SB Nation User Blog: wjb1492

A Brief History of Ben Gordon: the Quotes Version

wjb1492 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:13:13 -0000

On breaking Allen Iverson's Big East tournament scoring record:

"When Mek got injured, I got to take all this pressure on myself and that's when I started having fun," Gordon said, referring to All-America center Emeka Okafor. "I didn't look back since then."

On being drafted 3rd in the NBA 2004 Draft:

"Other people may be surprised, but I always thought I should go No. 1," Gordon said.

On winning the 6th Man award as a rookie:

"I didn't know what was going to happen or whatever. It's great to come off the bench and still help my team the way I did," Gordon said.

"Once I got around the team and everything like that, I pretty much accepted my role. Especially after the slow start, I was not really thinking about starting, I was thinking about how can I help my team get the first win."

Defending Kirk against Pat Riley's "dirty player" accusations:

"I think [the coach's accusation] was very unnecessary," Gordon said, according to the Sun-Times. "He should be worried about his players. Posey's always in the middle of something. I think that was a cheap shot at Kirk. Kirk was just playing his normal defense. It was a freak accident."

On hitting the big shot:

"I take a lot of pride in it," Gordon said. "It is not really something I say to myself, I'm going to hit every big shot, it sort of happens that way," Gordon said.

On not getting the ball enough:

"Not as many touches as I wanted," Gordon said. "It's pretty easy to play someone who doesn't have the ball."

On contract negotiations as an RFA last offseason:

"I guess it's safe to say I've played my last game in a Bulls uniform," Gordon said.

On signing with Detroit and leaving Chicago:

"To all the true Chicago Bulls fans, it's been great," he added. "I loved playing here; it's one of the greatest sports cities in the world. It was a great time. But it's time for me to move on."

In honor of Ben, add your favorite quotes. There have been ups and there have been downs, but it was rarely boring with Ben around.

Great/Bad Player Games and W-L Record, Part II

wjb1492 — Mon, 25 May 2009 14:41:45 -0000

A while back I did a FanPost about great/bad player games and the impact on the Bulls W-L record. To summarize very briefly, I used average GameScores and standard deviations for each player (significant rotation time guys only) to try to identify the games this season where each of the Bulls performed significantly above or below average.

I meant to follow that up sooner with some more details, but it took me a while to get back to it. Since it's been pretty dead as far as Bulls news goes (new GM ~~Tom Hanks~~ Gar Forman notwithstanding), now seems like as good a time as any.

The first issue related to Tyrus and Joakim having horrible starts to the year, which meant that virtually all of their "bad" games came at the beginning of the year. With a rookie PG and rookie coach, it made sense to allow for an adjustment period for everyone, really - so I reran averages and standard deviations for all the guys for the last 65 games only. This table shows the team W-L record when each player had a great, average, or bad game for the final 65 games:

"great" game W-L "average" game W-L "bad" game W-L

Derrick 8-4 23-21 1-7

Ben 7-3 23-21 3-8

Kirk 3-2 21-13 1-5

John 2-2 12-7 1-2

Luol 4-3 11-14 3-2

Tyrus 6-3 20-21 5-7

Joakim 7-3 23-20 2-9

Brad 4-0 9-9 3-2

So, Derrick had 12 exceptionally good games (compared to his own average performance) during the 65-game period, and the Bulls won 8 of those and lost 4. And in the 8 exceptionally bad games Derrick had, the Bulls lost 7 and only won once.

This was as far as I'd gotten last time, and it left the question of how this relates to teammates playing well or poorly, if at all, and whether there's any sort of pattern for what type of opponent each guy plays well or poorly against. I haven't finished the opponent part yet, so I'll be tormenting you with at least one more post on this at some point this off-season. The rest of this looks at how the unusually good or bad performance of one player is impacts others on the team.

