2021-22 NBA In-Season News/Transactions

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
Yep, they moved. And maybe you ought to consider the possibility that DeRozan was a negative in the years that he was being shown as one. I tend to trust data sources that try to ascribe how much a skill contributes to winning versus a closed system that relies mostly on the opinions and observations of a layperson. Both can be wrong but the people developing these metrics are constantly tweaking them and refining them. Humans tend to crystallize their opinions and views.

Edit: grammar etc
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,459
Also, the basis for the "DeRozan's team is better with him off" wasn't some all-in-one stat. It was literally... points scored and points allowed. There was no fancy metric, it was that when he was on the floor his team lost those minutes, or barely won them, when he was on the bench his team won by more or lost by less.
Now in SA some of it was lineups (he was better when Aldridge was off, as was Aldridge alone, together they stunk) in TOR.... honestly he was a much worse player than he is now, and a ball dominant, non-floor stretching 2, has to be more efficient to be useful and he wasn't at that point in his career.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yep, they moved. And maybe you ought to consider the possibility that DeRozan was a negative in the years that he was being shown as one. I tend to trust data sources that try to ascribe how much a skill contributes to winning versus a closed system that relies mostly on the opinions and observations of a layperson. Both can be wrong but the people developing these metrics are constantly tweaking them and refining them. Humans tend to crystallize their opinions and views.

Edit: grammar etc
Yeah, A player playing 36+ minutes a game on a team winning 50+ games regularly is definitely a negative.

Maybe the advanced stats were just wrong about DeRozan.

But yeah, Amir Johnson is a top 20 player.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
5,200
Lynn

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,459
Yeah, A player playing 36+ minutes a game on a team winning 50+ games regularly is definitely a negative.

Maybe the advanced stats were just wrong about DeRozan..
Beyond the amusing nature of calling "points" advanced stats... they literally won the title the year after they moved him... then lost Kawhi.... and won 50+ with just the guys DeRozan had played with. Not sure that his team having a good record with him means that much for his impact when they replaced him with nobody and still won 50+
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
Why are we discussing Amir Johnson who hasn't played in the NBA in three seasons? Oh because some advanced stat that was in its early stages said he was good six or seven years back? I get it that some people long for the simpler times when your eyes and like minded columnists and broadcasters reinforced a view even if it wasn't based on facts. The problem is those days are gone.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
5,200
Lynn
What drags DeRozan down in the advanced stats? Lack of 3 point shooting? Defense?
Combination of things. Up until this year, he really wasn’t able to generate offense within the offensive scheme. He’s a very, very bad defensive player, and he doesn’t bring much spacing. Also just some crap luck involved too, I’m sure.

He’s just going nuclear this season.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Why are we discussing Amir Johnson who hasn't played in the NBA in three seasons? Oh because some advanced stat that was in its early stages said he was good six or seven years back? I get it that some people long for the simpler times when your eyes and like minded columnists and broadcasters reinforced a view even if it wasn't based on facts. The problem is those days are gone.
I'm just stating DeMar DeRozan is one of the reasons I have a hard time taking them seriously. I'm glad they seem to be correct this year. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day though.

Maybe in a few more years I'll buy into a couple of them. All these advanced stats are still in their "early stages" and many won't exist in 5 years. As you noted, these stats are constantly getting tweaked and refined. That's cool. So these "facts" can change at any time whenever the creator of said stats wants to tweak and redefine his metric. Those numbers may be facts, but those numbers don't actually tell you anything other than the answer to a long equation.

Sorry, but the days of people watching basketball and forming their own opinions will never be gone. Just like scouting is still very much part of baseball today.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,848
NYC
So I guess FG% is … still a thing? I mean, apparently so, since I recently saw a Statmuse tweet noting Westbrook had a higher FG% this season than Curry. Sigh.

Maybe we can go back to using “batting average” in the baseball forums while we’re at it? I’ll start by noting that Barry Bonds batted under .300 for his career. Scrub.

Note: I’m not weighing in on DeRozan, who has actually scored highly efficiently this season (.601 TS) with a killer +10.5 net on-off per 100 possessions. But it’d be nice if the mainstream sports media would move on from blatantly misleading stats like FG%. And of course, base ten numerical thresholds and arbitrary groupings thereof (e.g. the triple double, .300 batting, etc.) while they’re at it…
 

shoelace

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 24, 2019
268
I'm just stating DeMar DeRozan is one of the reasons I have a hard time taking them seriously. I'm glad they seem to be correct this year. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day though.

