Thoughts on Donovan right now

[kodo]

Yes, I think they would be magically better. And by magic i mean the statistical 5 man lineups that have been posted. the "magic" numbers say they would be better. The Bulls start 3 bad perimeter defenders. If they started 2, they might have a lead once in awhile. Ayo would be a dramatic upgrade in point of attack defense over Coby. It's also historically worked that way. Bulls always better with 2 good perimeter defenders under Donovan AND Coby/Lavine have never played well together.

Regardless, even if it is just magic, why not try it?

I wouldn't hate it if they tried it to be clear. I'd bench Giddey, he's by far the worst defender of the group.

Notably, Giddey was on the bench in favor of Ayo down the stretch last night.

An interesting call considering:

Giddey: +2
Ayo: -21 (worst on the team)

[jnrjr79]

I wouldn't hate it if they tried it to be clear. I'd bench Giddey, he's by far the worst defender of the group.

Notably, Giddey was on the bench in favor of Ayo down the stretch last night.

An interesting call considering:

Giddey: +2
Ayo: -21 (worst on the team)

Yeah, I get wanting Ayo's defense, but with his shot having disappeared this season, I'm not sure this is how I'd go.

[Ballerkingn23]

I don't like him nor dislike him but he needs to make a decision is he developing or trying to win and stick with it. Because I do think he prefers to win and that's fine but ask to leave or switch positions to an upper management role. Otherwise I think what's best for the organization is to play and develop the younger guys. So accept that and stay and do what's needed and play the younger guys.

[dougthonus]

I wouldn't hate it if they tried it to be clear. I'd bench Giddey, he's by far the worst defender of the group.

As I watch Giddey single handedley keep them in the game

Benching Giddey makes no sense. The Bulls have needed a PG for awhile. Donovan keeps benching Giddey down the stretch only for the team to lose. Then he'll put Giddey back in the game in the final 2 minutes ... get this joker off my bench. I'm so tired of mismanaged front offices in Chicago.

Giddey is the worst defender on the team and the biggest cause of our defensive issues IMO. Him and Vuc together is a particular train wreck that is attacked constantly.

[dougthonus]

I wouldn't hate it if they tried it to be clear. I'd bench Giddey, he's by far the worst defender of the group.

Notably, Giddey was on the bench in favor of Ayo down the stretch last night.

An interesting call considering:

Giddey: +2
Ayo: -21 (worst on the team)

If you want to look at net rating generally, Giddey's -16.7 is the worst on the team next to Ayo -11.7.

That said, I don't think net rating with this small of a sample size in non regressed form means anything and in many ways hate these numbers exist at all based on how people use them as causal stats when they clearly aren't.

[HomoSapien]

Anyone else noticing a decent amount of Triangle Offense this season?

[kodo]

Notably, Giddey was on the bench in favor of Ayo down the stretch last night.

An interesting call considering:

Giddey: +2
Ayo: -21 (worst on the team)

If you want to look at net rating generally, Giddey's -16.7 is the worst on the team next to Ayo -11.7.

That said, I don't think net rating with this small of a sample size in non regressed form means anything and in many ways hate these numbers exist at all based on how people use them as causal stats when they clearly aren't.

Single game net rating is not a complex or advanced stat, it's a boxscore stat. The team is either up or down when X player was on the floor, it's not more subjective than points or rebounds. If Billy made that call based on us being slightly less bad with Ayo out there for the season so far I guess I can understand that, but in that particular game the Bulls were better with Giddey out there vs Ayo. You don't even need to know the +/-, Ayo was 2-8, 1-4 from 3, and wasn't even playing any kind of effective defense stopping anyone from scoring. He hasn't all year. He's usually at least disruptive with steals in previous years, this season he averages close to 0 SPG. Even Giddey is close to 1 spg.

Ayo's been one of my favorite Bulls in past years, but he's been bad on both ends so far. It's a weird call by Billy to try and close with him given how badly he's started this season, on both ends.

[dougthonus]

Single game net rating is not a complex or advanced stat, it's a boxscore stat. The team is either up or down when X player was on the floor, it's not more subjective than points or rebounds.

