

because one of your guys is so bad he doesn’t need to be guarded.

I'm leaning Derkim Nose at the moment.

P.S. It's phonetic

by Jorek Roah or Derkim Nose? on Jan 13, 2011 3:00 PM CST reply actions

from Tyger’s destroyed fanshot, here’s Thibs after the Charlotte game

“Everyone says it’s the last five minutes. No, it’s not. It’s the start of the game. It’s readiness to play. And when you study all the stats, you’ll see that the teams that are leading after the first quarter, there’s a big discrepancy in terms of how much they win.”

BaB on Twitter | BaB on Facebook
"Don't nag, flag!"

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 13, 2011 3:12 PM CST reply actions

i'm speechless

seriously.

"I'm broadening my horizons past basketball to vocabulary." - Jeff Van Gundy

by paddyfairview on Jan 13, 2011 10:36 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

You are my hero for calling out how lame using 'energy' as a catch-all is

I swear, it seems Nick Friedell at ESPNChicago has it automatically put into every post.

BaB on Twitter | BaB on Facebook
"Don't nag, flag!"

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 13, 2011 3:12 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

Would you rather the Bulls show 'energy'?

Or would you rather them show their abilities to ‘thrust’

Bears. Bulls. White Sox.

by The Voiss on Jan 13, 2011 3:42 PM CST up reply actions

I vote for having them "play basketball"

The Miami Heat: Like ants and a magnifying glass. ... OH NO! CHRIS BOSH’S BEAUTIFUL FACE!!!!!!!!

by Prevenge on Jan 13, 2011 7:01 PM CST up reply actions

i have lived a lot of places, and beat writers are not universally bad. this org has a knack for attracting idiots

"I'm broadening my horizons past basketball to vocabulary." - Jeff Van Gundy

by paddyfairview on Jan 13, 2011 10:41 PM CST up reply actions

To be fair

I actually have heard of teams losing because of too much energy. It’s when the term ‘too ramped up’ is used as an excuse, like in Game 3 of the 09 playoffs when they had that ROY ceremony for Rose. I heard a lot of ‘too ramped up’ stuff and how that lead to turnovers and bad play.

Still, your argument makes perfect sense, of course.

Dr. Handsome, D.D.S.; Working feverishly to get a Sensodyne Toothpaste Dispenser next to Derrick Rose's Skittles Machine. He's going to need it!

by Dr. Handsome, D.D.S. on Jan 13, 2011 3:55 PM CST reply actions

This Bogans shit is getting unbearable. I can almost feel my blood pressure rise every time I think about that retard.

eat. sleep. hoop. repeat. become legendary.

by Sir Buckets on Jan 13, 2011 4:23 PM CST reply actions

I didn't open this one for a while

because I thought it was another generic whine about Bogans, and at this point that would be like clicking on a forum complaining that it’s cold outside. However, i’ll admit it’s a first class whine about Bogans.

Interesting that the only people contributing less than Bogans no longer play at all. GarPax has to make a trade simply to save Thibs from himself. Bogans and a 2nd round pick for Anthony Parker.

by runningman on Jan 13, 2011 6:04 PM CST reply actions

Let's also remember that Korver is being used totally wrong.

Like Doug Thonus said, he’s not Ray Allen. He’s not very good at running around screens for 20 seconds of every possession on offense. That explains the bad shooting percentages more than anything. You ask Korver to stand at the 3 point line, shift around from right to left, draw a defender out of the lane, and if he’s shooting off a stand-still movement he’ll drain 53% of the 3s. Not only will Rose play better with Korver, but Korver doesn’t get to play with Rose often—he’ll be far more effective next to Rose, instead of wasting all his minutes running in circles on the baseline while CJ struggles to dribble.

by msquared10 on Jan 13, 2011 6:34 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

That's the problem with Bogans that some people overlook

He’s messing with other things too. It’s not just the 15 minutes he’s on the floor. I blame Korver’s suckage completely on him