Sorry, but the days of people watching basketball and forming their own opinions will never be gone. Just like scouting is still very much part of baseball today.
Are you really posting like a "put away your calculator, you have to actually watch the games, nerds!" take on this forum in 2022? No one is arguing that scouting isn't important. This is such a bad faith argument, and as DeJesus points out, you're pulling an example from like a previous form of RPM from 6 seasons ago. These are not strong counter arguments.

This and the Theis thread makes me feel like the All-Star break is bad for the discourse on here. Low quality content lately.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,459
I also think it's amusing someone can watch DeRozan's efficiency this year and say "yup that's the same guy who was in TOR"... DeRozan is putting up massively better scoring efficiency numbers than he did in TOR.

The Stats advanced or the most basic in the game weren't wrong about DeRozan, he was an inefficient chucker, he now is an efficient scorer. It's much like Rudy Gay before him... scoring points by taking a million 2s isn't generally good for a team unless you are making those 2s at a high rate, when DeRozan wasn't.... he wasn't a very good player, now that he's making them at elite rates... he's a good player.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
To clarify an earlier point, people will always express uninformed opinions and they will continue to be amplified depending on the size of their platform. The difference now is we have a choice to actually do a spot check on this stuff - even if they don't exercise the option to quickly research the thought, we can do so afterwards.

Finally, I struggle to see how someone who identifies as an NBA fan eschews these stats entirely. Again, they aren't perfect but if you follow them I find it makes what teams across the league are doing to build their rosters much easier to understand. I assume that @bowiac is under an NDA or two but if he can ever share, I would love to know what he's learned about team proprietary metrics since the last time he posted on this topic. I bet there is some really interesting stuff going in that area.
 
Last edited:

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
5,200
Lynn
Personally, I’ve always found that advanced stats bridge the gap between raw stats and eye test. You can’t just blindly follow one, but advanced stats have really put an emphasis on who impacts the game, and who doesn’t.

Way too many people just look at raw stats, and ignore context/role. I like the eye test, but people are guilty of seeing what they want to see. And then with advanced stats, people make the mistake of using it as an outright ranking system. I’ll use it as a tool for my rankings, but only if the stats show a consensus.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Yeah, A player playing 36+ minutes a game on a team winning 50+ games regularly is definitely a negative.

Maybe the advanced stats were just wrong about DeRozan.

But yeah, Amir Johnson is a top 20 player.
Voulgaris has long been a proponent of advanced stats but he’s also been a big DeRozan guy for awhile. It’s context and a part of the puzzle…..it does not solve the puzzle and +/- alone in a team sport is completely worthless in a small sample and only slightly better than worthless in a large sample on its own. He is also a proponent of watching the game along with the metrics and has recognized DeRozan in the past.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Are you really posting like a "put away your calculator, you have to actually watch the games, nerds!" take on this forum in 2022? No one is arguing that scouting isn't important. This is such a bad faith argument, and as DeJesus points out, you're pulling an example from like a previous form of RPM from 6 seasons ago. These are not strong counter arguments.

This and the Theis thread makes me feel like the All-Star break is bad for the discourse on here. Low quality content lately.
Look at the post I am responding to. Snark with Snark.

I get it that some people long for the simpler times when your eyes and like minded columnists and broadcasters reinforced a view even if it wasn't based on facts. The problem is those days are gone.
So we don't need to watch the games?

And a player going 12/21 from the field isn't a stat? Ok. Look at a lot of my post. They include lots and lots of numbers. And trends. I love trends. I am pro numbers.

I just think people rely too much on the all in ones like it's the end all be all of the discussion.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
When he's not significantly worse than the 3 frontrunners? Only 1 person can win the award, DeRozan is having a really good season, he has a real shot at 1st team All-NBA.... he's not having the season (on either end) that Jokic/Embiid/Giannis are having. He'd have to average like 38 the rest of the way and play better defense to even get a "ooh interesting, but no"
The voters don’t care about varying levels of defense. Recency bias plays a big role and here we are in February and DeRozan is running away with the Player of the Month Award. Harden’s presence may affect Embiid’s numbers and if the Sixers fall while the Bulls are a 1-seed I don’t know how a writer can vote for Embiid. Team success is going to play a bigger role than his defense will.
 

shoelace

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 24, 2019
268
I also think it's amusing someone can watch DeRozan's efficiency this year and say "yup that's the same guy who was in TOR"... DeRozan is putting up massively better scoring efficiency numbers than he did in TOR.

