Here comes more (opening night) stats

by Scotter on Nov 1, 2007 11:00 AM CDT

[From the Diaries. Lineups, Lineups, Lineups. -Matt]

The NBA statistical world keeps growing. Having raw +/- in NBA.com boxscores helps. But, a bigger help is Basketball Value taking their +/- numbers to the next step. Not only are they tracking 5 man lineups, but also individual players +/- controlled for pace. They are also calulating on/off rebound rate so we'll be able to see how different players effect the team's rebounding rate. The one downside is that this will be cumlative stats so this will be the only one game snapshot.

But that one game is worth a look. Here's some thoughts. On a per possession basis, Thomas and Wallace stand out even more. The reason for that? Scroll all the way to the right and look at the on/off rebound rates. When they were off the floor the defensive rebounding went crapping. Still a good idea to play Nocioni at PF for all those critical minutes? And when Wallace was off the floor the offensive rebounding dropped from 39.7% to 27.3%. Was it just Gordon going off in the 3rd or did it help having Thomas and Wallace rebounding for most of that run?

The overall ratings suggest Gordon, Wallace, Deng, and Thomas played at least decent, everyone else not so much. And before you say that those positive numbers were all the 3rd quarter, the third quarter makes up less than a 1/3 of Gordon, Deng, and Wallace's floor time. And Duhon was on the floor for 9 1/2 minutes of the 3rd, and it didn't stop him from having an awful +/-.

Alot of the game had to do with lineups. And alot of it is old news. The team played well offensively with the Wallace/Thomas pairing as I expected. The only time Wallace and Thomas were negative was a -4 stretch at the begining of the 2nd quarter when they were playing with Thabo Sefolosha, Chris Duhon, and Kirk Hinrich. I realize foul trouble somewhat forced this lineup, but still. Deng at SG anyone? Again the only time Wallace/Thomas were negative was when Thomas was the 2nd best offensive player on the floor. The 2nd quarter was also pretty much a product of playing combinations of Duhon, Hinrich, and Sefolosha together. This is one of the reaons, Kirk can't be doing the foul trouble thing on a regular basis. It frells up the entire rotation.

Once again sample size is so small it's all nearly meaningless. But when people are focusing on single plays like Noc hitting a 3-pointer, focusing on 4-5 minutes segments seems rather sound, especially when it matches predictions made based on last season's statistics.

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 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I dont understand why cant

Thabo be Gordon's backup and Du be Kirk's backup. It should be that simple!!!

by tyrus4prez on Nov 1, 2007 11:16 AM CDT reply actions

seems like good principal

but Thabo was erratic last night, threw away two passes which fulled NJ's run, hopefully he stil gets PT

Duhon was needed last night as Kirk was in foul trouble, he seemed to play okay

by NY Chicago Fan on Nov 1, 2007 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions

The first half did start that way

But in Skiles' defense Thabo did play awful.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 1, 2007 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions

Thabo did play awful

is THAT what that smell was....?

Is it spring training yet?

by Bluelou on Nov 1, 2007 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions

gah, I forgot to mention

in my random thoughts thing the Duh/Hinrich/Thabo/Tyrus/Wallace lineup that you brought up.

That should never happen. Two of Deng/Hinrich/Gordon/Nocioni (maybe Joe Smith, but I can't say that yet) need to be on the court at all times, or they won't score for shit.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 1, 2007 11:18 AM CDT reply actions

intersting stats

I know we are all pissed Bulls lost last night but I think we need to remember its 82 game season, I would look at these stats again after a few games as every player has a bad night and 1 game stats can be very misleading

once they play a few I think these stats will be useful

by NY Chicago Fan on Nov 1, 2007 11:26 AM CDT reply actions

Read his final paragraph again

(which is succinct and awesome)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 1, 2007 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions

yup

and Sbulls noted the sample size means they don't say anything substantial. Yet could not the resist the allure of basketball and statistics...mmmm.....

by Freethefro on Nov 1, 2007 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions

I love the guy

But I don't see how Wallace was a positive in the game last night, I just don't.

by Option27 on Nov 1, 2007 11:36 AM CDT reply actions

well who would replace him?

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 1, 2007 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions

don't even ask

it's a Gray area.

by hscs on Nov 1, 2007 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions

Smith

''This whole parties out of control!''-Moose

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Nov 1, 2007 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm not saying replace him

I'm just saying that apparently the diary implied that Wallace played well last night. I just didn't see it at all. He looked old and lost so much last night.