Until Keith Bogans is taken out of the starting lineup, it's: Tommy Del Thibo

by Juiceboxjerry on Jan 13, 2011 6:44 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs

I'm gonna be indifferent to losses until this happens

It’s become beyond an annoyance to me at this point, and I cannot completely enjoy this season until it is corected

Until Keith Bogans is taken out of the starting lineup, it's: Tommy Del Thibo

by Juiceboxjerry on Jan 13, 2011 6:42 PM CST reply actions

I almost wouldnt have a problem with bogans starting if it were for only 4 minutes a game...

and even then you would say starting someone to play 8 minutes a game with the first team is idiotic, especially when you have better players on the bench… Thibs really needs to just suck it up and start Korver because we all know we love Brewer’s “energy” off the bench.

Good call on that.

by Basketball on Jan 13, 2011 6:49 PM CST reply actions

Setting aside the Bogans issue...

can anyone explain why a statistic which ‘reveals’ that (a below-form) Kyle Korver is far better than Joakim Noah (who has played the best basketball of his career), should be taken seriously as a metric by which to judge individual players?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 13, 2011 7:11 PM CST reply actions

Korver

Scores in bursts, he is involved in a lot 10-2 runs

Does he deserve mor minutes? Yes with the starters

"I love you, mommy!" - Joakim Noah

by Trey23 on Jan 13, 2011 7:44 PM CST up reply actions

korver will never be a starter IMO

"I'm broadening my horizons past basketball to vocabulary." - Jeff Van Gundy

by paddyfairview on Jan 14, 2011 4:04 PM CST up reply actions

do you realize these metrics aren't all encompassing?

but rather just describe how well players do in a given scenario?

you are reading this as the player is much better when you should really be reading it as the team does much better when this player is on the court with his specific teammates vs his specific opponents.

by Basketball on Jan 13, 2011 7:48 PM CST up reply actions

really?

Then what is the context, or “scenario” in which Korver is vastly more valuable than Noah? Which teammates? Which opponents?

Furthermore, there is no context given with the above chart. So how, exactly, should it be read? What does it mean – if anything – without any context?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 13, 2011 7:54 PM CST up reply actions

His context is

where he is put into games and the role he is asked to perform…. admittedly, I don’t think raw +/- does much unless you are comparing same lineups with replacement player.

But, if I had to guess, if you asked Noah and Korver to come into the game to guard the 3 and provide floor spacing, Korver would be better…

by Basketball on Jan 13, 2011 8:00 PM CST up reply actions

come on...

you can’t be serious! So if Korver was asked to play center, gather offensive rebounds and block shots, then…then…what?

Can anyone else shed the slightest amount of light on the topic?

After all, the original poster used the chart above to produce “goddang irrefutable” evidence that Bogans sucks. So, based on the same metric, are we also to believe that Noah sucks compared to Korver?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 13, 2011 8:10 PM CST up reply actions

I never agreed with the definitive conclusion made by your specific quote.

However, I don’t understand why you are telling me to replace the two, I just told you that it only really makes sense if you look at it if you replace each other in the same lineups in the same situation…

Of course noah and korver wouldn’t replace each other in their roles, I am merely trying to explain to you WHY the numbers are the way they are, this is not irrefutable evidence at all…

But no one on here is really out there posting in a fervor about the awesome evidence presented, most of them are just picking points out they liked about the post and most people have reached their own conclusions that they don’t like bogans starting for 1 reason or another.

I agree, it was misrepresented in the post, but it doesn’t mean the statistic shouldn’t be taken seriously for what it is… blame the interpretation.

by Basketball on Jan 13, 2011 8:27 PM CST up reply actions

Sure, I'll try to shed some light on it.

When Noah was healthy, the Bulls played the toughest schedule in the league. Since Noah got hurt, the Bulls have played the easiest schedule in the league. You should definitely upgrade Noah due to the massive discrepancy in the team’s opponents. These are raw stats that don’t take SOS into account.

