# McGraw: Bulls look to S&T Curry for tall junk



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=68745



> If other NBA teams demonstrate a strong interest in Curry this weekend, the Bulls will take the opportunity to try to trade the 22-year-old center. A team insider confirmed this strategy.


S&Ts aren't easy to do. Most likelly a team like the Hawks make a big offer and Pax matches or Curry walks.



> Keep in mind, general manager John Paxson won’t agree to a trade that makes no sense for the Bulls. But if they can get a decent big man in return, a deal could happen.


Ok... Who are we talking about?



> Lorenzen Wright? Al Harrington? Jeff Foster? Rasho Nesterovic? Channing Frye? It’s difficult to predict the possibilities.


uke:

p.s. Al Harrington is the one name that makes any sense whatsoever but I sure hope McGraw's source is crap.


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

McGraw has become a tool. He's the daily herald Sam Smith. If you want a report that coincides with Bulls's front office, read K.C. Johnson's articles.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I take offense. Mike is no Sam Smith. He is a very good guy who is very reliable. He called the Basden thing to me a while back. Curry for Harrington+Collier and then bring in Oberto.

Hinrich,Duhon,Pargo
Gordon,Pike,Basden
Deng,Nocioni,Griffin
Davis, Baby Al, ???
Chandler,Oberto,Collier


Someone like Ruffin for that ??? big spot would be nice.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

if we moved Curry for Big Al, i would think that we would get Boris Diaw thrown in as well.

What other big men could Pax be interested in? Maybe Troy Murphy (big man that can shoot)? 

I put the chances of curry being traded between slim and none.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Correct me if I'm wrong but any substantial offer to Curry will result in him attaining BYC status. BYC players are impossible to trade if I understand the CBA. Now of course I'm not sure what changed with the new CBA so if somebody could help me out that would be appreciated. If not, then why not shoot for the fences...

Eddy Curry
Ben Gordon
Antonio Davis

for

Paul Pierce
Raef LaFrentz

This gives Boston an oppurtunity to completely re-build since their best players are kids. They'd be stacked from top to bottom with significant cap room for next season. We'd get a legitimate top 20 player in Pierce and the perfect big man to complement Chandler. I'd prefer to hang onto Curry and Gordon, but if they are (which is a big if) intent on trading Curry, I'd hope they'd explore deals like this...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Two things.

1. You can't expect to get a decent big man back in a Curry sign and trade. If the team taking him had a decent big man to give up, they wouldn't be so desperate to sign Curry to a huge contract anyway.

2. Al Harrington is the best guy on that list and I don't see the logic of him and Diaw for Curry. It just doesn't help us. If it was Harrington and Smith or Childress I'd start listening. (By the way, some folks

3 = 1+2. If you do a trade like that, you're now, like pretty much every other team, short of true bigs. Is this where you try moving Ben or Kirk to get one? The other day I was wondering if you could trade Gordon for Chris Bosh. He doesn't have Curry's bulk, but he's better at most everything else, very smart, and very hard working. In short, he's all about the right way. Adding him, Harrington and Smith (long shot blocker who can guard 2s with freakish athleticism) or Childress (very smart) to Chandler, Deng, Noc, Kirk, and Chris would give us a stellar defensive team.

Of course, the problem with that is it's hard enough getting one trade you'd like, much less getting two together nearly simultaneously.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Think Pike.

That's the kind of guys you get in S&T deals that get made.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

It's not so much that the Bulls aren't going to re-sign Curry, although I think it's a horrible basketball decision that will come back to repeatedly bite the Bulls in the ***. It's the timing.

Pax dithered and dallied and didn't trade Curry when he could have gotten something good in return. Now we're going to get a bunch of scrappy garbage like we got back in the Crawford S&T, or nothing at all.

This is as terrible as it was predictable.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's not so much that the Bulls aren't going to re-sign Curry, although I think it's a horrible basketball decision that will come back to repeatedly bite the Bulls in the ***. It's the timing.
> 
> Pax dithered and dallied and didn't trade Curry when he could have gotten something good in return. Now we're going to get a bunch of scrappy garbage like we got back in the Crawford S&T, or nothing at all.
> 
> This is as terrible as it was predictable.


:yes:

Predictable.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Think Pike.
> 
> That's the kind of guys you get in S&T deals that get made.


Gird yourself for a chorus of "Well, it worked last year" and "Why don't you just sit back and enjoy it and wait to see what Pax does"?

Ugh.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Gird yourself for a chorus of "Well, it worked last year" and "Why don't you just sit back and enjoy it and wait to see what Pax does"?
> 
> Ugh.


At least we can improve around the edges by picking up some of the undrafted guys before they become actual NBDL guys.

We actually did get Motumbo in the Crawford deal, and he would have been a real help in the playoffs.

There's only so much addition by subtraction that you can do before you really have to add guys like Deng, Nocioni, and Gordon to have some wins.

At this point, I just don't see how losing Curry from the team, as it is made up now, can help at all. We're terribly thin at the big positions and we're strapped for cap space to bring in anyone of consequence.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Gird yourself for a chorus of "Well, it worked last year" and "Why don't you just sit back and enjoy it and wait to see what Pax does"?
> 
> Ugh.


I think the situations are very different. Two seasons ago Crawford with Hinrich was the MVP of the Bulls. So it appeared critical that we get really good players in return for Crawford. Well, it turned out that Harrington, Piatkowski, and Griffin were pretty good players for us and the rookies stepped up to a degree that no one expected.

Eddy Curry, four years into his career, is a good player only in theory. In terms of actual productivity that leads to victories, I would put him behind Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Deng, Chandler, Harrington, and Davis last season. (For the season as a whole, I would put him ahead of Nocioni.)

So, of course, Curry could turn into a good player, but four years into his career he still has a long way to go. At some point, it becomes necessary to expect productivity rather than potential. 

He still cannot pass or rebound. He turns the ball over at a high rate, which negates his high schooting percentage. His defense is better than many give him credit for, but his offense is much worse than many people think. The Bulls were a better offensive team last season when he was off the floor. If we could get somebody like a Jeff Foster for Eddy Curry, the Bulls would be a much improved team next season.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's not so much that the Bulls aren't going to re-sign Curry, although I think it's a horrible basketball decision that will come back to repeatedly bite the Bulls in the ***. It's the timing.
> 
> Pax dithered and dallied and didn't trade Curry when he could have gotten something good in return. Now we're going to get a bunch of scrappy garbage like we got back in the Crawford S&T, or nothing at all.
> 
> This is as terrible as it was predictable.


Can you guys at least give Paxson the courtesy of actually making the lousy trade before you start ripping him for it?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW

Jeff Foster (28 years old)
26.1 minutes/game
7.0 PPG
9.0 RPG
51.9% FG
0.7 APG
0.2 Blk
0.9 TO

Tyson Chandler (22 years old)
27.4 minutes/game
8.0 PPG
9.7 RPG
49.4% FG
0.8 APG
1.8 Blk
1.5 TO


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Kneepad said:


> Can you guys at least give Paxson the courtesy of actually making the lousy trade before you start ripping him for it?


A revolutionary concept.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> Can you guys at least give Paxson the courtesy of actually making the lousy trade before you start ripping him for it?





> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=68745
> 
> <FONT SIZE=+3>Bulls open to trading Curry</FONT>
> <FONT SIZE=+2>By Mike McGraw</FONT>
> ...


This part of the article for Dan Rosenbaum:



> Would trading Curry be a good idea? Well, obviously Curry’s heart condition brings a significant risk. But health issues aside, look at recent NBA history: Six of the last seven championships were won by Shaquille O’Neal or Tim Duncan. The odd title went to Detroit, which had Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace and Mehmet Okur.
> 
> The point is, you win with size in the NBA. With Curry and Tyson Chandler, the Bulls are big enough to cause opponents problems inside, even if those players are not in Shaq or Duncan’s stratosphere.
> 
> ...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I think the situations are very different. Two seasons ago Crawford with Hinrich was the MVP of the Bulls. So it appeared critical that we get really good players in return for Crawford. Well, it turned out that Harrington, Piatkowski, and Griffin were pretty good players for us and the rookies stepped up to a degree that no one expected.
> 
> Eddy Curry, four years into his career, is a good player only in theory. In terms of actual productivity that leads to victories, I would put him behind Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Deng, Chandler, Harrington, and Davis last season. (For the season as a whole, I would put him ahead of Nocioni.)
> 
> ...


All fair points, and heaven knows nobody's killed Curry more than I have, especially on the turnover issues. 

But given the fact that Eddy's played most of his career with horrible teammates and that his first two pro coaches were an embarrassment to the profession, I can accept where he is as a 22-year-old. I'm disheartened by the report claiming Skiles asked Paxson to trade him in February (maybe Skiles should be GM), but I think Skiles has made some good strides with Eddy's defense and that he'll continue to improve. More importantly, during the Washington series I can't count the number of times I watched us struggle to score and said, "Man, I wish Eddy was healthy." 

I bolded your Jeff Foster comparison because it illustrates what I feel to be the biggest problem with all these so-called "addition by subtraction" deals -- the long term. I don't see how an organization can afford to give away high draft picks and receive no long-term help in return (note: Cap Space doesn't count as long-tern help until it's actually put to use).

Yeah, I guess Crawford for junk and Curry for junk looks fine the season after. How's it going to look in 2008 when Crawford and Curry are entering their primes and we've got bupkus to show for it?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> Can you guys at least give Paxson the courtesy of actually making the lousy trade before you start ripping him for it?


There's no way it WON'T be a lousy trade . . . that's the whole point.

Crawford for Cap Space was a lousy trade. It worked for one year -- a year in which the Bulls brought in a huge amount of talent through the draft and free agency, it should be pointed out. But in the long run, you don't get better by shedding your young, marketable assets for spare pieces and cap space your owner has absolutely no intention of putting to good use.

So I feel pretty justified in pre-emptively complaining . . . and also please note that your "aw, can't you just give Pax a chance" comment was seen coming from ten miles away. I guess we're both boring in our own separate ways.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Oh, I get it DaBullz:

(a) An "insider" told McGraw that it might happen;

(b) Then McGraw told you through an article that it might happen;

(c) But it hasn't happened yet; 

(d) And if it does happen, you don't yet know who Paxson would get in return or how that return will affect the success of the Bulls; and

(e) Nor do you know how Curry's presence would affect the success of the team he may, theoretically, be traded to. 

So based on that, its reasonable for you, and the other illustrious members of the Fire Paxson club, to go ahead and rip him now.

I seem to recall going down this road once before. I also seem to recall that, after the dust settled, a pretty significant portion of posters proved they didn't know what the hell they were talking about.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> There's no way it WON'T be a lousy trade . . . that's the whole point.


Thats the spirit!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Oh, I get it DaBullz:
> 
> (a) An "insider" told McGraw that it might happen;
> 
> ...


(a) McGraw wrote an article confirming the bulls are looking to S&T curry

(b) I posted that you don't get much in S&Ts

(c) Can your ego fit through doorways?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

One sentence.

I have way more confidence in Paxon than Scootmay or DaBulls on what is best for the Bulls.

They can rip Paxon all they want but I am confident Paxon will come up with something better than Scottmay would. Period.

Well, actually three sentences,.... No, Four.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> (a) McGraw wrote an article confirming the bulls are looking to S&T curry


Even if the report from this one media outlet is accurate, your characterization of it is false. 



> *If other NBA teams demonstrate a strong interest in Curry this weekend*, the Bulls will take the opportunity to try to trade the 22-year-old center. A team insider confirmed this strategy.


The article clearly makes the Bulls potential interest in trading him contingent on how aggressively other teams come after him. As reported, it is offer driven, not Paxson driven. Again, thats assuming the report is even accurate.



> (b) I posted that you don't get much in S&Ts


As a general proposition. Not specific to this situation because, as you noticed, there has been no sign and trade to evaluate. Its just more of your assumptions that everything will go to crap because Paxson doesn't know what he is doing. Simply put, there is nothing for you to evaluate at this time. But why let that stop you?

You guys are already calling it "predictable" and nothing has even happened. Free agency doesn't even start until tomorrow for crying out loud.



> (c) Can your ego fit through doorways?


I understand that your repeated, aggressive, and colossally misguided evaluations of this team's players, coach, and management are a source of embarrassment for you. I should not have brought it up. My bad.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's not so much that the Bulls aren't going to re-sign Curry, although I think it's a horrible basketball decision that will come back to repeatedly bite the Bulls in the ***. It's the timing.
> 
> *Pax dithered and dallied and didn't trade Curry when he could have gotten something good in return. Now we're going to get a bunch of scrappy garbage like we got back in the Crawford S&T, or nothing at all.*
> This is as terrible as it was predictable.


I'm curious when you say Paxson blew his chance to get "something good in return" for Curry. To my knowledge, the best deal thrown around last year was Sweetney from the Knicks... which was horrible. I'd much rather have Al Harrington.

And we got Mutombo and Othella for Crawford... if I had the option of trading Crawford for Mutombo and Othella again today I would still do it. I never wanted to deal Mutombo after we got him. Crawford is just not that good. If we had let him walk away for nothing it wouldn't have bothered me that much... to get a couple of guys like Griffin and Othella last year was just a bonus.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I think the situations are very different. Two seasons ago Crawford with Hinrich was the MVP of the Bulls. So it appeared critical that we get really good players in return for Crawford. Well, it turned out that Harrington, Piatkowski, and Griffin were pretty good players for us and the rookies stepped up to a degree that no one expected.


Actually, I thought I said our record would be better, given that we'd filled the gaping small forward hole. Don't get me wrong, I still thought we'd suck, I just thought the addition of 3 solid players would make up for the loss of 1 solid player overall.

This year it's worth noting that we don't have that luxury. Last year we brought in two high draft picks who were both hits, and got a very good deal on Noc with our MLE.

This year we have no draft picks coming in and it seems quite possible we will use our MLE to keep Chris Duhon on the team.

Thus, any trade this year is going to have a smaller "margin for error". If we get nothing back, we are more likely to take a step backwards.

That's true in general for the Bulls irrespective of Curry this year, by the way. We basically have internal improvement to work with to get better this year, and our MLE if we get lucky and can sign Duhon for something that starts at the LLE. Other teams are making significant strides. 

If we have to use the MLE to retain Duhon (or we use him and use the MLE to sign someone else), and/or we don't get anything of value for Curry, then we quite possibly take a step back this year.

Taking a step back could be a real killer, even if it's explainable in these terms, because it might induce the Bulls ownership to decide to ****can the whole winning expedition, as they've done so frequently in the past under the excuse that the team wasn't the "right group" or didn't make "enough progress" to justify any further expenditures, in spite of the fact they had their legs cut out from under them.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> One sentence.
> 
> I have way more confidence in Paxon than Scootmay or DaBulls on what is best for the Bulls.
> 
> ...


I feel pretty much exactly the same way as you do, for whatever that's worth (no offense, DaBullz).

However, it probably bears mentioning that professional sports as we know them would cease to exist if second-guessing, what-ifs, and criticisms of players/front offices weren't allowed. Fans are to sports what journalists are to politicians -- it's all about checks and balances.

But your uncritical, non-questioning allegiance to Paxson is duly noted and respected. There will be a place for you in the afterlife (after a short stint in purgatory for misspelling his name).


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

Didn't LBJ just say he wanted Curry and isn't the big Z a free agent that's expecting a paycut? I'm just throwing out the idea of a one for one deal.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> If we have to use the MLE to retain Duhon (or we use him and use the MLE to sign someone else), and/or *we don't get anything of value for Curry*, then we quite possibly take a step back this year.


I don't have a link because it goes back to last season, but I recall Paxson being quoted more than once as saying that the "addition by subtraction" days were over and that future trades would require a return of talent.

Now, I'm not saying I even agree that a trade of Curry would require talent instead of '06 capspace to be successful, because there are few bigs in that group that I prefer to Curry anyway. I'm just saying that Paxson has said what I attributed to him. But, of course, that was a long time ago, so take it for what its worth.

Signing Curry to a reasonable deal is still my first choice. But I don't really feel much different about trading him as I did about trading Crawford. On my list of "players to keep" on the Bulls, Curry comes in about 5th.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You guys are already calling it "predictable" and nothing has even happened.


It's "predictable" because I've been saying for years now that the endgame with Curry and/or Chandler would be like this.

The Skiles negotiation was "predictable" in that our owner turned what should have been a happy moment for the organization into a bitter, seething, absurd exercise in brinksmanship. 