The meaning people infer from the stat is highly subjective and usually ludicrous, because people view it as a causal stat instead of a correlation stat. People often talk about how the team plays bad because X is on the floor or good because Y is on the floor and quote these numbers.

Statistically, that is an absolute farce until you regress them for quality of opponent and quality of teammates and remove all the luck based elements and need a huge amount of data before it settles down enough.

[League Circles]

Single game net rating is not a complex or advanced stat, it's a boxscore stat. The team is either up or down when X player was on the floor, it's not more subjective than points or rebounds.

The meaning people infer from the stat is highly subjective and usually ludicrous, because people view it as a causal stat instead of a correlation stat. People often talk about how the team plays bad because X is on the floor or good because Y is on the floor and quote these numbers.

Statistically, that is an absolute farce until you regress them for quality of opponent and quality of teammates and remove all the luck based elements and need a huge amount of data before it settles down enough.

It's a poor tool to compare two different players, but it can be an excellent tool for problem diagnosis. If a player has a high rating, it may not suggest that he's better than another player with even a much lower rating, but it does suggest that the player with the high rating is not a problem to be solved in his current role. I suppose it's probably pretty rare that a player has such a high rating that this is clear, but when it is, it means that that player playing the role he's playing is definitely not a problem to be solved.

[dougthonus]

It's a poor tool to compare two different players, but it can be an excellent tool for problem diagnosis. If a player has a high rating, it may not suggest that he's better than another player with even a much lower rating, but it does suggest that the player with the high rating is not a problem to be solved in his current role. I suppose it's probably pretty rare that a player has such a high rating that this is clear, but when it is, it means that that player playing the role he's playing is definitely not a problem to be solved.

But it doesn't really do that either, until you do all of the things I just said to balance out all of the context properly and have enough data and samples of different context to say it means literally anything whatsoever. The fact people think it is a good stat at showing these things without balancing out context and in limited data is the problem.

If you want to use the data to say, the team went on a run against us twice while this player was on the floor, but it doesn't mean that was due to this player in any way shape or form and may have been coincidence or caused by a completely different player or two different players one for each run or may have been due to shooting variance or any other number of factors, then sure. It's good at showing that.

Not sure I've ever seen anyone use the stat that way though, it is always, this player has a terrible +/- in this game or this player has a great +/- in this game, they did really <good/bad> because of this player. It doesn't say that, but it is almost exclusively how it is used.

[League Circles]

It's a poor tool to compare two different players, but it can be an excellent tool for problem diagnosis. If a player has a high rating, it may not suggest that he's better than another player with even a much lower rating, but it does suggest that the player with the high rating is not a problem to be solved in his current role. I suppose it's probably pretty rare that a player has such a high rating that this is clear, but when it is, it means that that player playing the role he's playing is definitely not a problem to be solved.

But it doesn't really do that either, until you do all of the things I just said to balance out all of the context properly and have enough data and samples of different context to say it means literally anything whatsoever. The fact people think it is a good stat at showing these things without balancing out context and in limited data is the problem.

If you want to use the data to say, the team went on a run against us twice while this player was on the floor, but it doesn't mean that was due to this player in any way shape or form and may have been coincidence or caused by a completely different player or two different players one for each run or may have been due to shooting variance or any other number of factors, then sure. It's good at showing that.

Not sure I've ever seen anyone use the stat that way though, it is always, this player has a terrible +/- in this game or this player has a great +/- in this game, they did really <good/bad> because of this player. It doesn't say that, but it is almost exclusively how it is used.

I was talking general unadjusted, not single game, but you're still bringing it back to comparison where I agreed it's not of good use.

My point is, if you're a GM of a team, trying to diagnose what might be most wrong and in need of change, taking a guy out of a role that, when he plays that role, his team consistently wins, is a bad place to start tinkering. Unequivocally. It doesn't suggest solutions to problems or allow you to compare players, but it is probably as good as you can get for a metric to, sometimes, eliminate certain problems from being entertained to fix (cause they're provably not broken).

[Jcool0]

Seems to be kind of a weird spot right now. Billy doesn't want to be coaching a rebuilding team or he would of stayed in OKC. This clearly isn't the situation he was promised in Chicago. But it is also at a point where he probably knows he isn't getting another NBA job and doesn't want to go back to college. This is a marriage of convenience. Billy doesn't really have any other options and for the Bulls he gives them at lest to casuals the appearance of wanting to win games.

