Chicago Bulls Thread

How great is it to have a guy that will score 25 in many different ways every game when he's giving up 30 on the other end?

I doubt they'll be playing Amare Stoudemire every night.

I don't want Avery to control Rose like he did Kidd while coaching Dallas.

What did he do? Increase the pace? Let Kidd dominate the ball slightly less so he couldn't kill the team with turnovers?

I doubt they'll be playing Amare Stoudemire every night.

Michael Beasley doesn't look interested in playing any sort of defence to me. He looked like Carmelo Anthony has for the past couple years. Will that change in the NBA when he get's his paycheck? I wouldn't put money on it.

Amare ain't the only bad defender out there you know.

What did he do? Increase the pace? Let Kidd dominate the ball slightly less so he couldn't kill the team with turnovers?

Just silly things like bench him for the last 30 seconds of a close game.

I don't care if Jason Kidd turns the ball over 3+ times a game. He is still a very good point guard and needs to be out there on those final, crucial plays. Avery has a tendency to overthink (is that a word?) and overcoach.

I'd bench Kidd for the last minutes of a close game with a team like the Mavs, I'd rather have somebody who can make shots or save possessions out there.

I don't care if Jason Kidd turns the ball over 3+ times a game.

You don't care that a player turns it over nearly a quarter of the time he uses a possession?

Amare ain't the only bad defender out there you know.

I don't know what that has to do with my comment regarding the fact they won't be playing Amare Stoudemire every night.

Last edited by benji on Mon May 26, 2008 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

what position would beasley play in the nba..... i know he played pf in college...... would he be a 3 or a 4?

6-10, 235

What position does Rasheed Wallace play?

He's probably a PF, but not in the usual sense. By the way I doubt Beasley is 6-10, looks about 6-8 to me to be honest.

I don't know what that has to do with my comment regarding the fact they won't be playing Amare Stoudemire every night.

For some reason I took that as a shot at Amare's defence, my mistake.

I'd bench Kidd for the last minutes of a close game with a team like the Mavs, I'd rather have somebody who can make shots or save possessions out there.

I'd rather have a guy out there who can make a play to get someone an easy basket. Something Jason Kidd has done time and time again.

You don't care that a player turns it over nearly a quarter of the time he uses a possession?

Not on a final possesion. I trust Jason Kidd to make the right play. I'd take Jason Kidd over a point guard who averages half a turnover a game in a close, late game situation. It's not just, "he turns the ball over 25% of the time, so there's a 25% chance that he turns it over here during this critical possesion". So much more factors into it. He's experienced. He's known to make the right passes. He finds open teammates. I personally trust him to make the final shot despite his statistics if it comes to that - but I'd have him in the game to create a play or make a pass that finds the best shot possible.

I'd rather have a guy out there who can make a play to get someone an easy basket. Something Jason Kidd has done time and time again.

Has he? Is there any proof he isn't just someone who gets easy assists from guys who can make a basket?

Where is the evidence that Kidd's passing makes up for and exceeds the negatives he provides (shooting, turnovers)?

Not on a final possesion.

I didn't say final possession, I said final minutes. One possession is completely irrelevant to me.

I think Avery would be a good coach for the Bulls, by the way. If they're going to be back on their feet right away. Ideally, they would find someone who can teach these young guys new skills. But I don't know what coaches are out there with that sort of skillset.

Has he? Is there any proof he isn't just someone who gets easy assists from guys who can make a basket?

Where is the evidence that Kidd's passing makes up for and exceeds the negatives he provides (shooting, turnovers)?

Come on man. You and I both know that Jason Kidd is and has been one of the best passers in the game for a long time. He has a knack for drawing defences and finding an open man. I'm not gonna pull out random statistics when you can just watch Jason Kidd and see this.

I didn't say final possession, I said final minutes. One possession is completely irrelevant to me.

Final minutes then, same answer from me.

Come on man. You and I both know that Jason Kidd is and has been one of the best passers in the game for a long time.

But what is the value of being the "best passer"?