You probably think that all these recent articles about Curry's child-support and financial problems are a coincidence, right?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SALO said:


> I'm curious when you say Paxson blew his chance to get "something good in return" for Curry. To my knowledge, the best deal thrown around last year was Sweetney from the Knicks... which was horrible. I'd much rather have Al Harrington.
> 
> And we got Mutombo and Othella for Crawford... if I had the option of trading Crawford for Mutombo and Othella again today I would still do it. I never wanted to deal Mutombo after we got him. Crawford is just not that good. If we had let him walk away for nothing it wouldn't have bothered me that much... to get a couple of guys like Griffin and Othella last year was just a bonus.


I don't know what's been on the table in the past for Curry. But I'm reasonably sure it would have been better than what we stand to get for him in a last-second, backs-against-the-wall sign and trade scenario. Paxson sold Crawford when his stock couldn't have been any lower, and he's poised to do the same with Curry. 

That's all I'm saying. Paxson's probably known since BEFORE he took the job that he didn't like Curry. Why not deal him from a position of strength, then?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Two things.
> 
> 1. You can't expect to get a decent big man back in a Curry sign and trade. If the team taking him had a decent big man to give up, they wouldn't be so desperate to sign Curry to a huge contract anyway.
> 
> ...


I would be all over a Curry for Al Harrington and either Smith or Childress. I would probably still do it if it were Harrington and Diaw. I think Atlanta would do it if they told us they were also going to offer a contract to Duhon for less than the full MLE and we agreed not to match. So basically Curry/Duhon for Harrington/Smith, though I think Atlanta would make a deal for Curry without Duhon.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I feel pretty much exactly the same way as you do, for whatever that's worth (no offense, DaBullz).
> 
> <b?However, it probably bears mentioning that professional sports as we know them would cease to exist if second-guessing, what-ifs, and criticisms of players/front offices weren't allowed. Fans are to sports what journalists are to politicians -- it's all about checks and balances.</b>
> 
> But your uncritical, non-questioning allegiance to Paxson is duly noted and respected. There will be a place for you in the afterlife (after a short stint in purgatory for misspelling his name).


I am sure your basketball knowledge and all are well proven here. Your post is always well thought out and sophisticated. Only problem in my mind (at least to me) is that you are NEVER on the organization's side. NOT ONCE. NO matter what kind of moves they made.

So your whole arguments lost a lot of point because of that bias. Again at lest to me. You analysis and post were well balanced on both sides (Organization and Players), then and only then I will read your post with face value. But since long time ago, every time I read your post my response was "same old, same old, typical Scottmay post. Well-studied and written yet typical Scottmay agend. Boring.

Why don't you come up with pre-emptive criticism on Curry's move, Chandler's for that matter? Just for the change. You weren’t too hesitant to criticize Paxson. 

Balanced attack is what you need. Not pre-emptive attack. Learn from Iraq-Bush gate!!!


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I am sure your basketball knowledge and all are well proven here. Your post is always well thought out and sophisticated. Only problem in my mind (at least to me) is that you are NEVER on the organization's side. NOT ONCE. NO matter what kind of moves they made.
> 
> So your whole arguments lost a lot of point because of that bias. Again at lest to me. You analysis and post were well balanced on both sides (Organization and Players), then and only then I will read your post with face value. But since long time ago, every time I read your post my response was "same old, same old, typical Scottmay post. Well-studied and written yet typical Scottmay agend. Boring.
> 
> ...


I agree, I don't understand why you always have to be so damn negative... The Bulls could manage to trade for Lebron, Wade, and Amare and you would have something negative to say about it... There is nothing Paxson or Reinsdorf can do to change your mind on anything, they will always make the wrong decisions ALWAYS that's why at times like these I usually just have to skip right over your posts and to a certain degree dabullz posts...

Name the last thing Paxson did that you agreed with? You wanted Skiles signed he got signed and yet he didn't get signed "the right way", give me a break and be grateful he is still the Bulls' coach.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It's "predictable" because I've been saying for years now that the endgame with Curry and/or Chandler would be like *this*.
> 
> The Skiles negotiation was "predictable" in that our owner turned what should have been a happy moment for the organization into a bitter, seething, absurd exercise in brinksmanship.
> 
> You probably think that all these recent articles about Curry's child-support and financial problems are a coincidence, right?


What is "this"? You mean that it would end with one report of the contingent possibility that the Bulls might sign and trade Curry to an unknown team for unknown players in return?

Look, Scott. I'm not saying that Paxson won't botch it. I'm not saying you guys will be wrong IF Paxson trades Curry and only gets scraps in return. 

I'm just saying you guys are jumping the gun in a big, big way.

As far as "all these recent articles" I'm not really sure where you are going with that. The only article I'm aware of was published by the Boston Globe and only tangentially referrenced Curry.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Only problem in my mind (at least to me) is that you are NEVER on the organization's side. NOT ONCE. NO matter what kind of moves they made.


I've said that Paxson's draft last year was brilliant and stands a good chance of surpassing Krause's draft in 1987.

I reversed position on the Skiles hire and have actually become one of his biggest supporters on this board (most of his fans turned their backs on him when he had the gall to ask for his worth).

I am consistently anti-owner, true. That's because our ownership group has yet to show me that they value a winning basketball team over operating profit, and because without Jordan in the fold, they've produced a .370 winning percentage (254-432), which is indefensible.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

How about Lorenzen Wright, Dahntay Jones and maybe a 1st rounder for Eddy Curry and Pike?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz, if any old seven footer will put us into championship contention, then I would bet that Diop will be available this summer. Heck, maybe we can talk Shawn Bradley out of retirement. As an actual player (not a potential player), Curry is much closer to Diop and Bradley than he is to Duncan or Shaq or even a Stoudemire or Brand. Brand as a 20 year-old rookie was light years better than Curry is as a 22 year-old fourth year player.

Rather than obsessing about losing Curry, we should be worried about losing Duhon. I think there are better than even odds that Duhon will have a more productive career than Curry.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> DaBullz, if any old seven footer will put us into championship contention, then I would bet that Diop will be available this summer. Heck, maybe we can talk Shawn Bradley out of retirement. As an actual player (not a potential player), Curry is much closer to Diop and Bradley than he is to Duncan or Shaq or even a Stoudemire or Brand. Brand as a 20 year-old rookie was light years better than Curry is as a 22 year-old fourth year player.
> 
> Rather than obsessing about losing Curry, we should be worried about losing Duhon. I think there are better than even odds that Duhon will have a more productive career than Curry.


Thats just not true. Diop and Bradley are complete garbage. Curry can score up with Shaq, and if Curry ever can ever get his act together with rebounds, he will be on the same level as Shaq next year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

It just doesn't make sense to trade Curry now. Paxson will resign him, but if Eddy is in the future plans will yet to be seen, but I know for fact Eddy will be resigned. It makes the most sense to sign Curry now, and trade him for the first superstars team gone bad, like Vince Carter to the Nets this year.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

sloth said:


> Thats just not true. Diop and Bradley are complete garbage. Curry can score up with Shaq, and if Curry ever can ever get his act together with rebounds, he will be on the same level as Shaq next year.


Yeah, RIGHT?? ...............PLEASE.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Brand as a 20 year-old rookie was light years better than Curry is as a 22 year-old fourth year player.


Dan, come on. No player that I can think of in recent history better advanced your "someone has to put up glory stats for crappy teams" theory than Elton Brand his first year with the Bulls.



> Rather than obsessing about losing Curry, we should be worried about losing Duhon. I think there are better than even odds that Duhon will have a more productive career than Curry.


Fortunately, I think most other ownership/GM groups would find a big-money offer to a 35% shooting point guard to be a really tough sell to their fans.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's "predictable" because I've been saying for years now that the endgame with Curry and/or Chandler would be like this.
> 
> The Skiles negotiation was "predictable" in that our owner turned what should have been a happy moment for the organization into a bitter, seething, absurd exercise in brinksmanship.
> 
> You probably think that all these recent articles about Curry's child-support and financial problems are a coincidence, right?


(No offense taken re: previous post).

How many times do we have to see this "brinksmanship" endgame before it's truly predictable?

You forgot to mention the heart problems.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> Yeah, RIGHT?? ...............PLEASE.


Shaq IS, if the referees called the games correctly, the more turnover prone player than Curry. Eddy racked up 48 offensive fouls compared to Shaq's 39. That doesn't make sense since Shaq's main move to the basket is an offensive foul everytime. Once again, Shaq is a beneficiary of the referees, and this hurts Curry because the refs don't want to make another Shaq. Eddy's only beef on offense is his turnovers, and on defense rebounding, so if he can get his rebounding up then he'll be seen in a very good group of players averaging near 20/10.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> Thats just not true. Diop and Bradley are complete garbage. Curry can score up with Shaq, and if Curry ever can ever get his act together with rebounds, he will be on the same level as Shaq next year.


Well, the truth (Curry=Shaq vs. Curry=Terry Schiavo) probably lies somewhere in between.

Dan's system treats turnovers the same way society treats people who beat up and mug old ladies -- very harshly. Curry will never grade well under those circumstances.

On the other hand, NBA games are played at the margins. When your three main backcourt players barely make more than one out of three shots, sometimes you probably should tolerate a turnover or three when the guy can get you 10 or 12 first-quarter points with high efficiency and maybe draw a foul here or there.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

As of now, don't try to use Shaq and Curry's name in the same sentence. And as for the future, who knows. BUt if I have to bet my money on, I won't use their name in the same senetence even in future terms. That's just me.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> As of now, don't try to use Shaq and Curry's name in the same sentence. And as for the future, who knows. BUt if I have to bet my money on, I won't use their name in the same senetence even in future terms. That's just me.


Dan said that Eddy was closer to Diop and Bradley than Shaq, Brand, or Duncan. You don't need stats to see that Eddy is closer to Shaq, Brand, and Duncan than the other 2.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Dan, come on. No player that I can think of in recent history better advanced your "someone has to put up glory stats for crappy teams" theory than Elton Brand his first year with the Bulls.
> 
> Fortunately, I think most other ownership/GM groups would find a big-money offer to a 35% shooting point guard to be a really tough sell to their fans.


Put a 22 year-old Eddy Curry into the role that Brand had to play his rookie year and he would set a new NBA record for turnovers. Either than or he still would have played only 25 minutes a game because it would be too painful to watch him play the whole game.

And, by the way, in my plus/minus ratings, I have lots of guys from poor teams with very respectable ratings. For example, Elton Brand over the years has been more productive (in terms of wins and losses) than Jermaine O'Neal.

And personally, I would find it just as painful to see the Bulls make a big money offer to Eddy Curry. The NBA is littered with teams who have splurged on the next great big guy.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

sloth said:


> It just doesn't make sense to trade Curry now. Paxson will resign him, but if Eddy is in the future plans will yet to be seen, *but I know for fact Eddy will be resigned.* It makes the most sense to sign Curry now, and trade him for the first superstars team gone bad, like Vince Carter to the Nets this year.


No actually you *DON'T  * know for a fact


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> DaBullz, if any old seven footer will put us into championship contention, then I would bet that Diop will be available this summer. Heck, maybe we can talk Shawn Bradley out of retirement. As an actual player (not a potential player), Curry is much closer to Diop and Bradley than he is to Duncan or Shaq or even a Stoudemire or Brand. Brand as a 20 year-old rookie was light years better than Curry is as a 22 year-old fourth year player.
> 
> Rather than obsessing about losing Curry, we should be worried about losing Duhon. I think there are better than even odds that Duhon will have a more productive career than Curry.


I agree 1M% about Duhon.

I disagree about "any old 7-footer." Diop or Bradley have no future. You hit on it with the "potential player" bit.

I'm not obsessing about losing Curry. I am concerned about losing him for less in return, and as ScottMay WISELY points out, losing him for someone who's short-term his (actual) equal but gives us nothing in the long-term. Or concerned about losing him for nothing and having to watch Reiner and Funderburke play extended minutes all season long.

And consistent with my position last season... I am NOT a huge Crawford fan, nor am I a huge Curry fan. We're better off with both of them than without. It'd be better to sign Curry and trade him after one more season than to let him go for nothing or for someone else's roster crap. My position on Crawford last season was the same (keep him one season).


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Well, the truth (Curry=Shaq vs. Curry=Terry Schiavo) probably lies somewhere in between.
> 
> Dan's system treats turnovers the same way society treats people who beat up and mug old ladies -- very harshly. Curry will never grade well under those circumstances.
> 
> On the other hand, NBA games are played at the margins. When your three main backcourt players barely make more than one out of three shots, sometimes you probably should tolerate a turnover or three when the guy can get you 10 or 12 first-quarter points with high efficiency and maybe draw a foul here or there.


But ScottMay, you act as if the weight I place on turnovers was something I picked out of thin air. Examining every game for every team over the last three seasons, the results strongly suggest that players that turn the ball over a lot hurt their teams a lot. That is why the Bulls scored more per 100 possessions when Curry was out of the game than when he was in the game. Let me repeat. The Bulls offense was more productive when Curry was on the bench that when he was in the game.

If the tradeoff you outline above was good for the Bulls, it would show up in the data. It does not.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I agree 1M% about Duhon.
> 
> I disagree about "any old 7-footer." Diop or Bradley have no future. You hit on it with the "potential player" bit.
> 
> ...


I disagree with you because we were better off without Crawford. I know it's hindsight in Jamal's case but I seriously doubt that we would have the kind of season that we had if we still had Jamal. For one, Ben and Du wouldn't have playing time they had and the season they had. Especially four quarter heroic by Ben cause Jamal would still have tried to be one (and failed) if he was still around. And no Harrington, on occasion no Pike. I thought we were better off without Jamal in the first place and Paxson's pick and replacement for Jamal pretty much seal the deal.

As for Curry, I am all for sign him and trade later for right value. Only problem in this scenario is that how much we have to pay him in the first place. That will dictate even the future trade potential. IF we can keep him for the right price, then I am all for keeping him and giving the kid (not so much kid any more, but...) another year or so to prove his worth. We can always trade him later if Curry experiment doesn't pan out as we hope, but my guess is that from the previous antic and his financial situation, he will want mega contract at this point regardless of whether he can actually get it or not. 

In that case, I’d rather deal him now for sign-and-trade. I know it's hard but if we sign him for big money, it will be equally difficult to trade him later on. So...


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I expect this from this board; for a few guys to start overreacting over ONE article by Mike McGraw and "source" that says so. This is purely speculation, but that doesn't stop you guys.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

dsouljah9 said:


> :eyeroll:
> 
> I expect this from this board; for a few guys to start overreacting over ONE article by Mike McGraw and "source" that says so. This is purely speculation, but that doesn't stop you guys.


Of course, nothing can stop this forum. They or we all live for it, right?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I disagree with you because we were better off without Crawford. I know it's hindsight in Jamal's case but I seriously doubt that we would have the kind of season that we had if we still had Jamal. For one, Ben and Du wouldn't have playing time they had and the season they had. Especially four quarter heroic by Ben cause Jamal would still have tried to be one (and failed) if he was still around. And no Harrington, on occasion no Pike. I thought we were better off without Jamal in the first place and Paxson's pick and replacement for Jamal pretty much seal the deal.
> 
> As for Curry, I am all for sign him and trade later for right value. Only problem in this scenario is that how much we have to pay him in the first place. That will dictate even the future trade potential. IF we can keep him for the right price, then I am all for keeping him and giving the kid (not so much kid any more, but...) another year or so to prove his worth. We can always trade him later if Curry experiment doesn't pan out as we hope, but my guess is that from the previous antic and his financial situation, he will want mega contract at this point regardless of whether he can actually get it or not.
> 
> In that case, I’d rather deal him now for sign-and-trade. I know it's hard but if we sign him for big money, it will be equally difficult to trade him later on. So...


Right now we're looking at guys who didn't get drafted. We could be looking to trade Crawford, or could have traded him in a deal for a pick. 

Given the way the CBA works, his $6M in salary would have to be replaced with something like Gordon+Nocioni to facilitate any kind of trade involving that much salary.

Once signed, Crawford wouldn't be in position to demand anything. Except a trade. Who cares?

EDIT: I don't see how the Knicks could have had as good a season as they did (better than our 30 win season!) without Crawford.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> But ScottMay, you act as if the weight I place on turnovers was something I picked out of thin air. Examining every game for every team over the last three seasons, the results strongly suggest that players that turn the ball over a lot hurt their teams a lot. That is why the Bulls scored more per 100 possessions when Curry was out of the game than when he was in the game. Let me repeat. The Bulls offense was more productive when Curry was on the bench that when he was in the game.
> 
> If the tradeoff you outline above was good for the Bulls, it would show up in the data. It does not.