For the team as a whole, the 65 game period resulted in a 33-32 record. In 9 wins, none of the players had a great game, while in 10 wins only one player had a great game. These 10 games where one guy "carried" the team, so to speak, go to Luol (3), Derrick (3), and one each to Ben, Kirk, Joakim, and Tyrus. In 11 of the wins, 2 players had exceptionally good games, and the only pair that shows up more than once is Ben/Derrick with 2 of the 11 wins. In the remaining 3 wins, 3 guys had exceptionally good games. Overall, the ratio of solo great games to shared great games for the team as a whole is 21 solo great to 40 shared great games.

For the 32 losses, 6 of them came with no one having a particularly bad game. In 2 of the losses, two players played poorly. In 4 losses, 3 guys had off nights. And in 2 of the losses, 4 of the players were bad. (And if you guessed these two really bad nights for Bulls fans were the late season losses @Washington and@Orlando, you'd be right.) The overall ratio of solo bad games to shared bad games is 30 solo bad games to 31 shared bad games.

This means that In 18 of the losses, only one player had an exceptionally bad night. I suppose you can look at this 2 ways - you can either hate on the player for single-handedly costing games, or you can look at it as a sign of how important that player is to team success. Also, since I haven't finished up with the opponent stuff yet, this gives no indication of whether the bad game came in an understandable circumstance (e.g., Joakim going against Dwight Howard). With that said, the "pin the loss on this guy" games go to Joakim (5), Ben (4), Derrick (3), Tyrus (3), and one each for Kirk, Luol, and John.

As far as specific players playing exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly at the same time, I'm not really finding any pattern there. Kirk and Derrick were more likely than the other guys to have a bad game when another player or players also have a bad game, which makes sense when you consider that assists make up a greater proportion of their gamescores. And everyone except Luol was equally or more likely to have an exceptional game when another player was also having an exceptional game.

The one player combination of exceptional games that stood out involved some combination of Ben, Derrick, and Joakim - in 50% of Ben's exceptional games Derrick also had a great night, while in 40% of Joakim's exceptional games Derrick also had a great night. And in 50% of Derrick great games, either Ben or Joakim also had a great game. (Interestingly, Derrick is the common denominator there - Ben and Joakim never show up as playing exceptionally well together unless Derrick is also there.) Everyone else (so far at least) seemed to randomly share good nights and bad nights. Maybe that will change when opponent is taken into account.

Oh, and hope no one wanted to go to China... ;)

Kirk Hinrich - overpaid, but underrated

wjb1492 — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:43:24 -0000

Kirk Hinrich - overpaid, but underrated

Kirk makes one guy's team of overpaid/underrated players, along with Rashard Lewis, Jason Kidd, Kenyon Martin, and Shaq. Total salary: $82,791,818

Memories of Yester-year

wjb1492 — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:24:07 -0000

As I assume pretty much everyone knows, this year's NBA draft lottery - that swinging party for losers, and for winners who know how to swindle losers out of the only good thing that comes from losing - will be held roughly 24 hours from now. Since we have no balls in the bucket, frozen or otherwise, it's not much of an event for Bulls fans. But what could be more fun than a quick glance back to last year when we were blessed with the pick that would turn into Derrick Rose? It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Matt had this unusually positive post the morning of The Day:

Here are the Bulls chances Tuesday night:

No. 1: 1.70%
No. 2: 2.00%
No. 3: 2.40%
No. 9: 81.34%
No. 10: 12.18%
No. 11: 0.38%
No. 12: 0.0024%

Get a top two pick, draft Rose or Beasley (in, my opinion, that order), and all of Pax's inactivity and (public) idiocy doesn't matter. (Getting the 3rd would be a good night's work as well, but the next step would be a bit more muddled) The history of many GMs work out this way: the lottery can sure make them seem smart.

This is followed by a comments thread that starts off with a bunch of bored chit chat and quickly morphs into a "Holy hell! They just called out the 9th pick AND IT WASN'T US!" cocophony of animated elation and disbelief. And, of course, this was shortly thereafter followed by the breathtaking moment of watching the Timberwolves be eliminated from the Top 2 picks -- ensuring the Bulls would get one of the two prized draftees -- and then, finally, the sheer ecstacy of seeing "Stan" Schanwald as the last man standing.

