Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Give Brunson some Props

Over the past twelve games, here are the statistics on Brunson.

Brunson:
125 minutes, 19-30 FG, 4-4 3PT, 3-4 FT, 11 RB, 29 AST, 8 TO, 8 ST, 1 BLK, 15 PF, 45 PTS on 70.8 eFG%
Per 48 minutes, he is a 29.5 using my index, which is quite effective.

For comparison purposes, here are the statistics on Hinrich and Crawford.

Hinrich:
437 minutes, 48-131 FG, 24-59 3PT, 13-17 FT, 45 RB, 72 AST, 35 TO, 14 ST, 45 PF, 133 PTS on 48.0 eFG%
Per 48 minutes, he is a 14.0 on my index, which is mediocre.

Crawford:
405 minutes, 72-190 FG, 26-79 3PT, 45-55 FT, 44 RB, 63 AST, 28 TO, 13 ST, 5 BLK, 28 PF, 215 PTS on 50.2 eFG%
Per 48 minutes, he is a 23.3 on my index, which is actually pretty good.

Thus, those of you who might be wondering why Brunson is playing so much, it may just be that recently Brunson has been more effective in his limited minutes. Does that mean Brunson is better than Hinrich (or Crawford)? No, but as I pointed out a couple of days ago, is there any team in the NBA where the difference between its best players and a guy like Brunson is so small?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Brunson did play really well, considering his perpetual benchwarmer status. Making that three was big. They were running fairly effective curls for him in the first quarter, which I thought they should have continued with throughout the game (Jamal got an open three out of it, and Brunson missed a somewhat open layup). He's a pretty good passer, even with the big men all around.

His steal in the backcourt also psyched me up. But Kirk might have given us a better shot at coming back - he pushes the ball more and has a better three ball.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,045 Posts
Brunson is a pretty good passer, but he gets lost on so many damn screens it almost nullifies his presence on the floor. His having the quickness of Yao Ming on quaaludes doesn't help matters either.

But he has been putting up some pretty nice numbers in his limited time on the court. 10 assists tonight is awesome.
 

·
Our Sentence Is Up
Joined
·
40,250 Posts
Brunson owns your soul...or at least he owns Paxson's soul...or maybe he just has dirty pictures...who really knows. It's besides the point. Brunson rules. Our backcourt droolz.

If Jamal hadn't decided to clank all 4 of those wide open 3's that Brunson set up for him Brunson would have had 14 assists and Jamal would have had another 12 points and we may have won the game.

Shoulda gone small.

Played a 3 guard backcourt. Jamal, Kirk, Brunson. ERob at Power forward. JYD or Davis or Blount at center. OFFENSE. Coulda been something.

But I knew Skiles had given up as soon as I saw Fizer come in. Fizer is the ultimate white flag from Skiles. Even more so than Chris "Chucky" Jefferies.

Do we really need a coach? I think it's just a wasted salary. The players are going to do what they're going to do. I think Hinrich knows as much about the game as Skiles does. Let Kirk be the player coach. Players can sub themselves in and out. There will be no set offense. Just guys ballin'. What the hell? Why not? Skiles isn't doing much for us.

Or maybe every home game one lucky fan can be picked out of the crowd to come and be "coach for a game".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
But I knew Skiles had given up as soon as I saw Fizer come in. Fizer is the ultimate white flag from Skiles. Even more so than Chris "Chucky" Jefferies.

Do we really need a coach? I think it's just a wasted salary. The players are going to do what they're going to do. I think Hinrich knows as much about the game as Skiles does. Let Kirk be the player coach. Players can sub themselves in and out. There will be no set offense. Just guys ballin'. What the hell? Why not? Skiles isn't doing much for us.

Or maybe every home game one lucky fan can be picked out of the crowd to come and be "coach for a game".
Skiles is beginning to have that "deer in the headlights" look that Cartwright had all year. I was crying when Brunson, ERob, Jefferies, JYD and Blount were on the floor together. It reminded me of Cartwright's characteristic "I don't know what to do and we're losing so I'll 'punish' the starters" maneuver. :no:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
Thus showing the pointlessness of per 48 minute stats. :grinning:
People make this statement all of the time, but I have never heard the rationale behind the statement. Is it just a statement against statistics in general or is it actually the "per 48 minutes" part? If it is the latter that is easy to fix; just multiply by 0.5 and you have "per 24 minutes" statistics or 0.75 and you have "per 36 minute" statistics, and so on. For that reason I don't think it has anything to do with the "per 48 minutes" part.

It must be a more general, but unstated claim about statistics. But in a lot of ways that is even more problematic, since in some way all of our aggregated observations are statistics; it is just that the official statistics are collected in a more organized (and objective) fashion. And, of course, these official statistics ignore important aspects of the game, but so do our personal, subjective opinions. At least with the official statistics, it is pretty clear what is being ignored. In that way, they are way more transparent than any alternative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,975 Posts
Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!