I'm not gonna pull out random statistics when you can just watch Jason Kidd and see this.

No, I can't. I see Jason Kidd finding players who have already positioned themselves and then take and make the shot. All Kidd does is give them the ball.

But what is the value of being the "best passer"?

There is no one "value". Assists are a byproduct of good passing, but by no means are all good passes assists. There is no statistics available to prove who truly is one of thebest passers, so I can only give my opinion. I feel, as do many, many others, that Jason Kidd has been consistantly one of the best passers in the game for over a decade.

No, I can't. I see Jason Kidd finding players who have already positioned themselves and then take and make the shot. All Kidd does is give them the ball.

Again, assists are a byproduct of good passing, but by no means are all good passes assists.

And what sets Kidd apart from other point guards is his ability to create shots for others. It's not just a game of come off a screen, pop a pass, make the shot, assist. He does more than that. He zip all around the court shaking up defences and getting people open, then delivering it to them on point. He does alot of the work for his teammates, not the other way around.

There is no one "value".

Of course there is. Everything in basketball has some value, as it is a game of points.

There is no statistics available to prove who truly is one of thebest passers, so I can only give my opinion. I feel, as do many, many others, that Jason Kidd has been consistantly one of the best passers in the game for over a decade.

I didn't ask that. I asked what the value of being a "best passer" was.

And what sets Kidd apart from other point guards is his ability to create shots for others. It's not just a game of come off a screen, pop a pass, make the shot, assist. He does more than that. He zip all around the court shaking up defences and getting people open, then delivering it to them on point. He does alot of the work for his teammates, not the other way around.

Got any evidence for any of this? Because I certainly don't see any of that. I see Kidd dominating the ball and overdribbling all over, waiting for teammates to get open so he can pass to them and get easy assists.

Especially this part:

And what sets Kidd apart from other point guards is his ability to create shots for others....He does alot of the work for his teammates, not the other way around.

Benji ..........

your problem is that everything that cannot be proved with numbers, figurs, statistics is absolute worthless for you.
Sports has always been more than numbers, figurs, statistics.

Kidd is definitely one of the best passers of the league, simply look at his APG. For sure his APG/TO ratio aint the best, but this happens when you try to make impossible things happen at times. If a flashy pass works it is a highlight and will get the crowd pumped up. And he rarely misses a pass in decisive situations.

Dont doubt great players all the time, just because there seems to be no "evidence".
Makes you getting more ridiculous every discussion you make up.

Sports has always been more than numbers, figurs, statistics.

Sports have rules. They can be measured. I refuse to believe you're claiming that things in sports should be evaluated randomly without use of any data.

Kidd is definitely one of the best passers of the league, simply look at his APG.

I never denied that Kidd is a great passer. You and Shannon could read the thread and see this.

And he rarely misses a pass in decisive situations.

Any evidence to support this claim?

Dont doubt great players all the time, just because there seems to be no "evidence".
Makes you getting more ridiculous every discussion you make up.

Wait. So it's ridiculous to actually want proof of claims? We should just accept what anyone says now?

I accept that just accepting what anyone says is not acceptable.

Got any evidence for any of this? Because I certainly don't see any of that. I see Kidd dominating the ball and overdribbling all over, waiting for teammates to get open so he can pass to them and get easy assists.

The evidence for anything is in watching games. I love stats, but you can tell so much more by watching games.....Kidd "overdribbling" and waiting for teammates to get open so he can pass to them is what he is supposed to be doing. Why would he pass to someone who isn't open and get more turnovers? Easy assists are what point guards should get. Also, its quite easy to see when watching games that Kidd also makes a lot of very difficult passes, but I admit that some of them also turn into turnovers as well.

Does Kidd really turn the ball over 25% of the time? I don't really understand that...surely he has more than 12 possesions a game.

Kidd "overdribbling"and waiting for teammates to get open so he can pass to them is what he is supposed to be doing. Why would he pass to someone who isn't open and get more turnovers?

