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

[Tenchi Ryu]

I think Coldfish hit the nail on the head. The reason the Nate vs Kirk comparisons held water was because we needed someone who can lead the team and control the floor. That's why Kirk at times did make the overall team look better. But we don't need that anymore. We have our superstar PG back, all we need is a dynamic scorer who can come in and quickly get things going. And no doubt in my mind Nate is the best player on this team that can do that.

[RedBulls23]

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.

He was best off the ball. It took the decision making out of his hands where he had the tendency of taking bad shots or forcing plays.

[Ben]

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).

I can certainly understand the argument against him on a $3M/year, multi-year deal. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he'll get that kind of offer, though. My point here hasn't been to argue for giving him that multi-year offer, and we can't do it at any rate. My point has been to argue that he's an important player for us, and that it'll be a big bummer to lose him, and that I hope against hope that he'll return.

On the subject of warranting a multi-year, multimillion dollar contract, I think that Kirk is also unworthy of his. We could have signed multiple adequate players plus Nate if we had not signed Kirk for that money. But at this point that's water under the bridge.

[mostek]

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

The reason you can not go across teams, or years, is everyone has a higher number on a good team, and everyone has poor numbers, on a bad team. Just look at the Bulls. Deng, and Noah, went from a +377, and +278, in 2011-2012, to -2, and a 64, in 2012-2013. They did not play dramatically differently, but the team was different without Rose. Looking across teams, you would not want to compare Irving, at -175, to Chalmers at +569, since team results are dramatically different. +/- is a statistic to allow you compare a player, or a group of players, to others on that team, in any given year.

I do not see what else would be required to show that the Bulls were better when Hinrich played. The Bulls outscored there opponents by 100 points with Hinrich on the court. The Bulls offense scored 106.2 points per 100 possessions with Kirk on the court, and 103.3 points with Kirk off the court. The Bulls gave up 102.8 points per 100 possessions with Kirk on the court, and gave up 105.1 without him. I m glad to discuss why, or as you say relevance, and there may be plenty of reasons, as I listed in another post, but those were the results last season.

[The 6ft Hurdle]

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.

There is no "must-thing" in any team, but to have a chance of beating elite teams, we've gotta be able to score more points than them. Playing the most perfect defense may work for 1 or at best 2 games against the Heat, but not enough to beat them more than they beat us. Whereas we seem to benefit from exploiting disadvantages different teams may have during the course of the regular season, the playoffs are a tug-of-war, and we have far less than the Heat do.

I don't know how you define "easy points" but I know that he can score them more quickly and efficiently than a Kirk Hinrich or anyone aside Rose on this team. I don't think transition points are a good indicator of getting easy points.

The easy points I think that matter are the ones that we need to get at the end of the game. If were down 7 with 4 minutes to go in the 4th quarter, I'd like Nate Robinson's chances to start a run and get us into the game than Kirk Hinrich.

[Ben]

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

The reason you can not go across teams, or years, is everyone has a higher number on a good team, and everyone has poor numbers, on a bad team. Just look at the Bulls. Deng, and Noah, went from a +377, and +278, in 2011-2012, to -2, and a 64, in 2012-2013. They did not play dramatically differently, but the team was different without Rose. Looking across teams, you would not want to compare Irving, at -175, to Chalmers at +569, since team results are dramatically different.

I do not see what else would be required to show that the Bulls were better when Hinrich played. The Bulls outscored there opponents by 100 points with Hinrich on the court. The Bulls offense scored 106.2 points per 100 possessions with Kirk on the court, and 103.3 points with Kirk off the court. The Bulls gave up 102.8 points per 100 possessions with Kirk on the court, and gave up 105.1 without him. I m glad to discuss why, or as you say relevance, and there may be plenty of reasons, as I listed in another post, but those were the results last season.

Sorry, still inadequate. First, Golden State was a much worse team than Atlanta in 2011 yet Nate still had much better Adjusted +/- numbers than Kirk did. Second, according to the definition of Adjusted +/- that you provided, it's supposed to control for the quality of the teammates and opponents. I was providing real Adjusted +/- numbers from an advanced stat site; you were providing numbers that are almost certainly not Adjusted +/-. So the 2-year averages (and 1-year averages) to which I linked should have significant validity, even according to the standards that you just gave.

