Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:

TheFuture wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

FNG wrote:
And mikkeman is correct. The Bulls play backwards, with their veteran 2-way players bailing out their young starters night after night. Their starters are much more entertaining, but the reserves win for them, so Zach would and does register better playing with the reserves. It should be noted though that Zach's defensive measures are the worst on the team and maybe the league. The other starters are negative on defense also, but not nearly as much as Zach...and their numbers are punished by being on the court so much with Zach.

Actually playing with Zach improves other starters on-off numbers. So their numbers are definitely not punished by being on court with him.

For example White is only -7.2 when playing with Zach compared to his -10.6 overall. Williams is -4.5 with Zach and -7.9 overall. Carter is -10.4 with Zach and -13.6 overall.

So if they are performing better when they share court with Zach than when they are not, playing with Lavine is actually helping their otherwise woeful numbers.

I am of the idea that plus-minus is the dumbest stat for evaluation. It is mostly based on what the team is accomplishing. I have seen shit players post positives when their team wins, and great players play well in a loss and show up negative. It is a god damn made up click bait.

Made up click bait may be a little extreme.....Keep in mind that unlike other sports, the guy plus-minus is evaluating is 20% of his team's lineup on both offense and defense. In no other team sport does one guy make up 20% of the offense and defense. That's not statistically insignificant.

In addition, there are more advanced versions of +/- that try to control for who the player's team mates are so that it gives a more accurate depiction of the individual's true contributions.

Lastly, the more advanced plus-minus stats might be the only ones that provide some reasonably accurate depiction of a player's defensive contributions, something none of the box-score based stats do well at all. For example, if you had never seen Jaden McDaniels play and only looked at his box-score stats, you would think he was a typical underachieving Wolves rookie.

Well, obviously I agree with this take :) . We are not alone on this board in spending 90% of our time evaluating the offensive stats of a particular player and ignoring their defensive impact (offensive stats are frankly sexier, and much easier to understand), but I also gravitate toward the more comprehensive statistics...especially when the sample size is sufficient, and the results are consistent from year to year. I look at the almost mathematically-impossible but eyetest-matching stat that the Bulls give up 15.8 more points per 100 possessions when Zach is on the court than when he is off (let that stat roll around in your head for a bit...it's truly astonishing), and you almost have to be Zach's agent to conclude that it's not meaningful!

Q mentions McDaniels, and he is a terrific example on the positive side of how the pure box score doesn't reflect his true overall value. Many of us here have marveled at his lateral movement and defensive footwork, as well as his defensive instincts far beyond his experience level, but his contributions just don't always show up in the box score raw stats. But the Wolves give up a team-leading fewer 6.9 points per 100 possessions when Jaden is on the court...a significant result that matches most of our eye tests here. DLO is often a whipping boy here so I'm reluctant to pile on, but since his poor defense is a source of frustration for many of us here, it's relevant to note that he is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Jaden (although not quite as bad as Zach)...the Wolves give up 10.3 more points per 100 possessions when DLO is on the court. Only Juancho comes close to this defensive futility with 8.1 more points per 100 given up. If you just look at Juancho's raw offensive stats at the end of last year (as it appears Rosas must have) compared to other PF's, you might conclude that it might have been appropriate to give him his $7 million at the end of the year...most GM's would be delighted with 13/7.3 on 42% 3-point shooting from their PF. It's his defensive futility that made him not an attractive free agent target for the savvy GMs out there and made his signing a disaster.

FNG wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

TheFuture wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

FNG wrote:
.

.

.

Made up click bait may be a little extreme.....Keep in mind that unlike other sports, the guy plus-minus is evaluating is 20% of his team's lineup on both offense and defense. In no other team sport does one guy make up 20% of the offense and defense. That's not statistically insignificant.

In addition, there are more advanced versions of +/- that try to control for who the player's team mates are so that it gives a more accurate depiction of the individual's true contributions.

Lastly, the more advanced plus-minus stats might be the only ones that provide some reasonably accurate depiction of a player's defensive contributions, something none of the box-score based stats do well at all. For example, if you had never seen Jaden McDaniels play and only looked at his box-score stats, you would think he was a typical underachieving Wolves rookie.

Well, obviously I agree with this take :) . We are not alone on this board in spending 90% of our time evaluating the offensive stats of a particular player and ignoring their defensive impact (offensive stats are frankly sexier, and much easier to understand), but I also gravitate toward the more comprehensive statistics...especially when the sample size is sufficient, and the results are consistent from year to year. I look at the almost mathematically-impossible but eyetest-matching stat that the Bulls give up 15.8 more points per 100 possessions when Zach is on the court than when he is off (let that stat roll around in your head for a bit...it's truly astonishing), and you almost have to be Zach's agent to conclude that it's not meaningful!

Fair enough.

But how do reconcile that stat with other stats? For example, LaVine has 3.7 Win Shares this season... the next guy has 2.3. LaVine has a 1.7 VORP... the next guy has 0.8.

And again... back to my ever-present DeRozan ranting... the Bulls are a surprising 15 - 16 this season with LaVine leading the team with 36 minutes per game despite the Bulls "doing better" with him on the bench.

Obviously, the conflicting stats just muddies the issue more.

WolvesFan21 wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

FNG wrote:
And mikkeman is correct. The Bulls play backwards, with their veteran 2-way players bailing out their young starters night after night. Their starters are much more entertaining, but the reserves win for them, so Zach would and does register better playing with the reserves. It should be noted though that Zach's defensive measures are the worst on the team and maybe the league. The other starters are negative on defense also, but not nearly as much as Zach...and their numbers are punished by being on the court so much with Zach.

Actually playing with Zach improves other starters on-off numbers. So their numbers are definitely not punished by being on court with him.