The Stats advanced or the most basic in the game weren't wrong about DeRozan, he was an inefficient chucker, he now is an efficient scorer. It's much like Rudy Gay before him... scoring points by taking a million 2s isn't generally good for a team unless you are making those 2s at a high rate, when DeRozan wasn't.... he wasn't a very good player, now that he's making them at elite rates... he's a good player.
Exactly, dude is having a career year in terms of efficiency and he's maybe played himself into whatever tier of MVP consideration you put Devin Booker into. Jokic, Giannis, Embiid, Steph, Ja, I feel like there's a ton of dudes who are significantly ahead of DeRozan. Not sure how sustainable DeRozan's performance is in the long term, either, when it's built on shooting 55% from 10-16 feet which is significantly above his career average in his age 32 season. if he somehow wins MVP they should try to trade him and cash in on that.

As a related point, that's part of why I'm not ready to buy into this Chicago team until I see how they do in the playoffs. For everyone that wants to say the Celtics have played an easy schedule (28th in SOS on bbref), the Bulls (30th) have had an easier run. I don't really believe they're in the same tier as the top contenders (PHX, MIL, MIA, GSW, and possibly BRK and PHI health and chemistry permitting).

Voulgaris has long been a proponent of advanced stats but he’s also been a big DeRozan guy for awhile. It’s context and a part of the puzzle…..it does not solve the puzzle and +/- alone in a team sport is completely worthless in a small sample and only slightly better than worthless in a large sample on its own.
Maybe there's an argument that DeRozan's specific skillset (shot creation, getting to the free throw line and being able to take and make high difficulty shots) is undervalued by advanced metrics and doesn't capture his full on court value.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,459
The voters don’t care about varying levels of defense. Recency bias plays a big role and here we are in February and DeRozan is running away with the Player of the Month Award. Harden’s presence may affect Embiid’s numbers and if the Sixers fall while the Bulls are a 1-seed I don’t know how a writer can vote for Embiid. Team success is going to play a bigger role than his defense will.
The voting has changed a lot in recent years, team success has fallen way down the ladder, it essentially doesn't matter as long as you're a playoff team. Also, if it did, Chris Paul is still ahead,
Here is Bontemps, straw poll https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33304979/nba-mvp-straw-poll-familiar-big-man-battle-brewing-top
Last year his poll was basically perfect (it flipped Giannis/Curry 3/4) not only in getting the top 5 right, but even had the 1/2 margin pretty close.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Exactly, dude is having a career year
He's having a career year. I'm just arguing he didn't suck before this. Yeah, players improve. If Tatum improves, it didn't mean he sucked before. It just means he got better.

And I'm not arguing against numbers. I'm arguing for more numbers so you can hone in on more specific skills.
 

shoelace

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 24, 2019
268
He's having a career year. I'm just arguing he didn't suck before this. Yeah, players improve. If Tatum improves, it didn't mean he sucked before. It just means he got better.
I was echoing Cellar-Door's point. It's taken him having a career year in pretty much every shooting category for the advanced metrics to grade him out positively. I don't think the argument against DeRozan was ever that he sucked. It was that he was a low efficiency, volume scorer who plays bad defense on teams that never won anything. People argued that he wasn't as good as the accolades he received and stuff like that. It was more like people questioning Derek Jeter winning 5 Gold Gloves than saying he completely sucked and had no value.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Maybe there's an argument that DeRozan's specific skillset (shot creation, getting to the free throw line and being able to take and make high difficulty shots) is undervalued by advanced metrics and doesn't capture his full on court value.
I’ve preached for decades that shot creation is the most undervalued skill in the NBA. DeRozan is more than an iso-player, he’s one of the best passing scorers in the league and rarely turns the ball over despite his high usage in traffic/double teams. Effective dribble penetration breaks a defense down, it opens up opportunities for others, it allows for offensive rebounds and follow tips with off-the-ball defenders having to rotate, it generates bonus situations earlier in the quarter (that can negatively affect the players +/- if he’s not in the game when it’s being taken advantage of)……I can go on and on.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
I’ve preached for decades that shot creation is the most undervalued skill in the NBA. DeRozan is more than an iso-player, he’s one of the best passing scorers in the league and rarely turns the ball over despite his high usage in traffic/double teams. Effective dribble penetration breaks a defense down, it opens up opportunities for others, it allows for offensive rebounds and follow tips with off-the-ball defenders having to rotate, it generates bonus situations earlier in the quarter (that can negatively affect the players +/- if he’s not in the game when it’s being taken advantage of)……I can go on and on.
Yeah, getting in the bonus early helps later in the quarter, no doubt.