[Andi Obst]

I've been on the more positive side when it comes to Billy for a while now. There are always some small rotation things that confuse me (playing THT, for example), but the new offense makes a lot of sense with the players they have and even though he's not playing Matas much, BD is at least playing young guys instead. I expected Craig to have a big role behind Pat. Good to see him collecting DNPs instead. Same goes for Carter.

Sure: If this was a serious basketball team, I'd definitely want to start Ayo over Giddey. But it's not and that's okay.

[dougthonus]

I was talking general unadjusted, not single game, but you're still bringing it back to comparison where I agreed it's not of good use.

My point is, if you're a GM of a team, trying to diagnose what might be most wrong and in need of change, taking a guy out of a role that, when he plays that role, his team consistently wins, is a bad place to start tinkering. Unequivocally. It doesn't suggest solutions to problems or allow you to compare players, but it is probably as good as you can get for a metric to, sometimes, eliminate certain problems from being entertained to fix (cause they're provably not broken).

General, unadjusted is absolutely god awful at doing what you just said, because it isn't adjusted or regressed or account for other factors.

[League Circles]

I was talking general unadjusted, not single game, but you're still bringing it back to comparison where I agreed it's not of good use.

My point is, if you're a GM of a team, trying to diagnose what might be most wrong and in need of change, taking a guy out of a role that, when he plays that role, his team consistently wins, is a bad place to start tinkering. Unequivocally. It doesn't suggest solutions to problems or allow you to compare players, but it is probably as good as you can get for a metric to, sometimes, eliminate certain problems from being entertained to fix (cause they're provably not broken).

General, unadjusted is absolutely god awful at doing what you just said, because it isn't adjusted or regressed or account for other factors.

That's the whole point. It doesn't need to be adjusted or account for other factors, because, in the cases I'm referring to, it correctly identifies that the situation is an absolute non problem to begin with. Doesn't mean improvement isn't possible by taking the guy out of the role, but compels you to look at other unrelated changes first when you are looking for possible things to change, which is always the situation. Unlike composite and estimate metrics, it establishes beyond any doubt (sometimes) that you are doing very, very well with a guy in a role. Yes, it may be due to other factors, but that's irrelevant. Don't prioritize fixing what's working super well, even if you don't understand exactly why it's working so well. Start with other changes to things that clearly aren't working well first.

[dougthonus]

That's the whole point. It doesn't need to be adjusted or account for other factors, because, in the cases I'm referring to, it correctly identifies that the situation is an absolute non problem to begin with. Doesn't mean improvement isn't possible by taking the guy out of the role, but compels you to look at other unrelated changes first when you are looking for possible things to change, which is always the situation. Unlike composite and estimate metrics, it establishes beyond any doubt (sometimes) that you are doing very, very well with a guy in a role. Yes, it may be due to other factors, but that's irrelevant. Don't prioritize fixing what's working super well, even if you don't understand exactly why it's working so well. Start with other changes to things that clearly aren't working well first.

Not sure what to say from a mathematical / statistical perspective, what you saying is objectively incorrect and absolutely not how that works. There is no reason to think that non regressed, raw numbers that don't account for all the important pieces of known variance are better than the version of these numbers that do account for those things. If you want to believe that is how it works, then not much else to discuss about it.

[Stratmaster]

It's a poor tool to compare two different players, but it can be an excellent tool for problem diagnosis. If a player has a high rating, it may not suggest that he's better than another player with even a much lower rating, but it does suggest that the player with the high rating is not a problem to be solved in his current role. I suppose it's probably pretty rare that a player has such a high rating that this is clear, but when it is, it means that that player playing the role he's playing is definitely not a problem to be solved.

But it doesn't really do that either, until you do all of the things I just said to balance out all of the context properly and have enough data and samples of different context to say it means literally anything whatsoever. The fact people think it is a good stat at showing these things without balancing out context and in limited data is the problem.

If you want to use the data to say, the team went on a run against us twice while this player was on the floor, but it doesn't mean that was due to this player in any way shape or form and may have been coincidence or caused by a completely different player or two different players one for each run or may have been due to shooting variance or any other number of factors, then sure. It's good at showing that.