Third, it should matter where a player ranks on his team. Nate ranked highly on his; Kirk ranked lowly on his.

The numbers that you provided, the unadjusted +/-, tell us that the Lakers were better with Peace than with Kobe, Howard, or Pau. They tell us that the Heat were better with Chalmers than with Wade. They tell us that the Clippers were better with Odom than with Griffin. They tell us that the Cavs were better with Livingston than with Irving. I went through all of that. Yet you're still just reiterating that those same measures tell us that the Bulls were better with Kirk than with Nate, as if the measures' validity hasn't just been undermined. It has.

The best one can say is that these stats have so much noise that one can't use them to rate this player versus that player. But since Adjusted +/- is supposed to eliminate some of that noise, and Adjusted +/- has favored Nate heavily over a multi-year period, and since you seem NOT to be using Adjusted +/- but the noisier, unadjusted variety, I'm not sure what you're still trying to say.

If we just chuck +/- and talk about the team's needs, then sure: I can concede that Kirk does some things better than Nate, and that since he can defend the 1 and the 2 (although not the 1 so well any more), and since he can play the 2 alongside Rose for longer stretches, AND since he's already under contract for next year, there are reasons for thinking that everything's fine. There are reasons why, if someone had to choose, they might choose Kirk over Nate. But those reasons are not due to raw +/- numbers. And many, many numbers (and empirical observations) also favor Nate's importance to this team.

[awaxndau]

I just dont see where Nate Robinson plays.
There's only 48mins in a game so that's 96 mins available to be used at the 1 and 2 spots. Rose and Butler will eat up about 70 minutes/game(about 35 each) so that leaves you with 26mins to be used
Kirk will take up at least 18 of those minutes so you're down to about 8 minutes per game

So the question at that point is how would you rather us those 8 mins?
letting Teague runs the offence or give Nate Mins a game to play iso ball??
I would rather have those mins go to Teague but either or it wouldn't matter much. Does Nate want to be a 8min/game player???

For the Vet Min i can see Nate coming back and being insurance just in case Rose gets hurt, but does Nate want to do that??

His role of being the late game score is gone now, i dont see where he has a role on this team anymore.

[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.

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.

My point is simply that the numbers align with my eye test, which is why they don't surprise me.

But it appears we are now actually discussing whether or not we'd rather have Kirk or Nate, which is a moot discussion. Kirk is under contract, Nate isn't. The question is whether we should and can add Nate to the roster that has Kirk. And I say yes.

[DuckIII]

I just dont see where Nate Robinson plays.

He would be a luxury super-specialist to help spur a scoring run and to end a scoring drought. Outside of that, he wouldn't have a meaningful role unless we simply decide to not develop Teague and Snell.

I agree with your question - Is that enough for Nate? And I of course don't know the answer. Nate needs to be looking to get paid first and foremost. Which is another problem for us.

[mostek]

I am not sure why you keep going back to player value, +/- does not do that, like I stated in my earlier posts. What I posted showed the team was better with Hinrich, than without him, or with Nate last season, for whatever reason. I do not think you dispute that, only that you think Nate is the better, or more important, player, which I do not believe, but not referenced anyway.

[Chitownbulls]

Nate would outplay Kirk IMO. Kirk is on his way out of here next year anyways.

[Ben]

I just dont see where Nate Robinson plays.

He would be a luxury super-specialist to help spur a scoring run and to end a scoring drought. Outside of that, he wouldn't have a meaningful role unless we simply decide to not develop Teague and Snell.

I agree with your question - Is that enough for Nate? And I of course don't know the answer. Nate needs to be looking to get paid first and foremost. Which is another problem for us.

I agree with all of this, although I'm also guessing-- and would love to see that guess tested-- that Nate could play alongside Rose for small stretches.

But I still worry about the team's bench scoring without Nate. We've witnessed the 2nd and 3rd units struggle to score in the past. I just don't see how [Kirk or Teague] + [Kirk or Dunleavy or Snell] + [Butler or Dunleavy] + [Taj or Thomas or Murphy] + [Nazr or Taj or Thomas] are going to be able to generate any punch.