For example White is only -7.2 when playing with Zach compared to his -10.6 overall. Williams is -4.5 with Zach and -7.9 overall. Carter is -10.4 with Zach and -13.6 overall.

So if they are performing better when they share court with Zach than when they are not, playing with Lavine is actually helping their otherwise woeful numbers.

That makes sense, because Zach is so efficient on offense, comparable to Durant this season it would be hard to imagine that isn't completely helpful to actual wins. I think Zach and Durant or comparable in most stats including win shares. (how much you contribute to actual winning)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2021_advanced.html#advanced_stats::ws

Interesting Lillard and Trae Young or both worse then LaVine on defense DBPM.

Also Ant is second to last in the league in win shares. He has to continue to make improvements because he is clearly hurting the team in the win loss column.

Good points on Young and Lillard, WF. Young is a complete disaster on defense, consistently ranking at the bottom of the league. Lillard's defense is a puzzle to me. Prior to last year his defense actually measured up pretty well. But last year and especially this, his defense has fallen off the cliff. The change in his defensive measures are odd, and actually make me wonder if he is battling some injury.

And no disagreement on Ant. I advocated choosing him as the first pick, but he is clearly not helping us as a 19-year-old.

It probably shouldn't be much of a surprise that as Lillard is tasked with doing more offensively for a depleted Blazers team (30 ppg / 8 apg the past two seasons)... that his defensive intensity has taken a hit.

A couple final comments about some things I noticed at the end of regulation. During the Wolves' two time outs in the final minute, the camera was trained on the Wolves huddle, so we got to see who was in charge. It was interesting to me that Vanterpool controlled the discussion during the time out prior to the Bulls' possession, while Finch was in charge during the time out prior to the Wolves' final possession. If Vanterpool is running the defense, is that a good idea? We haven't exactly had success on that side of the court, and if DV has had some input, some of the substitutions have been questionable in key moments from a defensive perspective.

On the other hand, Finch has a stellar offensive reputation, so it was good to see him calling the shots on the last possession with us down 3. With Towns out and the Bulls focusing on Beas, our potential to hit a game-tying three was low, and I wondered if he instructed Rubio to try to draw the 3 shot foul. Maybe he knew Ricky is talented at this and has done it before when down three late in the game (like last year defended by Beasley for example!) and he may have seen it as our best chance of tying up the game. Who knows. In any event, it was quite the savvy move by Ricky, and cold blooded to make all three free throws to get us to OT (although we all knew it was ill-fated with KAT gone).

One other odd observation. Could any free throw arcs be any more different than Vando's and Rubio's? Vando nearly hits the arena roof, while Rubio has the flattest shot I have ever seen...absolutely no margin for error with Ricky's lack of arc. One might offer the opinion that the optimal free throw arc is the midpoint between Vando and Rubio.

FNG wrote:A couple final comments about some things I noticed at the end of regulation. During the Wolves' two time outs in the final minute, the camera was trained on the Wolves huddle, so we got to see who was in charge. It was interesting to me that Vanterpool controlled the discussion during the time out prior to the Bulls' possession, while Finch was in charge during the time out prior to the Wolves' final possession. If Vanterpool is running the defense, is that a good idea? We haven't exactly had success on that side of the court, and if DV has had some input, some of the substitutions have been questionable in key moments from a defensive perspective.

.

I thought Vanterpool has been running the defense all season?

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

FNG wrote:A couple final comments about some things I noticed at the end of regulation. During the Wolves' two time outs in the final minute, the camera was trained on the Wolves huddle, so we got to see who was in charge. It was interesting to me that Vanterpool controlled the discussion during the time out prior to the Bulls' possession, while Finch was in charge during the time out prior to the Wolves' final possession. If Vanterpool is running the defense, is that a good idea? We haven't exactly had success on that side of the court, and if DV has had some input, some of the substitutions have been questionable in key moments from a defensive perspective.

.

I thought Vanterpool has been running the defense all season?

That's my understanding too. My question was directed more to should he be...we haven't been very successful. Perhaps our lack of defense has more to do with personnel than coaching, as players who are struggling here were also not successful elsewhere (Juancho, Beas, and DLO). But still a new head coach brings the promise of new ideas. We've already seen changes on offense. Maybe on the defensive side too?

FNG wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

FNG wrote:A couple final comments about some things I noticed at the end of regulation. During the Wolves' two time outs in the final minute, the camera was trained on the Wolves huddle, so we got to see who was in charge. It was interesting to me that Vanterpool controlled the discussion during the time out prior to the Bulls' possession, while Finch was in charge during the time out prior to the Wolves' final possession. If Vanterpool is running the defense, is that a good idea? We haven't exactly had success on that side of the court, and if DV has had some input, some of the substitutions have been questionable in key moments from a defensive perspective.

.

I thought Vanterpool has been running the defense all season?

That's my understanding too. My question was directed more to should he be...we haven't been very successful. Perhaps our lack of defense has more to do with personnel than coaching, as players who are struggling here were also not successful elsewhere (Juancho, Beas, and DLO). But still a new head coach brings the promise of new ideas. We've already seen changes on offense. Maybe on the defensive side too?

Ok. Gotcha.

And that might be one of the reasons why he was bypassed for the interim gig.

We've been a bottom 8 or 9 defense for 7 straight years with a variety of defensive gurus in place (Thibs being the most prominent). I believe it's a combination of our losing culture and player personnel that has led to our futility on that side. Thibs goes to the Knicks, and voila!, they leap from the 23rd ranked defense in the league to #3 - they move up 20 spots! Why did his methods work with them and not with the Wolves? And he even had a couple of his key guys in the mix with Taj and Butler!