Korver has played in all the games against bad teams as well as all the games against good teams. It’s fairer to compare him to Bogans, who has also played in every game, than it would be to compare him to Noah, who has missed much of the easy part of the schedule.

by from the window to luol on Jan 13, 2011 9:03 PM CST up reply actions

Note also that because Korver's devensive problems get exploited much less against good teams [and this is almost entirely conjecture]

but I’d guess he plays less against good teams because of the defense issue.

The Miami Heat: Like ants and a magnifying glass. ... OH NO! CHRIS BOSH’S BEAUTIFUL FACE!!!!!!!!

by Prevenge on Jan 13, 2011 9:20 PM CST up reply actions

The difference is that Korver and Bogans are sharing the same minutes.

If your point is that +/- is flawed, then bravo, you’re right. But we’re not talking about Korver vs. Noah, and we’re not even talking about +/- as an overall judge of player. The reason it is somewhat significant in this case is because Korver and Bogans play with mostly the same players, and are matched up against mostly the same players. Yes, Korver probably benefits from having a greater share of his minutes come against subs, and yes, Bogans probably suffers from having most of his minutes come against starters, but when the gap is as significant as it is in this case, it is probably fair to say that Korver a greater help to the team than Bogans.

Does that answer your question?

by jpm356 on Jan 13, 2011 9:25 PM CST up reply actions

that is...

the most illuminating of the responses, yes. But even if we are to refine a reading of the chart to focus only on players who play similar positions (against similar players, etc.), how do you explain Korver being rated vastly higher than Brewer? Or Gibson being rated so low?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 13, 2011 9:39 PM CST up reply actions

Just not a perfect stat, except in some extreme cases?

Gibson is probably so low because he started and played the bulk of his minutes at the beginning of the season when Boozer was out and the schedule was so tough (which also means Boozer’s numbers are probably artificially high).

As for the Brewer v. Korver thing, you got me. There are probably a ton of factors skewing it that we just can’t really see. I do think though, that completely writing off +/- because it does weird things (similar numbers between Noah and Asik?) is a little short sighted. Maybe instead of attacking it because it rates Korver higher than Brewer we should reconsider what we think about the two of them?

by jpm356 on Jan 14, 2011 1:06 AM CST up reply actions

well...

Korver is a good shooter, though not so much this season, helps to spread the floor, and is a decent passer (at times). Brewer is far more athletic, a much better defender, far more valuable on the break, and demands attention around the basket.

What’s to reconsider? Seriously, is the plus/minus number identifying something subtle? And if so, what?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 14, 2011 9:27 AM CST up reply actions

To be clear, I'm not sure it's actually saying anything, it could be/probably is all just noise.

But if I had to throw some ideas against a wall I’d say that maybe Korver’s spacing is more valuable than we give it credit. Brewer is probably a bit overrated as a defender because he’s long and gets a bunch of steals (he misses jumping lanes a lot, I’ve noticed), and his strength on the fast break isn’t being utilized properly because the Bulls haven’t been fast-breaking much since Noah went down. That’s just a few potential ideas that might be factoring into the +/-.

I was looking at this: http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2010-2011&team=CHI and it’s really interesting and weird that the line we’d all like to see (Rose, Brewer, Deng, Boozer, Noah) is an overall -9.5 on the season. If you sub out Brewer from that line and put in Korver however the line is a +21.

Again, all this is to say that you’re right, the stat is unreliable, but I do think it offers noteworthy information.

by jpm356 on Jan 14, 2011 9:57 AM CST up reply actions

thanks...

for being so reasonable in the parsing of this issue.

I have a tough time taking any statistic seriously when the system produces inexplicable anomalies. Your insights are good, and useful, but how Noah (to use one example) could be rated as low as he is (in the context of other centers around the league) suggests to me that the system has serious flaws.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 14, 2011 10:15 AM CST up reply actions

Most sets of data include outliers

Invalidating the whole set of information because of them is dumb. There are plenty of guys who smoked a pack of cigarettes every day and didn’t get lung cancer.