People make this statement all of the time, but I have never heard the rationale behind the statement. Is it just a statement against statistics in general or is it actually the "per 48 minutes" part? If it is the latter that is easy to fix; just multiply by 0.5 and you have "per 24 minutes" statistics or 0.75 and you have "per 36 minute" statistics, and so on. For that reason I don't think it has anything to do with the "per 48 minutes" part.

It must be a more general, but unstated claim about statistics. But in a lot of ways that is even more problematic, since in some way all of our aggregated observations are statistics; it is just that the official statistics are collected in a more organized (and objective) fashion. And, of course, these official statistics ignore important aspects of the game, but so do our personal, subjective opinions. At least with the official statistics, it is pretty clear what is being ignored. In that way, they are way more transparent than any alternative.
The per 48 minute stat is pure sophistry.

When someone offers up one of those, the first thing the reader must do is make a judgement: "If the player actually played 48 minutes, would he really achieve those stats?"

It's irrelevent if it's per minute, per 24, or per 48. The argument based upon the stat is fallacious.

Example:

Marcus Fizer scored 6 points in 6 minutes. Per 48, he'd score 48 points, right? I doubt it. If he did play 48 minutes, maybe he'd score 30. Maybe he'd score 6 still.

Allen Iverson scored 40 points in 40 minutes. Per 48, he'd score 48 points, right? More likely, but maybe he'd still score 40, or maybe he'd score 60.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,882 Posts
Statistics can be misleading, but not normally. It is not a knock on statistics. Just the per 48 minute kind. I take them with a grain of salt. I mean, they can show you a bit. Let's take the 2002 Knicks. Per 48 minutes, Latrell Sprewell averaged 20.5ppg. Lee Nailon averaged 24.7ppg. So from this, the per 48 minute stats is telling me two things.

1) Lee Nailon is a good scorer.
2) Lee Nailon is a better scorer than Latrell Sprewell.



And one of those just ain't true.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,802 Posts
Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
Brunson owns your soul...or at least he owns Paxson's soul...or maybe he just has dirty pictures...who really knows. It's besides the point. Brunson rules. Our backcourt droolz.

If Jamal hadn't decided to clank all 4 of those wide open 3's that Brunson set up for him Brunson would have had 14 assists and Jamal would have had another 12 points and we may have won the game.

Shoulda gone small.

Played a 3 guard backcourt. Jamal, Kirk, Brunson. ERob at Power forward. JYD or Davis or Blount at center. OFFENSE. Coulda been something.

But I knew Skiles had given up as soon as I saw Fizer come in. Fizer is the ultimate white flag from Skiles. Even more so than Chris "Chucky" Jefferies.

Do we really need a coach? I think it's just a wasted salary. The players are going to do what they're going to do. I think Hinrich knows as much about the game as Skiles does. Let Kirk be the player coach. Players can sub themselves in and out. There will be no set offense. Just guys ballin'. What the hell? Why not? Skiles isn't doing much for us.

Or maybe every home game one lucky fan can be picked out of the crowd to come and be "coach for a game".
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,045 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,604 Posts
first time i recall a BRUNSON quote on the bulls.com postgame comments:


Quoting Bulls G Rick Brunson
On the game:
“The [Clippers] got off to a fast start and we got off to a cold start. If we play with more consistency we will be in more of our games.”

wise men say, only fools rush in. ok, elvis was wrong and brunson is right.
 

·
Is not afraid of shadows!
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!

The per 48 minute stat is pure sophistry.
It appears both DaBullz! and NCBullsFan! are looking at the "per 48" differently. If you look at it as "if player X played the whole game, he'd score Y" then I agree that it is an imaginary and relatively useless stat. If you look at it as an arbitrary (;)) modifier to equalize minutes for comparative purposes, then it is more meaningful. I believe the "per 24" stat is probably more useful, because then you aren't worried as much about fatigue, focus, etc. over the length of a whole game.

"per 48" is more common usage, because it is the length of a whole game. "per 24" (or really "per 30") would likely be a better indicator, since that's closer to the minutes the players actually play.

In any case, with a sample size as small as Brunson's, anyone will tell you that the margin of error is incredibly high, high enough, in fact, to make most conclusions speculation at best, and fiction at worst.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
Do we really need a coach? I think it's just a wasted salary. The players are going to do what they're going to do. I think Hinrich knows as much about the game as Skiles does. Let Kirk be the player coach. Players can sub themselves in and out. There will be no set offense. Just guys ballin'. What the hell? Why not? Skiles isn't doing much for us.

