Does that make the Toronto line-up better than the T-Wolves, though? I mean, it's clear you're a Minnesota fan these days...
I watched the Raptors game, and they said it was the youngest starting lineup in he history of the franchise (22 years old) Bayless with 20/4/3 on 9-15 shooting
No amazingly enough they got punked badly. Bayless had a bad +/-,(-27) but does it really mean anything when most of the starting 5 was -24 or worse?
Looks like Bayless was the worst of the bunch for +/-... but that stat is indeed fairly meaningless. I prefer ORtg v DRtg or GameScore.
Bayless is playing okay. I think his stats are a bit inflated because he gets a lot of freedom to make mistakes and play through the bad stretches. But this will only help him in the long run. And come on! Stop citing that +/- stat for single games! It varies way too much every night to be used as a tool to evaluate how a player helps/hurts his team. A better stat would be normalized +/- or average +/-.
It looks to me like what happened is that the Bulls starting unit, most of them shot well over 50%. Toronto didn't commit a ton of turnovers. It just looks to me like the Bulls offense just destroyed them.
Bayless had a GameScore of 15.4 in a game his team lost by 17. He also had an Ortg of 126 while the team was at 104. He did have the worst Drtg for the game, though, at 129, while the team was at 124. Overall, another solid game for Jerryd, at least in terms of individual play. The Blazers sure could use that offense off of the bench right about now.
So I'll throw this out there. How do you think most PG Drtg is against Derek Rose? The guy has been scoring in the 30's regularly and getting into double digits in assist commonly. The fact is, Derek Rose lights teams up, and I don't think there is a PG in the league who can do much more than make his life a little hard.
If you're going to use Offensive rating, you need to adjust for Usage % as well. 1 USG% = 1 offensive rating point (usually). Do this in order to compare star and role players. Also take into account minutes played.
A gamescore of 15 is actually pretty average for a starter; they are roughly analogous to points in a game, but taking into account other stats. So a 40 GmSc is like a guy going off for 40 points (balanced out over all his stats). A GmSc of 15 is like a 15 point performance. If you look at Roy in 08-09, he had plenty of amazing GmSc's. His median was something like 15.6.
Which is why a GmSc of 15 isn't average. A 2nd-team All-NBA player averaged a 15.6 for the season. As a comparison, Andre Miller last season had a total of 19 games out of 82 last season with a GmSc of 15+.
That's exactly why 15 isn't average... If he played all 48 minutes and had a game score of 15, yes that would be average. You have to take into account time and possessions.
...and the Timberwolves lose again. StatBo on steroids needs to decide what is more important. I read the SI article you posted in my issue this week. I found some troubling quotes in it, in terms of where his head is at right now.
You think they lost because he had 43 and 17? They would have been blown out by 20 without him. You think they beat the Knicks this year without his 31/31?