Dan, I have the utmost respect for the work that you do and I have really taken this stuff to heart when evaluating players. I believe that in a lot of cases, the numbers are truth and mostly the whole story.

But I have to look at that particular number (points per 100 possessions with and without Curry) with a grain of salt. The Bulls are a poor offensive team, period. Our backcourt guys are poor shooters who shoot especially poorly when their shots are contested. They don't drive to the basket or draw fouls. 

For this particular team as currently constructed, I believe that Curry's worth is greater than the sum of his numbers. I know that the per 100 possessions number is supposed to account for Curry's value on possessions where he doesn't even touch the ball, but I firmly believe that Curry opens up the floor for shooting and dribble penetration. I believe that his value in this respect was never more apparent than the Washington series.

I am not advocating writing Curry a blank check. I think he needs to be knocked down off his asking price, and that he has a long way to go. But some folks are acting like the Bulls would have been a 60-win team last year if Curry'd never played, and I think that's just way off-base.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

dsouljah9 said:


> I expect this from this board; for a few guys to start overreacting over ONE article by Mike McGraw and "source" that says so. This is purely speculation, but that doesn't stop you guys.


McGraw's articles during Skilesgate (and earlier) led me to believe that he has a source at the very top of the organization, so this is likely not a case of a writer just throwing stuff out there to see if it sticks.

The Bulls *could* be using McGraw to gauge public opinion, I 'spose.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

my god, will curry rumors ever end???? Curry is the most valueable piece of this bulls team. this bulls team is going absolutely no where without curry in the playoffs, they can win with hustles in regular season, but in the playoffs, when baskets are harder to come by, u need a legit go-to guy, someone who u can throw the ball to and let him operate. if gordon was 6'5+ he could be that guy,but no, he's 6'1 with suspected ball handling. he's rather easily contained with concentrated efforts. who else on this bulls team is a no.1 scoring material?? deng/chandler/kirk?? they are all role players, though very good ones. once again, must i really bring up the 22year old 7footer with skills is extremely rare nowaday in the NBA? there are so many teams that are interested in curry, and LBJ,jerry west have been on curry should say something about his value. i m not the biggest curry fan(sloth is) , but if we do trade him, it better be for someone like PP, not al harrington. i want the bulls to keep curry first and most.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Right now we're looking at guys who didn't get drafted. We could be looking to trade Crawford, or could have traded him in a deal for a pick.
> 
> <b>Given the way the CBA works, his $6M in salary would have to be replaced with something like Gordon+Nocioni to facilitate any kind of trade involving that much salary.
> 
> ...


These are all good side IF we have him on roster and I agree with you in our position being better for trading him as of now. But again, you didn't address the good side of Jamal being off our roster.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Think Pike.
> 
> That's the kind of guys you get in S&T deals that get made.


That's very true, especially when all you have is Jamal Crawford to offer in the sign and trade.

Unfortunately, I think we are about to find out that the league as a whole doesn't think a lot more of Eddy than it does of Jamal.

After all, I saw Eddie Jones fetch Jamal Mashburn in a sign and trade a few years back.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Gird yourself for a chorus of "Well, it worked last year" and "Why don't you just sit back and enjoy it and wait to see what Pax does"?
> 
> Ugh.


Well, it worked last year.

Why don't you just sit back and enjoy it and wait to see what Pax does?

Maybe this is another one of those "penny-pinching moves", like the hiring of Skiles in the first place?

Or maybe our GM is smart enough to realize that, just like Jamal last summer, Eddy isn't worth the money?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I think the situations are very different. Two seasons ago Crawford with Hinrich was the MVP of the Bulls. So it appeared critical that we get really good players in return for Crawford. Well, it turned out that Harrington, Piatkowski, and Griffin were pretty good players for us and the rookies stepped up to a degree that no one expected.
> 
> Eddy Curry, four years into his career, is a good player only in theory. In terms of actual productivity that leads to victories, I would put him behind Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Deng, Chandler, Harrington, and Davis last season. (For the season as a whole, I would put him ahead of Nocioni.)
> 
> ...


Much, much improved.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Kneepad said:


> Can you guys at least give Paxson the courtesy of actually making the lousy trade before you start ripping him for it?


LOL, less than a month after Pax and Reinsdorf were ripped for not signing Skiles to an extension? LOL, what kind of dreamer are you?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> These are all good side IF we have him on roster and I agree with you in our position being better for trading him as of now. But again, you didn't address the sign side of Jamal being off our roster.


I don't understand what you want me to address.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Well, it worked last year.
> 
> Why don't you just sit back and enjoy it and wait to see what Pax does?
> 
> ...


I've just put a reminder for July 1, 2008, in my Outlook calendar -- we'll compare Crawford for junk and Curry for junk then, all right?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> After all, I saw Eddie Jones fetch Jamal Mashburn in a sign and trade a few years back.


Here's the full trade, for those who are interested in the truth:



> Miami Heat traded Otis Thorpe, Jamal Mashburn, Rodney Buford, Tim James and P.J. Brown to the Charlotte Hornets for Eddie Jones, Anthony Mason, Ricky Davis, and Dale Ellis.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I don't understand what you want me to address.


Why don't you post something meaningful instead of nickpicking miss-spelled word, Dabulls? I thought you are above that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Why don't you post something meaningful instead of nickpicking miss-spelled word, Dabulls? I thought you are above that.


"But again, you didn't address the sign side of Jamal being off our roster."

You didn't mis-spell anything, I don't understand the question, period.

"the sign side of Jamal being off our roster" - I don't know what you mean.

EDIT: you did mis-spell my name ;-)


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> "But again, you didn't address the sign side of Jamal being off our roster."
> 
> You didn't mis-spell anything, I don't understand the question, period.
> 
> ...


YOU WIN. Happy? I'm out and good luck to you all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> YOU WIN. Happy? I'm out and good luck to you all.


Just rephrase the question. Please.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Dan, I have the utmost respect for the work that you do and I have really taken this stuff to heart when evaluating players. I believe that in a lot of cases, the numbers are truth and mostly the whole story.
> 
> But I have to look at that particular number (points per 100 possessions with and without Curry) with a grain of salt. The Bulls are a poor offensive team, period. Our backcourt guys are poor shooters who shoot especially poorly when their shots are contested. They don't drive to the basket or draw fouls.
> 
> ...


I think very occasionally Eddy Curry is highly productive and it is those occasional moments of glory that we often think of when we think of Eddy Curry. But those moments of glory are balanced out by the much more prevalent periods where he disappears or turns the ball over time and time again.

That kind of inconsistency is to be expected, but I just do not see those moments of glory coming much more rapidly than they did in the past. And with teams learning how to play Curry, his bad stretches often are worse than they used to be. In a playoff series where teams are better prepared for players, I would imagine that Curry would have a higher prevalence of bad stretches than he did in the regular season. I think it is very possible that the Bulls could have been worse off with him in the series against the Wizards. Curry desperately needs to develop his skills so that he can adjust when teams adjust to him. The pace at which he has done this is glacial at best.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Interesting thoughts! It has been a long time since we have had a thread that has gone five pages rather quickly and opinions get expressed! 

My take. 

I want to keep Eddy, but it will not be the end of the world if he was traded. It was not the end of the world when Jamal was traded. 

Eddy may be an allstar some day. He many not be. One thing that has not been mentioned in all of the exhanges I have read on this thread is, without Curry, we won 15 of our last 19 regular season games. Hmmm. So we are going nowhere without Eddy? Pax is doing nothing wrong by entertaining offers for Eddy. In a way, it will be addition without subtraction! What do we lose when we trade Eddy? Rebounding? Shot blocking? Free throw shooting? His passing skills? We do lose his low post presence and we lose his scoring. But his 16 pts a game can be overcome. Crawfords pts was made up. 

Dan, I would love to have Foster on this team. Like Chandler, he makes things happen!.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I've just put a reminder for July 1, 2008, in my Outlook calendar -- we'll compare Crawford for junk and Curry for junk then, all right?


No problem, I'll be looking forward to it. Well, at least the Crawford for junk one, as far as I know Curry being traded is as certain as Skiles not getting his extension...

And did you put one up when Skiles was hired? How did that turn out?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but any substantial offer to Curry will result in him attaining BYC status. BYC players are impossible to trade if I understand the CBA. Now of course I'm not sure what changed with the new CBA so if somebody could help me out that would be appreciated. If not, then why not shoot for the fences...
> 
> Eddy Curry
> Ben Gordon
> ...



Take gordon out,add Hinrich and ya got a deal..


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I think very occasionally Eddy Curry is highly productive and it is those occasional moments of glory that we often think of when we think of Eddy Curry. But those moments of glory are balanced out by the much more prevalent periods where he disappears or turns the ball over time and time again.
> 
> That kind of inconsistency is to be expected, but I just do not see those moments of glory coming much more rapidly than they did in the past. And with teams learning how to play Curry, his bad stretches often are worse than they used to be. In a playoff series where teams are better prepared for players, I would imagine that Curry would have a higher prevalence of bad stretches than he did in the regular season. I think it is very possible that the Bulls could have been worse off with him in the series against the Wizards. Curry desperately needs to develop his skills so that he can adjust when teams adjust to him. The pace at which he has done this is glacial at best.


It seems like you're addressing one side of the game. My impression was that having Curry + AD or Curry +Chandler on the court on the defensive side made teams less willing to drive to the hoop. And how does the Bulls leading the league in opponents' FG% (or near leading, however it ended up) happen with Curry playing 30 minutes per game?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I think very occasionally Eddy Curry is highly productive and it is those occasional moments of glory that we often think of when we think of Eddy Curry. But those moments of glory are balanced out by the much more prevalent periods where he disappears or turns the ball over time and time again.
> 
> That kind of inconsistency is to be expected, but I just do not see those moments of glory coming much more rapidly than they did in the past. And with teams learning how to play Curry, his bad stretches often are worse than they used to be. In a playoff series where teams are better prepared for players, I would imagine that Curry would have a higher prevalence of bad stretches than he did in the regular season. I think it is very possible that the Bulls could have been worse off with him in the series against the Wizards. Curry desperately needs to develop his skills so that he can adjust when teams adjust to him. The pace at which he has done this is glacial at best.


I disagree about the Washington series -- at the very least, he would have been another variable to account for. It seems far-fetched to me that a poor defensive team could have simultaneously made successful adjustments to our guards (which they did, sans Pargo) *and* our best-scoring big man.

But let's take a different tack (sailing analogy intentional) -- what would YOU pay for Curry? If you'd really just rather let him go, that's fine as well, but this is where I really run into problems with some of the metrics. Yeah, the numbers say that you'd love to have a team of 12 Chris Duhons (or 9 Scott Hattebergs, to use the famous "Moneyball" example), but in real life that team would lose every game by 25+ points.

I think that between his position, his much-improved team defense, his ability to score in bunches (however infrequent), and the fact that the rest of our scorers live and die on the perimeter, there is a place for Eddy Curry on this team.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> And did you put one up when Skiles was hired? How did that turn out?


Your rejoinder would have a little more bite to it if you hadn't been a member of the mob castigating Skiles for his contract demands, arguing that he wasn't in Doc Rivers's and Jeff Van Gundy's league, and anxiously waiting to see who Paxson would hire as a replacement.

But other than that, yeah, you were completely right about Skiles.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> It seems like you're addressing one side of the game. My impression was that having Curry + AD or Curry +Chandler on the court on the defensive side made teams less willing to drive to the hoop. *And how does the Bulls leading the league in opponents' FG% (or near leading, however it ended up) happen with Curry playing 30 minutes per game?*


Eddy was only 7th on the team in total minutes due to all the games he missed.

I remember being laughed at for saying I preferred Przybilla to Curry a few months back- until people saw us play Portland and they actually saw what Joel can do on the defensive end of the floor. Put HIM next to Tyson and teams really won't want to drive the middle. And they also won't be nearly as effective on the offensive glass as they are versus Eddy.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Eddy was only 7th on the team in total minutes due to all the games he missed.
> 
> I remember being laughed at for saying I preferred Przybilla to Curry a few months back- until people saw us play Portland and they actually saw what Joel can do on the defensive end of the floor. Put HIM next to Tyson and teams really won't want to drive the middle. And they also won't be nearly as effective on the offensive glass as they are versus Eddy.


Come on, Pryzbilla is pure garbage. We get all of the Bucks games here, and Joel Pryzbilla is really nothing more than a white stiff. I don't get why its all the rage to say that [enter random stiff] is better than Eddy Curry, and that we'd be a better team without Curry and with [random stiff].


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

sloth said:


> Come on, Pryzbilla is pure garbage. *We get all of the Bucks games here*, and Joel Pryzbilla is really nothing more than a white stiff. I don't get why its all the rage to say that [enter random stiff] is better than Eddy Curry, and that we'd be a better team without Curry and with [random stiff].


Prybilla plays for Portland. He showed tremendous improvement this season since his days with the Bucks. I'm not saying he is the answer. I'm just saying that you clearly haven't seen him play much since he improved.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Prybilla plays for Portland. He showed tremendous improvement this season since his days with the Bucks. I'm not saying he is the answer. I'm just saying that you clearly haven't seen him play much since he improved.


I'm aware that he averaged like 6 pts 7 rebs in 25 minutes last season. That not great, and certainly not better than Curry, but don't let one year from the usual fool you. Remember Mark Blount?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Your rejoinder would have a little more bite to it if you hadn't been a member of the mob castigating Skiles for his contract demands, arguing that he wasn't in Doc Rivers's and Jeff Van Gundy's league, and anxiously waiting to see who Paxson would hire as a replacement.
> 
> But other than that, yeah, you were completely right about Skiles.


Actually, at the time of the hire, I wasn't all that thrilled with Skiles- I wanted to see what Mr. Bill could have done without Jalen (and then without Jamal).

And Skiles still hasn't proven as much as Doc or (especially JVG)- although I expect him to catch Doc this season. I'm not a fan of Doc as a coach (although he's a great guy) since his first season in Orlando, but the fact is that as of this summer he is still slightly ahead of Skiles in their coaching resumes so far. The job Skiles did last season still doesn't match up to Doc taking the Magic to a 41-41 record his first season in Orlando with 4 undrafted free agents and Ron Mercer as his starting 5. 

And I still think Skiles would have been crazy to turn down 4 years, $14 million guaranteed (and $3 million more if he coached all 4 years) when he wasn't an "unrestricted free agent". But he wound up signing for 4 years, $16 million guaranteed, so apparently he agreed that the original 'final' offer of 4 years and $14 million wasn't THAT bad (not bad enough for Skiles to say "I'm done negotiating, see you later", which is where it was when I made those statements).


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Eddy Curry is one of the very best young big men in the NBA. Of course he is inconsistant, he is still a force, I disagree with Dan's notion that his moments will be just that ..moments. we have seen this with a lot of young developing players, they start off inconsistant and finally the light goes on and bingo...they are good. Curry is pretty clearly getting close to that point. Doesn't anyone remember that Curry actually OUTPLAYED Shaq in one outing? How quickly some of us forget.

As for the S&T idea, I don't think it will happen, it is just McGraw trying to sell his articles.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> I'm aware that he averaged like 6 pts 7 rebs in 25 minutes last season. That not great, and certainly not better than Curry, but don't let one year from the usual fool you. Remember Mark Blount?


Actually, 6.4 points, 7.7 rebounds, and 2.14 blocks in 24.4 minutes. In the same number of total minutes, Przybilla took less than half as many shots as Eddy, but he shot .598 from the field. He was also 7th in the league in blocks per game.

And he is only *3 years older than Eddy*. People forget he came out of Minnesota too early, he turns 26 in October. Joel will never be Eddy on offense, but he's already better than Eddy in rebounding and shot-blocking, and I'll be shocked if Eddy EVER averages more than 2 blocks per game for a season.

If I need post offense, give me a Corliss Williamson or Marcus Fizer type off the bench, I can sign that player and Przybilla for what Eddy costs, and I'll get more combined production with more defense for less money.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> But let's take a different tack (sailing analogy intentional) -- what would YOU pay for Curry? If you'd really just rather let him go, that's fine as well, but this is where I really run into problems with some of the metrics. Yeah, the numbers say that you'd love to have a team of 12 Chris Duhons (or 9 Scott Hattebergs, to use the famous "Moneyball" example), but in real life that team would lose every game by 25+ points.


Do you really think any stats person would think a team of 12 Chris Duhons would be effective? And if not, what was the point of saying that?