[dice]

I just dont see where Nate Robinson plays.

He would be a luxury super-specialist to help spur a scoring run and to end a scoring drought. Outside of that, he wouldn't have a meaningful role unless we simply decide to not develop Teague and Snell

forget teague and snell if nate comes back. leave 'em at berto or D league 'em. but i'm still not seeing significant minutes for nate

deng 36/dunleavy 12
butler 36/ dunleavy 12
rose 36/hinrich 12

that's how i hope the distribution is as we stand. who are you taking minutes from with nate in the lineup and how do you justify it? hinrich's not getting those 12 minutes reduced. he's just not. nate could justifiably take half of dunleavy's SG minutes but that's about it

the luxury super-specialist description i think fits about perfectly what nate would provide this team. someone you'll be really glad to have when any one of the 5 rotation guys above gets injured (and someone will)

[Ben]

I am not sure why you keep going back to player value, +/- does not do that, like I stated in my earlier posts. What I posted showed the team was better with Hinrich, than without him, or with Nate last season, for whatever reason. I do not think you dispute that, only that you think Nate is the better, or more important, player, which I do not believe, but not referenced anyway.

If the numbers you're providing doing say anything about player value or quality or importance, why are you providing them?

Here's what you wrote in your initial post on this subject:

The numbers show that either Hinrich made the offense much better, or that Robinson was bad enough to make it look that way.

Surely that's equivalent to claiming that Hinrich had greater player value and importance. If it isn't-- if the myriad problems that I've demonstrated with raw +/- show that there's a ton of noise associated with it, and that it can't really show anything more than a possibly spurious correlation-- then why keep on bringing it up?

As The 6 Foot Hurdle pointed out, raw (or barely adjusted) +/- is the only stat that shows Kirk to be preferable to Nate. And as I have pointed out in depth, raw (or barely adjusted) +/- is severely flawed and misleading in a great number of cases. Yet it's the only stat to which you refer. And I can't figure out why.

[coldfish]

I just dont see where Nate Robinson plays.
There's only 48mins in a game so that's 96 mins available to be used at the 1 and 2 spots. Rose and Butler will eat up about 70 minutes/game(about 35 each) so that leaves you with 26mins to be used
Kirk will take up at least 18 of those minutes so you're down to about 8 minutes per game

So the question at that point is how would you rather us those 8 mins?
letting Teague runs the offence or give Nate Mins a game to play iso ball??
I would rather have those mins go to Teague but either or it wouldn't matter much. Does Nate want to be a 8min/game player???

For the Vet Min i can see Nate coming back and being insurance just in case Rose gets hurt, but does Nate want to do that??

His role of being the late game score is gone now, i dont see where he has a role on this team anymore.

I really hope that Thibs doesn't use Butler and Rose 35 minutes a night.

Regardless, with Rose and Hinrich, you have two pretty injury prone PG's. Between the two of them, how many games do they miss this year? 20? 40? That's a lot of games where Nate would be relied on pretty heavily. Let's be honest, if Rose tweaks a hamstring this year or an ankle, the Bulls are going to be ultra cautious with him. He may miss a week with things he would have played through before.

My perfect world, everyone healthy rotation:
Rose 32 / Hinrich 16
Butler 24 / Nate 16 / Hinrich 8
Deng 30 / Butler 6 / Dunleavey 18
Boozer 28 / Deng 4 / Gibson 16
Noah 30 / Gibson 8 / Nazr 10

Totals
Deng 34 / Rose 32 / Butler 30 / Noah 30 / Boozer 28 / Gibson 24 / Hinrich 24 / Dun 18 / Nate 16 / Nazr 10

Teague's path to getting minutes is pretty simple. Be better than 10 PER Hinrich. That shouldn't be an impossible task.

[awaxndau]

I just dont see where Nate Robinson plays.

He would be a luxury super-specialist to help spur a scoring run and to end a scoring drought. Outside of that, he wouldn't have a meaningful role unless we simply decide to not develop Teague and Snell.

I agree with your question - Is that enough for Nate? And I of course don't know the answer. Nate needs to be looking to get paid first and foremost. Which is another problem for us.

I agree with all of this, although I'm also guessing-- and would love to see that guess tested-- that Nate could play alongside Rose for small stretches.

But I still worry about the team's bench scoring without Nate. We've witnessed the 2nd and 3rd units struggle to score in the past. I just don't see how [Kirk or Teague] + [Kirk or Dunleavy or Snell] + [Butler or Dunleavy] + [Taj or Thomas or Murphy] + [Nazr or Taj or Thomas] are going to be able to generate any punch.

i guess we're looking at two totally differently benches

Teague/Kirk
Kirk/Snell
MDJ
Gibson
Naz

thats prolly the best bench we've had in years. It has shooting, ball handling, defense and rebounding
and we're still not done adding to it. if we could some how add a Wayne Ellington and/or a Brandon wright/Elton brand. That prolly gives you the best Bench in the NBA

[awaxndau]

I just dont see where Nate Robinson plays.
There's only 48mins in a game so that's 96 mins available to be used at the 1 and 2 spots. Rose and Butler will eat up about 70 minutes/game(about 35 each) so that leaves you with 26mins to be used
Kirk will take up at least 18 of those minutes so you're down to about 8 minutes per game

So the question at that point is how would you rather us those 8 mins?
letting Teague runs the offence or give Nate Mins a game to play iso ball??
I would rather have those mins go to Teague but either or it wouldn't matter much. Does Nate want to be a 8min/game player???

For the Vet Min i can see Nate coming back and being insurance just in case Rose gets hurt, but does Nate want to do that??

His role of being the late game score is gone now, i dont see where he has a role on this team anymore.

I really hope that Thibs doesn't use Butler and Rose 35 minutes a night.

Regardless, with Rose and Hinrich, you have two pretty injury prone PG's. Between the two of them, how many games do they miss this year? 20? 40? That's a lot of games where Nate would be relied on pretty heavily. Let's be honest, if Rose tweaks a hamstring this year or an ankle, the Bulls are going to be ultra cautious with him. He may miss a week with things he would have played through before.

My perfect world, everyone healthy rotation:
Rose 32 / Hinrich 16
Butler 24 / Nate 16 / Hinrich 8
Deng 30 / Butler 6 / Dunleavey 18
Boozer 28 / Deng 4 / Gibson 16
Noah 30 / Gibson 8 / Nazr 10

Totals
Deng 34 / Rose 32 / Butler 30 / Noah 30 / Boozer 28 / Gibson 24 / Hinrich 24 / Dun 18 / Nate 16 / Nazr 10

Teague's path to getting minutes is pretty simple. Be better than 10 PER Hinrich. That shouldn't be an impossible task.

Chopping Rose minutes down to 32 and giving Kirk more playing time is understandable
Playing you best perimeter defense player only 24 minutes/game just so Nate Robinson can play is not going to happen.

If Nate wants to be a 8-10mpg player and a insurance guy just in case someone gets hurt, im all for that. I just dont see him agreeing to that role
Plus i think the team would rather see what they have in Teague instead of make room for Nate
His Skills aren't needed anymore

[coldfish]

He would be a luxury super-specialist to help spur a scoring run and to end a scoring drought. Outside of that, he wouldn't have a meaningful role unless we simply decide to not develop Teague and Snell.

I agree with your question - Is that enough for Nate? And I of course don't know the answer. Nate needs to be looking to get paid first and foremost. Which is another problem for us.

I agree with all of this, although I'm also guessing-- and would love to see that guess tested-- that Nate could play alongside Rose for small stretches.

But I still worry about the team's bench scoring without Nate. We've witnessed the 2nd and 3rd units struggle to score in the past. I just don't see how [Kirk or Teague] + [Kirk or Dunleavy or Snell] + [Butler or Dunleavy] + [Taj or Thomas or Murphy] + [Nazr or Taj or Thomas] are going to be able to generate any punch.

i guess we're looking at two totally differently benches

Teague/Kirk
Kirk/Snell
MDJ
Gibson
Naz

thats prolly the best bench we've had in years. It has shooting, ball handling, defense and rebounding
and we're still not done adding to it. if we could some how add a Wayne Ellington and/or a Brandon wright/Elton brand. That prolly gives you the best Bench in the NBA

I can't possibly imagine a worse offensive lineup than Teague / Hinrich / MDJ / Gibson / Naz. Snell is totally unproven.

