Comments on: Fun With Random Pages: 1974 Bulls

By: kit

kit — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 02:59:25 +0000

Love was a multiple All-Def guy like Sloan, and had the most range of the 3 despite being the guy who usually guarded the 4s. Walker wasn't a bad defender either but he was very much an iso guy in an league of controlling coaches; his game was taking guys one on one rather than playing without the ball which gave him a rep of being a bit selfish.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:59:30 +0000

Granted, fair point - the stats talk for themselves, so why is Chet so underrated?

By: rt blues

rt blues — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:07:55 +0000

loved the guy.
best head fakes EVER!

By: Mike G

Mike G — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:13:46 +0000

OK, I didn't see Wins on the chart, just 'trORtg' and 'trDRtg', sans reference. This was a truly odd team. Sloan is normally listed as Guard, even though he didn't assist and rebounded like crazy. Both Love and Walker are Forward, though neither was remotely a PF. Love shot terribly but took the most shots and played huge minutes; so we assume he was an active defender. The Bulls' TS% in 1974 was .498; outside of Walker (.566) they were .484. He must have been a smoker. Neil, this random '1974 Bulls' post doesn't even have a link to that page. And it's only about Walker. Doesn't a 54% HOF probablility mean he should probably be in?

By: Jason J

Jason J — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:08:35 +0000

Can't say for sure, but part of the reason for the relatively low minutes / game when he was a Bull might simply be age (over 30 year old guard in the early '70s) or it might be teammates. He played the same positions as Sloan (2) and Love (3), the team's best defender and best scorer respectively.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:59:58 +0000

We talked about translated stats here. It's like exchanging currency, or adjusting for inflation -- a certain efficiency level "bought" you a certain number of wins in 1974, and we're determining the equivalent level of efficiency that "buys" you the same number of wins in 2009. In no way are we saying what Chet Walker would do if transported to 2009 via time machine. But if his performance was worth x rate of wins in 1974 and the leaguewide level of efficiency has changed since then, we put things in a 2009 context by finding the performance rate that earned you the same amount of wins this past year.

By: Mike G

Mike G — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:52:20 +0000

I'm stumped by the conversion referred to as :
"If we convert his Basketball on Paper stats to the 2008-09 offensive environment of 108.3 points per 100 possessions,.."

Has this conversion been described elsewhere?

Is Walker assumed to be more efficient in a league where teams average a higher efficiency?

Does this mean that a player in 2009 on a low ORtg team has an 'equivalent efficiency' on an average ORtg team? Or what exactly does it mean?

In his best years (efficiency) he only played 31-33 MPG. This on a team desperate for points. What does this suggest?

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:49:53 +0000

Of course, but those names are more recognizable to many fans than Walker's, so I thought his career deserved some extra attention.

By: Gabe

Gabe — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:33:40 +0000

Bob Love? Jerry Sloan? Norm Van Lier? Those Bulls teams were more than just Walker, IMO.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:32:35 +0000

Yeah, what you said. :) (Why did I say Rick Barry?)