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jan 14, 2011 11:02 AM CST up reply actions

poor analogy

Smoking and cancer are about probabilities, and no one ever asserted that everyone who smokes will contract the disease. This type of statistic purports to assign a meaningful (numerical) value representing the quality or lack thereof of players. When you find “outliers” – and there are many – in the plus/minus system, such as the Noah example, it raises serious questions about both the methodology, and the reliability of the numbers.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 14, 2011 3:11 PM CST up reply actions

+/- is also about probability

The better a player is, the more likely he is to have a positive +/-, no? But for various reasons, +/- is stochastic, which explains why a player like Joakim Noah can have a lower +/- than Kyle Korver.

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jan 14, 2011 8:47 PM CST up reply actions

great explanation...

which, translated, means that +/- is likely to be an accurate indicator of a player’s relative quality, but sometimes it’s not.

Terrific.

Look, if it is possible for an obviously superior player (e.g. Noah) to be considered far worse than a vastly inferior player (e.g. Korver), then the system is obviously flawed.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 14, 2011 8:56 PM CST up reply actions

Look, let me spell it out for you.

+/- is a statistic that records the difference between how many points a player’s team scores and gives up while he is on the floor. The better a player is, the more likely his team is to score more points than the other team. Thus, +/- can be used to draw conclusions about players’ relative abilities.

However, there a number of factors outside a player’s individual control that can sway +/-, which is why it is possible for an inferior player to have superior +/-. +/- is only flawed insofar as the game of basketball itself is flawed. Just as it is possible for a good team like the Bulls to score fewer points than a bad team like the Philadelphia 76ers, it is also possible for a good player like Joakim Noah to have a lower +/- than a mediocre player like Kyle Korver.

The takeaway from all of this is that +/- is not a completely reliable measure of anything. That doesn’t mean it should be disregarded entirely, however.

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jan 14, 2011 9:05 PM CST up reply actions

ah...

“The takeaway from all of this is that +/- is not a completely reliable measure of anything.”

Well then, be my guest and use it to bolster your arguments in the future. I prefer to remain cautious about accepting this type of ‘advanced’ statistic at face value.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 14, 2011 9:47 PM CST up reply actions

It's fine to be cautious

But ignoring it completely is being close-minded and in this particular instance, +/- merely confirms a conclusion many people already made.

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jan 14, 2011 10:22 PM CST up reply actions

leave...

the straw-man arguments aside.

If +/- is, as you say in your own words, "not a completely reliable measure of anything.", then how on earth can it “confirm” anything?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 15, 2011 7:20 AM CST up reply actions

Because something doesn't have to be completely reliable to be a somewhat useful source of information.

Like it or not, there is no 100% definitive way of proving one player is better than another. All you can do is take every piece of evidence you have, weigh them based on their relative reliabilities, do some actual thinking and go from there. In many cases, the result is that you don’t get a clear-cut answer (I.e. who’s better, Kobe or Lebron?). In other cases you can make a fairly conclusive statement, like Bogans sucks.

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jan 15, 2011 12:44 PM CST up reply actions

my contributions...

on this thread never implied that I was defending Bogans. It is the quality and reliability of the +/- numbers that I have been questioning. And you continue to use straw man arguments: I never said, nor implied that a statistical system must be perfect in order to be useful. The pertinent question is, how can such a system be trusted when the anomalies are so far off base?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 15, 2011 3:21 PM CST up reply actions

I don't think the anomalies are as significant as you do

Besides the Noah thing (who has clearly been affected in this list by his injury, and would likely be 50 points higher had he played in the victories he’s missed), it pretty much reads like I would expect it to in terms of impact.

For arguments sake, let’s assume that Noah has been playing, and his rating is 50 points higher (+126). The list reads as follows: Rose, Korver, Deng, Boozer, Noah, Brewer, Asik, Watson, Thomas, Gibson, Bogans, JJ, Scal.

When you take into account that Gibson has an artificially low rating because he played the bulk of him minutes when our schedule was so tough, the only anomaly seems to be Korver’s ranking so high.