I see Jason Kidd finding players who have already positioned themselves and then take and make the shot. All Kidd does is give them the ball.

If that's what he's supposed to do, then all he does is what I quoted from benji above. I see no difference in what he's supposed to do from what he's actually doing.

There's also this offensive concept called ball rotation where you pass the ball around until the opportunity presents itself and a player gets open. Ball rotation doesn't happen when a lone player only has the ball waiting to pass to someone.

The article suggesting that there's interest in Hinrich is encouraging, though it's strange that it mentions he "shouldn't be too difficult to move" because of "his level of play and moderate contract". He doesn't have a Larry Hughes-type deal and he's demonstrated much better play in previous years but you would think his trade value would be low and his price tag a little unappealing given his 2007/08 season. Still, if the interest is there then maybe a beneficial deal can be done.

Disappointing news about Noah, hopefully for the team's sake he isn't sentenced to six months in prison but if there is jail time, he's got no one to blame but himself. Hopefully it will remain an isolated incident and he will continue to develop into a quality big.

Of course there is. Everything in basketball has some value, as it is a game of points.

The only statistic that shows passing ability are assists. Not all good passes are assists, so alot of really smart and good passes go unnoticed by statistics. Hell, alot of the time the pass that leads to the assist is the catalyst for a scoring play - not the assist itself. Yet statistics ignore that and the player who finished the play by passing to the shooter gets the credit, even though any player in the league would make that pass.

A good pass that doesn't immediately net a basket may not hold much importance to the score of the game at hand, but it must be taken into consideration when analyzing a players passing ability.

Got any evidence for any of this? Because I certainly don't see any of that. I see Kidd dominating the ball and overdribbling all over, waiting for teammates to get open so he can pass to them and get easy assists.

No I don't have any evidence. I can't provide a statistic that doesn't exist and you seem to be uninterested in actual game tape.

It seems that when giving your opinion on a basketball matter, by your rules the post must either back up their opinion with statistics or leave a huge "IMO" at the top as a disclaimer.

When no one seems interested in establishing post position, working off screens or cutting to the rim, "overdribbling" is what needs to happen to shake up an offence and get a teammate open.

Sports have rules. They can be measured. I refuse to believe you're claiming that things in sports should be evaluated randomly without use of any data.

SOME things can be measured by statistics. Just think - scoring and rebounding are probably the only facets of basketball that statistics do a very good job of analyzing. For the rest of the game, stats are simply crude tools - assists, blocked shots, steals, etc. You must watch a player to truly understand his passing skills or defensive abilities.

Just because there is no statistic evidence doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Statistics are not godly tools that accurately analyze every part of basketball.

Just think - what do you learn more from - watching a basketball game or reading the box score afterwards?

Well all statistics derive from the box score, so they can only show so much.

Well actually you can tell that the offense runs better with Kidd on the floor through statistics. For example, when kidd is on the floor the percentage of field goals in total that are assisted on is 64% as opposed to 54% when he is off the floor.

That said, during the season, when kidd was on the floor during the last 5 minutes of a game he showed nothing impressive, sprouting an efg of .300. The mavs had a win % of 40% and were outscored per 48 minutes.

Kidd's assist per 48 minutes based on the last 5 minutes of a game was an unimpressive 4.8. So, in fact, when kidd DID play in the final minutes of a game, his production fell... per 48 minutes he averaged 6.7 ppg and 4.8 apg on .300% shooting, and his team won less than they lost... which is probably the most important statistic.

Compare this to a known clutch player like, say, kobe, who averaged 51.8 ppg with an efg of .474 and 6.0 apg. Or Lebron James who averaged 56 ppg with an efg of .528 and 8.2 apg!

Then compare it to jason terry who averaged 34.5 ppg. 2.9 apg with an efg of .457. Even though terry obviously still assists less, I would say that the statistics point to him being more valuable during the clutch THIS season. Furthermore, when he did play in the final minutes of a game his team sprouted a 57.9 winning percentage. Or a clutch pg like billups - 38.5 ppg, 7.4 apg, efg 511, winning percentage 63.3. Or chris paul - 38.8 ppg, .522efg, 10.6 apg.

