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

[kdapiton]

No news of Nate yet? This is worse than Dwightmare.

NATEMARE!

[The 6ft Hurdle]

If you care about how the team plays, and not individual stats, there is no reason to play Nate over Hinrich.

Hinrich
Stat ON Court OFF Court Net
Minutes 1764 2201 44%
Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 106.2 103.3 +2.9
Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 102.8 105.1 -2.3
Net Points per 100 Possessions +3.4 -1.8 +5.2

Nate
Stat ON Court OFF Court Net
Minutes 2086 1879 52%
Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 105.9 103.2 +2.7
Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 105.9 102.1 +3.8
Net Points per 100 Possessions +0.0 +1.1 -1.0

If you think that does not pass the eye test, you have to try to see why. If you play with players with higher numbers, it could raise yours, and vica versa. That can only happen when those other players have higher numbers. I quick look would be the starters versus the reserves, but the offense is most effective with Hinrich, for any of the starters, and with Gibson, for any of the reserves, so that can not explain why. You can also have better on/off court numbers, if the person that substitutes for your position is awful.

The numbers show that either Hinrich made the offense much better, or that Robinson was bad enough to make it look that way. Either way it looks like it does not make any sense to bring back Nate. I personally think that Nate did an admirable job, especially on a minimum salary contract, but there is no reason for either side to consider Nate's return to the Bulls, when there is no role, except to sit on the bench, in case injuries really mount up.

I care about how this team plays; following your logic about stats, do you need any other stat than the final score to see that Nate Robinson carried the team to a few important victories in the playoffs?

[The 6ft Hurdle]

Weren't we 5th in offense in Derricks last season?

Doesn't matter where we rank, it's who we beat in the playoffs.

[Ben]

The debate between Nate Robinson and Kirk Hinrich is just like the debate between Carlos Boozer and Taj Gibson. It will just be agree and disagree situation as some people weight offense more than defense and some weight defense more than offense.

I have to say that Nate Robison get hot faster than Boozer and Nate isn't back off from anything.

It is not giving up defense, for offense, when the stats show that the team is better, both offensively, and defensively, with both Hinrich, and Gibson, over Nate, and Boozer. If you care about how the team plays, and not individual stats, there is no reason to play Nate over Hinrich.

Hinrich
Stat ON Court OFF Court Net
Minutes 1764 2201 44%
Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 106.2 103.3 +2.9
Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 102.8 105.1 -2.3
Net Points per 100 Possessions +3.4 -1.8 +5.2

Nate
Stat ON Court OFF Court Net
Minutes 2086 1879 52%
Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 105.9 103.2 +2.7
Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 105.9 102.1 +3.8
Net Points per 100 Possessions +0.0 +1.1 -1.0

If you think that does not pass the eye test, you have to try to see why. If you play with players with higher numbers, it could raise yours, and vica versa. That can only happen when those other players have higher numbers. I quick look would be the starters versus the reserves, but the offense is most effective with Hinrich, for any of the starters, and with Gibson, for any of the reserves, so that can not explain why. You can also have better on/off court numbers, if the person that substitutes for your position is awful.

The numbers show that either Hinrich made the offense much better, or that Robinson was bad enough to make it look that way. Either way it looks like it does not make any sense to bring back Nate. I personally think that Nate did an admirable job, especially on a minimum salary contract, but there is no reason for either side to consider Nate's return to the Bulls, when there is no role, except to sit on the bench, in case injuries really mount up.

To be fair, you're looking at raw +/- numbers, which are widely (and I think rightly) criticized for the difficulty in disentangling multiple effects. To see why, note that Luol Deng has a very bad raw +/- number (-1.3, according to 82games.com). Was the team really better without him than with him?

Adjusted +/- is often regarded as a superior stat (if you're going to use such stats) because it factors in the players' production versus his counterpart's production as WELL as +/-. And if you look at the Bulls' numbers from last season, raw +/- gives the following ranking (best to worst impact on team play):
Gibson
Hinrich
Noah
Butler
Robinson
Deng (negative territory begins)
Hamilton
Belinelli
Boozer
(I'm including only guys who played substantial minutes.)