Using Noah (vs. team and especially vs. other centers) as the basis for your argument why +/- minus is untrustworthy is really not fair when you consider his injury and the night and day nature of the Bulls’ schedule so far this season.

by jpm356 on Jan 15, 2011 3:54 PM CST up reply actions

explain to me please...

why Bogans adjusted 1yr +/- on basketballvalue.com is better (i.e. less bad) than those of Deng, Brewer and Gibson.

and why Sefolosha is clearly better than Durant by the same measure…

and how Brandon Bass and Rashard Lewis are better than Dwight Howard…

and why Kobe Bryant is by far the worst on the Lakers, and much worse than Bogans by that metric…

and how Corey Brewer is much better than Kevin Love, who is barely above Wesley Johnson…

etc., etc., etc.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 15, 2011 10:28 PM CST up reply actions

You've defended the decision to start Bogans on numerous occasions...

And you’re seriously starting to overuse the phrase “straw man.”

Getting back to the original topic, you’re looking at +/- in a very black-and-white manner. It’s not as if you have to either blindly accept what +/- tells us or reject it completely. The degree to which it is reliable depends on a number of things, including sample size, whether or not there are obvious extraneous factors, etc. In most cases, there are obvious limitations to how conclusive +/- is, but in this particular instance, nobody has gone farther than saying that +/- is just another indicator of Bogans’ ineptitude. If you find that to be so unreasonable, fine, that’s your opinion. But it’s a pretty stupid one, if you ask me.

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jan 15, 2011 4:44 PM CST up reply actions

Hello??

My very first post on this thread began with:

“Setting aside the Bogans issue…”

Is that so difficult to understand? (That’s a rhetorical question, given your post above.)

Secondly, when you stop using straw man arguments, I’ll be very happy to stop pointing them out.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 15, 2011 10:16 PM CST up reply actions

face value

no statistic can be used in a vacuum at face value. none. not PER, not +/-, not ORating/DRating, none. i was just merely using a tool to solidify a point that is apparent to anyone who as two eyes and a reasonably functioning brain with said eyes having some sort of neural connection to said brain. not many people had used data to argue their points so i used what i believed would be the simplest and most readily available stat to make an argument. its not meant to be some sort of meaning of life debate over.

So it goes.

by ryoo.i.85 on Jan 14, 2011 11:13 PM CST up reply actions

and I...

was merely questioning the value of the tool that you chose.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 15, 2011 7:18 AM CST up reply actions

You may be confusing +/- with adjusted +/-.

This stat (+/-) does not purport to represent the quality of a player. It is a historical record of points scored and points allowed while a player is on the court. There is no complex methodology, any more than points, rebounds, or assists have a methodology. I wouldn’t consider it an advanced stat.

I don’t know why you keep harping on Noah. There are notable reasons why the team’s point differential isn’t particularly great with Noah on the floor thus far. For one, as I stated before, Noah played the difficult part of the schedule and missed most of the easy part. The Bulls as a team have a much better point differential lately because their opponents have been significantly worse. If Noah had been healthy for this easy stretch, undoubtedly his +/- would be better.

Furthermore, although Noah played very well at the start of the year, he was not playing well after the Sacramento game when he got hurt. Those 9 subsequent games make up 37.5% of his total games played. Check out his splits for December versus his first 15 games. He averaged 15.6 points and 13.2 rebounds through 15 games, then 11.4 and 9.2 in the 9 December games when he was playing despite a serious injury. Some of that difference is due to fewer minutes per game, but the majority is decreased performance. His fg% and ft% each fell 4%. Keeping his minutes constant, his rebounding dropped from 13.2 to 10.8.

I agree that Noah is a better player than Korver. That doesn’t mean that +/- has no value. Like any other stat, it should be interpreted in context and understood for what it is.

by from the window to luol on Jan 15, 2011 2:24 AM CST up reply actions

you do...

bring up some reasonable mitigating factors. Not enough, in my view, to explain the vast difference between the two players, but it moves the conversation forward a bit.

Given how modestly he’s played this season. Korver’s high number is perplexing, and raises questions as well.