I think the point you are trying to make is that outside of a few superstars, most players are role players. And you can't have every player on a team play the same role. That certainly is true, but the problem with Curry is that his role is as a post scorer and he is bad at his role. His inability to pass leads to lots of turnovers, which makes him a more inefficient option on offense than our perimeter players. That is why the Bulls are less productive on offense when he is on the floor than when he is not. (They are also less productive on defense, DaBullz.)

http://www.82games.com/04CHI14D.HTM

And this has been true year after year after year. In fact, if anything it is getting worse not better.

That said, like everyone else I am a bit of a sucker for Curry's glimpses of greatness, so I probably would be willing to pay $30 to $35 million for Curry over five years. But even at that fairly low price, I have my doubts that I would be making a good investment.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

sloth said:


> Come on, Pryzbilla is pure garbage. We get all of the Bucks games here, and Joel Pryzbilla is really nothing more than a white stiff. I don't get why its all the rage to say that [enter random stiff] is better than Eddy Curry, and that we'd be a better team without Curry and with [random stiff].


actually Joel was AMAZING in late February, march and april... check out the spilt stats... once he got playing time he was averging a double double and had insane rebounding and block numbers

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3408/splits

some stats.... those last 3 months he avg 3+ bpg! and over 10 rpg


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan,

Of course they were less productive on defense with him on the court. Who played when Curry wasn't in? Chandler? AD? Both those guys are known for their defense. The thing is he didn't really hurt the team on the defensive end, but he did provide an option on offense that stats don't show.

The talk of 12 Duhons.... If you had 11 Duhons and 1 Curry, who'd be the scorer? 4 duhons and 1 curry on the court at once - which is pretty much how I saw the bulls last season.

I don't (at all) disagree with you about his foibles (bad hands, bad passing, turnover and foul prone, etc.)

But somehow he was a BIG part of the mix that one those 47 games, and you do have to wonder what kind of difference he'd have made in the playoffs.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Do you really think any stats person would think a team of 12 Chris Duhons would be effective? And if not, what was the point of saying that?
> 
> I think the point you are trying to make is that outside of a few superstars, most players are role players. And you can't have every player on a team play the same role. That certainly is true, but the problem with Curry is that his role is as a post scorer and he is bad at his role. His inability to pass leads to lots of turnovers, which makes him a more inefficient option on offense than our perimeter players. That is why the Bulls are less productive on offense when he is on the floor than when he is not. (They are also less productive on defense, DaBullz.)
> 
> ...



No, I don't really think a stats person would argue that, and you did more or less get the point I was trying to make -- the Bulls' best +/- team isn't necessarily its best team, period, even adjusted for per 100 possessions. 

There are a couple of numbers that really stand out in Eddy's 82games profile -- look at our eFG with and without and % of assisted baskets with and without. This certainly suggests his worth to our offense and gives hope to the notion that it's worth keeping him and working on the TOs, yes?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> but he [Curry] did provide an option on offense that stats don't show.


What does this mean? What good is an "option on offense" that results in the offensive team being less productive rather than more productive?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

nanokooshball said:


> actually Joel was AMAZING in late February, march and april... check out the spilt stats... once he got playing time he was averging a double double and had insane rebounding and block numbers
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3408/splits
> 
> some stats.... those last 3 months he avg 3+ bpg! and over 10 rpg


Portland's season was over in February, if not earlier. I'm just saying -- this was part of the justification for getting rid of Crawford, that he excelled when the games didn't mean a goddamn thing.

Pryzbilla is not cut from clean, crisp jib, either -- 14 techs last year (and one spectacular, WWF-style ejection from what I can recall).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> What does this mean? What good is an "option on offense" that results in the offensive team being less productive rather than more productive?


See my follow-up comment about eFG and % of assisted baskets -- couldn't those differences be the statistical manifestation of what DaBullz is talking about here?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> What does this mean? What good is an "option on offense" that results in the offensive team being less productive rather than more productive?


I think that goes back to the whole "Curry tires out the other team" and "Curry doesn't rebound but teams pay so much attention to him that our other players rebound better" theories.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> If there is little to no interest in Curry as a restricted free agent, the Bulls are prepared to make a contract offer, but the dollar amount may be less than Curry’s camp originally hoped for. *The Bulls also may try nudging him toward getting a DNA test that might rule out the presence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.*
> 
> Curry’s visit to Los Angeles cardiologist Dr. David Cannom today will have little effect on the Bulls’ plans. The team expected him to cautiously return to basketball activity this summer because no doctor he has seen was ready to suggest that Curry never play again.
> 
> *If he gets the go-ahead from Cannom, Curry likely will begin working out with personal trainer Tim Grover. The key question is whether other NBA teams accept a positive diagnosis from Cannom as a sign that Curry’s health is OK.*


This is pretty silly. From the Tribune:



> General manager John Paxson confirmed a Tribune story from last week, saying *he expects Curry to be cleared to resume physical activity Thursday after the fourth-year center meets with noted cardiologist Dr. David Cannom in Los Angeles.*
> 
> "This has been a three-month process for us," Paxson said. "We're just trying to close the loose ends the proper way. We don't want to do anything wrong. If we're being a little cautious, it's because we've invested time and energy in this.


I think McGraw's sources are a little messed up. And I think Pax won't try to trade Curry for garbage.

This part:



> Lorenzen Wright? Al Harrington? Jeff Foster? Rasho Nesterovic? Channing Frye? It’s difficult to predict the possibilities.


Is PURE speculation, and I'm pretty disappointed that McGraw would think about those names. There's no way we'll take Frye from New York, who loves the guy. And why Rasho instead of Nazr, the better center and the Chicago native??

I don't know what the deal is, but Pax seems eager to negotiate a deal, and Curry seems eager to stay in Chicago and get into shape. No one has even mentioned the hint of such a S&T, and I think McGraw is putting out a lot of bad press in this regard.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

There is something to be said for a style. We seem to be following the Detroit, San Antonio path of an ugly, tough, defensive-minded team that shuts down opponents when it matters and has enough balance and motion on offense to put up enough points. Does Eddy Curry fit that notion? No. I still think he is our best post scorer, but if Tyson Chandler makes any improvement in his offensive game and get to the 12-10 mark this year, I can't argue with a Curry departure. But this isn't a salary dump. We'd have to get something of value back for him. I'd take a jump-shooting 4 or a defensive-minded 2 guard. Imagine lining up a PF who can shoot and score next to Chandler. Chandler and Curry are redundant, both need the low post position to score. It's why Duncan is so valuable. He can move inside and outside allowing a guy like Nesterovic or Mohammad to be effective next to him and its why the pickup of Kurt Thomas by the Suns is genius. A role player who can hit the J next to Amare Stoudemire who the majority of his game is low-post scoring. I'll be back to post the names of PFs I would want to deal Curry for.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Whats with all this IDIOTIC talk of Curry being a bad passer. Eddy's top two reasons for turnovers were getting stripped while making his move, and offensive fouls. Doubt me, here are the exact stats.

Offensive Fouls- 48
Bad Passes- 29
Ball Handling- 68
Other- 17

Offensive fouls are just that. Bad Passes are passes that went out of bounds or were intercepted. Ball handling is him getting stripped, or losing the ball etc. The other are like technicals and 3 seconds.

I think Eddy would be known as one of the better passing big men in the league if hinrich, gordon, and duhon could learn to make their shots.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I disagree about the Washington series -- at the very least, he would have been another variable to account for. It seems far-fetched to me that a poor defensive team could have simultaneously made successful adjustments to our guards (which they did, sans Pargo) *and* our best-scoring big man.


I agree with Scott here. I'll certainly concede most of Dan's analysis that Curry is not very statistically productive, but I don't think the statistical analysis yet captures the tactical advantages a guy like Curry would bring over, say, Jeff Foster or Al Harrington.

To make the point, Harrington might be the best example, because my sense is that he's also a guy that seems to show up big in glory stats, especially points, when he's used that way.

So suppose you've got Harrington who scores 20ppg and you've got Curry who scores 20ppg.

Do you guard the 6'9, 240 lb Harrington, who often plays facing the basket, the same way you guard the 6'11 275 lb Curry, who can score with his back to the basket? 

No. Having a guy like Curry in the paint, because he's always a threat even when he's not playing well, forces teams to stay at home on him and gives more opportunities to our perimeter players. Harrington, by virtue of being a smaller guy and a "more traditional" guy in the sense that he's just a forward with a good inside-outside game is not a guy you really have to modify much to deal with. You sick a guy on him, and try to make things hard for him to "get his points", but you don't really have to do anything unusual to account for him. Because of that, he doesn't, simply by virtue of being there, create the kind of opportunities that Curry does.

Similarly, though Curry is only an ok defender and a bad rebounder, his bulk and positioning let him do things on defense you can't do with a guy like Harrington or Foster. We saw how, two years ago, Harrington and Foster got muscled by the Pistons in the playoffs. We saw how, this past year, Curry's absence, despite his individually mediocre defense couldn't be replaced by the smaller, slower AD and Othella. Without Curry's size and activity to at least be a presence in the middle, Tyson, AD, and Othella couldn't do what they were best at. That's something a guy like Harrington, though he's a vastly better individual defender, just can't bring to the table.

The chief objection I see to this is that, as Dan points out, the Bulls were more potent on offense and defense with Curry off court, but I don't think that stat tells the full story because it won't tell whether teams are implementing entirely different strategies to guard the Bulls when Curry plays and when he doesn't. And it won't tell if teams get tired doing it. Similarly, it won't tell the Bulls defensive side of the story either. 

Instead, we should also look at the Bulls performance in entire games with and without Curry, because that gives a sense of how the Bulls performed when they had to play for no Curry at all and when their opponents didn't have to scheme against him. To summarize, on/off court and statistics aren't enough because you need to look at the changes in strategic opportunity sets that become available by having a guy with unusual skills.

So, I went to Yahoo and pasted his game log into Excel and added up the Bulls W/L and PF and PA in games Curry played and games he didn't play in.

*Plays 60 games, record 35-25 (58.3%), PF 93.8, PA 92.6, PF-PA = 1.15*
*Not Plays 22 games, record 12-10 (54.5%), PF 96.3, PA 95.5, PF-PA = 0.82*

This is interesting. With Curry, we had a higher winning percentage and a higher PF-PA total. We actually scored less, but we were a lot tougher defensively as a team (which jells with what I saw in the Washington series). 

I also did it after excluding our 0-9 start, and found similar results.

*Plays 53 games, record 35-18 (66%), PF 94.5, PA 91.6, PF-PA = 2.92*
*Not Plays 20 games, record 12-8 (60%), PF 96.1, PA 94.5, PF-PA = 1.65*

That seems to indicate that after we got going and playing well, this effect was still evident.

Thus, I would preliminarily think Curry is pretty conducive to our winning.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I think that goes back to the whole "Curry tires out the other team" and "Curry doesn't rebound but teams pay so much attention to him that our other players rebound better" theories.


The Bulls get far fewer offensive rebounds when Curry is in the game versus when he is not. That negates about half of the difference in eFG%. Also, the Bulls do run a different offense when Curry is in the game, so it is not surprising their percentage of assisted field goals is different.

But the net turnover difference of +6 for Curry is eye opening - even for someone like me who constantly harps on his turnovers.

So the gist is that the Bulls shoot a little better when Curry is in the game, but they get a lower percentage of offensive rebounds. And the dramatic increase in turnovers more than offsets any advantage gained from the higher shooting.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> The Bulls get far fewer offensive rebounds when Curry is in the game versus when he is not. That negates about half of the difference in eFG%. Also, the Bulls do run a different offense when Curry is in the game, so it is not surprising their percentage of assisted field goals is different.
> 
> But the net turnover difference of +6 for Curry is eye opening - even for someone like me who constantly harps on his turnovers.
> 
> So the gist is that the Bulls shoot a little better when Curry is in the game, but they get a lower percentage of offensive rebounds. And the dramatic increase in turnovers more than offsets any advantage gained from the higher shooting.


Yeah, I know. The "Curry tires out the other team" and "Curry doesn't rebound but teams pay so much attention to him that our other players rebound better" theories are ridiculous IMHO, especially when the numbers seem to indicate the direct opposite.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> The Bulls get far fewer offensive rebounds when Curry is in the game versus when he is not. That negates about half of the difference in eFG%. Also, the Bulls do run a different offense when Curry is in the game, so it is not surprising their percentage of assisted field goals is different.
> 
> But the net turnover difference of +6 for Curry is eye opening - even for someone like me who constantly harps on his turnovers.
> 
> So the gist is that the Bulls shoot a little better when Curry is in the game, but they get a lower percentage of offensive rebounds. And the dramatic increase in turnovers more than offsets any advantage gained from the higher shooting.


I'm confused -- doesn't it stand to reason that to some extent the reason the Bulls get fewer offensive rebounds when Curry's in is precisely because there are fewer of them available? Or have you accounted for that?

And I'm not letting Eddy off the hook for that turnover differential, but it needs to be pointed out that no one on the team other than Duhon knows how to throw an entry pass.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> Whats with all this IDIOTIC talk of Curry being a bad passer. Eddy's top two reasons for turnovers were getting stripped while making his move, and offensive fouls. Doubt me, here are the exact stats.
> 
> Offensive Fouls- 48
> Bad Passes- 29
> ...


Eddy had 37 assists ALL SEASON, compared to 163 turnovers. That 0.227/1 assist/TO ration is downright Dare-ian, it's so bad.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Ouch 37 assists is just terrible. I will admit the TOs are a problem.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm confused -- doesn't it stand to reason that to some extent the reason the Bulls get fewer offensive rebounds when Curry's in is precisely because there are fewer of them available? Or have you accounted for that?
> 
> And I'm not letting Eddy off the hook for that turnover differential, but it needs to be pointed out that no one on the team other than Duhon knows how to throw an entry pass.


Offensive rebound percentage is the percentage of missed shots that are rebounded by the offensive team, so it already accounts for the fewer offensive rebounding chances because of higher field goal percentage shooting.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Eddy had 37 assists ALL SEASON, compared to 163 turnovers. That 0.227/1 assist/TO ration is downright Dare-ian, it's so bad.


You don't get assists when the players you pass to miss the shots.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Offensive rebound percentage is the percentage of missed shots that are rebounded by the offensive team, so it already accounts for the fewer offensive rebounding chances because of higher field goal percentage shooting.


I'll respond to two of your posts with one reply here.

First one was about Curry being an offensive option. I know you don't like my anecdotes, but Horry's 3 in the finals is a good example of what I'm talking about. The Pistons double teamed Ginobili only to leave an offensive option open. With 4 duhons on the court with Curry, he'd see quintuple teams all night.

Second, I think your characterization of offensive rebound percentage isn't right. To use an extreme example, assume the bulls make 99 out of 100 baskets attempted with Curry in, but never get the offensive board on that 100th shot. In other words, the more you make your first shot, the less you need a 2nd shot attempt to score the same # of points (2, or 3).


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> You don't get assists when the players you pass to miss the shots.


That's funny.

The Bulls as a team had 1,743 assists last season. Eddy only hit 393 shots, which mean 1,350 of those assists were on shots hit by somebody other than Eddy.

*Somebody* was hitting some shots, other than Eddy...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> So, I went to Yahoo and pasted his game log into Excel and added up the Bulls W/L and PF and PA in games Curry played and games he didn't play in.
> 
> *Plays 60 games, record 35-25 (58.3%), PF 93.8, PA 92.6, PF-PA = 1.15*
> *Not Plays 22 games, record 12-10 (54.5%), PF 96.3, PA 95.5, PF-PA = 0.82*
> ...


I am not sure what you did here, but it looks to me like the Bulls were 10-9 in games in which Curry did not play and 10-7 after the 0-9 start. After the 0-9 start, the average point differential was 2.9 points in games Curry did not play.