After a long, long, long season of great misery, the rejoicing could not have been sweeter. I imagine I wasn't the only one who rewatched the lottery more than a few times - I had to watch D'Antoni's reaction to the Knicks not moving up while knowing the Bulls had at least a dozen times, and I lost count of how many times I watched the 9th pick and picks 3 through 1 announced. I even made people who have no interest in basketball watch. Just reading through the comments today makes me smile - hopefully they'll show some great coverage from last year as part of the build-up.

But back to this year. It feels a bit odd to not be in the lottery, even if a few of those years were courtesy of the New York Knicks. I'm still excited to watch, find out who gets the coveted top pick, and really jump into the draft. There's a nice preview over at Ridiculous Upside, as well as a ton of draft stuff at Draft Express. I'd like OKC to win the top pick - the Thunder actually have a reasonable shot, they're the closest thing to a local team where I live, and the conspiracy theories would be awesome if yet another team gets to keep the hometown kid. Washington would kind of tick me off since they're a pretty decent team barring injuries and an oddly down season (which is probably how other teams felt last year about the Bulls). I still root against New York on principle - and obviously it would be nice if the top pick or two head west instead of to an Eastern Conference foe. Then again, I hate to banish the poor top kids to some of those bad Western Conference teams - at least everyone in the East outside of Washington was playing with a shot at the playoffs until late in the season.

So I'll be watching, and I'll be interested in the outcome - but mostly I'll be reliving the 2008 lottery draft.

Basketball IQ

wjb1492 — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:35:57 -0000

"Basketball IQ" seems to be a term that gets tossed around a lot lately - usually in the context of Tyrus not having much, followed by someone defending Tyrus by pointing out he hasn't played organized basketball for as long as many of the others on the team. We rarely spend time defining "basketball IQ," although I've seen debates on other blogs about whether it's something that is innate or developed over time. For me, it's somewhere in the middle - someone with high basketball IQ would be a player who knows what play to make when and where to be on the court. This, I think, does develop over time, but everyone starts at a different point and has a different capacity for how high that basketball IQ can go.

Sometimes we talk about the "dumb" but athletic guys who get by largely on talent, sometimes the "smart" guys who lack speed or hops but carve out a role playing niche, and sometimes it's the guys who have been blessed with both. Fortunately, we don't have to spend much time talking about the guys who lack brains and athletic gifts, since Matt prefers we don't get too personal on BaB.

Anyway, I recently stumbled across this website Basketball IQ - the hoop world's think tank. There's really not much there, which leads me to believe that either the hoop world isn't thinking much or I'm just too stupid to get it. But I like looking at rankings, even if it's usually just to see what I disagree with. And this site is an absolute doozy!

Basically, this site lists 397 guys who have played in the NBA this season, along with the usual stats - baskets, free throws, percentages, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers, points - each sortable for the whole list or by position. And in the very last column is a category labeled "Prod" - it's not defined, but I'm assuming that stands for "productivity" or "production" and is this site's version of the classic composite stat. The formula for "Prod" is not given, nor is there a general explanation as to how the different stats are valued. Given some of the guys near the top, I'm guessing it has to be calculated on a per minute basis. (How else could you create a ranking that would result in DJ Mbenga being 2nd in the NBA?) This is the default ranking when you first get to the site. Denver's Chris Anderson is tops (76.4), and some dude named Jeremy Richardson, who apparently played some for Orlando, is last (6.1).

Given how little is explained, it's not exactly clear what the "Prod" ranking has to do with basketball IQ. A big part of me wants to assume absolutely nothing - formulas by nature are stats based, and imo stats show little to nothing about basketball IQ. It's kind of like trying to measure the value of a "glue guy" statistically. On the other hand, someone went to the trouble to develop a composite rating, and at least so far that's the only thing unique to the website which they've chosen to name "Basketball IQ." Maybe that just refers to the reader's basketball IQ? But when you look at the rankings, you kind of have to wonder whether any IQ at all is involved, so who knows? This is how the Bulls (including a couple of former Bulls) rank in "Prod" according to Basketball IQ. (First number is league-wide ranking, second number is the player's "Prod.")