This is why Deng plays so many minutes. Thibs uses him with the bench group to have some offense on the floor.

[Ben]

He would be a luxury super-specialist to help spur a scoring run and to end a scoring drought. Outside of that, he wouldn't have a meaningful role unless we simply decide to not develop Teague and Snell.

I agree with your question - Is that enough for Nate? And I of course don't know the answer. Nate needs to be looking to get paid first and foremost. Which is another problem for us.

I agree with all of this, although I'm also guessing-- and would love to see that guess tested-- that Nate could play alongside Rose for small stretches.

But I still worry about the team's bench scoring without Nate. We've witnessed the 2nd and 3rd units struggle to score in the past. I just don't see how [Kirk or Teague] + [Kirk or Dunleavy or Snell] + [Butler or Dunleavy] + [Taj or Thomas or Murphy] + [Nazr or Taj or Thomas] are going to be able to generate any punch.

i guess we're looking at two totally differently benches

Teague/Kirk
Kirk/Snell
MDJ
Gibson
Naz

thats prolly the best bench we've had in years. It has shooting, ball handling, defense and rebounding
and we're still not done adding to it. if we could some how add a Wayne Ellington and/or a Brandon wright/Elton brand. That prolly gives you the best Bench in the NBA

Well, clearly we're not looking at different benches because we named the same players. We're evaluating them differently. I don't question the defense; I question the scoring punch, the ability to initiate offense and sometimes score in bunches. None of that exists in the lineup that you just listed. It's a couple of big men who can't just get you easy points in the post, and a couple of shooters, and then two players who have never showed a thing offensively in this league.

By the way, we have been there before. We've had some attractive "bench mobs" in recent years who played great defense and sometimes could shoot. But those mobs still struggled mightily to initiate offense.

[AAU Teammate]

I agree with all of this, although I'm also guessing-- and would love to see that guess tested-- that Nate could play alongside Rose for small stretches.

But I still worry about the team's bench scoring without Nate. We've witnessed the 2nd and 3rd units struggle to score in the past. I just don't see how [Kirk or Teague] + [Kirk or Dunleavy or Snell] + [Butler or Dunleavy] + [Taj or Thomas or Murphy] + [Nazr or Taj or Thomas] are going to be able to generate any punch.

i guess we're looking at two totally differently benches

Teague/Kirk
Kirk/Snell
MDJ
Gibson
Naz

thats prolly the best bench we've had in years. It has shooting, ball handling, defense and rebounding
and we're still not done adding to it. if we could some how add a Wayne Ellington and/or a Brandon wright/Elton brand. That prolly gives you the best Bench in the NBA

Well, clearly we're not looking at different benches because we named the same players. We're evaluating them differently. I don't question the defense; I question the scoring punch, the ability to initiate offense and sometimes score in bunches. None of that exists in the lineup that you just listed. It's a couple of big men who can't just get you easy points in the post, and a couple of shooters, and then two players who have never showed a thing offensively in this league.

The old bench mob had an identity. I'd like to be them again. Defensively.

If you add something to a group like that, and lets say it adds 'scoring in bunches' but hurts the defensive identity, then I'm not happy. Opposing (good) teams will run plays right at Nate. Against good teams, the Bulls will have a hole on defense (in second quarters) with Nate over Kirk.

CJ and Lucas would take off-balance shots but I think they (1) had a little better sense of the moment than Nate, a little less reckless .....and (2) I at least like CJ way more on fastbreaks. He has some ability to finish with one man to beat, whereas Nate is very very covered on any fastbreak that isnt a layup.



That bench mob really was suffocating defense and a fastbreak threat. Of course now instead of Brewer/Deng on the bench mob, it's Butler/Deng starting and perhaps this new group will just have some totally new identity. But I cant shake my perception of the 10-11-12 years and how I'd love to have that dynamic again.