Adjusted +/- gives the following ranking (best to worst):
Butler
Noah
Deng
Robinson
Gibson
Hamilton
Boozer
Belinelli
Hinrich

I'm guessing that those of us who watched a lot of games would favor the 2nd set of rankings over the 1st set as a more accurate depiction of the players' values.

And it's not just our team. If you go by raw +/-, Mario Chalmers was more important to the Heat than Dwyane Wade. If you go by adjusted +/-, it's heavily in Wade's favor. Similarly, on the Lakers, Ron Artest has the best raw +/-. But if you go by adjusted +/-, Kobe, Howard, and Pau are all above him. The examples go on.

I'm not saying that one needs to look at +/-, period. But if you do, it's best not simply to use raw numbers.

[Ajosu]

Somehow we have been debating Kirk vs Nate here the last few pages. I don't know why, because Kirk is here regardless of what we do with Nate, and I think both can co-exist in the second unit. But the thought that Teague could have any role in the decision to not bring back Nate just irks me to know end!

There is just no downside to bringing Nate back. Forget about his flaws or the position he plays on the floor. He is good at the main thing we lack - the ability to score, and create his own offense. He would be a nice option to have off the bench, and I loved his energy and attitude on the court for us last season. I would love to have him back.

Can't say i disagree with anything of this. It makes sense to me, but all i was saying or posting was from the perspective from the FO and trying to understand their line of thinking, and in doing so, its merely speculation on my behalf.

I think Nate has a spot on this roster regardless of Kirk, Teague & Rose, and if Thibs is willing to play him with Kirk, then he has a place here for 15-20 minutes a game.

That remains unclear, as does the notion that the FO want him back at all.

For the record though, i agree with you, and if he would agree to the minimum, then i don't even think twice about signing him.

Yeah, I hear you. I just think "not wanting Nate back at all in order to develop Teague" would be a pretty poor line of thinking on their part.

I mean, think about the end goal of developing Teague in the first place - good backup on a dirt cheap contract. What is Nate? Good backup on a dirt cheap contract! Sure, their strengths would likely be in different areas. But I think it's pretty clear that Nate's skillset (creating his own offense) is pretty valuable to this team right now, and no developing is needed.

...getting off my soapbox now.

[ScottyKCMO]

If we can't re-sign Nate, I hope the FO strongly considers Will Bynum for the minimum. I haven't watched a ton of Pistons games outside of when we play them, but I've always respected his game and his ability to provide energy and instant offense off the bench. He seems like a guy whose role and impact would be very similar to Nate. Not to mention he is also a very good athlete for his size, like Nate.

Looking at his numbers last year vs. Nate, they are actually pretty similar. The main differences to me are that Nate takes more 3's and shoots them at a better percentage, whereas Bynum is a few inches taller and gets to the free throw line a bit more often. On the negative side, however, Bynum turns the ball over more frequently.

Per 36 minutes last year:
Points: Nate 18.5, Bynum 18.8
Assists: Nate 6.2, Bynum 6.8
Reb: Nate 3.2, Bynum 2.9
TO: Nate 2.5, Bynum 3.7
FGA/%: Nate 15.9/.433, Bynum 15.9/.469
3PA/%: Nate 6.0/.405, Bynum 2.2/.316
FTA/%: Nate 2.9/.799, Bynum 3.9/.809
PER: Nate 17.4, Bynum 16.6

EDIT: A couple of other fun facts about Bynum: He was born in Chicago, played high school ball in Chicago, and last season put up 25 pts and 10 ast in a win over Miami.

[Ben]

If we can't re-sign Nate, I hope the FO strongly considers Will Bynum for the minimum. I haven't watched a ton of Pistons games outside of when we play them, but I've always respected his game and his ability to provide energy and instant offense off the bench. He seems like a guy whose role and impact would be very similar to Nate. Not to mention he is also a very good athlete for his size, like Nate.

Looking at his numbers last year vs. Nate, they are actually pretty similar. The main differences to me are that Nate takes more 3's and shoots them at a better percentage, whereas Bynum is a few inches taller and gets to the free throw line a bit more often. On the negative side, however, Bynum turns the ball over more frequently.