14. Tyrus Thomas 58.1

18. Joakim Noah 56.4

69. Thabo Sefolosha 45.6

104. Brad Miller 42.2

106. Aaron Gray 42.1

121. Kirk Hinrich 41

177. Drew Gooden 36.3

181. Lindsey Hunter 36.2

211. Luol Deng 33.8

276. Derrick Rose 29.6

287. John Salmons 28.9

296. Andres Nocioni 28.5

301. Tim Thomas 28.1

319. Ben Gordon 26.3

379. Anthony Roberson 20.5

Aside from the highly humorous fact that a website named "Basketball IQ" has ranked the two guys who could not get minutes early on because they didn't know the plays so much higher than everyone else - how on earth do you come up with a formula that ranks the two Bulls I imagine most would agree were the most important/valuable to the team this year in the bottom third of the NBA? Looking just at the Bulls rankings, I'm guessing whoever developed this formula values defensive stats more than offense, and bigs (average center score of 46.4) more than guards (average PG score 35.4), but still....

So I've emailed the website admin, hoping to get some clarification of what, exactly, this is all intended to rank. This just is so far off of how I'd rank Bulls' players in any category (overall, offense, value, IQ), except possibly defensively - not to say this would be my defensive ratings, but at least it isn't 180 degrees off.

Meanwhile - Tyrus supporters go crazy, and Ben haters gloat while you can. Oh, and if any Thabo fans have pried themselves away from the OKC site, you can celebrate as well, I guess. Or we could have a civilized discussion about basketball IQ or player rankings. Take your pick.

What if I don't want a Big Mac? (No offense, Brad!)

wjb1492 — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:18:16 -0000

Once upon a time, way back when the Bulls were still playing basketball, there occurred a certain game in which one Mr. John Salmons scored the 100th point. You may recall that we - those of us who frequented the game threads, anyway - were inclined to mark the awarding of free Big Macs to UC patrons with many a snarky comment, particularly following the Hamburglar incident.

At that time, BaB regular cranscape suggested that in honor of John scoring the pivotal point, a Filet-o-Fish would have been a more appropriate giveaway than the standard Big Mac. And thus, ladies and gentlemen, it is really all cranscape's fault that this post exists - because her comment started me thinking about which McDonalds menu item paired best with each Bulls player, something that would permit the promotion to be unique to the player with the great honor of breaching the triple digit threshhold.

Obviously this is a pointless pursuit. Rumor has it that many of the fine dining establishments concerned will hand over a free Big Mac even if the Bulls didn't score 100. Assuming this is true, we certainly couldn't expect McDonalds' bright and friendly employees to care not only that the team had scored 100 points during a game, but on top of that which Bull was responsible for rewarding UC patrons with the opportunity to jeopardize their health without paying.

Nevertheless, this problem of which unhealthy fast-food item to pair with which professional athlete semi-fascinated me. Yes, I am weird, but I have also been in a prolonged avoid-working-on-the-dissertation-at-all-costs phase. So here are my proposed pairings. All input is highly welcome - with the rate at which my dissertation is not writing itself, this could end up being my only meaningful contribution to society. ;-)