Other than that, your post highlights an over emphasis on guys being elite at getting shots off. On one hand, you're right that teams need guys that can get shots off. But the fact remains that being bad at hitting them is detrimental to your team's success.

When DD was particularly bad at this (and bad at defense), he was not a good player. He was great at one thing, but shitty at too many others. He now is both better at defense and hitting those shots and coincidentally is now a plus plus player.

Tony Armas hit 36HR and had 107 RBI in 1983 and was a negative bWAR. Nobody questions that, but we seem to have this conversation when DeMar comes up.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
One nuance that gets lost in the advanced metric discussion is that while some people think a poor showing means the player "sucks" NBA teams don't seem behave that way. Instead, it feels like their entire player population is assumed to be flawed to varying degrees and that ideal roster construction takes those factors into account. Its obviously much easier to build a team out of ++ players but teams can/do dig into the negatives to see if there are efficiency/usage gaps that might be exploited (e.g. shooting, defense, match-up specific uses). And of course, these metrics aren't predictive so if a player levels up, the metrics won't immediately reflect it.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that relying on one method exclusively seems like a bad strategy. Of course you watch the games but unless you look at the data as well, you are going to get people concluding that - and I am making this up but I've seen some ideas along these lines here - Buddy Hield is better than Marcus Smart.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
I’ve preached for decades that shot creation is the most undervalued skill in the NBA. DeRozan is more than an iso-player, he’s one of the best passing scorers in the league and rarely turns the ball over despite his high usage in traffic/double teams. Effective dribble penetration breaks a defense down, it opens up opportunities for others, it allows for offensive rebounds and follow tips with off-the-ball defenders having to rotate, it generates bonus situations earlier in the quarter (that can negatively affect the players +/- if he’s not in the game when it’s being taken advantage of)……I can go on and on.
One of the two biggest points I tend to raise with pure analytics types is this---sure, in theory, smaller volume more efficient scorers look "better" than higher volume/less efficient guys. But on the court, you do have to generate actual offense a team of five low-volume guys simply won't. That doesn't make a 40% shooter better so much as it suggests that the weighting of "efficiency" is easy to get wrong. So guys like Allen Iverson can be valuable based on "non horrible volume" in a way that isn't often well-depicted by metrics. DeRozan was directionally that kind of player, though of course not as good.

The other, if anyone cares, is that the matrix of on/off/matchups/teammates who are on/off is so complicated (and the samples which come out of it so small) that we need to accept some material error bars around all the on/off based stats.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Yeah, getting in the bonus early helps later in the quarter, no doubt.

Other than that, your post highlights an over emphasis on guys being elite at getting shots off.
Yes that was the intent bc my point is that it is tremendously under emphasized by the public and possibly by the metrics.

On one hand, you're right that teams need guys that can get shots off. But the fact remains that being bad at hitting them is detrimental to your team's success.
Not necessarily. I’ll give you two examples off the top of my head (obv there are many more).

* Celtics/Lakers G7 2010. Kobe broke down our defense countless times but shot 6-24 in the game. Some would say he was awful. What the raw numbers don’t show is what those 18 missed FGA possessions created……they created double teams, help defense freeing up their bigs, and our rebounders being out of position as Pau hung around the rim for NINE offensive rebounds and the Lakers 24 as a whole for the game.

