Talk Me Down: How is Deng not MVP of the Bulls?

[rrravenred]

How are they doing defensively, out of interest, compared to normal?

And ahouni, people have (for the most part) laid out their arguments respectfully in this thread. Would be nice if that respectfulness could continue.

[RichardsRival3]

How are they doing defensively, out of interest, compared to normal?

And ahouni, people have (for the most part) laid out their arguments respectfully in this thread. Would be nice if that respectfulness could continue.

Okay, but not as good as normal. The thinking is that the lack of practice time has hurt the D, because we haven't see that elite D for a few games now, including last night. Or it could be fatigue from the schedule.

Anybody watching the game will notice Deng can't create anything for himself or anybody else.

[rrravenred]

Anybody watching the game will notice Deng can't create anything for himself or anybody else.

?

And?

I don't think anyone in the thread has predicated their views of Deng's value on him being a poor man's Larry Bird.

[RichardsRival3]

Anybody watching the game will notice Deng can't create anything for himself or anybody else.

?

And?

I don't think anyone in the thread has predicated their views of Deng's value on him being a poor man's Larry Bird.

Well, unless you think Deng is providing Dwight Howard level D, the MVP of the team with the best record in the NBA should be able to provide more offense.

[rrravenred]

So offense in your view = creating your own shot / playmaking?

Reggie Miller must have been a crap offensive player, then.

More seriously, what's your explanation for Deng's excellent offensive +/- numbers, then?

Deng is good at putting himself in the right place to provide spacing and facilitate others' offensive game as well as being good at ball movement, not necessarily ITO playmaking or getting the assist per se, but more in terms of making the right pass to keep the offense humming.

What's your take on that aspect?

[RichardsRival3]

How did miller score?

Curling around screens, getting open via picks....That is creating offense for himself, but he was never good at creating offense for teammates. The Bulls don't use Deng that way. Deng is a little more than a spot up shooter because he can dribble some and he can finish some times at the rim.

He needs Rose drawing defensive attention so he has space to shoot.

The +/- is misleading because it doesn't take into account competition.

Deng will play well offensively when playing against an undisciplined defense or against an unathletic defender. Deng racks up a good +/-.

Deng's biggest problem is he isn't athletic enough and doesn't have good enough handles to get by good defenders. Without the treat of giving Deng a drive, he has not space to shoot.

So if the offense has to run through Deng, all you get is long fadeaway jump shots.

[rrravenred]

My point was that you're taking factors x and y as being the most important to a good offensive player and decrying Deng because he doesn't have them even though they're not common to all "good" offensive players.

Rose will play well offensively when playing against an undisciplined defense or against an unathletic defender. Rose racks up a good +/-.

Works equally well when I flip it, doesn't it?

And I'm not understanding why you think +/- doesn't take competition into account, given enough minutes being packed into the basic model, unless you think that Deng is specifically being hidden against good opposition lineups (which, given he's been playint 37+ mpg the past 3 seasons, would take some doing).

[RichardsRival3]

My point was that you're taking factors x and y as being the most important to a good offensive player and decrying Deng because he doesn't have them even though they're not common to all "good" offensive players.

Well what constitutes a good offensive player? Durant an elite offensive player is able to create shot for himself by running of picks or driving to the hoop.

LBJ is a good offensive player because he can draw a help d and kick to an open teammate.

Without Rose creating space for him what can Deng do offensively? Pass the ball around the perimeter. Shoot long 2s? He can't drive to the basket, he can't run the p and r, he can't post up, he does't run of screens or picks.

Works equally well when I flip it, doesn't it?

And I'm not understanding why you think +/- doesn't take competition into account, given enough minutes being packed into the basic model, unless you think that Deng is specifically being hidden against good opposition lineups (which, given he's been playint 37+ mpg the past 3 seasons, would take some doing).

Here is what I mean, lets say the Bulls play a poor team and Deng has +12 and Rose has a +8 and the Bulls win. Then the Bulls play a good team like the Heat and both Rose and Deng have a +2 and the Bulls win. Well the Bulls have 2 wins and Deng has a +14 and Rose has a +10 so you think Deng is more valuable, but the Bulls can't win the game against the Heat without Rose.

[ahonui06]

How are they doing defensively, out of interest, compared to normal?

And ahouni, people have (for the most part) laid out their arguments respectfully in this thread. Would be nice if that respectfulness could continue.

That was me being respectful. I was only stating the obvious that others have missed.

[rrravenred]

My point was that you're taking factors x and y as being the most important to a good offensive player and decrying Deng because he doesn't have them even though they're not common to all "good" offensive players.