Per 36 minutes last year:
Points: Nate 18.5, Bynum 18.8
Assists: Nate 6.2, Bynum 6.8
Reb: Nate 3.2, Bynum 2.9
TO: Nate 2.5, Bynum 3.7
FGA/%: Nate 15.9/.433, Bynum 15.9/.469
3PA/%: Nate 6.0/.405, Bynum 2.2/.316
FTA/%: Nate 2.9/.799, Bynum 3.9/.809
PER: Nate 17.4, Bynum 16.6

Do we have any reason to suspect that Bynum will be available for the minimum? Detroit can still re-sign him, and I think that they have considerable capspace remaining. If they don't pursue him, then I would think he'd be a good match in Golden State. Bottom line is that there are still teams with capspace out there, and Bynum would probably be regarded reasonably highly by at least one of them.

For my part, I would rather have Nate than Bynum because Nate's a much better 3P shooter and b/c he's been more consistent over his career. Bynum has been all over the map.

[Chitownbulls]

Bynum is a good player but he's not a great 3pt shooter

Hopefully Nate resigns, his energy and scoring could really help our 2 unit.

[Ralphb07]

^^^^ I'd rather have Nate too, I'd also rather have Nolan Smith. I just want to stay away from JL3. I think one thing we've seen is Thibs system is good for scoring guards, they flourish. JL3 not a good player, became a rotation player with us. Nate was good, but wasn't as consistent, under Thibs he had a much more consistent game.

For this reason if we can't get Nate, just try to get someone with better skills than JL3. Nolan Smith IMO with the Bulls, could be a real steal

[ScottyKCMO]

If we can't re-sign Nate, I hope the FO strongly considers Will Bynum for the minimum. I haven't watched a ton of Pistons games outside of when we play them, but I've always respected his game and his ability to provide energy and instant offense off the bench. He seems like a guy whose role and impact would be very similar to Nate. Not to mention he is also a very good athlete for his size, like Nate.

Looking at his numbers last year vs. Nate, they are actually pretty similar. The main differences to me are that Nate takes more 3's and shoots them at a better percentage, whereas Bynum is a few inches taller and gets to the free throw line a bit more often. On the negative side, however, Bynum turns the ball over more frequently.

Per 36 minutes last year:
Points: Nate 18.5, Bynum 18.8
Assists: Nate 6.2, Bynum 6.8
Reb: Nate 3.2, Bynum 2.9
TO: Nate 2.5, Bynum 3.7
FGA/%: Nate 15.9/.433, Bynum 15.9/.469
3PA/%: Nate 6.0/.405, Bynum 2.2/.316
FTA/%: Nate 2.9/.799, Bynum 3.9/.809
PER: Nate 17.4, Bynum 16.6

Do we have any reason to suspect that Bynum will be available for the minimum? Detroit can still re-sign him, and I think that they have considerable capspace remaining. If they don't pursue him, then I would think he'd be a good match in Golden State. Bottom line is that there are still teams with capspace out there, and Bynum would probably be regarded reasonably highly by at least one of them.

For my part, I would rather have Nate than Bynum because Nate's a much better 3P shooter and b/c he's been more consistent over his career. Bynum has been all over the map.

Agreed on all points. Just hope the Bulls have him high on the wish list is all. Looks like he made $3.25 mil/season the last three years in Detroit. If he doesn't get any similar offers, maybe playing for a contender--in his home town could give us an advantage.

[BR0D1E86]

We could do worse than Bynum. I'd like a better 3 point shooter though.

[mostek]

To be fair, you're looking at raw +/- numbers, which are widely (and I think rightly) criticized for the difficulty in disentangling multiple effects. To see why, note that Luol Deng has a very bad raw +/- number (-1.3, according to 82games.com). Was the team really better without him than with him?

Adjusted +/- is often regarded as a superior stat (if you're going to use such stats) because it factors in the players' production versus his counterpart's production as WELL as +/-. And if you look at the Bulls' numbers from last season, raw +/- gives the following ranking (best to worst impact on team play):
Gibson
Hinrich
Noah
Butler
Robinson
Deng (negative territory begins)
Hamilton
Belinelli
Boozer
(I'm including only guys who played substantial minutes.)