* I recall the specifics better from our Laker series but the Miami Heat championship year (06?) Antoine couldn’t make a shot in the paint. He killed the Heat those night, right? Wrong. His shot creation wrecked havoc on the Mavs scrambling defense allowing Haslem 8 or 9 offensive rebounds one game and the team a big advantage on the offensive boards in another in close wins. The casual fan only saw Antoine missing so he suckz…..yet the reality was that he was a crucial element to that championship.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
One thing I think we can all agree on is that relying on one method exclusively seems like a bad strategy. Of course you watch the games but unless you look at the data as well, you are going to get people concluding that - and I am making this up but I've seen some ideas along these lines here - Buddy Hield is better than Marcus Smart.
See, I think it's pretty easy to tell Marcus Smart is better than Buddy Hield just by watching the game. And I hate guards who can't shoot.

As far as team building goes, I don't know how these all in ones would fit in. If you want someone who will hit an open 3, you are going to look at his shooting % from 3 when he is open. So if all things were equal and a team was desperate for shooting, they'd might prefer Buddy Hield even if Smart is better.

I think this is the same board where everyone told me I was being ridiculous about OPS too but I hate that stat. Why take 2 different numbers and add them together to tell you less (and less accurate) information than you had before? You can get someone's OPS from their OBP and Slugging % but you can't get their OBP and slugging % from OPS.

I digress. I probably am ridiculous but it's grinds my gears.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
Yes that was the intent bc my point is that it is tremendously under emphasized by the public and possibly by the metrics.


Not necessarily. I’ll give you two examples off the top of my head (obv there are many more).

* Celtics/Lakers G7 2010. Kobe broke down our defense countless times but shot 6-24 in the game. Some would say he was awful. What the raw numbers don’t show is what those 18 missed FGA possessions created……they created double teams, help defense freeing up their bigs, and our rebounders being out of position as Pau hung around the rim for NINE offensive rebounds and the Lakers 24 as a whole for the game.

* I recall the specifics better from our Laker series but the Miami Heat championship year (06?) Antoine couldn’t make a shot in the paint. He killed the Heat those night, right? Wrong. His shot creation wrecked havoc on the Mavs scrambling defense allowing Haslem 8 or 9 offensive rebounds one game and the team a big advantage on the offensive boards in another in close wins. The casual fan only saw Antoine missing so he suckz…..yet the reality was that he was a crucial element to that championship.
Oh yes. Agreed with all of this. Definitely see where you're going.

Yes, when Kobe imposed his will on that game, he also missed 18 shots. But he did a whole bunch of other good stuff. Hitting 11FTs and 15 rebounds don't tell the whole story of that game either. And the best analytics show that Kobe was that guy in his career. His scoring efficiency or lack thereof was one part of a diverse bag of tricks that he had. DeMar is not that guy, frankly until recently, and even then is not close to a Kobe in impact.

Edit: as a Celtics fan, I'm contractually obligated to point out that the refs also imposed their will in that game.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Voulgaris has long been a proponent of advanced stats but he’s also been a big DeRozan guy for awhile. It’s context and a part of the puzzle…..it does not solve the puzzle and +/- alone in a team sport is completely worthless in a small sample and only slightly better than worthless in a large sample on its own. He is also a proponent of watching the game along with the metrics and has recognized DeRozan in the past.
DeRozan's sample was roughly 30,000 minutes of mediocre to bad +/- data before this year, across a variety of teams, roles and contexts. I don't really know what the "answer" to the DeRozan issue is, but it's more complicated than shot creation stuff. Essentially every "advanced" metric values usage incredibly highly, and inefficient shot creators who take difficult shots have been rewarded in these metrics, e.g.,

49496

I really don't know what the answer here however. I suspect various all-in-one numbers have underrated him previously, but it's not obvious to me why or what crack in the system he's falling through.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Finally, I struggle to see how someone who identifies as an NBA fan eschews these stats entirely. Again, they aren't perfect but if you follow them I find it makes what teams across the league are doing to build their rosters much easier to understand. I assume that @bowiac is under an NDA or two but if he can ever share, I would love to know what he's learned about team proprietary metrics since the last time he posted on this topic. I bet there is some really interesting stuff going in that area.
As far as I'm aware, most team proprietary "all in one" metrics are substantively similar to the public metrics - there's not that much action happening on that end. A few teams have reached out to me asking for help building their own DARKO-like model, which likewise suggests to me the public metrics are basically fine as far the entire concept goes. I discussed this on a podcast the other day, but essentially we've hit the diminishing returns point with the various all-in-one metrics.