Also, note that 9 of the 17 games Curry did not play in after the 0-9 start were road games. Only 26 of the 56 games Curry did play in after the 0-9 start were road games. If there still is any difference in the performance with and without Curry, home court advantage probably accounts for it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 471pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=628 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 71pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3437" width=94><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 32pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1572" span=2 width=43><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=6 width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 71pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=94 height=17>*Situation*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=43>*W*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=43>*L*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*W%*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PF*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PA*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PF/G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PA/G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*Diff*</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Neither</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>14</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>8</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>6</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.5714285714285714" x:fmla="=C2/B2">57.1%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1352</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1311</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="96.571428571428569" x:fmla="=F2/$B2">96.6 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="93.642857142857139" x:fmla="=G2/$B2">93.6 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="2.9285714285714306" x:fmla="=H2-I2">2.93 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Curry, no Deng</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>7</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>3</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>4</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.42857142857142855" x:fmla="=C3/B3">42.9%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>644</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>645</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="92" x:fmla="=F3/$B3">92.0 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="92.142857142857139" x:fmla="=G3/$B3">92.1 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-0.1428571428571388" x:fmla="=H3-I3">(0.14)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Deng, no Curry</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>8</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>4</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>4</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.5" x:fmla="=C4/B4">50.0%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>766</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>789</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="95.75" x:fmla="=F4/$B4">95.8 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="98.625" x:fmla="=G4/$B4">98.6 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-2.875" x:fmla="=H4-I4">(2.88)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Both</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>53</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>32</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>21</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.60377358490566035" x:fmla="=C5/B5">60.4%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>4983</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>4913</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94.018867924528308" x:fmla="=F5/$B5">94.0 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="92.698113207547166" x:fmla="=G5/$B5">92.7 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="1.320754716981142" x:fmla="=H5-I5">1.32 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>*Total*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>*82*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(C2:C5)">*47*</TD><TD class=xl25 title="Big Grin" style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right alt="" target="_blank" border="0" smilieid="4" x:num x:fmla="=SUM(D2 biggrin.gif? smilies images forum <a href=" http: www.basketballboards.net?></A><B><FONT face=Arial>35</FONT></B></TD><TD class=xl31><FONT face=Arial>57.3%</FONT></B></TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(F2:F5)">[b][font=Arial]7745[/font][/b]</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(G2:G5)">[b][font=Arial]7658[/font][/b]</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94.451219512195124" x:fmla="=F6/$B6">[b][font=Arial]94.5 [/font][/b]</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="93.390243902439025" x:fmla="=G6/$B6">[b][font=Arial]93.4 [/font][/b]</TD><TD class=xl29 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="1.0609756097560989" x:fmla="=H6-I6">[b][font=Arial]1.06 [/font][/b]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Since I was curious because Deng and Curry went down at roughly the same time, I broke out team performance by situation. I wouldn't read too much into it because we're getting down to really small numbers of games, but I found the results kind of interesting.

You'd think, with Deng as a good individual defender and Curry as not too great, that we'd be defensively better with Deng playing and Curry not. In fact, the opposite appeared to be the case. With Deng out and Curry in, we were pretty strong on defense. With Curry out, we were weaker on defense.

I have to think that's due to the team defensive bonus we have by having a big, strong, hard to move guy in the middle. Trade Curry for some waif center or finesse power forward and we lose that advantage.

I'd have to look more at the offensive stats to figure out what's going on there, because I don't see anything obvious. What we want to know there is the effectiveness of shots taken (which Scott has brought up some evidence to show Curry makes a positive difference here), since offensive is somewhat a function of pace of play and defensive effectiveness.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'll respond to two of your posts with one reply here.
> 
> First one was about Curry being an offensive option. I know you don't like my anecdotes, but Horry's 3 in the finals is a good example of what I'm talking about. The Pistons double teamed Ginobili only to leave an offensive option open. With 4 duhons on the court with Curry, he'd see quintuple teams all night.
> 
> Second, I think your characterization of offensive rebound percentage isn't right. To use an extreme example, assume the bulls make 99 out of 100 baskets attempted with Curry in, but never get the offensive board on that 100th shot. In other words, the more you make your first shot, the less you need a 2nd shot attempt to score the same # of points (2, or 3).


Who are arguing with about 4 Chris Duhons and Curry? If Curry was an effective decoy, the offense would be more productive when he was in the game. Plain and simple.

My definition of offensive rebound percentage is correct. In your extreme example, we would not really care about offensive rebound percentage, but so what. The two or three point difference in field goal percentage when Curry is in or not is nowhere near your extreme example. I said that it negates about half of the effective field goal percentage difference - not all of it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I am not sure what you did here, but it looks to me like the Bulls were 9-8 in games in which Curry did not play and 9-6 after the 0-9 start. After the 0-9 start, the average point differential was 3.3 points in games Curry did not play.
> 
> Also, note that 8 of the 15 games Curry did not play in after the 0-9 start were road games. Only 27 of the 58 games Curry did play in after the 0-9 start were road games. If there is still is any difference in the performance with and without Curry, home court advantage probably accounts for it.


The #'s are so close there that I don't think it matters.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I am not sure what you did here, but it looks to me like the Bulls were 9-8 in games in which Curry did not play and 9-6 after the 0-9 start. After the 0-9 start, the average point differential was 3.3 points.


Doh, I screwed up my coding... he played in three games he didn't start, 63 in total. Also, if you're just counting up from Yahoo, their table is screwed up and doesn't include the last two regular season games- i added them by looking at Bulls.com (otherwise you'd only get 80 games).

After accounting for my mistake, the PF vs. PA numbers change significantly, but the winning pct doesn't.

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 337pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=450 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 53pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2560" width=70><COL style="WIDTH: 26pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280" span=4 width=35><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=2 width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 20pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 950" width=26><COL style="WIDTH: 26pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280" width=35><COL style="WIDTH: 38pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1865" width=51><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 53pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=70 height=17>All</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>PF</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>PA</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>PF/G</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>PA/G</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>Diff</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>G</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 20pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=26>W</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>L</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 38pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=51></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Play</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>5913</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>5860</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="93.857142857142861" x:fmla="=B2/$G2">93.9</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="93.015873015873012" x:fmla="=C2/$G2">93</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="0.84126984126984894" x:fmla="=D2-E2">0.84 </TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>63</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>37</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>26</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.58730158730158732" x:fmla="=H2/G2">58.7%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Not Play</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1832</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1798</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="96.421052631578945" x:fmla="=B3/$G3">96.4</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="94.631578947368425" x:fmla="=C3/$G3">94.6</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="1.7894736842105203" x:fmla="=D3-E3">1.79 </TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>19</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>10</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>9</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.52631578947368418" x:fmla="=H3/G3">52.6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-ignore: colspan" colSpan=2 height=17>Minus 0-9 strart</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Play</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>5296</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>5157</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="94.571428571428569" x:fmla="=B5/$G5">94.6</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="92.089285714285708" x:fmla="=C5/$G5">92.1</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="2.4821428571428612" x:fmla="=D5-E5">2.48 </TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>56</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>37</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>19</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.6607142857142857" x:fmla="=H5/G5">66.1%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Not Play</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1636</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1587</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="96.235294117647058" x:fmla="=B6/$G6">96.2</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="93.352941176470594" x:fmla="=C6/$G6">93.4</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="2.8823529411764639" x:fmla="=D6-E6">2.88 </TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>17</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>10</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>7</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.58823529411764708" x:fmla="=H6/G6">58.8%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Thus, the Bulls seem to win by a greater margin without Eddy, but they win more frequently with Eddy.

Then Deng vs. Eddy analysis doesn't seem to change a lot:

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 471pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=628 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 71pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3437" width=94><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 32pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1572" span=2 width=43><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=6 width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 71pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=94 height=17>*Situation*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=43>*W*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=43>*L*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*W%*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PF*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PA*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PF/G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PA/G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*Diff*</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Neither</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>14</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>8</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>6</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.5714285714285714" x:fmla="=C2/B2">57.1%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1352</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1311</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="96.571428571428569" x:fmla="=F2/$B2">96.6 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="93.642857142857139" x:fmla="=G2/$B2">93.6 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="2.9285714285714306" x:fmla="=H2-I2">2.93 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Curry, no Deng</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>7</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>3</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>4</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.42857142857142855" x:fmla="=C3/B3">42.9%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>644</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>645</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="92" x:fmla="=F3/$B3">92.0 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="92.142857142857139" x:fmla="=G3/$B3">92.1 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-0.1428571428571388" x:fmla="=H3-I3">(0.14)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Deng, no Curry</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>5</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>2</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>3</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.4" x:fmla="=C4/B4">40.0%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>480</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>487</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="96" x:fmla="=F4/$B4">96.0 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="97.4" x:fmla="=G4/$B4">97.4 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-1.4000000000000057" x:fmla="=H4-I4">(1.40)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Both</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>56</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>34</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>22</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.6071428571428571" x:fmla="=C5/B5">60.7%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>5269</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>5215</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94.089285714285708" x:fmla="=F5/$B5">94.1 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="93.125" x:fmla="=G5/$B5">93.1 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="0.9642857142857082" x:fmla="=H5-I5">0.96 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>*Total*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>*82*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(C2:C5)">*47*</TD><TD class=xl25 title="Big Grin" style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right alt="" border="0" x:num x:fmla="=SUM(D2







35</B></TD><TD class=xl31 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.57317073170731703" x:fmla="=C6/B6">*57.3%*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(F2:F5)">*7745*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(G2:G5)">*7658*</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94.451219512195124" x:fmla="=F6/$B6">*94.5 *</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="93.390243902439025" x:fmla="=G6/$B6">*93.4 *</TD><TD class=xl29 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="1.0609756097560989" x:fmla="=H6-I6">*1.06 *</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Also, note that 8 of the 15 games Curry did not play in after the 0-9 start were road games. Only 27 of the 58 games Curry did play in after the 0-9 start were road games. If there is still is any difference in the performance with and without Curry, home court advantage probably accounts for it.[/QUOTE]

OK, I'll take a look at that next


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Great discussion here. I'm glad Paxson is still exploring ways to make the team even better, instead of just signing all of our guys to whatever they want and becoming a contender based on improvement alone. I'm still on the fence about Curry. Dan's numbers seem pretty straight forward and consistent. Every year it's been that way. Of course, this is all under the assumption that Curry is going to get paid a lot of money. If we can re-sign him for 7-8 million a year, I'd be all for keeping him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Who are arguing with about 4 Chris Duhons and Curry?


DaBullz is. Because, you know, the Bulls typically start Duhon at 4 positions with Curry in the middle. 

I think its why Duhon's back started bothering him near the end of the year. He was just plain tuckered out.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Great discussion here. I'm glad Paxson is still exploring ways to make the team even better, instead of just signing all of our guys to whatever they want and becoming a contender based on improvement alone. I'm still on the fence about Curry. Dan's numbers seem pretty straight forward and consistent. Every year it's been that way. Of course, this is all under the assumption that Curry is going to get paid a lot of money. *If we can re-sign him for 7-8 million a year, I'd be all for keeping him.*


That's something that is lost a lot in the Curry discussion- A LOT of people, myself included, agree with you. I'd like to see Curry stick around, if he signs for a starting salary around $6-7 million. He would be a great young Kevin McHale coming off the bench and giving us 30-32 minutes a game, his offense would be outstanding.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Who are arguing with about 4 Chris Duhons and Curry? If Curry was an effective decoy, the offense would be more productive when he was in the game. Plain and simple.
> 
> My definition of offensive rebound percentage is correct. In your extreme example, we would not really care about offensive rebound percentage, but so what. The two or three point difference in field goal percentage when Curry is in or not is nowhere near your extreme example. I said that it negates about half of the effective field goal percentage difference - not all of it.


Actually, you said:

"Offensive rebound percentage is the percentage of missed shots that are rebounded by the offensive team, so it already accounts for the fewer offensive rebounding chances because of higher field goal percentage shooting."

Which is what I do not agree with. It simply is a % of missed shots rebounded by the offensive team. It accounts for nothing else. It indicates nothing about the quantity of missed shots (based on better or worse or same EFG% or any other unrelated statistic). It can be 50% of 2 missed shots (total) or 50% of 2M shots. The number becomes more meaningful as you miss more shots, but in this case, we make more shots, right?

Here's where the statistics just fall flat on their face. Curry averaged 30 minutes per game. So you look at what the team does without him on the court and see the effect that Chandler has. Without Curry playing 30 minutes per game, Chandler would have to play 60 minutes per game, or we'd see a lot more of Reiner and/or Funderburke, and your stats don't tell us what would really happen if those two played 30 minutes of our PT at C.

So like I said, Curry's a big part of the mix that won the 47 games; I don't fret over finding some suitable replacement, but to lose him for "tall junk" means Reiner and/or Funderburke and/or "tall junk" for 30 minutes of the lost PT.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

First I'd say the names thrown by McGraw are only speculation , not based on inside info. The Hawks would be most likely to try and pull something , and also they'd have to meet Paxons demands.

I don't think teams are that interested in Eddy right now , even if Bron is talking , even if the Papers started their twisting.

I think Eventually Eddy will have to take a much smaller than expected contract offer , and I also think he'll take it , cause he himself ain't as confident as he'd like us to believe in his health. It's his heart , he must be thinking about it. I think he'll even take a 20 mil per 3 years if it's the best he could get , he won't take the risk of QO with his health issues , he cannot afford that.

I've said it lots before , we should have traded Eddy at midseason. Now , as a RFA it would be much harder to get his worth back , and it's too late. To me it's clear he'll always be able to score , even in the 20+ pts range , but he'll never even be close to Shaqs dominence , or even become a good rebounder or passer , which hurts us much much more than some people think. On defense his man to man got better , but as a team defender he's just a huge hole in our middle. He does not understand when help is needed even if one does not question his will to do so.
The problem for us with this is we are a terrible offensive team , and we don't have many scoring options. Thats one thing Eddy can give us - High % scoring , but thats the only thing. Maybe we should sign him after letting the market determine his value (if it will at all) and trade him after he ain't BYC. Salary for salary straight up. It might be too late now , so maybe we'd better wait.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't see how you can put much faith in +/- stats/ Chris Jefferies led our team in +/- last year, and Dalibor Bagaric was 2nd on our team two years ago in +/- behind Crawfish.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Wow. I have to actually take care of work out of the office and look what happens! It's encouraging to know that the entire Eddy Curry free agent situation has been already resolved by a reporter (who apparently isn't shoddy) and a few clairvoyant posters who have all the answers. I'm just glad I don't have to check into this situation any longer. We've gotten junk or nothing for Eddy and the Bulls are back in the lottery. There are somewhere around 14 Chris Duhons running amok - I'm thinking the Bush administration is going to be wanting some congressional inquiries on illegal cloning practices.

Maybe this thread can have a life of it's own much like a certain 3,000 page thread that was put to a merciful death.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Does anyone want to keep anyone on our roster?

Honestly?

Everytime I turn around, we want to trade Gordon, Hinrich, Curry, Chandler,...trade back for Crawford(so we can start up the trade Crawford discussions again)...

God forbid we enter a season with minor upgrades and let our guys continue to develop and build upon the success of last season.

Unless there is a trade that can make a significant upgrade(which I doubt), maybe we can let things unfold as they happen.

Its no wonder we have been the laughingstock of the league for the past few years(albeit last season). We think we have a core with Miller, Brand, Artest, and Crawford....our answer....trade Miller and Artest for Rose, get rid of Brand,...we find out Rose/Crawford don't work, we get rid of both...

We find something that works...but hey, that's no fun...let's do some more tinkering....Curry for...? Gordon for ???? 

2 and a half more hours and I am done with work today.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 478pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=638 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 78pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3803" width=104><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 32pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1572" span=2 width=43><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=6 width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl32 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 78pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=104 height=17>_Home_</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=43></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=43></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>*Situation*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*W*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*L*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*W%*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*PF*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*PA*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*PF/G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*PA/G*</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*Diff*</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Neither</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>6</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>4</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>2</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.66666666666666663" x:fmla="=C3/B3">66.7%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>605</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>541</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="100.83333333333333" x:fmla="=F3/$B3">100.8 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="90.166666666666671" x:fmla="=G3/$B3">90.2 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="10.666666666666657" x:fmla="=H3-I3">10.67 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Curry, no Deng</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>2</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.5" x:fmla="=C4/B4">50.0%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>183</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>184</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="91.5" x:fmla="=F4/$B4">91.5 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="92" x:fmla="=G4/$B4">92.0 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-0.5" x:fmla="=H4-I4">(0.50)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Deng, no Curry</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>3</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>2</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.33333333333333331" x:fmla="=C5/B5">33.3%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>288</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>288</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="96" x:fmla="=F5/$B5">96.0 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="96" x:fmla="=G5/$B5">96.0 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="0" x:fmla="=H5-I5">- </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Both</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>30</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>21</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>9</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.7" x:fmla="=C6/B6">70.0%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>2835</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>2727</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94.5" x:fmla="=F6/$B6">94.5 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="90.9" x:fmla="=G6/$B6">90.9 </TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="3.5999999999999943" x:fmla="=H6-I6">3.60 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>*Total*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(B3:B6)">*41*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(C3:C6)">*27*</TD><TD class=xl25 title="Big Grin" style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right alt="" target="_blank" border="0" x:num x:fmla="=SUM(D3


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Actually, you said:
> 
> "Offensive rebound percentage is the percentage of missed shots that are rebounded by the offensive team, so it already accounts for the fewer offensive rebounding chances because of higher field goal percentage shooting."
> 
> ...