Brad Miller - Big Mac. What other big man on the team has the variety and trickery present in Brad's game? A little offense here, a nice rebound there, a tricky assist one possession followed by a slow-mo roll to the basket the next. All these ingredients combine into an appealing picture when you're thinking about what to order. Yet who else can trick Vinny into thinking he's the healthy end-of-game option just by slapping on a little lettuce?
Joakim Noah - Chicken McNuggets. Underneath the trappings, Chicken McNuggets are just plain solid, a good fundamental and versatile base to build on. Pair that with a crazy dipping sauce or two to add some personality and the fun never stops.
Tyrus Thomas - McRib. Sometimes it shows up on the menu, almost like magic. And you think, hey, this is a really nice option! But just when you get used to it being there they take it back off the menu. Put it on the menu or retire it, damnit, and quit playing with our emotions like this!
Derrick Rose - Premium Grilled Chicken Classic. A premium player already who's stepping up from the crispy world of childhood to the grilled responsibilities of stud PG. Like all classics, he'll be around for a good long while, growing better with time.
Ben Gordon - Chipotle BBQ Snack Wrap. At first you might think there's not much there - it's just a snack wrap, after all, good for one thing only, and that's taking the edge off your hunger. It doesn't seem like there's enough there for a full meal. But when you dig into it, you realize there's more to it than you first thought. And it's really, really good. On top of all that, it's a bit of a bargain compared to much of the menu. And this one's the hot, 4th quarter version!
John Salmons - Filet-o-Fish. Where it all started. From the outside this doesn't sound all that appealing, but when you actually try it it's far better than you ever imagined it could be. It kind of seems out there on its own, though, just hanging out one-on-one and not really mixing with the other menu options.
Kirk Hinrich - Bacon, Egg & Cheese Biscuit. A lot of really solid, good things in this one that blend nicely into a yummy option. Not one ingredient really stands out from the others, but all the basics are covered and overall it's just a very comfortable choice that's hard to go wrong with. Too bad breakfast may not be in the plans.
Luol Deng - Premium Caesar Salad w/ Chicken. Hey, it says premium, and you're sure paying like it is. There should be a lot of good stuff there, because you ordered the version with chicken. Only then you open the container and it seems like an awful lot of vegetables. And at the end of the meal you're left wondering "Why'd I pay that for a bunch of lettuce?"
Aaron Gray - Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese. If Brad is the Big Mac, then this one has got to be Aaron. So many similarities between the two (size, two patties, lack of speed, pickles, a few offensive moves), but Aaron lacks the subtleties of Brad's Big Mac game. No special sauce here!
Tim Thomas - Cheeseburger. It's not that the basic cheeseburger is all bad or anything, and it's a big improvement on the plain hamburger you traded to New York, but it's just not much of a meal. Plus, why pay all that for a single patty when you can get a double for about the same price?
Lindsey Hunter - Hot Fudge Sundae. A classic that has withstood the test of time. The only problem is if you run with it too long, the whole thing melts into a puddle. Plus, you just can't live on ice cream. A nice extra, but not a meal.
LJ3 - McDonaldland Cookies. They're not especially good, but they somehow make you smile anyway. You even enjoy the first two or three of them. But keep eating them and they start to tast like stale cardboard.
Anthony Roberson - Snack-size Fruit & Walnut Salad. It's probably the last thing you're thinking about ordering if you're at McDonalds, and it won't tide you over for long. But, when the occasion is right, a snack-size helping of Anthony Roberson can really hit the spot.
DeMarcus Nelson - Happy Meal. Your pretty sure you probably know what you have there, and it's not all that great. The thing is, sometimes when you actually open the box, the prize inside is way better than you ever expected. But most of the time it's pretty crappy. Doesn't stop you from picking up a Happy Meal here and there, hoping to strike it toy-prize rich.
Jerome James - Ice Water. He's not going to be scoring, and this is the only thing you can get for free. (OK, it costs a quarter if you don't buy anything else.) Hey, it's not much, but with the dry economy a nice cup of cold water can be pretty refreshing.

Season Stats, Take 2

wjb1492 — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:52:35 -0000

So borrowing yesterday's nifty little chart didn't work so well - it is, after all, difficult to make accurate comparisons when you start with inaccurate numbers. Unfortunately for me, once I get to thinking about something I tend to stick with it, no matter how much it annoys everyone around me and how many other things I should be doing with my time. And after realizing the issues with yesterday's chart of season stats, I just had to know the accurate breakdown of player contributions to team totals.