Not sure I've ever seen anyone use the stat that way though, it is always, this player has a terrible +/- in this game or this player has a great +/- in this game, they did really <good/bad> because of this player. It doesn't say that, but it is almost exclusively how it is used.

Well, there is one thing we have always agreed on. Have you noticed Donovan uses raw single game +/- frequently?

[Chi town]

As I watch Giddey single handedley keep them in the game

Benching Giddey makes no sense. The Bulls have needed a PG for awhile. Donovan keeps benching Giddey down the stretch only for the team to lose. Then he'll put Giddey back in the game in the final 2 minutes ... get this joker off my bench. I'm so tired of mismanaged front offices in Chicago.

Giddey is the worst defender on the team and the biggest cause of our defensive issues IMO. Him and Vuc together is a particular train wreck that is attacked constantly.

Vuc is by far the biggest defensive weakness because he plays the most important defensive position. Giddey is worse but not as important.

Zach Coby Giddey is crazy bad defensively but if you put a rim protector even as good as Gafford or Lively they all look below average but passable. You add a Gobert level defender at C and they probably become averagish and with Pat at PF they become a solid defensive team.

Lonzo is going to help this D quite a bit too.

[jnrjr79]

Benching Giddey makes no sense. The Bulls have needed a PG for awhile. Donovan keeps benching Giddey down the stretch only for the team to lose. Then he'll put Giddey back in the game in the final 2 minutes ... get this joker off my bench. I'm so tired of mismanaged front offices in Chicago.

Giddey is the worst defender on the team and the biggest cause of our defensive issues IMO. Him and Vuc together is a particular train wreck that is attacked constantly.

Vuc is by far the biggest defensive weakness because he plays the most important defensive position. Giddey is worse but not as important.

Zach Coby Giddey is crazy bad defensively but if you put a rim protector even as good as Gafford or Lively they all look below average but passable. You add a Gobert level defender at C and they probably become averagish and with Pat at PF they become a solid defensive team.

Lonzo is going to help this D quite a bit too.

This thing may take care of itself. If Zach keeps playing this long, he’s likely traded. If Vooch keeps shooting like this, unfathomably, he may actually be as well. There will be opportunities to really improve the defensive profile of this team if Giddey is retained, but as Doug has noted repeatedly, it does limit your flexibility because you have to plan for Giddey’s limitations.

The one nice thing is that before this season, it was thought you’d have to work around both Giddey’s lack of a 3-point shot and his defensive shortcomings. If his early shooting is sustainable, at least that takes the pressure off one of those concerns.

[Chi town]

Giddey is the worst defender on the team and the biggest cause of our defensive issues IMO. Him and Vuc together is a particular train wreck that is attacked constantly.

Vuc is by far the biggest defensive weakness because he plays the most important defensive position. Giddey is worse but not as important.

Zach Coby Giddey is crazy bad defensively but if you put a rim protector even as good as Gafford or Lively they all look below average but passable. You add a Gobert level defender at C and they probably become averagish and with Pat at PF they become a solid defensive team.

Lonzo is going to help this D quite a bit too.

This thing may take care of itself. If Zach keeps playing this long, he’s likely traded. If Vooch keeps shooting like this, unfathomably, he may actually be as well. There will be opportunities to really improve the defensive profile of this team if Giddey is retained, but as Doug has noted repeatedly, it does limit your flexibility because you have to plan for Giddey’s limitations.

The one nice thing is that before this season, it was thought you’d have to work around both Giddey’s lack of a 3-point shot and his defensive shortcomings. If his early shooting is sustainable, at least that takes the pressure off one of those concerns.

The Giddler is making wide open 3s. We replace Vuc with a rim protecting C and those 3s and spacing goes away because that protector won’t be shooting 3s or pulling the defense out to guard them.

Giddey’s percentage is good but he’s passed up a lot and can’t create 3s off the dribble. He doesn’t shoot any that are even slightly contested. I’d much rather see him get higher volume and produce gravity and spacing then low volume makes that doesn’t help anyone else.

As some have said Giddey needs the right type of players around him in order to really shine and make them shine.