I know he had games like this last year so I won't say this is how it's gonna be the whole year but last night in general, you think he played well?

by Option27 on Nov 1, 2007 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions

I said the team played well

Isn't that what it's all about? Wallace didn't have a very good individual numbers game, but the team was much better when he was in the game. That's what +/- is intended to do. Capture the little stuff that might get lost in individual numbers. Wallace setting screens, tipping out offensive rebounds, etc.

by Scotter on Nov 1, 2007 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions

I know very well

about those little things that don't show up on the box sheets. And I usually pointed them out last year when everyone was obsessed with the idea of his numbers declining. I had Ben's back.

But last night, I didn't see any of it. An occasional nice tip or block but rarely seen doing anything productive. I think the +/- stats can be deceiving sometimes, that's all.

by Option27 on Nov 1, 2007 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions

Any word on Noah;s ankle?

I thought his size and energy would have been helpful on the interior last night. And I don't think he would have shot any worse from the field than Ty!

by Freethefro on Nov 1, 2007 11:42 AM CDT reply actions

Normally after one game

I wouldn't even think twice...er...maybe twice, but not anymore than that.

But after last night - honestly - I didn't see anything improved over last season, other than they didn't blow an 18 pt. lead for the second time in one week to the same team and actually caught up and tied the game at the end.

But only to pull the same old crap and lose it in the same old fasion as they would have last year.

So I would ask again - is it the players, or is it the coach?

Is it spring training yet?

by Bluelou on Nov 1, 2007 11:46 AM CDT reply actions

Why do the Bulls ever pass the ball to Wallace?

That seems like one of the easier problems to fix in the offense. Especially in crucial situations late in the game, as occurred last night.

by philosoball on Nov 1, 2007 12:02 PM CDT reply actions

That isn't the problem.

The problem is when they pass Wallace the ball when there is only five left on the shot clock. Wallace can dish it to a cutter or pass it out to the wing effectively if he doesn't have a dwindling shot clock that forces to shoot if a guy is not immediately in position to catch and shoot off his pass.

by cranscape on Nov 1, 2007 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree that passing to him with the clock running

out is sheer madness. However, even with time on the clock, Wallace may be a net minus for the Bulls vis-a-vis a guy like Smith who can do more on offense, including passing. I don't know their assist averages but I would guess Smith's is higher lifetime than Wallace's.

by philosoball on Nov 1, 2007 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Oops. Looked it up. Wallace has a higher assist

average. Although Smith would still be an overall improvement on the offensive side, 12.1 ppg versus 6.6 ppg for Wallace plus no free ability.

by philosoball on Nov 1, 2007 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions

No "free-throw" ability.

by philosoball on Nov 1, 2007 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions

why was he even in on the last play?

I would have sent out an army of shooters. Deng Tyrus(for the put back) Gordon, Smith and I think Gardner should have been active.

''This whole parties out of control!''-Moose

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Nov 1, 2007 12:08 PM CDT reply actions

Who thinks Wallace is getting too much respect.

Wallace is great against certain lumbering centers (Shaq) but his worth is diminished when scoring is at a premium, or if he has to guard a guy with an outside shot. Let's use him situationally instead of assuming he has to be on the floor at all times.

by philosoball on Nov 1, 2007 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions

It's funny.

All this points to exactly what my eyes told me. I didn't need no stinkin' statistics to tell me nothing.

Anyway, Thomas looked bad in taking it to the hoop, but if we're going to forgive Hinrich for half his fouls, why not excuse him for not getting calls. Other than that, he looked pretty darn good. Same with Wallace. I find the inherent racism amusing that Nocioni can get praised for doing the little things like sweating a lot and falling down, while Thomas gets no recognition.

I went over-the-top in my reactions after the game, but I'll stick to what I said in that those two are the perfect complements to the team's "Big 3". There's a lot of people here who need to go re-watch the game and keep their eyes OFF of the ball.

(The only time Wallace looked bad for an extended stretch was when Nocioni was in there. I'm not saying he doesn't have a spot on the team, but if he's not hitting shots at a good pace or taking charges, he becomes pretty useless. When the jump-shooters are cold, it doesn't call for another cold shooter to come in, it begs for someone to grab the missed shots.)

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Nov 1, 2007 12:26 PM CDT reply actions

"I find the inherent racism amusing..."

WHAT?

by alec on Nov 1, 2007 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions

spare us the racism bullshit

it's tired.

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Nov 1, 2007 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Is there a tape...

of the foul calls these last couple years. I don't know what pisses me off more. That the Bulls continue to get screwed on calls like in the 1st quarter when Jefferson slips but Kirk gets called for the foul because he's "there" or that they continue to put themselves in a position to have those fouls called.

