ESPN: Chicago a "Skeptic" of Analytics

[kodo]

The Bulls' front office has long been based on old-school scouting concepts, but it does employ a manager of basketball analytics, Steve Weinman.

Coach Tom Thibodeau has shown interest in Weinman's work and called him "terrific" in 2013. The Bulls coach was mentored by Jeff Van Gundy, who's well-versed in analytic concepts. Thibodeau expressed a cautious perspective on analytics in a 2013 interview with CSN Chicago, saying, "I think there is a place in our league, and I think it's good. It may be getting overplayed somewhat right now. I think the trained eye is very important, but numbers are a part of the equation."

Thibodeau's innovative defense excels at preventing 3-pointers, and while Chicago's offensive shot chart isn't optimal, the team traded many long 2-pointers for 3-pointers after Thibodeau's arrival.

The Bulls' executive duo of John Paxson and Gar Forman stems backs to the Jerry Krause era and bases its decisions on scouting, not analytics. Paxson and Forman emphasize character and pedigree -- when looking at numbers, they are, according to one observer familiar with the front office, as likely to look at how often a prospect attended class as they are his advanced stats.

Another note is that we lost one of our analytics guys recently Matt Lloyd.

Hennigan has hired an analytics-friendly staff, bringing in Matt Lloyd, who stood out during his time with the Chicago Bulls by embracing statistical analysis

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings#!nba

[TheStig]

To be fair, GarPax's abacus doesn't support advanced analytics.




They tried to order a computer but their phone doesn't have the little letters to spell out dell......

[Mech Engineer]

Interesting that the big market/money franchises like Lakers, Knicks, Bulls do not care much about analytics. The common theme about these franchises is they always seem to chase the FA superstars rather than signing analytic stars. I know it is not always the case but it is a general theme I have observed.

[kulaz3000]

I don't agree with the topic of the thread, I think it's a little manipulative to be quite honest. Nothing that is said about the Bull's staffs point of view of analytic's suggests that are skeptics but they don't ONLY rely on it and uses it as part of the bigger equation which should be the case for every team and something I'm totally OK with.

[kodo]

I can't help but notice that the "All-In" and "Believers" of analytics looks a lot better than the Skeptics & Non-Believers.

All-In + Believers
Dallas
Houston
Sixers
San Antonio
Hawks
Celtics
Cavs
Pistons
Golden State
Memphis
OKC
Blazers

Skeptics + Nonbelievers
Chicago
Nuggets
Clips
TWolves
Pelicans
Wiz
Nets
Lakers
Knicks

[ADDinChicago]

This is old news about the front office being quite "old school" when it comes to philosophies. You have to remember who Pax learned under and since he still really is the one handling everything (Forman is basically a GM in title only), it's expected.

As far as the analytics go, they're important, but not as important in basketball as some think now. There's a reason Daryl Morey can't build a team that can make it out of the first round. You still need actual skill and talent on your roster over everything.

[kodo]

I don't agree with the topic of the thread, I think it's a little manipulative to be quite honest. Nothing that is said about the Bull's staffs point of view of analytic's suggests that are skeptics but they don't ONLY rely on it and uses it as part of the bigger equation which should be the case for every team and something I'm totally OK with.

Did you click the link?



"Skeptics" is their word, not mine.

[kulaz3000]

I don't agree with the topic of the thread, I think it's a little manipulative to be quite honest. Nothing that is said about the Bull's staffs point of view of analytic's suggests that are skeptics but they don't ONLY rely on it and uses it as part of the bigger equation which should be the case for every team and something I'm totally OK with.

Did you click the link?



"Skeptics" is their word, not mine.

Alright, that's fine. The ARTICLE in which you were quoting from to suggest that the Bulls are skeptics are a bit of a reach in my opinion.

[Flopper]

The conclusions reached on the Bulls seems to be based more on perception and guesswork rather than actual facts, but it's probably not far from the truth. The team has a history of lagging behind others in progressive areas like player health and injury management, so it wouldn't shock me if they're taking the same reactionary approach to analytics.

