Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
58,359 Posts
Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
Points per game, rebounds per game and assists per game

Bulls 89.2 43.4 21.8
Opponents 95.3 43.7 23.4
True, but up until last nights game, since the trade, 88.1 pts a game, allow 89.83. Assists? 22.5 oppon.? 22.4, (that is since the trade)

Before trade, first 16 games, 90.187 a game. Allowed, 101.06.
Assists? 21.19, oppon.? 25.13 assists.

Rebounds?
before trade, 41.1 (10.75 offensive) oppon? 44.7 rebounds. (12/63 offensive)

After trade, 45.6 rebounds, (14.9 offensive) oppon? 44.2 rebounds, (11.1 offensive)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
The improvement has been a LOT larger than I thought, I'll be first to admit. Is it Skiles or the swap of AD and JYD for Marshall and Davis... or is it CHRIS JEFFRIES?

I don't know really... probably all of the above.


I CANNOT STOP POSTING TODAY, IT'S A DISEASE!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,975 Posts
Re: Re: Bulls Stats

Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!


True, but up until last nights game, since the trade, 88.1 pts a game, allow 89.83. Assists? 22.5 oppon.? 22.4, (that is since the trade)

Before trade, first 16 games, 90.187 a game. Allowed, 101.06.
Assists? 21.19, oppon.? 25.13 assists.

Rebounds?
before trade, 41.1 (10.75 offensive) oppon? 44.7 rebounds. (12/63 offensive)

After trade, 45.6 rebounds, (14.9 offensive) oppon? 44.2 rebounds, (11.1 offensive)
You choose to measure from some arbitrary point in time, like the trade. How about our stats since Curry has returned, for example?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Bulls Stats

Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
You choose to measure from some arbitrary point in time, like the trade. How about our stats since Curry has returned, for example?
How is "since the trade" any less arbitrary than "since Curry returned?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,073 Posts
Re: Re: Bulls Stats

Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!


True, but up until last nights game, since the trade, 88.1 pts a game, allow 89.83. Assists? 22.5 oppon.? 22.4, (that is since the trade)

Before trade, first 16 games, 90.187 a game. Allowed, 101.06.
Assists? 21.19, oppon.? 25.13 assists.

Rebounds?
before trade, 41.1 (10.75 offensive) oppon? 44.7 rebounds. (12/63 offensive)

After trade, 45.6 rebounds, (14.9 offensive) oppon? 44.2 rebounds, (11.1 offensive)
thats a big improvement and its thanks to both - trade and Skiles!

we're still a terrible team and need a big change,but with the players he's got available (not many) i think skiles is doing a good job.
 

·
I never slice.
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
The improvement has been a LOT larger than I thought, I'll be first to admit. Is it Skiles or the swap of AD and JYD for Marshall and Davis...
I have no problem with Skiles-- he's doing a capable job, IMHO. But clearly the primary difference in the Bulls play is due to the trade. The change in play occured immediately-- far too soon for the coach to have had such a significant impact. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Bulls would be even better at this point in time if they had made the trade and kept Cartwright.

The main change is defensively-- trading Rose for JYD and AD is clearly going to improve a team's defense. And vice-versa for Toronto-- I believe their defensive stats are way down since the trade.
 

·
Is not afraid of shadows!
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bulls Stats

Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!


It isn't. But if you find the "since the trade" aribitrary data points interesting, then the "since Curry returned" data points may be just as interesting.
I question your use of the term "arbitrary".

From Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: ar·bi·trary

Pronunciation: 'är-b&-"trer-E

Function: adjective

Date: 15th century

1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law {the manner of punishment is arbitrary}

2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority {an arbitrary government} b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power {protection from arbitrary arrest and detention}

3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something {an arbitrary standard} {take any arbitrary positive number} {arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments -- A. J. Toynbee} b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will {when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary -- Nehemiah Jordan}

- ar·bi·trari·ly /"är-b&-'trer-&-lE/ adverb

- ar·bi·trar·i·ness /'är-b&-"trer-E-n&s/ noun
I would suggest that our season can be divided into two halfs based on the fact that so many things were changed at the same time. Many of us have been tracking the changes in the team since the trade. There is nothing arbitrary about this.

Nor would there be anything arbitrary about you tracking the differences of the Bull w/ Curry playing vs. w/o. In fact, I'd love to see what you come up with.

Now if we were to compare how the Bull has done since, say, November 14th vs. prior, I'd suggest we were just being arbitrary.

.....as opposed to just being gratuitously contrarian. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,975 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bulls Stats

Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!


I question your use of the term "arbitrary".