I think MikeDC's analysis is showing us that Curry's productivity is about equivalent to that during the extra minutes that Chandler, Harrington, Davis, Reiner, etc. play in his absence.

When I said "account for" in my mind I was comparing to offensive rebounds per 48 minutes, which does not in any way account for the number of offensive rebounding chances. The offensive rebounds per 48 minutes difference would be even larger, because it would not account for the different number of offensive rebounding chances.

I am not sure what statistic you have in mind, but it seems to me that offensive rebounding percentage is a lot closer to what you want than its more typical alternative, offensive rebounds per 48 minutes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> DaBullz is. Because, you know, the Bulls typically start Duhon at 4 positions with Curry in the middle.
> 
> I think its why Duhon's back started bothering him near the end of the year. He was just plain tuckered out.


No, we start Duhon (35%), Hinrich (40%), AD (46%), and Nocioni (40%) which is close enough to 4 Duhons. That is, not a single truly effective scorer, and not one of those guys would I worry about giving them the open shot.

I don't know what's more exciting: watching AD take that 18 foot jumper, or Nocioni (.258) shooting the three.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Vintage, that's what happens when money is involved. You don't think Paxson would want to re-sign Curry instantly if Curry was willing to be payed what he deserves? I'm glad Paxson is careful in how he hands out the money. Nobody on this team is a max player.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> Wow. I have to actually take care of work out of the office and look what happens! It's encouraging to know that the entire Eddy Curry free agent situation has been already resolved by a reporter (who apparently isn't shoddy) and a few clairvoyant posters who have all the answers. I'm just glad I don't have to check into this situation any longer. We've gotten junk or nothing for Eddy and the Bulls are back in the lottery. There are somewhere around 14 Chris Duhons running amok - I'm thinking the Bush administration is going to be wanting some congressional inquiries on illegal cloning practices.
> 
> Maybe this thread can have a life of it's own much like a certain 3,000 page thread that was put to a merciful death.


Maybe?

If Eddy gets traded (or should I say *when*? since it has seemingly already happened), his departure will lead to a much bigger thread than Jamal's did. 

And did I sleep through that day when Minny offered KG and the Lakers offered Kobe and the Spurs offered Duncan for Eddy? I don't remember him *ever* having a very high trade value, and I don't remember any big suggestions even being made by the media.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Vintage said:


> Does anyone want to keep anyone on our roster?
> 
> Honestly?
> 
> ...



Exactly what I'm saying, resign Duhon, Chandler, and Curry first. Look at a guy like Bobby Simmons with the MLE. Get undrafted free agents like Basden and Randolph Morris. Look for the Magic to waive Travis Diener and sign him. Make good on our hand shake deal with Jay Williams. There is plenty we can do this offseason without blowing up our core.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> No, we start Duhon (35%), Hinrich (40%), AD (46%), and Nocioni (40%) which is close enough to 4 Duhons. That is, not a single truly effective scorer, and not one of those guys would I worry about giving them the open shot.
> 
> I don't know what's more exciting: watching AD take that 18 foot jumper, or Nocioni (.258) shooting the three.



Or we can watch Hinrich clank iron too, if you prefer?

Maybe we can S%T Curry for Crawford...

We can have the all iron team....Nocioni, Crawford, Hinrich, Duhon, and Davis...

The all iron team.....the right way....


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Vintage, that's what happens when money is involved. You don't think Paxson would want to re-sign Curry instantly if Curry was willing to be payed what he deserves? I'm glad Paxson is careful in how he hands out the money. Nobody on this team is a max player.


Where did it say Curry was seeking the max?

I didn't read too much of the article, since I am at work...


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

sloth said:


> Exactly what I'm saying, resign Duhon, Chandler, and Curry first. Look at a guy like Bobby Simmons with the MLE. Get undrafted free agents like Basden and Randolph Morris. Look for the Magic to waive Travis Diener and sign him. Make good on our hand shake deal with Jay Williams. There is plenty we can do this offseason without blowing up our core.


Sensible idea.

Adding Diener would be great...no bias here...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Curry should be part of the all-iron team, considering the team (including him) clanks more iron with him in than they do with him out. How is that for efficiency.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Maybe?
> 
> If Eddy gets traded (or should I say *when*? since it has seemingly already happened), his departure will lead to a much bigger thread than Jamal's did.
> 
> And did I sleep through that day when Minny offered KG and the Lakers offered Kobe and the Spurs offered Duncan for Eddy? I don't remember him *ever* having a very high trade value, and I don't remember any big suggestions even being made by the media.



Guaranteed thread of over 5,000 posts.

Half of which will be sloths....



POSTACULAR!


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

sloth said:


> Exactly what I'm saying, resign Duhon, Chandler, and Curry first. Look at a guy like Bobby Simmons with the MLE. Get undrafted free agents like Basden and Randolph Morris. Look for the Magic to waive Travis Diener and sign him. Make good on our hand shake deal with Jay Williams. There is plenty we can do this offseason without blowing up our core.


Here is the problem. Every team around us is going to be adding significant players. If Cleveland grabs Michael Redd and we grab Eddie Basden. Who improves more? I think the question remains: What is our price limit? Paxson will not let Curry walk for nothing. If a team like Atlanta or Cleveland wants to offer Curry a max-esque contract Paxson will get Harrington or Gooden with some young players. We'll match in the 8 mil/yr range, but anything higher and Pax might have to consider the upcoming offers to Chandler and Hinrich.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Curry should be part of the all-iron team, considering the team (including him) clanks more iron with him in than they do with him out. How is that for efficiency.



Hinrich and his sub 40% definetly needs to be on the team.

How's them apples?

Its a good thing we start guard who can stretch the defense for Curry. I mean, what team fears Hinrich/Duhon's outside shooting?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

LOL sloth will flip his lid if Curry isn't on the Bulls next season. Will he even be a Bulls fan? I don't know, he might be one of those fans that follows their favorite player and roots for the team he plays on.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Here is the problem. Every team around us is going to be adding significant players. If Cleveland grabs Michael Redd and we grab Eddie Basden. Who improves more? I think the question remains: What is our price limit? Paxson will not let Curry walk for nothing. If a team like Atlanta or Cleveland wants to offer Curry a max-esque contract Paxson will get Harrington or Gooden with some young players. We'll match in the 8 mil/yr range, but anything higher and Pax might have to consider the upcoming offers to Chandler and Hinrich.


Do we improve if we trade Curry for uh "tall junk" as the thread states.

Maybe we don't improve as much as the other teams by adding Basden. But we'll be making it worse losing Curry for "tall junk."


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Here is the problem. Every team around us is going to be adding significant players. If Cleveland grabs Michael Redd and we grab Eddie Basden. Who improves more? I think the question remains: What is our price limit? Paxson will not let Curry walk for nothing. If a team like Atlanta or Cleveland wants to offer Curry a max-esque contract Paxson will get Harrington or Gooden with some young players. We'll match in the 8 mil/yr range, but anything higher and Pax might have to consider the upcoming offers to Chandler and Hinrich.


But I don't see how getting rid of Curry for a medioquere player makes us better compared to keeping Curry and then adding players around him?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, after doing all that work, I don't see a whole lot definitive in those stats because we don't have huge numbers to work with. Still, I think they generally point in the direction I suggest. With Curry, we're 22-10 at home and 15-16 on the road. Without Curry we're 5-4 at home and 5-5 on the road. We're significantly better at home than on the road, but in either case our PF-PA differential is better with Curry than without him.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Vintage said:


> Hinrich and his sub 40% definetly needs to be on the team.
> 
> How's them apples?
> 
> Its a good thing we start guard who can stretch the defense for Curry. I mean, what team fears Hinrich/Duhon's outside shooting?


Hinrich is a feared shooter, teams always play way up on him, which is why he shoots so terrible IMO. But that's besides the point, atleast that is Hinrich's weakness. Curry's strength is offense, and the team is better offensively without him, and this is a guy who we have to pay big money to or else we'll be in the lottery?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I think MikeDC's analysis is showing us that Curry's productivity is about equivalent to that during the extra minutes that Chandler, Harrington, Davis, Reiner, etc. play in his absence.
> 
> When I said "account for" in my mind I was comparing to offensive rebounds per 48 minutes, which does not in any way account for the number of offensive rebounding chances. The offensive rebounds per 48 minutes difference would be even larger, because it would not account for the different number of offensive rebounding chances.
> 
> I am not sure what statistic you have in mind, but it seems to me that offensive rebounding percentage is a lot closer to what you want than its more typical alternative, offensive rebounds per 48 minutes.


I don't think there's a unified theory of statistics that makes any one number mean what you want... It really does boil down, in the end, to wins, which is why I keep talking about Curry being in the mix that won 47.

I don't think the team rebounding numbers make any case at all. You can easily make a case that Curry is a horrible rebounder - just look at his rebounds compared to players who play at similar positions and similar minutes.

MikeDC's analysis isn't really finished yet, and I think you'd agree it's not the greatest sample size or quality. For example, Harrington didn't log a whole lot of minutes all season long; teams didn't get to see a lot of him on video tape, he was probably less tired/worn out, we've seen good performance in similar times of the season (e.g. last month/two) from Curry/Chandler/JWill/Crawford before, etc.

We can't know what Othella would do with nearly triple his minutes. It seems like AD played a lot better with diminished minutes over the previous season...


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Hinrich is a feared shooter, teams always play way up on him, which is why he shoots so terrible IMO. But that's besides the point, atleast that is Hinrich's weakness. Curry's strength is offense, and the team is better offensively without him, and this is a guy who we have to pay big money to or else we'll be in the lottery?



Quote me on this: Barring a significant player in return, we will not make the playoffs by trading Curry.

IE: We can make them if we get a player like Pierce in return....but with what has been suggested/by the sounds of it, any trade we will be getting less in return.

Plus, it means Chandler will slide over to C and have to bang with bigger guys. Let's see him take a season of this.

But hey...let's ship Curry and Gordon off together....give us something to talk about since that what seems like a very popular idea around here.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Vintage said:


> Sensible idea.
> 
> Adding Diener would be great...no bias here...


Diener is a better player than Hinrich imo in terms of being a point guard. Diener won't be able to guard shooting guards like Hinrich, but he can guard point guards just as well. Hinrich has strength on him 7 reps at 185, compared to Dieners 1, but Hinrich's unwillingness to play tough and drive leads me to believe if Diener does, he will be a better pro than Hinrich. I know Diener can shoot a lot better than Hinrich already. That Marquette team was a pretty good team with Diener, they were complete garbage when he was out.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Hinrich is a feared shooter, teams always play way up on him, which is why he shoots so terrible IMO. But that's besides the point, atleast that is Hinrich's weakness. Curry's strength is offense, and the team is better offensively without him, and this is a guy who we have to pay big money to or else we'll be in the lottery?



I agree he is a feared shooter. I am scared every time he shoots the ball. (I'll let you construe that anyway you wish)


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

sloth said:


> Diener is a better player than Hinrich imo in terms of being a point guard. Diener won't be able to guard shooting guards like Hinrich, but he can guard point guards just as well. Hinrich has strength on him 7 reps at 185, compared to Dieners 1, but Hinrich's unwillingness to play tough and drive leads me to believe if Diener does, he will be a better pro than Hinrich. I know Diener can shoot a lot better than Hinrich already. That Marquette team was a pretty good team with Diener, they were complete garbage when he was out.


Please don't remind me.

It was painful to watch.

After we beat UW-Madison at the Kohl Center, I was so pumped. Best basketball game I have EVER been too....

It just got worse from there on...


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

sloth said:


> Diener is a better player than Hinrich imo in terms of being a point guard. Diener won't be able to guard shooting guards like Hinrich, but he can guard point guards just as well. Hinrich has strength on him 7 reps at 185, compared to Dieners 1, but Hinrich's unwillingness to play tough and drive leads me to believe if Diener does, he will be a better pro than Hinrich. I know Diener can shoot a lot better than Hinrich already. That Marquette team was a pretty good team with Diener, they were complete garbage when he was out.


C'mon now.... there's a reason why Deiner is a 2nd round pick and Hinrich is a top 10 lottery pick. Deiner may have a better shooting stroke then Hinrich.... nothing else.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I think MikeDC's analysis is showing us that Curry's productivity is about equivalent to that during the extra minutes that Chandler, Harrington, Davis, Reiner, etc. play in his absence.


I don't really see that... they appear to me to show that we are somewhat better with Curry than with the other guys taking his minutes.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Dan, unless I missed something, none of your analysis in this thread thusfar has accounted for the possibility that Eddy Curry is still young and could improve, even by next year. That's a hard thing to predict, but it is a possibility.

I haven't heard anyone mention yet that unless this new CBA goes in a direction I do not expect at all, a player has to agree to be signed and traded somewhere. Even with the acquisition of Marvin Williams, do you think Curry would really want to go to Atlanta? I could only see that happening if they were willing to offer him a substantial amount of money more than any other team. The Knicks did that for Jamal last year, but that was New York, not Atlanta. Atlanta is a great city, but as of now they have no fans and no chance of making the playoffs anytime soon.

So let's think destinations. We know New York likes Curry and Curry has reason to like New York. I shudder to consider taking Channing Frye back for Curry. I really don't see them having an attractive package for us this year. Al Harrington is much more interesting than Sweetney at this point, that's for sure. Memphis has long been interested, but we don't know if Curry would want to play there. Lorenzen Wright, Dahntay Jones, and a future first would fill needs, and Wright's contract would be off the books next year so we might be able to uselessly sign Yao to an offer sheet (I still don't understand why gobs of '06 cap room is so appealing). Cleveland, I mean LeBron is interested, but last time I checked they have a new decisionmaker in town, and we don't know what he thinks. Ilgauskas would be a reasonable replacement, but the idea of Eddy and LeBron together just terrifies me. (On that issue, wouldn't it be nice if the new CBA allowed for two players to be signed and traded for each other for contracts of similar value?) Atlanta has interest, but again, would he really want to go? Only if they were the only team to show him the money, I suppose.

If Curry is signed and traded or just let go, I really want Oberto. Dalembert is a pipe dream of a replacement, and Big Z would be solid for a few more years. All in all, this is not what I wanted to hear this morning.

Let's just remember that Curry has to agree to go to wherever he might be signed and traded to.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Future said:


> C'mon now.... there's a reason why Deiner is a 2nd round pick and Hinrich is a top 10 lottery pick. Deiner may have a better shooting stroke then Hinrich.... nothing else.


Don't put much into it. What's happening is Curry's value is being questioned due to his contract demands and the like, and some people don't like it, so they are trying to blast other players on the team to make Curry look better.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

This is silly. Trading Curry for garbage would be suicide.

Do you guys not remember our problems in the Washington series? Remember those terrible stretches where we couldn't score and Washington's bigs were posting numbers way above their averages? Yeah, with Eddy there, that's not going to happen.

If we trade Eddy, we won't get any further than the first round. It's just a stupid idea because we can't get anything good in return. You don't trade big men that can score, you just don't. I think the Lakers proved you don't trade a big man who can score unless you can get equal value.

Eddy's heart issue will probably be a blessing in disguise. I think he's going to realize now how precious life (and the ability to play basketball) is and will work harder than ever before. And if we trade him, we'll be kicking ourselves in the back, just like we did for trading Brad Miller and Ron Artest.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I don't really see that... they appear to me to show that we are somewhat better with Curry than with the other guys taking his minutes.


The Bulls have a better record with Curry playing and a better point differential when he is not. To me that is pretty much a wash.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Don't put much into it. What's happening is Curry's value is being questioned due to his contract demands and the like, and some people don't like it, so they are trying to blast other players on the team to make Curry look better.



No. You couldn't be more dillusional.

I am simply using the same logic many are using here. Wanting to trade bec. a player has holes in their game(yes, even Hinrich does), trade for the sake of nothing happening this offseason, and as someone mentioned the growing concern of Eastern Conference teams improving.

But did Hinrich shoot less than 40% on the year? Yes he did....yes he did....


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I am consistently anti-owner, true. That's because our ownership group has yet to show me that they value a winning basketball team over operating profit and because without Jordan in the fold, they've produced a .370 winning percentage (254-432), which is indefensible.



I hate to be a member of the welcome to the real world police, let's not get all idealistic here. You have no right to expect a franchise, which is first and foremost _a business_, to value anything except making a profit first. True, there will always be the occasional eccentric billionaire (Cuban, Allen) who is happy to lose money on their product to serve their own interests (having fun), but in general, that's not the way it goes. The important thing is that being a profitable club and being a winning club do not have to be mutually exclusive possibilities. 