Teams are rather focused much more on issues of fit, and understanding which specific actions various players excel or struggle at (e.g. pick and roll, help defense, on-ball defense), and which specific contexts players perform well in/struggle in (e.g., in the bonus, with the other team in foul trouble, playing opposite a big/small defender, etc...). A lot of this work depends on non-public raw tracking data, and the goal essentially is to find a guy who grades as subpar in his current role who can excel in another context. The distinction we usually draw when discussing these things is that RAPM, RAPTOR, DPM, etc... are all "impact" metrics. They're trying to understand (or project) how impactful a player will be in his current role/context. They're not really "talent" metrics, since ascertaining that requires pretty detailed understanding of context (talent + context = impact).

To tie this back to DeRozan, I would be surprised if there were teams with sophisticated stats departments which had DeRozan as a top 40-50 player coming into this year on any impact metric (the Bulls do not have a particularly sophisticated stats department, but their group likewise didn't like DeRozan). On the other hand, it's very possible that a bunch of teams thought DeRozan had a lot of talent and thought they could use him differently to maximize his skillset, or hide his flaws (on the defensive end in particular).
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
DeRozan's sample was roughly 30,000 minutes of mediocre to bad +/- data before this year, across a variety of teams, roles and contexts. I don't really know what the "answer" to the DeRozan issue is, but it's more complicated than shot creation stuff. Essentially every "advanced" metric values usage incredibly highly, and inefficient shot creators who take difficult shots have been rewarded in these metrics, e.g.,

View attachment 49496

I really don't know what the answer here however. I suspect various all-in-one numbers have underrated him previously, but it's not obvious to me why or what crack in the system he's falling through.
This may go down as one of life’s greatest mysteries. We will always have the Amir Johnsons, Chuck Hayes, and other (usually) role playing bigs who skirt the system based on their usage, rotations and fit with their team. We can take these players numbers with context to see that they can be productive in their role yet recognize their limitations in a larger role. I don’t know if we’ll ever see such a large sample size that left most everyone in the analytics, general public and every hybrid in between…..completely and totally baffled.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
To tie this back to DeRozan, I would be surprised if there were teams with sophisticated stats departments which had DeRozan as a top 40-50 player coming into this year on any impact metric (the Bulls do not have a particularly sophisticated stats department, but their group likewise didn't like DeRozan). On the other hand, it's very possible that a bunch of teams thought DeRozan had a lot of talent and thought they could use him differently to maximize his skillset, or hide his flaws (on the defensive end in particular).
Wouldn’t the Bulls 3/$82m contract indicate that they did value him even greater than a top 40-50 player? He surely wasn’t signed to be a role player for them.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Wouldn’t the Bulls 3/$82m contract indicate that they did value him even greater than a top 40-50 player? He surely wasn’t signed to be a role player for them.
Their FO clearly valued him - their analytics department did not. Not every FO works hand in hand with their analytics group.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Wouldn’t the Bulls 3/$82m contract indicate that they did value him even greater than a top 40-50 player? He surely wasn’t signed to be a role player for them.
I think that suggests the stats department in Chicago has limited weight. At least in this case, for one year, the scouting side was right. I don't know that betting against the stats is a good percentage bet, but there are specific players and situations who fit better in one situation or role than another and if you get that right, there's value to be had.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Their FO clearly valued him - their analytics department did not. Not every FO works hand in hand with their analytics group.
Ah gotcha. Regardless of result….it has to be painful and discouraging to be hired to perform a job, do that job to the best of your ability only to have the ultimate decision maker not utilize it. I can’t imagine that being a very fun work environment. Come to think of it I suppose this occurs at every business to some degree.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,459
Wouldn’t the Bulls 3/$82m contract indicate that they did value him even greater than a top 40-50 player? He surely wasn’t signed to be a role player for them.
Actually it would probably value him in the 45-60 range based on contract... it's the 53rd largest contract in the league, but 40th on AAV.
Next year it will be 45th in AAV going into FA this offseason and probably end it 47th (Lavine and probably Ayton).
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
Ah gotcha. Regardless of result….it has to be painful and discouraging to be hired to perform a job, do that job to the best of your ability only to have the ultimate decision maker not utilize it. I can’t imagine that being a very fun work environment. Come to think of it I suppose this occurs at every business to some degree.
I think that it occurs in player personnel departments intentionally. Even among the scouting types, there will be guys who prioritize tools over skills, ceiling over floor, etc. And the analytics guys have a take. And someone has to absorb all of that and own the final call.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
As far as I'm aware, most team proprietary "all in one" metrics are substantively similar to the public metrics - there's not that much action happening on that end. A few teams have reached out to me asking for help building their own DARKO-like model, which likewise suggests to me the public metrics are basically fine as far the entire concept goes. I discussed this on a podcast the other day, but essentially we've hit the diminishing returns point with the various all-in-one metrics.