Of course all stats should be read in context, but serious anomalies demand attention.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 15, 2011 7:17 AM CST up reply actions

Sure I'll give it a shot

With plus/minus, there’s a lot of variance involved, so you have to be really careful when making judgments using it. If two guys have reasonably close plus/minus numbers, you really can’t draw any meaningful conclusions. But when you see a large difference, such as the one between Korver and Bogans, you can infer that one is better than the other. And since the box score statistics also indicate that Korver>Bogans, there’s really only one way you can put two and two together.

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jan 14, 2011 12:33 AM CST up reply actions

the problem with that...

is that, as touched on above, the box scores, and every other measure, clearly show that Noah is a far superior, and far more important player than Korver. So how do you explain the plus/minus showing the opposite?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 14, 2011 9:22 AM CST up reply actions

Statistical variance

Since you didn’t seem to read it the first time.

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jan 14, 2011 10:58 AM CST up reply actions

What!?

You said above that “when you see a large difference, such as the one between Korver and Bogans, you can infer that one is better than the other.”

How the hell do you then explain the fact that using that same set of numbers, Korver is judged to be clearly superior to Noah?

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 14, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions

You seem to be trying to disprove the concept that Korver is better than Bogans.
Do you really believe that Bogans is the better player? In this case +/- coincides with what appears to be obvious, namely that Korver is better. If you’re merely trying to make a philisophical point that +/- alone doesn’t really prove anything, I agree with you on that.

I just think the original poster used a basic stat that backed his opinion. For the most part whether it’s +/-, adjusted +/-, PER, or just the plain old fashioned ‘eye test’, Korver is going to come out ahead. .

News flash: Luol Deng is good...We now return you to your regularly scheduled hating...

by kingles on Jan 15, 2011 4:15 AM CST up reply actions

no...

I’ve clearly been questioning the reliability of the +/- stat, not the conclusion of the Bogans issue.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 15, 2011 3:22 PM CST up reply actions

I guess I was reading that into your arguement.
Have I not seen you argue numerous times on this blog about how Bogans should be the starter? Perhaps i’m confusing you with somebody else. If i’m wrong about that I apologize.

If i’m right about that then my point was that I don’t think you’d have dozens of posts argueing about the uselessness of +/- if it was being used to “prove” something you AGREED with. Therefor your issue would be less with the method of proof and more with the original posters conclusion. that Korver should start.

If he had used say PER to “prove” Korver should start over Bogans, would you have argued as tenaciously against it?

News flash: Luol Deng is good...We now return you to your regularly scheduled hating...

by kingles on Jan 15, 2011 3:58 PM CST up reply actions

I have long argued...

that the Bogans-bashing is over-the-top, and that his negative impact on the team is often wildly overstated. However, that plays no role in my contributions to this thread, as I find that many fans rely too heavily on dubious statistical measures, especially PER and +/-, in order to make or bolster arguments.

Both measures are flawed, as various anomalies reveal.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jan 16, 2011 5:42 PM CST up reply actions

His context is

where he is put into games and the role he is asked to perform…. admittedly, I don’t think raw +/- does much unless you are comparing same lineups with replacement player.

But, if I had to guess, if you asked Noah and Korver to come into the game to guard the 3 and provide floor spacing, Korver would be better…

by Basketball on Jan 13, 2011 7:59 PM CST reply actions

Doin' the damn thing

New information, well-written and it’s well-interpreted. Thanks for that.

At this point, my concern has become less about Bogans, and more that Thibs may be starting him out of stubbornness towards, well, everyone else.

Bloggers, tweeters, reporters, idiots and players all have their opinion on this subject. At this point it feels like most have weighed in. And as the chorus grows louder it may make him less likely to bench Bogans. Thibs has spent way much time pointing out the things Mugsy Bogans does well in his press conferences. Could it be he’s forgotten that it’s a pig he keeps putting lipstick on? I don’t think so. I think it’s to deliver the message that he runs the team and it’s rotations. And personally I can’t blame, nor fault, a first-year head coach wanting to establish his place in the roost.