Avery Johnson would be a lesser coach if he kept players in primarily on reputation. And even then kidd has never really had a reputation as a clutch performer, if anything that has been what he lacked. Even his defense is based primarily on reputation now:

the mavs pts per 100 possession allowed with kidd ON court - 107.7 vs OFF court 106.4 Mavs efg allowed with kidd ON court - 47.0 vs OFF court 47.6. Nothing to call home about.

Last edited by magius on Tue May 27, 2008 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well actually you can tell that the offense runs better with Kidd on the floor through statistics. For example, when kidd is on the floor the percentage of field goals in total that are assisted on is 64% as opposed to 54% when he is off the floor.

Well, that's because Kidd passes more, and is more likely be awarded assists than other players. A team can have a high assisted rate and be lousy on offense (see: Kidd's first couple years as a Net.)

The only statistic that shows passing ability are assists. Not all good passes are assists, so alot of really smart and good passes go unnoticed by statistics. Hell, alot of the time the pass that leads to the assist is the catalyst for a scoring play - not the assist itself. Yet statistics ignore that and the player who finished the play by passing to the shooter gets the credit, even though any player in the league would make that pass.

A good pass that doesn't immediately net a basket may not hold much importance to the score of the game at hand, but it must be taken into consideration when analyzing a players passing ability.

I don't know what any of this has to do with anything I said. Not once did I question whether or not Jason Kidd is a good passer. Please read my posts again to understand what I was questioning.

The only statistic that shows passing ability are assists.

What about bad passes or passing turnovers?

No I don't have any evidence. I can't provide a statistic that doesn't exist and you seem to be uninterested in actual game tape. It seems that when giving your opinion on a basketball matter, by your rules the post must either back up their opinion with statistics or leave a huge "IMO" at the top as a disclaimer.

How else can you support it? There are only two options on this forum. Having data that supports your argument, or by asking me to simply trust that you're right. Nobody on the forum would expect me to simply declare things and not support it.

You don't have "actual game tape" of all 3000+ games, or even of all of Jason Kidd's games this season, so the only way to know how Kidd performed is to look at the data of people who did have "actual game tape" of every game. The scoring officials and media PbP recorders. You cannot look at one or two games, even a five game series, let alone "random snippets" and know anything at a statistically significant level about the player.

SOME things can be measured by statistics. Just think - scoring and rebounding are probably the only facets of basketball that statistics do a very good job of analyzing.

Everything in basketball can be measured. This is what you do when you watch a game, you are recording and measuring data.

Statistics do not do a good or bad job of analyzing. They are just data, it is up to a human to analyze the data. Same as watching a game.

Just because there is no statistic evidence doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Statistics are not godly tools that accurately analyze every part of basketball.

Of course they aren't. They are just data. They have no capabilities to analyze anything.

And reword that first part "Just because there is no data doesn't mean it doesn't happen." True. But how can you prove it did happen without data? Something you seem to desire to do.

Just think - what do you learn more from - watching a basketball game or reading the box score afterwards?

Depends. What do I want to know? Statistics tells me what mattered, which team won and how they won.

Well all statistics derive from the box score, so they can only show so much

No, they don't. Did all these stats come from boxscores?

I don't know what any of this has to do with anything I said. Not once did I question whether or not Jason Kidd is a good passer. Please read my posts again to understand what I was questioning.

I just meant don't put everything into statistics because they do not, and can not show the whole story.

What about bad passes or passing turnovers?

I meant the only stat that shows good passing ability is assists. Think of it this way...

In a statistical world, all assists are good passes, and all good passes are assists.

In reality, the second part of that statement is completely untrue.

How else can you support it? There are only two options on this forum. Having data that supports your argument, or by asking me to simply trust that you're right. Nobody on the forum would expect me to simply declare things and not support it.