Additionally, quoting a club's winning percentage under an owner, except for the years that they were one of the greatest teams of all time under that same owner, is incredibly weak. You can't give blame for the bad times without giving credit for the good.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

CiMa said:


> This is silly. Trading Curry for garbage would be suicide.
> 
> Do you guys not remember our problems in the Washington series? Remember those terrible stretches where we couldn't score and Washington's bigs were posting numbers way above their averages? Yeah, with Eddy there, that's not going to happen.
> 
> ...


Forget first round. We'll be wondering what new lotto pick we'll be adding to the team. (assuming we don't get equal value in return...which it sounds like we won't)


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Vintage said:


> No. You couldn't be more dillusional.
> 
> I am simply using the same logic many are using here. Wanting to trade bec. a player has holes in their game(yes, even Hinrich does), trade for the sake of nothing happening this offseason, and as someone mentioned the growing concern of Eastern Conference teams improving.
> 
> But did Hinrich shoot less than 40% on the year? Yes he did....yes he did....


Stop being so sensitive. What does Hinrich have to do with anything? Like I said, it's a money thing, and if Hinrich was asking for as much money as Eddy is, I would hope these same questions would come up about him. There is nothing wrong with looking at how valuable a guy is during contract time, and pinpointing the positives and negatives. I think Dan has pretty much layed out all the facts though, the Bulls are a better team offensively without Curry in the game. That's been a consistent trend over several years.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Vintage said:


> Forget first round. We'll be wondering what new lotto pick we'll be adding to the team. (assuming we don't get equal value in return...which it sounds like we won't)


Yup, and we can't get Greg Oden because of the new age limit rule, so it's not worth doing!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I hate to be a member of the welcome to the real world police, let's not get all idealistic here. You have no right to expect a franchise, which is first and foremost _a business_, to value anything except making a profit first. True, there will always be the occasional eccentric billionaire (Cuban, Allen) who is happy to lose money on their product to serve their own interests (having fun), but in general, that's not the way it goes. The important thing is that being a profitable club and being a winning club do not have to be mutually exclusive possibilities.


I think you're the one being idealistic. Franchises are often a business unit, like the Knicks. The team can lose money but the cable TV network that owns them makes it back and then some on the PPV revenues. And teams have historically been owned by the Cuban/Allen types.

A franchise can lose money every year an owner owns it and yet sell for a huge profit that makes up for those losses.



> Additionally, quoting a club's winning percentage under an owner, except for the years that they were one of the greatest teams of all time under that same owner, is incredibly weak. You can't give blame for the bad times without giving credit for the good.


You can say the good times were REALLY REALLY good, and the bad times have been REALLY REALLY bad. And you can say that management hasn't seemed to care about making more good times.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

My general thoughts here:

1. This board often lacks, to an astonishing degree, an ability to look at the big picture. Here's the big picture, as I see it.

Step One:
The Bulls suck. Horribly.

Step Two: 
Krause out. Pax in.

Step Three:
Pax cleans house.

Step Four:
In short order, the Bulls have the third best record in the East with a very young team that looks to be on the rise.

If you don't think there's a causal relationship between John Paxson and the Bulls' current success, I think you're nuts. As such, I think the man deserves a bit more from us than having our faith shaken to its core by one piddly little McGraw article that quotes an unnamed source saying merely that the Bulls would be "open" to trading Eddy Curry. 

I want Eddy back. I certainly don't want to see him depart in the type of trade that let Crawford go. For the record, I think the Crawford trade was fine, but Eddy to me is the type of player that should bring much more back in return. I have faith that Pax will either retain Eddy or get good value for him. More than that, however, I have faith that he will continue to make this club a better team. There's no reason to doubt that based on his past performance. And there's certainly no reason to doubt that based on one vague article by a beat writer.

Take a deep breath. Center your chi. Be at peace with the world.

It's going to be all right.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Stop being so sensitive. What does Hinrich have to do with anything? Like I said, it's a money thing, and if Hinrich was asking for as much money as Eddy is, I would hope these same questions would come up about him. There is nothing wrong with looking at how valuable a guy is during contract time, and pinpointing the positives and negatives. I think Dan has pretty much layed out all the facts though, the Bulls are a better team offensively without Curry in the game. That's been a consistent trend over several years.



What it doesn't account for is lineup changes. Who is in the game, who isn't. Perhaps teams brought someone else in when Curry went to the bench and played more run-n-gun, for example.

What happens if Curry heads to the bench at the same time Hinrich does? Or Gordon? Our offense will suffer, of course. 

Unless you can account for the exact lineups of both teams on the floor everytime Curry headed to the bunch, there is a margin of error.


Dan also said the Bulls have a better record with Curry. So take your point differential and shove it. Ill take win's over point differential every day of the week and twice on sundays.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Center your chi.


How can I center my chi when Chi is losing its center?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sloth said:


> Diener is a better player than Hinrich imo in terms of being a point guard. Diener won't be able to guard shooting guards like Hinrich, but he can guard point guards just as well. Hinrich has strength on him 7 reps at 185, compared to Dieners 1, but *Hinrich's unwillingness to play tough* and drive leads me to believe if Diener does, he will be a better pro than Hinrich. I know Diener can shoot a lot better than Hinrich already. That Marquette team was a pretty good team with Diener, they were complete garbage when he was out.



_huh?_


:laugh:


no need to slag off hinrich in your defense of eddy sloth. when has eddy ever shown a willingness to play tough? especially late in games.

anyway.

mr. mcgraw has served up the opening salvo in what appears to be the start of a prolonged negotiation. still trying to figure out exactly why. who is the source? a shadowy figure? sam smith? 

expect some good quotes from leon rose over the weekend.

if eddy can be signed to a reasonable deal (ie: 7-8 million) then he will be a bull. if not, well what choice does that really leave pax? *eddy has not EARNED a max deal*, even if he were 100% healthy, he shouldn't get the max. 

expect pax (per the tribune today) to extend a fair and very generous offer to eddy. just not the max. 

then we'll see how much eddy wants to remain a bull.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> How can I center my chi when Chi is losing its center?



Brilliant!

Made me laugh.

Co-workers are staring at me.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think you're the one being idealistic. Franchises are often a business unit, like the Knicks. The team can lose money but the cable TV network that owns them makes it back and then some on the PPV revenues. And teams have historically been owned by the Cuban/Allen types.
> 
> A franchise can lose money every year an owner owns it and yet sell for a huge profit that makes up for those losses.


Yes, but this isn't losing money, so it doesn't address my point. I don't care how the owners get rich. In fact, I don't care if they do at all. However, my best bet is that the vast majority of owners do and that all they see is the bottom line. I don't care if the franchise gets its money from TV deals, merchandise, or bake sales. I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to ask ownership to lose money on their investment. If you want a team that's run another way, go buy one.




DaBullz said:


> You can say the good times were REALLY REALLY good, and the bad times have been REALLY REALLY bad. And you can say that management hasn't seemed to care about making more good times.


True. The good/bad have been polar opposites. I would take that though over consistent mediocrity. I believe that we should have been good faster after the dynasty, but I don't know if you can say that management hasn't cared. Perhaps ownership hasn't cared as much as one would like, but I don't think that Krause ever lacked a desire to win. In fact, I think he wanted intensely to prove he could put a winning product on the floor that didn't include Michael Jordan. That didn't pan out, though, did it? Now Pax is here and he seems to have righted the ship. Did JR give JK too long a time to work through his various rebuilding plans? Sure. It's not that surprising though considering his great success in assembling the championship teams though, even if an objective observer wouldn't have gone the same way.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> How can I center my chi when Chi is losing its center?



:biggrin:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I want Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, Duhon, back and all, but here is how I want the active roster to be.


Kirk Hinrich
Chris Duhon
Ben Gordon
Travis Diener
Bobby Simmons
Eric Piatowski
Luol Deng
Andres Nocioni
Eddie Basden
Antonio Davis
Tyson Chandler
Mario Austin
Randolph Morris 
Eddy Curry

With a starting linuep of 

Kirk Hinrich
Bobby Simmons
Luol Deng
Tyson Chandler
Eddy Curry

with Gordon, Nocioni, and Diener/Duhon as key reserves.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Vintage said:


> What it doesn't account for is lineup changes. Who is in the game, who isn't. Perhaps teams brought someone else in when Curry went to the bench and played more run-n-gun, for example.
> 
> What happens if Curry heads to the bench at the same time Hinrich does? Or Gordon? Our offense will suffer, of course.
> 
> Unless you can account for the exact lineups of both teams on the floor everytime Curry headed to the bunch, there is a margin of error.


I wasn't talking about plus/minus as much as I was about the offense per 100 posessions. There is something to be said for a guy who is known as an efficient offensive player, stepping off the court and the Bulls becoming a better offensive team. That has been a consistent trend, and it just doesn't make any sense, if he is truly a good offensive player. These ratings are adjusted, from what I've read from Dan's posts in the past couple years. One or two games doesn't mean much, and even half a season can be pretty open for error, but when there is a consistent trend over several years, that's when you have to start wondering. If there really was a big margin of error, then the ratings would be inconsistent, up and down, all over the place, etc. The fact that they aren't, they are consistent, is reason to question his value.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

As much as I'd love to see that Sloth, it won't work.

Duhon, Diener, and Gordon to backup the 1/2?

We might need to add some size at the backup 2.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Vintage said:


> What it doesn't account for is lineup changes. Who is in the game, who isn't. Perhaps teams brought someone else in when Curry went to the bench and played more run-n-gun, for example.
> 
> What happens if Curry heads to the bench at the same time Hinrich does? Or Gordon? Our offense will suffer, of course.
> 
> ...



um, we're not the ones who are trading eddy. that's mike mcgraw. 

let's try and remain civil.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I wasn't talking about plus/minus as much as I was about the offense per 100 posessions. There is something to be said for a guy who is known as an efficient offensive player, stepping off the court and the Bulls becoming a better offensive team. That has been a consistent trend, and it just doesn't make any sense, if he is truly a good offensive player. These ratings are adjusted, from what I've read from Dan's posts in the past couple years. One or two games doesn't mean much, and even half a season can be pretty open for error, but when there is a consistent trend over several years, that's when you have to start wondering. If there really was a big margin of error, then the ratings would be inconsistent, up and down, all over the place, etc. The fact that they aren't, they are consistent, is reason to question his value.



The win/loss column doesn't lie. And to me, thats the most important stat.

I could care less how efficient we were as long as we win(and I do realize those two usually go hand in hand).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Vintage said:


> The win/loss column doesn't lie. And to me, thats the most important stat.


Winning is possible with or without Curry. Like I said, I'm all for keeping Curry at a 8-9 million a year type contract at most, but I'm not a fan of signing bad contracts, especially to young players who are getting those contracts on potential.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Winning is possible with or without Curry. Like I said, I'm all for keeping Curry at a 8-9 million a year type contract at most, but I'm not a fan of signing bad contracts, especially to young players who are getting those contracts on potential.


I agree.

But where does it say Curry is asking for the max?

I want to see it bec. I haven't had a chance to catch up on a lot of this yet.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> No, we start Duhon (35%), Hinrich (40%), AD (46%), and Nocioni (40%) which is close enough to 4 Duhons. That is, not a single truly effective scorer, and not one of those guys would I worry about giving them the open shot.
> 
> I don't know what's more exciting: watching AD take that 18 foot jumper, or Nocioni (.258) shooting the three.


I'm pretty sure Gordon, Deng, and Chandler play with Curry from time to time as well.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Vintage said:



> The win/loss column doesn't lie. And to me, thats the most important stat.
> 
> I could care less how efficient we were as long as we win(and I do realize those two usually go hand in hand).


Point differential generally has done a better job predicting _future_ win/loss records than have win/loss records. So if you care about how the Bulls are going to do in the future with or without Curry, then you should care more about point differential.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

But when is Paxson officially going to extend the Qualifying Offers? Lets hope he doesn't miss the deadline. Then we'd have a TO situation.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Point differential generally has done a better job predicting _future_ win/loss records than have win/loss records. So if you care about how the Bulls are going to do in the future with or without Curry, then you should care more about point differential.


So, theoretically, we would be better off trading Curry for garbage(or for that matter, we could even just let him walk)?

We'd be losing a (-), therefore improving our team?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> My general thoughts here:
> 
> 1. This board often lacks, to an astonishing degree, an ability to look at the big picture. Here's the big picture, as I see it.
> 
> ...


Best post in the thread.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm pretty sure Gordon, Deng, and Chandler play with Curry from time to time as well.


Gordon 41%
Deng 43%
Chandler is a FINE offensive player in your mind, I'm sure.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Vintage said:


> So, theoretically, we would be better off trading Curry for garbage(or for that matter, we could even just let him walk)?
> 
> We'd be losing a (-), therefore improving our team?


Actually, I think point differential works in Curry's favor.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I hate to be a member of the welcome to the real world police, let's not get all idealistic here. You have no right to expect a franchise, which is first and foremost _a business_, to value anything except making a profit first. True, there will always be the occasional eccentric billionaire (Cuban, Allen) who is happy to lose money on their product to serve their own interests (having fun), but in general, that's not the way it goes. The important thing is that being a profitable club and being a winning club do not have to be mutually exclusive possibilities.
> 
> Additionally, quoting a club's winning percentage under an owner, except for the years that they were one of the greatest teams of all time under that same owner, is incredibly weak. You can't give blame for the bad times without giving credit for the good.


I'm pretty sure that none of the things I've ever wanted or expected Reinsdorf to do would have caused him to lose money. The Bulls make more money than just about any other team in professional sports, so you'd have to go on quite a spending spree to get them into the red, even on a year-to-year basis. 

Not to mention that if Reinsdorf's stomach can't tolerate the outlays required to run a winning NBA team, he can simply sell the sucker and realize a 3000-4000% return on his initial investment. Not bad! 

I don't think it's unfair or "weak" to compare ownership's record with and without MJ, though. They inherited MJ, remember? I'll give them as much credit for that as they deserve. The rest of it was just not screwing things up (which they did at the end, but whatever).

I have also never said that a winning sports team can't make money. My only beef is that the Bulls do not spend in proportion to what they bring in, and that nearly every personnel move since the 1998 off-season has been a salary dump.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Actually, I think point differential works in Curry's favor.



Well, then according to Dan...point differential is more important as it predicts the future, therefore we need to keep Curry.

Its not so much keeping Curry that concerns me. Wait, no...it is. I want to keep him and see what this team can do with another year. But that goes across the board. I do not want to trade Gordon either. Or Hinrich. Or anyone. I want this team together one more year.

If that can't happen, then its about bringing in equal value. But it sounds like we cannot get that.

Methinks we could be looking at the lottery again. But I am used to it by now.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> My general thoughts here:
> 
> 1. This board often lacks, to an astonishing degree, an ability to look at the big picture. Here's the big picture, as I see it.
> 
> ...


Finally , a voice of reason. Thank you!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Gordon 41%
> Deng 43%
> Chandler is a FINE offensive player in your mind, I'm sure.


No, Chandler is a terrible offensive player when it comes to creating his own shot. Decent with the garbage points though.

But you said "4 Duhons" and backed it up by showing that Duhon is 35% shooter while everyone else is at 40% or better. 

Not only are the shooting percantages against your argument, but so is the fact that Duhon can't put pressure on a defense by creating his own shot, but several of these other guys can - all while shooting a higher percentage.

Good stuff, DaBullz. You've convinced me that, offensively, Gordon = Duhon.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No, Chandler is a terrible offensive player when it comes to creating his own shot. Decent with the garbage points though.
> 
> But you said "4 Duhons" and backed it up by showing that Duhon is 35% shooter while everyone else is at 40% or better.
> 
> ...


Gordon shoots 40% in three point attempts, which is godly.

So you think that barely shooting 40% from the floor is a good thing? Wow.

Keep digging.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Gordon shoots 40% in three point attempts, which is godly.
> 
> *So you think that barely shooting 40% from the floor is a good thing?* Wow.
> 
> Keep digging.


Straw man. 

Its better than Duhon. By a lot. Which is my only, very simple, and obviously correct, point.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

There's no way I read all of that, obviously. Holy crap.

But from what I did read, here's my two cents, uncharacteristically short.

1. Our team, including Curry, shot 43.2 FG% last season. Let's just think of it as team FG, because it doesn't really matter who is on the floor if, as a team, we make 43.2% of our shots. This is a low FG% for a team, but a lot of playoff teams weren't THAT much better. New Jersey shot 42.9%, Indiana shot 43.2%, Philadelphia and Washington shot 43.7%, even Detroit only shot 44.4%. We led the league in defensive FG%; our opponents shot 42.2%.