Well what constitutes a good offensive player? Durant an elite offensive player is able to create shot for himself by running of picks or driving to the hoop.

LBJ is a good offensive player because he can draw a help d and kick to an open teammate.

Without Rose creating space for him what can Deng do offensively? Pass the ball around the perimeter. Shoot long 2s? He can't drive to the basket, he can't run the p and r, he can't post up, he does't run of screens or picks.

Here's where the eye test conflicts with the stats, and it's interesting. Just WHY does Deng's team-based production outstrip his skillset and basic stats.

FWIW, The Synergy stats for Deng broadly agree with your assessment.

29.7% of Deng's offensive shots come as spot-up shots, which he converts at 1.11 points per possession (53rd in the league)

The P'N'R (combined) account for about 13%, which he converts at about .67 ppp (74th at the roll, 135th as the ballhandler).

84th most efficient off screens, which only represent 7% of his total shots, etc.

But do those plays entirely capture a player's team offensive contribution?

It's one of the great limitations of APM. We know the result, but what contributes to is is a matter of conjecture.

(Interestingly, Synergy also records the vast majority of Rose's shots as on the P'n'R (ball handler, of course). Whilst that requires Rose to execute his skills well (which he certainly does), it also needs a good pick as well as a clear(ish) path to the basket caused by good spacing)

Here is what I mean, lets say the Bulls play a poor team and Deng has +12 and Rose has a +8 and the Bulls win. Then the Bulls play a good team like the Heat and both Rose and Deng have a +2 and the Bulls win. Well the Bulls have 2 wins and Deng has a +14 and Rose has a +10 so you think Deng is more valuable, but the Bulls can't win the game against the Heat without Rose.

Be interesting to weight APM by SRS to try and counter for that, but once again why shouldn't we assume that this benefits Rose as much as Deng?

This point was brought up earlier given the quality of Deng's contributions during Rose's earlier absence, but you need more data (which may or may not be available) before you can really make any sort of definitive statement.

[rrravenred]

Bluntly, ahouni, describing other posters as clowns isn't respectful at all.

And "stating the obvious" can often be another way of saying you're accepting results without doing any rigorous analysis.

[alucryts]

Two things I would like to add.

1) I think a large fallacy in this thread is attempting to assign the tag of team MVP to a single player. Outside of Rose, the team operates as units. All of those units depend on one another intimately in order to do their job. Picking one person out of the unit and giving them the MVP credit is not really representing the true picture. Rose is the only player on the Bulls that has enough singular and independent contributions that do not rely on another player. He is the only player on the Bulls that you can really label as an MVP because his contributions are not derived or directly dependent on his team mates. To pull one player out of the defense and say the defense is good because of them is simply ludicrous. Noah, Omer, and Taj are the only players on the Bulls that really come close to having a singular defensive impact.

2) To talk about Synergy numbers for rravenred, I would absolutely not look at the rankings within the league. In order to qualify, a player needs 25 attempts within the category. They can be quite misleading. The best way to gauge a player in the category is to look at what you would consider the elite players in that category. That usually gives you a good idea of where they stand.

As for Rose, if you could see his numbers last season (you need a subscription to see em now), you can pretty easily confirm the eye test as to what he changed this season. He was an isolation dynamo last season absolutely tearing up defenses. This season, he is taking those isolation attempts and turning them into PnR attempts. His isolations this season are mostly bailout/emergency broken plays. It's the same idea as when a mid range shooter starts shooting more threes; they convert the high quality mid range shots into high quality three point attempts. The mid range percentage tanks, but that is because all of the high percentage looks are no longer being taken in the mid range. There is a common misconception that Rose is a worse three point shooter when the reality is that he just doesn't look for high quality mid range shots anymore.

[InsideTheMind12]

If there is any reason why Deng is the MVP and not Rose. It is because Rose's backup, CJ Watson is much better than Luol Deng's backup. It has nothing to do with who is better, it just has to do with the fact that the replacement of that player is inferior to another.

[ahonui06]

Bluntly, ahouni, describing other posters as clowns isn't respectful at all.

And "stating the obvious" can often be another way of saying you're accepting results without doing any rigorous analysis.

ahonui. Why does everyone put the u before the n?

[rrravenred]

Two things I would like to add.

1) I think a large fallacy in this thread is attempting to assign the tag of team MVP to a single player. Outside of Rose, the team operates as units. All of those units depend on one another intimately in order to do their job. Picking one person out of the unit and giving them the MVP credit is not really representing the true picture. Rose is the only player on the Bulls that has enough singular and independent contributions that do not rely on another player.