Adjusted +/- gives the following ranking (best to worst):
Butler
Noah
Deng
Robinson
Gibson
Hamilton
Boozer
Belinelli
Hinrich

I'm guessing that those of us who watched a lot of games would favor the 2nd set of rankings over the 1st set as a more accurate depiction of the players' values.

And it's not just our team. If you go by raw +/-, Mario Chalmers was more important to the Heat than Dwyane Wade. If you go by adjusted +/-, it's heavily in Wade's favor. Similarly, on the Lakers, Ron Artest has the best raw +/-. But if you go by adjusted +/-, Kobe, Howard, and Pau are all above him. The examples go on.

I'm not saying that one needs to look at +/-, period. But if you do, it's best not simply to use raw numbers.

The numbers I posted were adjusted +/- numbers, which shows the on court versus off court, to take into account the teams play. You are correct about the raw +/- which just show everyone good on a good team, and everyone bad on a bad team. Those can only be judged in context of comparing one player, on a particular team, in a particular year. The Raw numbers are as follows in +/- per minute:

Gibson +0.076
Hinrich +0.057
Noah +0.026
Butler +0.026
Robinson +0.014
Deng 0.000
Belinelli -0.022
Boozer -0.029
Hamilton -0.030

The adjustments you seem to be referring to try to add in individual statistics that have nothing to do with the team results. The on-court versus off-court stats show the team results for individual players, so you can see how efficient the offense, and defense is with each of those players.

True adjusted +/- on-court off-court (offense, defense, total) net points per 100 possessions

Gibson +5.8, -2.5, +8.3
Butler +3.0, -2.2, +5.2
Hinrich +3.4, -1.8, +5.2
...
Nate 0.0, -1.1, -1.1

if you look at the heat adjusted numbers, LeBron leads the pack at

James +12.0, -3.3, +15.3
Wade +11.5, +2.2, +9.2
Chambers +13.2, +1.9, +11.3
Bosh +9.3, +5.4, +3.9
Allen, +4.1, +11.7, -7.6

As mentioned in my OP, your numbers can be brought up with the players you on the court with, as long as there are higher ranked players. In the Heat case, Lebron raises every player he plays with. On the Bulls Gibson, Butler, and Hinrich raise the players they play with. In the Miami case, both Wade, and Chambers are raised up plaing with Lebron, and the way Wade played during the regular season, Chambers may have been more valuable, but they were at least fairly close, not like the huge advantage the stats show Hinrich, over Nate. I like how the true adjusted stats let you see both the offensive, and defensive effectiveness of the lineups with these players individually.

[Ben]

The numbers I posted were adjusted +/- numbers, which shows the on court versus off court, to take into account the teams play. You are correct about the raw +/- which just show everyone good on a good team, and everyone bad on a bad team. Those can only be judged in context of comparing one player, on a particular team, in a particular year. The Raw numbers are as follows in +/- per minute:

Gibson +0.076
Hinrich +0.057
Noah +0.026
Butler +0.026
Robinson +0.014
Deng 0.000
Belinelli -0.022
Boozer -0.029
Hamilton -0.030

The adjustments you seem to be referring to try to add in individual statistics that have nothing to do with the team results. The on-court versus off-court stats show the team results for individual players, so you can see how efficient the offense, and defense is with each of those players.

True adjusted +/- on-court off-court (offense, defense, total) net points per 100 possessions

Gibson +5.8, -2.5, +8.3
Butler +3.0, -2.2, +5.2
Hinrich +3.4, -1.8, +5.2
...
Nate 0.0, -1.1, -1.1

if you look at the heat adjusted numbers, LeBron leads the pack at

James +12.0, -3.3, +15.3
Wade +11.5, +2.2, +9.2
Chambers +13.2, +1.9, +11.3
Bosh +9.3, +5.4, +3.9
Allen, +4.1, +11.7, -7.6

As mentioned in my OP, your numbers can be brought up with the players you on the court with, as long as there are higher ranked players. In the Heat case, Lebron raises every player he plays with. On the Bulls Gibson, Butler, and Hinrich raise the players they play with. In the Miami case, both Wade, and Chambers are raised up plaing with Lebron, and the way Wade played during the regular season, Chambers may have been more valuable, but they were at least fairly close, not like the huge advantage the stats show Hinrich, over Nate. I like how the true adjusted stats let you see both the offensive, and defensive effectiveness of the lineups with these players individually.