I would suggest that our season can be divided into two halfs based on the fact that so many things were changed at the same time. Many of us have been tracking the changes in the team since the trade. There is nothing arbitrary about this.

Nor would there be anything arbitrary about you tracking the differences of the Bull w/ Curry playing vs. w/o. In fact, I'd love to see what you come up with.

Now if we were to compare how the Bull has done since, say, November 14th vs. prior, I'd suggest we were just being arbitrary.

.....as opposed to just being gratuitously contrarian. ;)
It's arbitrary because you could easily (and reasonably) say that our season could be divided into two halves: before Chandler went on IR and after. Or before Pip's knee surgery and after. See definition #1 of "arbitrary" in your above post, which you arbitrarily didn't boldface ;-)


The differences of the Bulls w/Curry vs. w/o might tell us a little bit about how effective our defense is with him there (or not effective). Or it might be more valuable to look at both teams' FGA/48 minutes to see if we're simply using more/less of the :24 clock with him out there.

TBF likes to post numbers since the trade. Maybe he might look at the numbers w vs. w/o curry.

An aside - I think your post was a 5-star one, and is a reason why I'm a member of your fan club. I _love_ it when people use the dictionary!
 

·
Is not afraid of shadows!
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bulls Stats

Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!

It's arbitrary because you could easily (and reasonably) say that our season could be divided into two halves: before Chandler went on IR and after. Or before Pip's knee surgery and after. See definition #1 of "arbitrary" in your above post, which you arbitrarily didn't boldface ;-)

An aside - I think your post was a 5-star one, and is a reason why I'm a member of your fan club. I _love_ it when people use the dictionary!
Coincidentally, Tyson and Scottie both were sidelined one game before the trade, though Scottie has played 12 minutes under Skiles. The arbitrary date of the trade is only one game off of the arbitrary date of both Tyson's and Scottie's inactive stretch, and thus is also likely a good look at their effect on the team.

Just to argue semantics (because I know we will both appreciate this argument), picking *any* date will be arbitrary given the first definition, since there is no rule or law that states that you can only evaluate a season from a certain point forward. Thus, your use of the word arbitrary would be redundant. Redundancy as used in conversational dialogue generally reflects either 1) an error by the speaker, 2) a poorly thought out argument, or 3) a signal to the listener that wit or sarcasm is being used. These rules are paraphrased from a text I read once discribing the unwritten rules of dialogue and interpersonal exchange. While these rules are arbitrary (in that they are listed by an individual at his/her own discretion), I find them to be reliable. Thus, knowing that you rarely make errors in stating your case and that your arguments are always well thought out, I chose to believe that you were either employing wit or sarcasm in protest to this thread, or that you were applying the third definition (which I believe is the most common interpretation in every day use) and chose to call you on it.

;)

I appreciate the props at the end of the post! I'll share that I was surprised that the third definition was not first, as I believe that arbitrary=random is the most common usage. This is a problem I'll take up with the dictionary-folk, though, and not bother you kids with the details....

Let's talk basketball!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
A fascinating couple questions / comments I have for stats bufs.

Before the trade, the point differential was about -11. The Bulls won about X% of their games (I'm too lazy to look it up).

After the trade, the point differential is about -1.7. The Bulls have won about Y% of their games (again, I appeal to laziness).

The thing is, X and Y are amazingly close given the point differential is amazingly different. What explains that?

What I gather is that the varience in effort / production of the old team was high, while the new team is much more consistent (low variance).

One may also deduce that the old team, on average, was much "worse" than the new team. The old team would have to improve their average play by a LOT in order to play .500 basketball. But the new team is much more consistent and doesn't have to improve by much (2 point differential) to get to .500 ball. So even if the percentage of wins may not be significantly different, the Bulls still may be a lot closer (in some sense) to playoff basketball.

That is, assuming that point differential of 0 is highly correlated to .500 ball. Is that a fair assessment?
 

·
Is not afraid of shadows!
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
A fascinating couple questions / comments I have for stats bufs.

Before the trade, the point differential was about -11. The Bulls won about X% of their games (I'm too lazy to look it up).

After the trade, the point differential is about -1.7. The Bulls have won about Y% of their games (again, I appeal to laziness).

The thing is, X and Y are amazingly close given the point differential is amazingly different. What explains that?

What I gather is that the varience in effort / production of the old team was high, while the new team is much more consistent (low variance).

One may also deduce that the old team, on average, was much "worse" than the new team. The old team would have to improve their average play by a LOT in order to play .500 basketball. But the new team is much more consistent and doesn't have to improve by much (2 point differential) to get to .500 ball. So even if the percentage of wins may not be significantly different, the Bulls still may be a lot closer (in some sense) to playoff basketball.