I agree with the first sentence absolutely. The others... not necessarily. I agree to the extent that the Bulls are like "Six Feet Under" as an ensemble cast rather than say, "24" with Kiefer Sutherland. It's a beautifully drilled and well put together unit. Does it have its limitations? Sure.

It sounds like you're arguing special cases for Rose in the same manner Kobe fans do when he's not kindly treated by an advanced stat. Rose's skills are still exercised within a team context (on both ends) and it's not a 1-on-5 proposition against the Bulls on the offensive end (and yeah, I'd even extend that to a player like Iverson, who's like the dark-side-of-the-mirror version of Rose, in terms of team context).

2) To talk about Synergy numbers for rravenred, I would absolutely not look at the rankings within the league. In order to qualify, a player needs 25 attempts within the category. They can be quite misleading. The best way to gauge a player in the category is to look at what you would consider the elite players in that category. That usually gives you a good idea of where they stand.

I'd love it if you could elaborate on what you think the limitations of this are. I was more or less agreeing with RR3 that Deng DOES have a relatively limited offensive skillset, and that on the basis of those specific play events he couldn't be considered at all elite.

For example, Deng was top 10 in Offensive rebound putbacks ITO points per play. All well and good, of course, but he only averages 1.4 ORB a game.

The Synergy stats are interesting, but as I'm sure you'd point out, they're context-insensitive, so have to be interpreted with reasonable care.

As for Rose, if you could see his numbers last season (you need a subscription to see em now), you can pretty easily confirm the eye test as to what he changed this season. He was an isolation dynamo last season absolutely tearing up defenses. This season, he is taking those isolation attempts and turning them into PnR attempts. His isolations this season are mostly bailout/emergency broken plays.

Last year, I was maintaining that he still had a fair way to go to reach his ceiling, even if no more MVPs were forthcoming, and that sounds exactly like the kind of thing I was talking about, playing a team-oriented game which helps to unpick a team's defense rather than an individual defender's.

[rrravenred]

Bluntly, ahouni, describing other posters as clowns isn't respectful at all.

And "stating the obvious" can often be another way of saying you're accepting results without doing any rigorous analysis.

ahonui. Why does everyone put the u before the n?

Apologies. Just got to remember the islander "flavor".

[mysticbb]

Here is what I mean, lets say the Bulls play a poor team and Deng has +12 and Rose has a +8 and the Bulls win. Then the Bulls play a good team like the Heat and both Rose and Deng have a +2 and the Bulls win. Well the Bulls have 2 wins and Deng has a +14 and Rose has a +10 so you think Deng is more valuable, but the Bulls can't win the game against the Heat without Rose.

That issue should be captured by APM versions. The coefficients are per se adjusted for the strength of the opponents. Thus, when we look at the RAPM values we don't have to worry about such things.

Deng has +3.0 (including last night game against the 76ers), Rose has +2.4

We now have 13 games without Rose in which the Bulls were in average +3.7 SRS, that is still better than the games without Deng (1.3 SRS). The Bulls played like a 2.9 SRS team against all the better teams without Rose, which includes now wins over the Heat, the 76ers, Celtics and Suns. They are playing right at the expected level without Rose and Deng.

[alucryts]

I agree with the first sentence absolutely. The others... not necessarily. I agree to the extent that the Bulls are like "Six Feet Under" as an ensemble cast rather than say, "24" with Kiefer Sutherland. It's a beautifully drilled and well put together unit. Does it have its limitations? Sure.

It sounds like you're arguing special cases for Rose in the same manner Kobe fans do when he's not kindly treated by an advanced stat. Rose's skills are still exercised within a team context (on both ends) and it's not a 1-on-5 proposition against the Bulls on the offensive end (and yeah, I'd even extend that to a player like Iverson, who's like the dark-side-of-the-mirror version of Rose, in terms of team context).

I'm not saying that Rose does absolutely everything, but any chain of events while he is on the floor begins with him on the offensive end. Rip was the other player that could start a chain of passes leading to open looks, but he is a highly paid spectator this season. I think we can all agree that Deng is not very valuable on the offensive side of the floor because of his limitations.

Defensively, only the big men of the defense have MVP claims. They are in charge of making sure it runs correctly, and they shout out directions to the perimeter players. One of these is Deng. There is no area of the game where Deng isn't relying on someone else to make his impact felt. I don't see how a player that relies so much on others can be the MVP. From looking at the APM numbers and what not, it seems that he is the one reaping the benefits of the defense, but I am strongly against saying the defense is good because of Deng.