This is good food for thought, and I have to digest it. From where are you getting your adjusted +/- numbers? It's kind of a slipperily-defined stat; 82games.com used to use it interchangeably with the Simple Rating, which is what I was providing. But I have also seen it defined and used by advanced-stat guys taking into account many individual stats as well as team stats. So: which definition, and which site/source, are you using?

[bearadonisdna]

Honestly, ill toot ralph07's horn, the guy who works for espn, he probably doesn't to force feed u his information but I don't mind;)

Indications are dunleavyme open is seen as a 2G which makes sense because as a sf this seems like a mediocre signing. At shooting guard it seems he can be an x-factor as well as a crowded well rounded backcourt.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

If Dunleavy is seen as 2G by this staff then were going to have real issues. Dunleavy needs to be the primary backup to Deng at the 3 or we might see the first player collapse on the court due to exhaustion.

[Ralphb07]

If Dunleavy is seen as 2G by this staff then were going to have real issues. Dunleavy needs to be the primary backup to Deng at the 3 or we might see the first player collapse on the court due to exhaustion.

Dunleavy will play the 3 and 4, but even then it depends on who we play. Vs Miami Butler checks Wade, Deng checks LBJ and Dunleavy on Allen or Miller.

I think we see a lot of Deng at the four this year to be honest. I see Butler, Deng and Dunleavy playing a lot together.

[Ralphb07]

Honestly, ill toot ralph07's horn, the guy who works for espn, he probably doesn't to force feed u his information but I don't mind;)

Indications are dunleavyme open is seen as a 2G which makes sense because as a sf this seems like a mediocre signing. At shooting guard it seems he can be an x-factor as well as a crowded well rounded backcourt.

Why are we tooting my horn, I'm lost

[BR0D1E86]

If Dunleavy is seen as 2G by this staff then were going to have real issues. Dunleavy needs to be the primary backup to Deng at the 3 or we might see the first player collapse on the court due to exhaustion.

Dunleavy will play the 3 and 4, but even then it depends on who we play. Vs Miami Butler checks Wade, Deng checks LBJ and Dunleavy on Allen or Miller.

2 and the 3?

I think we see a lot of Deng at the four this year to be honest. I see Butler, Deng and Dunleavy playing a lot together.

I wouldn't mind seeing some Deng at the 4 depending on matchups. It could be an advantage to us in certain situations.

[JohnD]

If Dunleavy is seen as 2G by this staff then were going to have real issues. Dunleavy needs to be the primary backup to Deng at the 3 or we might see the first player collapse on the court due to exhaustion.

Dunleavy will play the 3 and 4, but even then it depends on who we play. Vs Miami Butler checks Wade, Deng checks LBJ and Dunleavy on Allen or Miller.

I think we see a lot of Deng at the four this year to be honest. I see Butler, Deng and Dunleavy playing a lot together.

Although I'd quibble that I worry less about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as positions, Dunleavy will play a wing. He'll play the Mike Miller role. I think our best lineup looks like this:

Rose
Butler
Dunleavy
Deng
Noah

The issue, quite obviously, is the 2nd ball handler. Therefore, while not at the end of games, I can see a secondary lineup experimented with:

Rose
Hinrich/Robinson (we'll see)
Butler
Deng
Noah/Gibson

[bearadonisdna]

If Dunleavy is seen as 2G by this staff then were going to have real issues. Dunleavy needs to be the primary backup to Deng at the 3 or we might see the first player collapse on the court due to exhaustion.

Au contraire mon frier.
Dunleavy would be defending the LESSER of the wing players.