You don't have "actual game tape" of all 3000+ games, or even of all of Jason Kidd's games this season, so the only way to know how Kidd performed is to look at the data of people who did have "actual game tape" of every game. The scoring officials and media PbP recorders. You cannot look at one or two games, even a five game series, let alone "random snippets" and know anything at a statistically significant level about the player.

Then, as I said, it's satistics or bust for you.

You push and push for evidence that I cannot give. I don't have a Synergy account. I can't look at every possession in Jason Kidd's career and come to a conclusion. All I have is my own personal opinion that I've formed over time from A) Watching Kidd, and B) Statistics.

But if I don't have statistics for every single situation, my opinion is worthless to you.

I would hate to be a scout on a team you manage.

Everything in basketball can be measured. This is what you do when you watch a game, you are recording and measuring data.

Statistics do not do a good or bad job of analyzing. They are just data, it is up to a human to analyze the data. Same as watching a game.

But it isn't, so therefore statistics do not show the full story.

Of course they aren't. They are just data. They have no capabilities to analyze anything.

And reword that first part "Just because there is no data doesn't mean it doesn't happen." True. But how can you prove it did happen without data? Something you seem to desire to do.

I can't prove it. So stop pushing me to do so. I just gave my opinion without an "IMO" disclaimer that you seem to demand for every post that doesn't call on statistic evidence.

Depends. What do I want to know? Statistics tells me what mattered, which team won and how they won.

Watching a game gives me a much, much better understanding of how a team won than reading the box score afterwards. But that's just me.

No, they don't. Did all these stats come from boxscores?

I'm not going to read through that thread, but every single stat that involves:

Points
Assists
Rebounds
Fouls
Steals
Blocked shots
Blocked shot attempts
Field goals
Three point field goals
Turnovers
Minutes
+/-

... Derive from a regular box score. And there's only so much you can tell from reading a box score as opposed to watching the game itself. In my opinion you'd have a much better understanding of what happened in a single game and why it happened if you watched the game instead of just reading the box score. And essentially, for every fancy statistic I can think of (excluding possession based stats), it's just digging deeper into that same old score sheet.

Also, the idea of a rose-gordon backcourt would not be very appealing to me. Small ball all the time is a losing strategy. If you look at williams and west, even nash, they succeed because they control the ball predominantly - all three also play with good pf's with decent mid range games. For gordon to be effective he needs to control the ball, otherwise he becomes more of a defensive liability than his offensive production warrants... that is, it wouldn't make sense to keep him on the floor, he'll get outscored more than he will score. I wouldn't mind bringing gordon off the bench, ala barbosa, but as a consistent starter, no thank you. If rose is to succeed to the extent that williams or paul have, he needs a better post presence to pick and roll with... brand looks to me to be the best prospect, jermaine o'neal might be okay too.... or perhaps gamble on zach randolph?

Bringing Zach Randolph in is the same what you said about Gordon.

For gordon to be effective he needs to control the ball, otherwise he becomes more of a defensive liability than his offensive production warrants... that is, it wouldn't make sense to keep him on the floor, he'll get outscored more than he will score

Just replace Gordon's name to Randolph and you get the idea.

I just meant don't put everything into statistics because they do not, and can not show the whole story.

But my original question still lingers...how does Jason Kidd's passing make up for the things he does that hurt a team?

I meant the only stat that shows good passing ability is assists. Think of it this way

What about bad passes or passing turnovers?

Then, as I said, it's satistics or bust for you. You push and push for evidence that I cannot give. I don't have a Synergy account. I can't look at every possession in Jason Kidd's career and come to a conclusion. All I have is my own personal opinion that I've formed over time from A) Watching Kidd, and B) Statistics. But if I don't have statistics for every single situation, my opinion is worthless to you.
...
I can't prove it. So stop pushing me to do so. I just gave my opinion without an "IMO" disclaimer that you seem to demand for every post that doesn't call on statistic evidence.

So, you have no problem with people just declaring things. You don't want any proof for these claims at all?