I'd love it if you could elaborate on what you think the limitations of this are. I was more or less agreeing with RR3 that Deng DOES have a relatively limited offensive skillset, and that on the basis of those specific play events he couldn't be considered at all elite.

For example, Deng was top 10 in Offensive rebound putbacks ITO points per play. All well and good, of course, but he only averages 1.4 ORB a game.

The Synergy stats are interesting, but as I'm sure you'd point out, they're context-insensitive, so have to be interpreted with reasonable care.

You basically nailed it. Those rankings almost completely ignore volume. If a a bunch of lower tier players come in sparingly, barely hit 25 Spot ups or something and end up with an insane unsustainable efficiency, they are ranked super highly. In order to step around this, you just have to look at a bunch of people in the league to get a rough idea of what is elite and what is not. The rankings can give a very vague picture of skill level, but just having a general feel for what is the norm is much more accurate here. As for categories Deng is at least good at on offense per Synergy, we have Spot up and Cut. He is an above average spot up shooter and cutter. Beyond that, He doesn't do much in the efficiency department on offense. I would love if Synergy could provide average numbers or sort-able rankings.....they have neither.

Last year, I was maintaining that he still had a fair way to go to reach his ceiling, even if no more MVPs were forthcoming, and that sounds exactly like the kind of thing I was talking about, playing a team-oriented game which helps to unpick a team's defense rather than an individual defender's.

He still has a way to go to really be able to get the highest quality looks out of the pick and roll, but he has shown a dramatic shift from isolation to PnR. To give you a gauge of where his passing has progressed to, I would say he is on par with this season's Deron Williams. One thing that Deng is great at is running a pick and pop with Rose; they use this a TON.

[mysticbb]

I think we can all agree that Deng is not very valuable on the offensive side of the floor because of his limitations.

Can you say what you mean with "not very valuable"? It sounds like something measurable, and maybe you can put a number on it; like saying: Deng is about a point worse offensively than average per 100 possessions. Something along the line in order to see in which degree we agree on that.

Well, I would not build any kind of offense around Deng, but Deng is also playing within his limitations and at that he is not a negative offensively.

Defensively, only the big men of the defense have MVP claims. They are in charge of making sure it runs correctly, and they shout out directions to the perimeter players. One of these is Deng. There is no area of the game where Deng isn't relying on someone else to make his impact felt. I don't see how a player that relies so much on others can be the MVP. From looking at the APM numbers and what not, it seems that he is the one reaping the benefits of the defense, but I am strongly against saying the defense is good because of Deng.

That seems like the biggest contradiction between your opinion and the real results. You are claiming things and you are backing that up with some hypotheses, but the reality tells us that without Deng the defense is much worse than without Noah for example. For me that means either the results are wrong or your idea is not entirely correct.

[alucryts]

Can you say what you mean with "not very valuable"? It sounds like something measurable, and maybe you can put a number on it; like saying: Deng is about a point worse offensively than average per 100 possessions. Something along the line in order to see in which degree we agree on that.

Well, I would not build any kind of offense around Deng, but Deng is also playing within his limitations and at that he is not a negative offensively.

Deng is not a bad offensive player or a negative, I didn't mean to get that across. I was making a relative comparison between what I think an offensive MVP would have as an impact. His 3 point shot has made him at least an above average offensive player in my opinion. I think that his latest numbers have been hampered by his injury, but even non injured Deng is not anywhere close to an MVP impact on offense

That seems like the biggest contradiction between your opinion and the real results. You are claiming things and you are backing that up with some hypotheses, but the reality tells us that without Deng the defense is much worse than without Noah for example. For me that means either the results are wrong or your idea is not entirely correct.

I strongly beg to differ that the results are a direct translation to the reason behind the results like you do with these numbers. Unless one of us changes our opinion on how the results relate to the underlying reason for the result, there is not much of a reason to continue debating this like we did before. Your stance is that the reason for the results can be gathered by comparing lineups from plus minus while mine is that plus minus has weak correlation to reason and ignores context that cannot be captured in plus minus.

For example, last season when the Bull's defense started the season, if I remember correctly it did not start off very strongly. There was a visible learning curve for the entire team. Noah started the year off during this learning curve, and went out with injuries for a long stretch of the season when the defense was getting up to par with what we now expect. It's these dynamic situations and synergies that exist between players that I believe plus minus cannot account for. I believe it can be a valuable tool to bring up ideas like the premise of this thread, but this idea has to be validated by statistics and views completely unrelated to plus minus as a check of validity. When plus minus is the only test that comes to the conclusion that Deng is the MVP of the Bulls due to his defense having DPOY level impact, I have to say that there is an error in the interpretation of the results.