Teams are rather focused much more on issues of fit, and understanding which specific actions various players excel or struggle at (e.g. pick and roll, help defense, on-ball defense), and which specific contexts players perform well in/struggle in (e.g., in the bonus, with the other team in foul trouble, playing opposite a big/small defender, etc...). A lot of this work depends on non-public raw tracking data, and the goal essentially is to find a guy who grades as subpar in his current role who can excel in another context. The distinction we usually draw when discussing these things is that RAPM, RAPTOR, DPM, etc... are all "impact" metrics. They're trying to understand (or project) how impactful a player will be in his current role/context. They're not really "talent" metrics, since ascertaining that requires pretty detailed understanding of context (talent + context = impact).

To tie this back to DeRozan, I would be surprised if there were teams with sophisticated stats departments which had DeRozan as a top 40-50 player coming into this year on any impact metric (the Bulls do not have a particularly sophisticated stats department, but their group likewise didn't like DeRozan). On the other hand, it's very possible that a bunch of teams thought DeRozan had a lot of talent and thought they could use him differently to maximize his skillset, or hide his flaws (on the defensive end in particular).
+1. thank you for posting this and giving us some color on how teams may parse adv metrics like RAPM, RAPTOR, DPM and delve into FIT

So a miss would move him down one slot and a miss up one slot.
poor Aaron...its a "miss or miss" league for him
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
5,867
Ah gotcha. Regardless of result….it has to be painful and discouraging to be hired to perform a job, do that job to the best of your ability only to have the ultimate decision maker not utilize it. I can’t imagine that being a very fun work environment. Come to think of it I suppose this occurs at every business to some degree.
I imagine it's worse to be sweating cause most analytics said the guy was an empty box-score stat stuffer... and suddenly he's shooting like Kevin F'ing Durant. Doesn't make you or your department look very knowledgeable.

Nonetheless, a pretty good result for the Bulls. Here's Derozan's absolutely bonkers shot chart, for those who are interested.

49499
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Ah gotcha. Regardless of result….it has to be painful and discouraging to be hired to perform a job, do that job to the best of your ability only to have the ultimate decision maker not utilize it. I can’t imagine that being a very fun work environment. Come to think of it I suppose this occurs at every business to some degree.
This is common. Analytics are just one tool that GM's use, and the people that work in these departments know that. Teams make multiple decisions each season, and if the GM leans towards the analytics group 9 times out of 10, and goes with the scouting department on the 10th (DeRozan), such is life.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
I imagine it's worse to be sweating cause most analytics said the guy was an empty box-score stat stuffer... and suddenly he's shooting like Kevin F'ing Durant. Doesn't make you or your department look very knowledgeable.

Nonetheless, a pretty good result for the Bulls. Here's Derozan's absolutely bonkers shot chart, for those who are interested.

View attachment 49499
I imagine the entire Bulls front office is popping champagne corks with the work they have done over the last year (while getting torched this summer by many NBA pundits/media).

Besides the DeMar deal
1. Caruso signing - 28 games in/fan favorite + ridiculously good on-ball defense.
2. Lonzo Ball S&T robbery (sketchy tactics be damned)
3. Ayo - 2nd round/38th pick
4. Javonte Greene added for flotsam
5. DJJr + a 1st + 2nd for letting Lauri sign elsewhere
6. The Vucevic deal which cost them Franz could turn out to be somewhat questionable, but they needed to get good quick
7. Most importantly they are not a lottery-bound team and massively increased their odds in retaining Zach Lavine