WT- Nate unlikely to be back (WAIT! + instagram pic pg 81!)

[AAU Teammate]

Add the fact that all of his good offensive explosions will be replace by Rose and the projecting improvement of Teague and you come up with the conclusion that Robinson isn't needed at all

I mean, for a mil a year, sure there'd be an argument to be made that you could get him some minutes and maybe trade Teague for a pick or something. But he wont come here for a mil, so it's all moot. The best foot forward is Hinrich and Teague for now&later reasons both

[TheSuzerain]

The big thing with Nate is that the eye test deceives us. We remember his offensive explosions. We think about the money he made last year. All the things that matter to us scream GOOD!!!

But his careless passing and his turnovers are way easier to forget. And also easy to forget is Hinrich's conservative, low risk ballhandling. He's not a penetrator, but he's got the much better mindset for moving the ball to scorers and getting himself behind the line where, as a secondary option he IS of offensive worth.

And of course, defense. The Great Forgettable. But i remember..

Moving the ball to what scorers?

And Nate Robinson was less turnover prone than Kirk.

[AAU Teammate]

The big thing with Nate is that the eye test deceives us. We remember his offensive explosions. We think about the money he made last year. All the things that matter to us scream GOOD!!!

But his careless passing and his turnovers are way easier to forget. And also easy to forget is Hinrich's conservative, low risk ballhandling. He's not a penetrator, but he's got the much better mindset for moving the ball to scorers and getting himself behind the line where, as a secondary option he IS of offensive worth.

And of course, defense. The Great Forgettable. But i remember..

Moving the ball to what scorers?

The easiest thing to do on these boards is declare the Bulls dont have a guy who can score the ball. This is great for fan intensity and passion etc but actual games are far more complex than that. When Butler is open at the three point line, he IS a scorer. When Deng does have a matchup that is favorable..he IS a scorer. We can work plays that get him guarded by guards. When Boozer has an available jumpshot, he IS a scorer.

The thing is Nate running the point ignores the importance of these nuances. It's chicken w/ head cut off PG play. He's generally the scorer, and everything else works in service of that. By the time he's gotten the ball to anyone else, it's very often past the ideal window. So many times last year Marco was getting the ball at his feet (and Marco already has enough of a slow release to begin with).

Last year, the FO's moves are why we didnt have 'scorers.' Last year, the specifics of Nate's PG play are why we didnt have 'scoring.'

[Ben]

Its not +/- when you see that the Bulls 4 most common lineups were Noah-Boozer-Deng-Beli/Rip and either Nate or Kirk playing PG. Huge sample sizes indicating the team played better offensively and defensively with Kirk in the game playing next to the starters than with Nate in the game playing next to the starters.

And any non-biased person could see it while watching. Nate can't even make the pass to the roll guy on a pick and roll when they double him and leave that guy uncovered. He just pounds the ball then gives it up the other way. He can't run offense as a point guard, hes a 5-9 shooting guard with capable ball handling skills.

82games.com only provides a small fraction of the data on those "most common lineups." 503 minutes of Nate + SG + Deng-Boozer-Noah, which represents 24% of Nate's overall minutes. They list 770 minutes of Kirk + SG + Deng-Boozer-Noah , which represents 43.6% of Kirk's overall minutes. What we can take from that is that Kirk got to play with the "top" lineup during almost TWICE as much of his PT as Nate did. So for one thing, Kirk benefited from his surroundings.

But those lineups were only +2 points during all of Kirk's 770 minutes. It's not as if he was a giant difference-maker with the top unit. Nate was -65 points during his shorter stint with the top unit, but he had better results with some of the other units.

But what you're missing is the very small % of the Nate's time is being captured there. He got stuck with worse units than Kirk did.
You're also missing the deeply flawed nature of those raw +/- numbers, which I explained in detail over my last several posts. Those are the kinds of numbers that allow Mario Chalmers to look better than Dwyane Wade.

It's kind of funny that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being biased, yet one of the things that the advanced stats are supposed to do is to eliminate bias. Plenty of knowledgeable fans here have expressed at least as much love for Nate as for Kirk, if not more love. You're calling all of them biased. And yet to bolster your opinion (your bias?) you cherry-pick a stat that covers less than a quarter of Nate's performance, while ignoring stats that cover not only one entire season but multiple seasons.

[DuckIII]

The +/- thing with Hinrich and Nate is really hard to figure. Same with W/L record.

Its not hard to figure and its not surprising to me in the least. Despite Robinson's explosive and sometimes timely scoring, on the whole it was obvious to me that the team functioned better when Hinrich was on the court.

I'd still have interest in bringing Nate back though.

[Ben]

The big thing with Nate is that the eye test deceives us. We remember his offensive explosions. We think about the money he made last year. All the things that matter to us scream GOOD!!!

But his careless passing and his turnovers are way easier to forget. And also easy to forget is Hinrich's conservative, low risk ballhandling. He's not a penetrator, but he's got the much better mindset for moving the ball to scorers and getting himself behind the line where, as a secondary option he IS of offensive worth.

And of course, defense. The Great Forgettable. But i remember..

Add the fact that all of his good offensive explosions will be replace by Rose and the projecting improvement of Teague and you come up with the conclusion that Robinson isn't needed at all

Do you not remember the years when we pined for an explosive bench scorer? Those were years when we HAD Rose at full capacity! Yet you dismiss the need for it now because we'll have Rose at full capacity-- we hope-- plus "the projecting improvement of Teague"? Really?

[Mr Funk]

Nate still has himself in a bulls uni on twitter

[AAU Teammate]

The big thing with Nate is that the eye test deceives us. We remember his offensive explosions. We think about the money he made last year. All the things that matter to us scream GOOD!!!

But his careless passing and his turnovers are way easier to forget. And also easy to forget is Hinrich's conservative, low risk ballhandling. He's not a penetrator, but he's got the much better mindset for moving the ball to scorers and getting himself behind the line where, as a secondary option he IS of offensive worth.

And of course, defense. The Great Forgettable. But i remember..

Add the fact that all of his good offensive explosions will be replace by Rose and the projecting improvement of Teague and you come up with the conclusion that Robinson isn't needed at all

Do you not remember the years when we pined for an explosive bench scorer? Those were years when we HAD Rose at full capacity! Yet you dismiss the need for it now because we'll have Rose at full capacity-- we hope-- plus "the projecting improvement of Teague"? Really?

I want unlimited everything, just like everyone else.

If Nate costs $3M/yr on a multiyear deal, I dont want him. He can't play alongside Rose. In a playoff game, he basically wont play.

I'm interested to see how many of the diehard Nate people overlap with the "regular season doesnt matter" crowd. Because to bring Nate back is definitely a total-wins argument (and again i'm not against it, but against the multiyear aspect.)

(Also a side thing but if it's another guard, it kind of makes sense for defensive purposes that it be someone in that 6'5" realm, doesnt it? The roster has no one 6'5" or 6'6"... and if Snell is glue to the bench then one could argue we have PGs and small forwards exclusively).

[Ben]

The big thing with Nate is that the eye test deceives us. We remember his offensive explosions. We think about the money he made last year. All the things that matter to us scream GOOD!!!

But his careless passing and his turnovers are way easier to forget. And also easy to forget is Hinrich's conservative, low risk ballhandling. He's not a penetrator, but he's got the much better mindset for moving the ball to scorers and getting himself behind the line where, as a secondary option he IS of offensive worth.

And of course, defense. The Great Forgettable. But i remember..

Moving the ball to what scorers?

The easiest thing to do on these boards is declare the Bulls dont have a guy who can score the ball. This is great for fan intensity and passion etc but actual games are far more complex than that. When Butler is open at the three point line, he IS a scorer. When Deng does have a matchup that is favorable..he IS a scorer. We can work plays that get him guarded by guards. When Boozer has an available jumpshot, he IS a scorer.

The thing is Nate running the point ignores the importance of these nuances. It's chicken w/ head cut off PG play. He's generally the scorer, and everything else works in service of that. By the time he's gotten the ball to anyone else, it's very often past the ideal window. So many times last year Marco was getting the ball at his feet (and Marco already has enough of a slow release to begin with).

Last year, the FO's moves are why we didnt have 'scorers.' Last year, the specifics of Nate's PG play are why we didnt have 'scoring.'

Bench scorer. We have long needed a bench scorer. Many of us wanted Bayless or Barbosa or Lou Williams or someone. Nate is that guy. Butler and Deng and Boozer are not; they're first line guys. Plus, Butler is not a scorer, not a score-in-bunches guy who can bring you back. At least, he hasn't shown that thus far. You're twisting the formulation in order to make a point.

[AAU Teammate]

Bench scorer. We have long needed a bench scorer. Many of us wanted Bayless or Barbosa or Lou Williams or someone. Nate is that guy. Butler and Deng and Boozer are not; they're first line guys. Plus, Butler is not a scorer, not a score-in-bunches guy who can bring you back. At least, he hasn't shown that thus far. You're twisting the formulation in order to make a point.

Synergy last year had Nate as 250th-best scorer in transition. I actually would argue that he doesnt fit on a bench mob type unit, because that unit (if we want to emulate 10-11, 11-12) was big on stops leading to fastbreaks, and covering for their offensive weaknesses that way.

Nate isnt what I call an easy points guy. He's going to take any shot at any moment because he can make them. I envision the Bulls next year taking the shots they're supposed to take. with 35 mpg for Rose and the rest to Hinrich.

Last year we got very used to being this halfcourt team that doesnt take threes. It was odd. Next year the pace should be ratcheted up considerably.

Nate could have a role here next year but I don't see it as a must-thing.

[Ben]

I did not say that Hinrich is the superior player, even though it seems obvious to me that he is, but that is of course an opinion, only that the team performed at a higher level with Kirk last season.

+/- statistics show how the team performs with one player, compared to another. It can only be done on the same team, in the same season, or it has no meaning. It does not intend to show why, or show a players worth, only actual outcome. For whatever reason the Bulls were much better, both offensively, and defensively, last season with Hinrich on the court, versus off the court, and they were better with Hinrich, than they were with Nate. They scored more points, they gave up less points, while Hinrich was playing.

That is not in question, only why they were better with Hinrich. There could be all kinds of possible reasons. It could be the players they we on the court with, it could be the level of competition games (with Kirk, versus the ones he missed), playing more against starters than reserves, it could also be that as Thibs states, his offense is built off his defense, so in Thibs system, better defensive players, also perform better offensively.

I am open to discuss any of the reasons why you believe that the team did better, with a guy you think is an inferior player?

Sorry, this is just totally inadequate. I spent a lot of time pretty much destroying the relevance of your stats and you just dismissed my arguments. And you put the burden on ME to go further. Match my effort, interrogate the stats that I posted, show that you weren't wrong about the 82games.com stats NOT being adjusted +/- in the manner that you claimed they were. Prove that Adjusted +/- is not regarded as having any meaning when it's used to describe players on two different teams. (That certainly is not the belief of the many stat gurus who invented and refined it.) You're just re-asserting your original point, that your stats show the team to have done better with Kirk in a way that holds meaning. But if you're not using Adjusted +/-, as I have given good reason to believe is the case, then you can't just re-assert your original point.

You're a reasonable guy. Surely you can see why I would find your most recent post frustratingly dismissive and inadequate.

[Chitownbulls]

Nate Robinson would be a great bench scorer for us. I think the funny thing is that Nate Rob would probably outplay Kirk and Hinrich would start losing minutes. I don't see Kirk being apart of this team after next year, I can see Nate on this team for another 2-3 years because of his ability to score off the bench.

[mostek]

The players on the court are very important to how your +/- looks, but playing with Boozer, who has the worse numbers, bring your numbers down, not up.

Stat ON Court OFF Court Net
Minutes 2545 1420 64%
Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 103.0 107.5 -4.4
Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 105.6 101.3 +4.3
Net Points per 100 Possessions -2.6 +6.2 -8.7

If you look at the raw numbers, you can see what some of those attachments look like.

Hinrich had a +100, in 1764 minutes, +0.057, Nate +29, in 2086, +0.014. Playing together, they had +82 in only 256 minutes. If you look at Nate without Hinrich, he is -53 in 1830 minutes, or a -0.029 points/min. You can do the same thing with Boozer, except that there is no 2-man lineup listed for Boozer, since they only list the top 50 on the NBA.com site, and his are all negative.

[r1terrell23]

Here are a few questions to consider

1. If Nate were hurt and not Hinrich do get past NJ?

2. Who do you want taking a last shot Kirk or Nate?

3. The last two minutes of a game who do you want in Kirk or Nate?


Nate has his faults but he has a place on this team. He can get you some quick buckets and take over games. His D is bad but we can sacrifice a lil D with our overall defense and rebounding being very good. No way I'd take the injury prone Kirk over Nate no matter what plus, minus, and multiplication symbols say.

[RedBulls23]

Nate to me was best when he played off the ball. With Rose back, I don't see why Nate would ever really have to run the offense? Just have him play off of Rose and Kirk for timely scoring.

That should fix any issues of his inability to run the team.

[Tenchi Ryu]

Nate to me was best when he played off the ball. With Rose back, I don't see why Nate would ever really have to run the offense? Just have him play off of Rose and Kirk for timely scoring.

That should fix any issues of his inability to run the team.

Thibs even went on record saying not only he LIKES doing this, he thinks he would make this the preferred method if Nate stayed in one of those recent interviews talking about Nate.

[coldfish]

The +/- thing with Hinrich and Nate is really hard to figure. Same with W/L record.

Its not hard to figure and its not surprising to me in the least. Despite Robinson's explosive and sometimes timely scoring, on the whole it was obvious to me that the team functioned better when Hinrich was on the court.

I'd still have interest in bringing Nate back though.

Deng had one of the worst +/- numbers on the team. I wouldn't say for one second that having him on the bench improved the team. +/-, even when it has adjustment, is a highly contextualized stat.

But yes, the team ran a lot better when Kirk was on the court and Kirk is a better "runner of offense" than Nate. With the better players and starters, I would prefer Kirk. We aren't talking about a starting PG though. When you have the second unit on the floor, I don't think Kirk is going to fare particularly well unless he has players like Nate Robinson around him.

[KissedByaRose1]

Nate to me was best when he played off the ball.

Well I don't know if I'd go that far but he definitely can play off the ball and at very worst spreads the floor.

[Chitownbulls]

Nate would be great at spacing the floor for DRose as well. Those 2 are among the quickest players in the league. Hard to stay in front of either one.

Here's your answers

No. Bulls wouldn't have beat the nets, Nate helped win like 2-3 of those games if I remember correctly.
Nate will take my last shot, Kirk would probably pass it.
If we are down, probably Nate, if we are up, either Nate or Kirk.

[Chitownbulls]

Kirk was a bad signing last year. I hated it. It was a total front office move, IMO trying to make fans happy.

But there was a guy name Jerryd Bayless who could have been a really nice add/trading piece for us. We could have gave Bayless the keys an let him raise his value while doing it.