So here are accurate breakdowns, using player stats from basketballreference.com for every guy who contributed in the boxscore this year. It was getting way too messy to follow in one, big composite chart, so instead you get a ton of smaller pie charts. And I also included a per36 breakdown of every stat for comparison. I mean, it's great to know exactly how much Ben and Derrick had to carry the team overall, but using season totals minimizes the contributions of guys who didn't get to play anywhere near 82 games in a Bulls uni, no matter the reason. Also, to make things a little less messy, I just combined Noc, Drew, Thabo, and Larry into one composite "Guys Traded Away" entity - I needed their stats to make the percentages accurate, but do we really care much about them individually now that they're all playing elsewhere? Same deal for the end of the bench guys - their individual stats just weren't significant enough to show up in a pie chart.

Unfortunately, I've been having trouble getting the charts in here as images, and my enthusiasm for this project has now run its course. (Not to mention that it's Mother's Day, and my mother doesn't seem to see my spending time on BaB as a good way to demonstrate my devotion to her. Silly mother!) So all you get is a link to a word doc, if you want to go look at the charts. There are a few interesting things there - but most of all, I have done my best to atone for introducing false information into the BaB community. ;)

Bulls Comparative Season Contributions, 08-09 Regular Season

Kirk has been a starting point guard since he's been in the league and this year, he moved to the...

wjb1492 — Sun, 10 May 2009 07:34:06 -0000

Kirk has been a starting point guard since he's been in the league and this year, he moved to the bench," Gordon said. "I'm definitely sure he'd probably like to be back in that starting role and playing the way he's been playing in the past. So I don't know if (the lineup) has worked out that well. We still have a lot of guards that commanded a lot of minutes.

Crowded backcourt makes it hard to predict how Bulls will play hand

How Long till the Draft?

wjb1492 — Sun, 10 May 2009 03:10:39 -0000

So it turns out this is kind of hard. Not that I ever thought it was easy for Matt to find stuff to post during the offseason, but it is harder than I expected. The local beat writers aren't putting much, if anything, out. Draft coverage hasn't hit high gear yet. One of the main stories of the playoffs so far has been the refs, but that feels pretty stale at this point after suffering through our own reffing controversies during the first round.

Well, how about Google? Surely at least one of the players is doing something interesting someplace, right? Only not so much. Kirk and Brad keep showing up in articles about the latest foul controversy, as if Rondo's physical assaults are something we want to keep reliving. Derrick's been dropping pucks, but that's been covered in the FanShots already (although that's a nice article about him at bulls.com). Some other dude (side note: when I proofread this I found that I'd written "some other dud." I swear it wasn't intentional) named Aaron Gray recently lost his mother to lung cancer - which is really sad, but not Bulls related. Anthony Roberson and Lindsey Hunter show up about as often on Google as they did in the Bulls' boxscores. Vinny did a job this year.

But surely Ben will save us, right? He always steps up in crunch time, so how could there not be a great story just waiting to be Googled and posted here for our discussion? Can I make something out of him liking lobster flatbread and truffles? Maybe send you over to our old friend Andrew's blog to read his lengthy recap of Ben's "Bulls MVP" season? Or there's some dud (intentional this time) out in San Francisco offering this:

The team that ponies up even $10 million a year for Gordon, a one-dimensional scorer, is likely to regret it.

Gee, there's something we haven't debated before. And does anyone else get a little indignant when non-Bulls fans want to offer their opinions on Ben and his contract situation?

So I've got nothing. And having nothing, I resort to my old friend, statistics. I thought this was kind of fun, seeing all these stats for everyone in this format, and if nothing else it's highly colorful. [Edited to add - as has been pointed out in the comments, the chart really is nothing but colorful; it includes full season stats from guys that were traded to Chicago midseason and leaves out stats for guys who were traded away. The game-by-game charts are cool, though. Oh, well - kind of fits the mood of the rest of the post now! :-)]

NBA Stats

Swirsky interview with Portland radio station

wjb1492 — Thu, 07 May 2009 08:24:43 -0000

Swirsky interview with Portland radio station

Starts about the 15 minute mark - Portland was wanting to talk Kirk, so if you don't want to spend time listening to Swirsk sing his praises you may want to skip it. ;)

He does talk a little Ben situation, too.