I know every team thinks they're getting screwed and the whole Donaghy situation doesn't help but between the Bulls games I watch and all the others it seems the Bulls get more than their fair share of those ticky-tacky could go either way foul calls go against them.

by CubFan81 on Nov 1, 2007 12:29 PM CDT reply actions

I would also like to gather some empirical and

statistical evidence regarding the number of fouls called for and against the Bulls in certain situations.

I have noticed the exact same trend you just identified, but I have always attributed the observation to my partisan, biased perspective. It would be interesting to determine whether the observation is reflected by objective facts.

by 1958ChiTown on Nov 1, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions

seems like Bulls don't get calls

The biggest thing I see is the Bulls don't seem to get the "star" calls - meaning when they (kirk, deng, BenG, tryus) drive to / attack basket and draw a little contact they don't always end up with a whistle ... while guys like VinceC / Kidd on Nets and many other players accross the league draw the whistle with the same contact

some of Kirk's fouls last night were unfortunate / unlucky situations so hard to say much about them, but last year it seemed Kirk did not get a lot of respect from officials

by NY Chicago Fan on Nov 1, 2007 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions

seems like Bulls don't get calls

Agreed.

And Kirk got PICKED on last night....they called fouls on him just for LOOKING like he was gonna foul....

Geesh.

Is it spring training yet?

by Bluelou on Nov 1, 2007 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions

The thing that sticks out to me

is that apparently, BG is Kirk's backup and vice versa. When Kirk went out BG became the point guard and when BG went out Kirk shifted to SG. That strikes me as playing to their weaknesses.

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Nov 1, 2007 12:49 PM CDT reply actions

trick-or-treating last night

so I didn't see the game. (Hscs probably thinks I'm too old to trick-or-treat, but....) About the BG/Kirk thing you mention--I thought that was part of the reason for trying Deng at SG, so Skiles could put him there when he moved BG to the point? Who else did Skiles have on the floor when BG played point?

by alec on Nov 1, 2007 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions

Thabo

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Nov 1, 2007 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Is it unresonable to believe

That the Bulls peaked last year? Can they really get better or will it be more of the same, or possible a decline.

I believe the Ben Wallace signing was this team's undoing.

by vlad001 on Nov 1, 2007 12:56 PM CDT reply actions

7 points 6 rebounds and a block

what $60,000,000 gets you these days

by vlad001 on Nov 1, 2007 12:59 PM CDT reply actions

For crissake

the man is coming off an injury. He's not 100% yet. Let him get healthy and then see what happens.

Racecar spelled backwards is racecar.

by sue369 on Nov 1, 2007 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Here's a tip

Ignore vlad.

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Nov 1, 2007 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions

I know

but sometimes I can't help it. Thanks.

Racecar spelled backwards is racecar.

by sue369 on Nov 1, 2007 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions

If it takes

putting Deng in the deal to get the Kobe trade done, I say DO IT! Yes, everyone around the league loves Luol, but I'd wager there's not a single GM (other than our own fearful leader) who wouldn't trade Deng plus a throw-in (Hinrich? Please?) in a second.

Let's take an objective look at Paxson's track record. It's not so spectacular, folks (unless you mean "spectacular" as in "spectacular blunder"). He traded an Olympian (a real Team USA member--not one who quit the minute it became clear he was about to be cut) for...NOTHING! He had LaMarcus Aldridge in his hands...and gave him away for a player who, at best, seems to be a long-term project.

To be clear, I'm fine with the deal if Kobe can convince the Lakers to accept a player other than Deng, but if Deng it takes, then make it Deng and be done with it.

Oh, let me fit this post to the thread...the Bulls sure could have used some of Kobe's stats last night.

by alec on Nov 1, 2007 2:44 PM CDT reply actions

The deal is

dead. Pax said so today.

Racecar spelled backwards is racecar.

by sue369 on Nov 1, 2007 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions

I wouldn't

bet on that, Sue. I'm sure that part of the reason the Deng and Gordon extensions didn't get done was to leave open the possibility of still getting the deal done--as well as to send a signal to the Lakers not to give up on it.

by alec on Nov 1, 2007 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Read Matt's

new post above this thread.

Racecar spelled backwards is racecar.

by sue369 on Nov 1, 2007 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions

I like to see

the points NJ got in final moments dealt with in +/- somehow. Bulls sent Nets to the line in desperation for several free throws, all of which were made. But this probably evens out (as Bulls get to line when they're up at the end) over the course of the season?

by marionette on Nov 1, 2007 3:02 PM CDT reply actions