[vvgotgame19]

I agree 100% what Thibs said. There's definitely a place for analytics, but nothing beats the trained eye.

[ADDinChicago]

I agree 100% what Thibs said. There's definitely a place for analytics, but nothing beats the trained eye.

I tend to agree as well. The eye test is still the best judge of anything. You can skew numbers any way in your favor of a discussion.

[MrSparkle]

Any team putting all their stock in analytics is pretty stupid. It's like the stock market; math can help buck trends and get ahead, but end of the day, there's no way numbers tell the whole story.

[Mech Engineer]

I agree 100% what Thibs said. There's definitely a place for analytics, but nothing beats the trained eye.

I tend to agree as well. The eye test is still the best judge of anything. You can skew numbers any way in your favor of a discussion.

That's not the point of analytics. You are looking at the perspective of posters getting stats from websites and using it as the points of discussion. That is not the point of analytics even though it might appear that is what GMs do.

It is also about having a philosophy and then using the analytics from that philosophy in different contexts. For ex:. When Bulls value character as they say...they look at the attendance records of the draft pick in school as part of their analytics. I don't know if Morey or Cuban do that.

[jcuuofd]

This helps to explain why Thibs subjectively thinks that Hinrich is a great defender and facilitator on offense. Steve Weinman has tried to tell Thibs that Hinrich's stats are really bad, but Thibs doesn't want to hear it. Who needs objective analysis with boring numbers when you can rely on what your gut tells you to believe is right?

[CousinOfDeath]

and that's why we suck

[ADDinChicago]

I agree 100% what Thibs said. There's definitely a place for analytics, but nothing beats the trained eye.

I tend to agree as well. The eye test is still the best judge of anything. You can skew numbers any way in your favor of a discussion.

That's not the point of analytics. You are looking at the perspective of posters getting stats from websites and using it as the points of discussion. That is not the point of analytics even though it might appear that is what GMs do.

It is also about having a philosophy and then using the analytics from that philosophy in different contexts. For ex:. When Bulls value character as they say...they look at the attendance records of the draft pick in school as part of their analytics. I don't know if Morey or Cuban do that.

No one said that's what analytics are about. You can still skew any number set in your favor. That's the point. Like I said, they're important. They're not THAT important in determining total value or ability of a certain player.

Did I not say the Bulls FO is archaic and that we should be surprised why they are such?

[DanTown8587]

This helps to explain why Thibs subjectively thinks that Hinrich is a great defender and facilitator on offense. Steve Weinman has tried to tell Thibs that Hinrich's stats are really bad, but Thibs doesn't want to hear it. Who needs objective analysis with boring numbers when you can rely on what your gut tells you to believe is right?

Well Hinrich is 31st in DRPM in the league for the SG position (trails Klay Thompson and ahead of Jimmy Butler) and the team gives up about 2.5 points less per 100 with Kirk on the floor. The offense has been well documented but the defense is still there even if people don't want to admit it.

[dougthonus]

I can't help but notice that the "All-In" and "Believers" of analytics looks a lot better than the Skeptics & Non-Believers.

All-In + Believers
Dallas
Houston
Sixers
San Antonio
Hawks
Celtics
Cavs
Pistons
Golden State
Memphis
OKC
Blazers

Skeptics + Nonbelievers
Chicago
Nuggets
Clips
TWolves
Pelicans
Wiz
Nets
Lakers
Knicks

The question really is whether the skeptics/non believers really made a ton of bad moves related to their lack of analytics and whether the believers made better moves because of them. A lot of the teams that are either good/bad on those lists seem like they are so for reasons unlikely related to this decision.

A lot of the teams using analytics are still making moves that you wouldn't think are supported by analytics either.

[kingkirk]

If the Bulls are sceptics of analytics, how does Steve Weinmann have a job?

[dice]

Well Hinrich is 31st in RPM in the league

???

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM