The Chicago Bulls Analytics Thread

[Ice Man]

We already knew those players were near the top in offensive production. Didn't need PER to tell us that.

You don't need points per game, either. You keep arguing against PER (or plus/minus elsewhere), but you're really just arguing against statistics, period. You don't need them in any flavor, because you already know who is good and who is not from watching them.

[DanTown8587]

PER is a measure of production so at the very top, if you produce that much in one way or another, it's hard to not be a great player as well. But once you start getting in the good range of PER, it becomes much harder. Here are some players and their PER ranking among qualified players

Brandan Wright (17)
Alexis Ajinca (30)
James Johnson (50)
John Henson (51)
Charlie Villaneuva (59)
Carlos Boozer (61)

I just feel that since PER values efficiency and rebounds, it's skewed to big men.

[Ice Man]

Carlos you old dog, you weren't #61 last year for the Bulls! He seems to have really taken to coming off the bench (sigh, Thibs).

Anyway, yes I agree with you. I like PER a lot for tracking a player's career and it's also good, as you point out, for showing who has been really good (or really terrible). It 's kinda messy in the middle because different styles of player get rewarded differently.

[dice]

PER is a measure of production so at the very top, if you produce that much in one way or another, it's hard to not be a great player as well. But once you start getting in the good range of PER, it becomes much harder. Here are some players and their PER ranking among qualified players

Brandan Wright (17)
Alexis Ajinca (30)
James Johnson (50)
John Henson (51)
Charlie Villaneuva (59)
Carlos Boozer (61)

I just feel that since PER values efficiency and rebounds, it's skewed to big men.

the irony is that it DOESN'T measure efficiency well. not scoring efficiency, anyway. the only efficiency involved is that it measures on a per minute basis

[dice]

We already knew those players were near the top in offensive production. Didn't need PER to tell us that.

You don't need points per game, either. You keep arguing against PER (or plus/minus elsewhere), but you're really just arguing against statistics, period. You don't need them in any flavor, because you already know who is good and who is not from watching them.

he's not talking about who the best players are. "offensive production" means raw stats here. PER is not needed to see who puts up big numbers, but that's essentially all that it provides

[Keller61]

Updated numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =454809408

Offense

Aaron Brooks +4.66
Jimmy Butler +2.53
Mike Dunleavy +1.85
Taj Gibson +1.37
Derrick Rose +0.77
Cameron Bairstow +0.59
Pau Gasol +0.38
Nazr Mohammed +0.32
Joakim Noah +0.29
Tony Snell -0.06
E'Twaun Moore -0.15
Nikola Mirotic -0.20
Kirk Hinrich -0.97
Doug McDermott -1.96

Defense

Derrick Rose -1.60
Joakim Noah -1.44
Mike Dunleavy -1.11
Jimmy Butler -0.38
Nazr Mohammed +0.07
Nikola Mirotic +0.20
Tony Snell +0.54
Cameron Bairstow +0.65
Kirk Hinrich +0.68
Pau Gasol +0.92
Taj Gibson +1.06
Aaron Brooks +1.23
E'Twaun Moore +1.32
Doug McDermott +4.57

Total

Aaron Brooks +3.43
Mike Dunleavy +2.96
Jimmy Butler +2.92
Derrick Rose +2.37
Joakim Noah +1.74
Taj Gibson +0.31
Nazr Mohammed +0.26
Cameron Bairstow -0.06
Nikola Mirotic -0.40
Pau Gasol -0.54
Tony Snell -0.60
E'Twaun Moore -1.46
Kirk Hinrich -1.65
Doug McDermott -6.53