That is, assuming that point differential of 0 is highly correlated to .500 ball. Is that a fair assessment?
I think it is a fair assessment.

To make up for your laziness -- Bull record pre-trade (X) was 4-12 (25%), while post-trade (Y) is 7-12 (37%), or roughly half-again as many wins.

I would argue that while both are disappointing, 37% is a lot more than 25%. If you disagree, I'd love if you would just mail me 12% of your paycheck! ;)

On a serious note, I think most of us tend to forget that both Scottie and Tyson were sidelined 1 game before the trade. Tyson has not played since, and Scottie has only played 12 minutes since the beginning of the Skiles era. As far as effect on the game, it's like we traded Jalen, Scottie, Tyson, and Donyell for JYD and AD. If and when Scottie and Tyson ever return, I think we'll see an even better winning %.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!

To make up for your laziness -- Bull record pre-trade (X) was 4-12 (25%), while post-trade (Y) is 7-12 (37%), or roughly half-again as many wins.
Thank you. (See, being lazy pays off.)

Still, if you use some statistical model, you would think -11 point differential would be X-sigma below the mean, while -1.7 point differential would be Y-sigma below the mean, and X and Y would be different enough that the corresponding win rate would be much larger than 25 to 37%.

But I don't know anything about statistics. :)

I would argue that while both are disappointing, 37% is a lot more than 25%. If you disagree, I'd love if you would just mail me 12% of your paycheck! ;)
I would, but after putting the stamp on the envelope, there wouldn't be much left. :D

On a serious note, I think most of us tend to forget that both Scottie and Tyson were sidelined 1 game before the trade.
That's a double-edged sword. Tyson was playing before the trade, and the team was "bad". Then Tyson and Scottie went out, and now the Bulls are playing better. Someone could easily misuse statistics (and why not?) to imply that things have improved since Scottie and Tyson went out.

A simular correlation-does-not-imply-causation argument has been made FOR Kirk Hinrich. He became a starter about that time. So obviously, Hinrich starting is the cause for better team play, right?

:D
 

·
Is not afraid of shadows!
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Excellent points, all!

My first post was only to confirm your original, BTW, and provide statistical support. I think many posters don't realize just how bad we were! To be a good ball club, I think the variance has to be minimized. This is a sign that the players are bringing consistant effort and a similar game outlook to every match.

Disappointing to here that my bonus will not be worthwhile, I was already dreaming of what I could buy.... ;)

Excellent point about the causality issue. I guess any time you try to attribue causality you are working a very slippery subject area. I only threw it out there as another factor to add into the question of growth vs. non-growth of the team since the trade. Frankly, there were so many changes made in the period of two games that to try to isolate any single factor is well beyond any statistical measure of which I am aware. Though between NCBulls!, Kneepad! Jammer! and others, maybe someone has a way to separate them out.

X = Losing Scottie
Y = Losing Tyson
Z = Losing Cartwright
A = Gaining Skiles
B = Losing Rose
C = Losing Marshall
D = Adding minutes for Kirk
E = Gaining AD
F = Gaining JYD
G = Strength of schedule

For the sake of keeping this model simple, I've chosen not to include Bax or Jefferies in the mix.

Okay, stats guys, go at it! My two years of graduate statistics courses at the U of Chicago are not nearly enough to help me with this problem! Of course, U of C doesn't have much of a statistics program, does it...... ;)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
58,359 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bulls Stats

Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!


It isn't. But if you find the "since the trade" aribitrary data points interesting, then the "since Curry returned" data points may be just as interesting.
They will be and I will do that.

The reason why I said "since the trade" is GB posted total team stats and that is misleading. And yes, you are right about the stats being misleading since Currys return, and as they will be when Pippen and Chandler return and as they will be if Dupree adds more to the team as he did the first game.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
58,359 Posts
I could have swore there was a post in here where Dabullz said the Bulls were 4-10 and 7-14 since the trade. And toronto was .500 and 10-7 since the trade. I corrected him on the 4-10 being wrong but the 7-14 was wrong also. Should have been 4-12 and 7-12, until last night. So .25% before the trade, now 35% since the trade the loss last night. Toronto lost last night as well. 10-8 .55% they were .500 before the trade. So Toronto is still a .500 team, bulls are still bad. Both teams about the same. If this post was in another thread, then the reply is here. I do not have time to hunt for the thread to post the answer. Should I find it the next couple of days then I will transfer the anwer to that thread

By the way, I will do the curry stats with him before the injury and without him duruing injury and with him after injury and his play before the trade and the way the team played win each of the senarios. Give me time.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top