Or maybe every home game one lucky fan can be picked out of the crowd to come and be "coach for a game".
Quote of the year!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Re: Give Brunson some Props

Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
is there any team in the NBA where the difference between its best players and a guy like Brunson is so small?
Well, you're the one with the index and the rating system... why don't you tell us? :)

Personally I'd guess that similar stats could be found for other teams if you're going by per 48 minute stats.
 

·
Rollin Wit Da Homies
Joined
·
5,080 Posts
Per 48 minute stats give us an example of RATE, and effectiveness in those minutes.

Using per 48 minutes to project performance or as a justification for increased minutes is where that statistic falls short, but otherwise it is a good measure of performance over time played.

It's just like a per-minute effectiveness measure. Per 48 minutes, per 24 minutes, whatever... it's just like a matter of production per unit of time effectiveness measure.

Brunson averages .3 points per minute, .09 rebounds per minute, and .23 assists per minute.

Crawford averages .48 points per minute, .09 rebounds per minute, and .16 assists per minute.

It's just that those numbers don't really have a lot of meaning, being decimal. That's why the 48 minutes measure is used.

It's not irrelevant, but it's certainly far from perfect. Nevertheless, it DOES measure something in terms of effectiveness in the minutes that each player is given.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
Per 48 minute stats give us an example of RATE, and effectiveness in those minutes.

Using per 48 minutes to project performance or as a justification for increased minutes is where that statistic falls short, but otherwise it is a good measure of performance over time played.

It's just like a per-minute effectiveness measure. Per 48 minutes, per 24 minutes, whatever... it's just like a matter of production per unit of time effectiveness measure.

Brunson averages .3 points per minute, .09 rebounds per minute, and .23 assists per minute.

Crawford averages .48 points per minute, .09 rebounds per minute, and .16 assists per minute.

It's just that those numbers don't really have a lot of meaning, being decimal. That's why the 48 minutes measure is used.

It's not irrelevant, but it's certainly far from perfect. Nevertheless, it DOES measure something in terms of effectiveness in the minutes that each player is given.
They give a rate, but I'd qualify it even more than that... they give a rate for a given quantity of minutes played.

The fallacy would be assuming a constant rate across all minutes played.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,975 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
Per 48 minute stats give us an example of RATE, and effectiveness in those minutes.

Using per 48 minutes to project performance or as a justification for increased minutes is where that statistic falls short, but otherwise it is a good measure of performance over time played.

It's just like a per-minute effectiveness measure. Per 48 minutes, per 24 minutes, whatever... it's just like a matter of production per unit of time effectiveness measure.

Brunson averages .3 points per minute, .09 rebounds per minute, and .23 assists per minute.

Crawford averages .48 points per minute, .09 rebounds per minute, and .16 assists per minute.

It's just that those numbers don't really have a lot of meaning, being decimal. That's why the 48 minutes measure is used.

It's not irrelevant, but it's certainly far from perfect. Nevertheless, it DOES measure something in terms of effectiveness in the minutes that each player is given.
It seems to me that you can just say "Brunson averages 1.3 PPG in 3.3 MPG" and leave it at that. In fact, this is much more interesting than the per 48 minute (or per minute) stat. It provides the information 3.3 MPG, implying the coach doesn't want to play the player more.

There's other factors to consider.

Cartwright played Marshall about 30 minutes per game last season, and he effectively got more games out of Marshall than in previous seasons. Marshall may have delivered better stats (his best season ever, right?) because of less playing time. Given more, he may have delivered worse stats. Though this season with Toronto, he's playing a lot more than 30 MPG and still performing quite well.

Similarly, Curry can put up 1.5 points per minute for the first X minutes of games. Then he gets winded and puts up .5 points per minute until he gets benched. So, say he averages 1 point per minute - it doesn't tell the "winded" story very well.

Peace!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,604 Posts
ok while you guys debate the statistics, i am going to give brunson some more props of my own by posting this from rickbrunson.com. if you haven't signed up (^^see link above^^) for the insider butt slap, you don't know what you are missing.

:D :D :D from the latest "insider" --

Marko Jaric!

Rick Brunson!

NBA Action: It's fantastic!

And unfortunately, I'm not kidding. Jaric and Brunson each had 10 assists for their respective teams in this game. EACH! That's 20 assists combined for those of you mathematically challenged readers. Something is seriously wrong with the world when that happens. Soon the oceans will boil and the moon will be coloured blood red.

Brunson played his third most minutes of the season with 23. This was probably due to the fact that the Bulls were never in this game. The Clippers held a 10-point lead after one quarter, an 8-point lead at half, and a 19-point lead after three. Although Brunson entered the game a mere 6 minutes after it started, the Bulls were already down 10. Brunson played just 7 minutes in the first half when the game was relatively close. In that 7 minutes he had 2 points and 2 assists.
Thus during the 16 minutes of garbage time in the second half he had 3 more points and 8 assists. Stats that look really nice but it was premium scrub time.


:|
 
1 - 20 of 64 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