Call it reverse psychology if you will, but the sooner the second guessing stops, the sooner Thibs can bench him and say that it was his idea.

Meanwhile, we have a starting 2 guard who makes me so mad I refer to him only one way:

Tomorrow’s starting lineup:

Derrick Rose
BOGANS!
Luol Deng
Carlos Boozer
Kurt Thomas

by cubfan1717 on Jan 14, 2011 3:16 AM CST reply actions

People need to chill is still the first half of the season...

Starting Bogans will help preserve the younger players for the playoffs.
And perhaps the 2nd half of the season as well.

I actually could careless that he’s starting. The Bulls are winning more games regardless and we can be humbled at the fact that this bulls team has “options” in regards to filling that SG slot.

Whenever Bogans get injured or regresses even moreso… he can be easily thrown away and his minutes replaced.

by 420man! on Jan 14, 2011 9:03 AM CST reply actions

Bosh?

by chicity773 on Jan 14, 2011 9:49 AM CST up reply actions

i don't think there's been any indication bogans will cease starting when the games become important

moving past the point that resting your YOUNGER players is a bullshit excuse, i think we all suspected bogans’ apparent value as a system guy would have used up its usefulness long before Jan 1st, scal style. we have real reason to worry about this i think.

"I'm broadening my horizons past basketball to vocabulary." - Jeff Van Gundy

by paddyfairview on Jan 14, 2011 4:10 PM CST up reply actions

watev man

Bogan is just cannon fodder.
Of course late in the season I wanted to see Bogans flushed down a toilet as the Bulls prepare for the playoffs.

But for now, its all cool. D.Rose and Boozer tag team can handle the Central Division.

I’d rather see Korver and Brewers minutes increased later in the season than right now. Thats too risky. Injury is the killer of great teams……..

by 420man! on Jan 15, 2011 12:20 AM CST up reply actions

In response to discrepancies to the +/- statistic.

The +/- statistics (as I pointed out immediately afterwards) is not an exact science. It does not measure context which is quite important in a sport where cohesive team play comes into affect more so than in other sports, relatively. However, the sole purpose of introducing this stat was to show the godawful nature of Bogans play versus a possible replacement (i.e. Korver). I excluded including Brewer because Thibs had already mentioned a reasoning for his exclusion from the starting lineup so I made an argument for the next best candidate. That is all. All forms of statistics which are used to analyze human outcomes will have outliers and flaws. It is quite inevitable. Someone please name me a statistic or algorithm that measures greatness, clutchness, mvpness, etc. perfectly. Do so and I will throw you a party. Ecstatically. With an inflatable trampoline castle. The whole shabbang. I bolded the two players I wished to compare so that other confusions would not arise. Just look at those two numbers. The sheer discrepancy between the two was my whole point.

Also, on a side note, Brewer is not that great of a one-on-one defender. He plays passing lanes well and is good during recovery and help defense (the last of which Kyle is excellent with, I might add), but as a one-on-one wing defender, he is not much. There are observations from basketball analysts and numbers that prove this. The reason Kyle works better for the starting unit in my opinion is for his single extraordinary basketball skill of shooting. Our offense works best when Derrick is driving and creating. Be it with isolation, pick and rolls with Boozer, etc. Derrick is arguably our only ball handler (maybe CJ, but when does he ever play with D.Rose). No one else truly creates their own shots in the perimeter. As such creating space for Rose is vital to the success of our offense and Kyle is the single player whom the opponents should fear beyond 23 feet. Besides Booz, Kyle could be the most important piece to a successful D.Rose and, therefore, a successful Bulls offense. This is my opinion, but I think it legitimate.

So it goes.

by ryoo.i.85 on Jan 14, 2011 5:01 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

Thibs = defence

Bogans starts because he is a better defender than Korver. Thibs is a D man … Korver can’t guard quick 2 guards BUT Brewer has a case for his D capabilities!!!

by sharpshooter5 on Jan 18, 2011 4:55 AM CST reply actions