Nocioni should be a starter

Andres Nocioni (6'7 225 SF) led the Bulls to victory in their last preseason game, scoring 26 points, 9 in overtime, playing 44 minutes as a starter in the absence of Deng.

Nocioni's high-scoring game capped a pretty solid preseason, and highlighted how well Andres plays when given the minutes. In the five games he played more than 20 minutes (averaging 28 mpg), Andres averaged 18 points on only 12 shots, a very efficient clip, along with 5 rebounds.

Just by way of contrast, the starter Deng in the preseason also averaged 28 minutes, but scored only 11 points on 10 shots, along with 5 rebounds.

This reveals a classic case of someone being declared better simply because they've been declared starter, and given better minutes. Andres' numbers are dragged down by the games he played 15, 11, and 6 minutes, but WHEN GIVEN COMPARABLE MINUTES, his numbers are actually better than the guy starting in front of him.

Deng was a lottery first round draft pick (seventh overall) out of Duke, entering the league in '04.
Nocioni was undrafted out of Argentina, also entering the league in '04. Notice, from the stats below, how Andres has always been given fewer minutes.

Yet, compare the years when they both averaged the same 27 minutes. Given the same minutes, Andres scored more points (13.0 vs 11.7) on fewer shot attempts (10.1 vs 10.6), and gathered in more rebounds (6.1 vs 5.3).

Yet, Deng's minutes then shot up, to 33 and 37, while Nocioni's then fell to 26 and 24.

So what is the argument? You could say that Deng had greater "upside" and has contined to progress as a ball player. BUT, I have already shown that this very preseason, when given the same minutes, Andres is more productive!

From his very first year, Deng has been given more minutes, so a casual glance at the stats makes Deng appear the better player. But when they average the same minutes, Andres shows greater productivity, both in the past and now!

So why is Deng starting, and Andres backing him up? Obviously, the answer is right there, in black and white.



year 1:
LD 27:18 mpg, 11.7 ppg, 10.6 shots pg, 5.3 rpg
AN 23:23 mpg, 8.4 ppg, 7.4 shots pg, 4.8 rpg

year 2:
LD 33:23 mpg, 14.3 ppg, 12.2 shots pg, 6.6 rpg
AN 27:18 mpg, 13.0 ppg, 10.1 shots pg, 6.1 rpg

year 3:
LD 37:30 mpg, 18.8 ppg, 14.9 shots pg, 7.1 rpg
AN 26:30 mpg, 14.1 ppg, 11.0 shots pg, 5.7 rpg

year 4:
LD 33:47 mpg, 17.0 ppg, 14.2 shots pg, 6.3 rpg
AN 24:36 mpg, 13.2 ppg, 10.7 shots pg, 4.2 rpg