Jason Kidd is horrible, he has never made a good pass in history, turns it over on every possession and misses every single shot. Plus he's the worst defensive player to ever suit up in the league.

You can't deny it is the truth, because I've seen it and I am declaring it to be so. Don't push me to prove it, because it is common knowledge. Any real NBA fan knows it.

I would hate to be a scout on a team you manage.

You think NBA teams don't want proof of the claims from their scouts? Their scouts say "this guy is better than Jordan" and they just believe it? I'd hate to have you on a team I manage, you'd never bring me any useful information, just vapid memes and myths.

But it isn't, so therefore statistics do not show the full story.

How do you know it isn't?

Of course statistics do not show the full story. But they show plenty more than watching a single game does. About 82 times more.

Watching a game gives me a much, much better understanding of how a team won than reading the box score afterwards.

Why limit yourself to the boxscore?

I'm not going to read through that thread, but every single stat that involves:

You didn't have to read through the thread, you had to glance at the single post that I linked.

Derive from a regular box score. And there's only so much you can tell from reading a box score ... And essentially, for every fancy statistic I can think of (excluding possession based stats), it's just digging deeper into that same old score sheet.

Except you're completely and blatantly wrong. Let me know where you can find box scores that list offensive fouls, ball handling and passing turnovers, jumpers, dunks and tips, etc.

jermaine o'neal might be okay too

Disgusting.

For gordon to be effective he needs to control the ball

I disagree. He barely attacks the rim off the dribble. He'd be suited next to a guy who will dominate the ball and get it to Gordon when he'd open. He's a very good shooter, so with Rose breaking down defences and being a very good passer I see them being a good fit offensively.

Defensively it's not great, but it's never been. If Rose can guard shooting guards that would be great.

But my original question still lingers...how does Jason Kidd's passing make up for the things he does that hurt a team?

The whole point in my post on Avery was that, from my point of view, I would keep Jason Kidd in because I trust him to make the right play - patricularly the right pass in a critical situation.

What about bad passes or passing turnovers?

Read my post. I was saying the only statistic that shows a good pass occured is an assist.

So, you have no problem with people just declaring things. You don't want any proof for these claims at all?

Jason Kidd is horrible, he has never made a good pass in history, turns it over on every possession and misses every single shot. Plus he's the worst defensive player to ever suit up in the league.

You can't deny it is the truth, because I've seen it and I am declaring it to be so. Don't push me to prove it, because it is common knowledge. Any real NBA fan knows it.

That's up to you to say that - but let's be serious, I'm not making rediculous claims here.

I just gave my view on the matter. I'm not going to pull out a bunch of statistics on every post that I give my opinion in. Why?

BECAUSE I DON'T PUT 100% STOCK INTO STATS.

You may, but I don't. And I trust my eyes to help me form my opinion.

You think NBA teams don't want proof of the claims from their scouts? Their scouts say "this guy is better than Jordan" and they just believe it? I'd hate to have you on a team I manage, you'd never bring me any useful information, just vapid memes and myths.

Again, exaggerating to the highest level.

Yes, scouts present GM's with statistics. But they also give their own views on the player - there is not, and will never be, a statistic for every single movement that goes on in a basketball game. So if a scout can't prove it through statistics, you'd probably fire him. Then you would go on to build a team around Leon Powe.

How do you know it isn't?

Of course statistics do not show the full story. But they show tons more than watching a game does. About 82 times more.

How can something that doesn't show the full story, show more than the full story itself?

By the way, pleae place a large IMO in your post. It offends me if you don't.

Why limit yourself to the boxscore?

When you go 100% of stats, you're basically doing that.

You didn't have to read through the thread, you had to glance at the single post that I linked.

When it loaded it was half inbetween two posts, neither by you. Couldn't be fucked looking for what you were talking about.

Except you're completely and blatantly wrong. Let me know where you can find box scores that list offensive fouls, ball handling and passing turnovers, jumpers, dunks and tips, etc.

No, every stat that involves those base statistics I mentioned are derived from a regular old boxscore.