If we had Curry and Deng for longer, we could have had a more efficient offense, no doubt about it. 

2. Could another center take high % shots? Well, Eddy Curry was 5th in the league in FG%, his third year ranking in the top 10. The fact that his scoring went up while his FG% stayed extremely high (took a big increase from last year, actually) shows that Curry isn't done yet.

Guys we might try to acquire in FA don't come close. Stay away from Ilgauskas (46.8% and he takes a lot of shots), Kwame (46%), Swift (44%). Guys we might try to get in a trade are more interesting. Boozer shot 52.1%. Pau Gasol was good for 51.4%. Drew Gooden was at 49% (and Cleveland wants Curry).

3. But in the end, it will always be about defense before offense. And it will work. Detroit made its way to the NBA Finals on that model, two years in a row. They are not a team of terrific shooters; I always kind of shook my head when Hubie Brown would say stuff like "these guys can score, you gotta watch out, blah blah blah" because of course they can score. The Hawks and the Hornets and the Bobcats can score too, sometimes. But that doesn't mean they are a good scoring team; Detroit is not, and nor is Chicago.

4. Can we continue keeping our defensive intensity extremely high while getting by on offense well enough to win games? That's the question that must be asked when we're thinking about keeping Curry and thinking about who might replace him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Straw man.
> 
> Its better than Duhon. By a lot. Which is my only, very simple, and obviously correct, point.


Actually, Duhon is a lot better player than you want to give him credit for. He does create his own shot, and is one of two bulls guards who consistently can go to the basket and get a layup without it being blocked.

The Bulls are a team of role players, which is exactly what Duhon is. Without a go-to star talent that you can rely on for scoring. This is the one thing that Curry does bring.

No team in the league is going to have their players leave Curry to double team AD or Chandler. It's the opposite - they have their players double and triple team Curry because they fear what he can do if he gets on a roll.

Dan Rosenbaum says the Bulls play triangle when Curry's in. Others wisely point out that few of the bulls players have the knack of feeding the ball to Curry in the post.

Yep, Paxson looks brilliant for the 47 win season. He's batting .500 as far as winning seasons go. One season does not mean we're going to win 47 again. If Paxson is truly making noises about getting rid of Curry, it's stupid to blindly accept that Paxson knows what he is doing.

But stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> The Bulls have a better record with Curry playing and a better point differential when he is not. To me that is pretty much a wash.


It's not when you start looking behind the numbers.

Just look at home victories with and without Curry, since that's the one place where the numbers really diverge in the way you point out.

The Bulls are 5-4 at home without Curry, but have a 7.11 PF-PA differential.
Perhaps that's because the 5 teams they beat were the Knicks, Magic, Raptors, Bobcats and Cavs. The Magic game was that 40 point blowout where the Magic just plain gave up. The Raptors and Cavs games were also when those teams were playing awful. 

The Bulls were 22-10 at home with Curry, and that included 9 victories over teams going to the playoffs. The average team we beat with Curry had 37 wins, the average team we beat without him had 32.

Thus, It's not surprising we had a higher margin of victory. In this particular case then, I'll go with winning pct as the more telling factor.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Actually, Duhon is a lot better player than you want to give him credit for. He does create his own shot, and is one of two bulls guards who consistently can go to the basket and get a layup without it being blocked.
> 
> The Bulls are a team of role players, which is exactly what Duhon is. Without a go-to star talent that you can rely on for scoring. This is the one thing that Curry does bring.
> 
> ...


 :cheers: 

Ah, hell....one more for the road.

:cheers: 

Couldn't. Agree. Any. More.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

It's been a boring summer so far e?

What the hell.

Trade Curry.

Trade Gordon.

Trade Hinrich.

Fire Paxson


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> It's not when you start looking behind the numbers.
> 
> Just look at home victories with and without Curry, since that's the one place where the numbers really diverge in the way you point out.
> 
> ...


We are really splitting hairs here, and that is why I said it was pretty much a wash. Especially since as you pointed out, the Bulls played a large fraction of those without Curry games with Deng also on the sidelines.

With this being such a close call, it suggests that Curry is very close in production to the marginal minutes of Harrington, Davis, Chandler, and Reiner. As DaBullz pointed out, that does not speak very highly about Curry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Actually, Duhon is a lot better player than you want to give him credit for. He does create his own shot, and is one of two bulls guards who consistently can go to the basket and get a layup without it being blocked.
> 
> The Bulls are a team of role players, which is exactly what Duhon is. Without a go-to star talent that you can rely on for scoring. This is the one thing that Curry does bring.
> 
> ...


That is all far more reasonable than saying "4 Duhons". I was merely trying to point out your dramatic exageration of the situation. 

As for the bolded part, thats not what I do and I agree it would be wrong to "blindly accept" that. Just like it is wrong to "blindly accept" that Paxson is going to "predictably" screw it up before anything even happens. Which is what several of you did in the early stages of this thread.

All I'm saying is that no judgment can be made until:

(1) Curry actually is traded;

(2) We see what we get in return; and (with even more patience)

(3) See how we fair with what we get in return as compared to how we faired with Curry.

*McGraw writes a vague article about how the Bulls could conceivably trade Curry if another team made the right offer and you guys are falling all over yourselves blasting Paxson for his incompetence.*

So who is the one being unreasonable here?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Yep, Paxson looks brilliant for the 47 win season. He's batting .500 as far as winning seasons go. One season does not mean we're going to win 47 again. If Paxson is truly making noises about getting rid of Curry, it's stupid to blindly accept that Paxson knows what he is doing.
> 
> But stupid is as stupid does.



DB, this post seems to make sense on their face, but really don't stand up to scrutiny. First, Pax has many more of what I would call "his guys" on team #2. There is a certain amount of time required for a GM to shape a team to his vision. Sure, he's "batting .500" so far. But do you really think it's as simple as, "He's had one good season, he's had one bad season, so there's no way to tell which way the team is headed"? No way. 

Sure, it's stupid to _blindly_ accept that Pax is doing a good job. Of course, that statement presupposes that that is actually what the Pax supporters are doing. Of course, the alternative is that some of us are supporting Paxson not blindly, but _based on his performance_ heretofore. But no, the fact that the Paxson supporters have an opinion different than yours clearly means that they are blind. Heck, they've probably never even seen a basketball game. The Pied Piper is playing his flute, leading the oblivious herd into the sea.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> DB, this post seems to make sense on their face, but really don't stand up to scrutiny. First, Pax has many more of what I would call "his guys" on team #2. There is a certain amount of time required for a GM to shape a team to his vision. Sure, he's "batting .500" so far. But do you really think it's as simple as, "He's had one good season, he's had one bad season, so there's no way to tell which way the team is headed"? No way.
> 
> Sure, it's stupid to _blindly_ accept that Pax is doing a good job. Of course, that statement presupposes that that is actually what the Pax supporters are doing. Of course, the alternative is that some of us are supporting Paxson not blindly, but _based on his performance_ heretofore. But no, the fact that the Paxson supporters have an opinion different than yours clearly means that they are blind. Heck, they've probably never even seen a basketball game. The Pied Piper is playing his flute, leading the oblivious herd into the sea.


Great post. LeBron had a good rookie season, and a great sophmore season. Let's see which one is the _real_ LeBron James. Let's see next year whether he is a top 5-10 player, or just a top 30 player that he was in his rookie season. 

That's the same logic used in the "Paxson is batting .500" argument.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> With this being such a close call, *it suggests that Curry is very close in production to the marginal minutes of Harrington, Davis, Chandler, and Reiner.* As DaBullz pointed out, that does not speak very highly about Curry.


And I think that is what is being lost in the statistical discussion (which has been very interesting by the way).

Those stats suggest that the Bulls are, more or less, just as good with aging players, journeymen, undrafted rookies, and offensively challenged 22 year olds as they are with Curry. 

Now imagine replacing Curry with a more rugged, established player like Al Harrington or SAR instead of with Davis/Othella/Funderburke/Reiner.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I re-did the same analysis, but only for the Bulls vs. Playoff teams. I'm not saying it validates everything I've said, but both the winning pct and point differentials now strongly favor Curry. I don't think the differences here are "splitting hairs" at all. *The whole point is beating good teams, and without Curry we simply weren't competitive. He was not adequately replaced by Chandler/Davis/Harrington.*

Sorry for the tables being a little off, but they should be more or less legible. 

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 343pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=457 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 53pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2560" width=70><COL style="WIDTH: 26pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280" span=3 width=35><COL style="WIDTH: 32pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1536" width=42><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=2 width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 20pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 950" width=26><COL style="WIDTH: 26pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280" width=35><COL style="WIDTH: 38pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1865" width=51><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 53pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=70 height=17>*Situation*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>*G*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>*W*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>*L*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=42>*W%*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PF*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64>*PA*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 20pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=26>*PF/G*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 26pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=35>*PA/G*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 38pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=51>*Diff*</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Curry</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>35</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>16</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>19</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.45714285714285713" x:fmla="=C2/B2">45.7%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>3298</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>3352</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="94.228571428571428" x:fmla="=F2/$B2">94</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="95.771428571428572" x:fmla="=G2/$B2">95.8</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-1.5428571428571445" x:fmla="=H2-I2">(1.54)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>No Curry</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>9</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>8</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.1111111111111111" x:fmla="=C3/B3">11.1%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>789</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>853</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="87.666666666666671" x:fmla="=F3/$B3">88</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="94.777777777777771" x:fmla="=G3/$B3">94.8</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-7.1111111111111001" x:fmla="=H3-I3">(7.11)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-ignore: colspan" colSpan=2 height=17>*Minus 0-9 strart*</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Curry</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>30</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>16</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>14</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.53333333333333333" x:fmla="=C5/B5">53.3%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>2862</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>2844</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="95.4" x:fmla="=F5/$B5">95</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=G5/$B5">94.8</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="0.60000000000000853" x:fmla="=H5-I5">0.60 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>No Curry</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>7</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>6</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.14285714285714285" x:fmla="=C6/B6">14.3%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>593</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>642</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="84.714285714285708" x:fmla="=F6/$B6">85</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="91.714285714285708" x:fmla="=G6/$B6">91.7</TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-7" x:fmla="=H6-I6">(7.00)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 456pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=609 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 78pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3803" width=104><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 32pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1572" span=2 width=43><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=4 width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 36pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1755" width=48><COL style="WIDTH: 38pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1865" width=51><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 78pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=104 height=17></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=43></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 32pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=43></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 36pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=48></TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 38pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=51></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>*Situation*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*G*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*W*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*L*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*W%*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*PF*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*PA*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*PF/G*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*PA/G*</TD><TD class=xl28 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*Diff*</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Curry, Home</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>19</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>10</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>9</TD><TD class=xl31 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.52631578947368418" x:fmla="=C3/B3">52.6%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1794</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1787</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94.421052631578945" x:fmla="=F3/$B3">94.4 </TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94.05263157894737" x:fmla="=G3/$B3">94.1 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="0.36842105263157521" x:fmla="=H3-I3">0.37 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>No Curry, Home</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>3</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>0</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>3</TD><TD class=xl31 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0" x:fmla="=C4/B4">0.0%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>270</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>283</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="90" x:fmla="=F4/$B4">90.0 </TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94.333333333333329" x:fmla="=G4/$B4">94.3 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-4.3333333333333286" x:fmla="=H4-I4">(4.33)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Curry, Away</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>16</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>6</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>10</TD><TD class=xl31 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.375" x:fmla="=C5/B5">37.5%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1504</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1565</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="94" x:fmla="=F5/$B5">94.0 </TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="97.8125" x:fmla="=G5/$B5">97.8 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-3.8125" x:fmla="=H5-I5">(3.81)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>No Curry, Away</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>6</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>5</TD><TD class=xl31 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.16666666666666666" x:fmla="=C6/B6">16.7%</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>519</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>570</TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="86.5" x:fmla="=F6/$B6">86.5 </TD><TD class=xl30 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="95" x:fmla="=G6/$B6">95.0 </TD><TD class=xl26 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-8.5" x:fmla="=H6-I6">(8.50)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>*Total*</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(B3:B6)">*44*</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(C3:C6)">*17*</TD><TD class=xl24 title="Big Grin" style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(D3







*<font face=" Arial?>27</FONT>*</TD><TD class=xl29 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="0.38636363636363635" x:fmla="=C7/B7">*<FONT face=Arial>38.6%</FONT>*</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(F3:F6)">*<FONT face=Arial>4087</FONT>*</TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num x:fmla="=SUM(G3:G6)">*<FONT face=Arial>4205</FONT>*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="92.88636363636364" x:fmla="=F7/$B7">*<FONT face=Arial>92.9 </FONT>*</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="95.568181818181813" x:fmla="=G7/$B7">*<FONT face=Arial>95.6 </FONT>*</TD><TD class=xl27 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="-2.6818181818181728" x:fmla="=H7-I7">*<FONT face=Arial>(2.68)</FONT>*</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Great post. LeBron had a good rookie season, and a great sophmore season. Let's see which one is the _real_ LeBron James. Let's see next year whether he is a top 5-10 player, or just a top 30 player that he was in his rookie season.
> 
> That's the same logic used in the "Paxson is batting .500" argument.


So Paxson's skills as a general manager stand to improve at the same rate as a 19-year-old wunderkind player's?

Sign Paxson to a 40-year deal and let the good times roll, then!


----------



## TysonForPresident (Oct 25, 2004)

Vintage said:


> Does anyone want to keep anyone on our roster?
> 
> Honestly?
> 
> ...



This is how I feel. I don't care too much about numbers, I go by what I see.

I saw a team in the playoffs that because of no inside scoring option turned into a jump shooting squad. In the first couple of games they were hitting them and the Bulls won. In the next games they were missing them more often and the team lost because they didn't have somebody to get easy inside points with their outside shots being off.

Curry has improved on defense so much that I wouldn't even refer to him as "average" anymore. I saw him as a slightly above average defender at his position for most of last year. His fundamentals of boxing out were also greatly improved. His rebounding was down but I'd also like to note that the team had better rebounders in other positions. When Chandler was gone I saw Curry making more of an effort to get the rebounds and he was doing fine in my eyes. When Chandler is in the game he seems to defer it to him to grab the boards. I think that's just mental and it can be worked on as he matures. He can get them, he just needs to realize that he should do it all the time.

Curry, to me, is the one guy on the Bulls that they can't afford to lose. He requires double teams in the paint and that makes everybodies job easier.

One problem I saw with the Bulls, despite having the third best record in the east last year was that the guards would go away from Curry as the game wore on.

People can claim he disappears but I can't count the times I've seen him get great position and the guards look away and fire up an outside shot. It could be that the guards just aren't very good at entry passes and after first half adjustments (which normally amounted to paying a lot more attention to Eddy) they didn't trust their passes to him and so went on their own.

In my opinion if Eddy was on a more mature, older team that would know how to use him throughout the game he would easily be scoring over 20 a game, at the same high rate he is known to score at. Eddy can get position easily, he just needs to not be forgotten as the game wears on. When he gets that position he normally scores, and if he doesn't it's usually because he just missed, not because of the defense.

When Eddy was just starting out he'd get out of control and lose the ball trying to do crazy moves. Now, he loses the ball because defenders collapse and are allowed to hack him. 

I agree with sloth that Shaq gets away with murder. I've seen Curry have his way scoring on Shaq, even though the refs don't allow him to be nearly as physical as they allow the big daddy to be in the matchups.

Curry is the one guy that can't be stopped by a single defender on this Bulls roster. Brad Miller always needs help guarding him..Shaq, even with all his pride, has needed help guarding him before..Magloire.. Ben Wallace (Curry has his way with the DPOY, he's too small to handle Eddy) etc have all needed help guarding him.

Curry is very big, very strong and very athletic for a man his size. He's a load for teams to handle and he is the one guy that every team looks to slow down. Without him, the Bulls are an eratic jump shooting team. The players go in hot streaks where they can hit those shots but they also go in cold streaks where they can't hit anything. With Curry they don't need to always be on and if he was used in a more balanced manner throughout the games he'd be scoring over 20 ppg right now.

Plus/minus numbers are all fine to look at but I have to think of the players that are on the floor when they are being added up. Curry is a starter and when he's off the floor, the leagues leader in bench scoring is normally playing. They play against other benches so their numbers should be understandable.

Ther is one young true center that I'd take over Curry right now, that's Yao. There is not other young center that I'd want over Eddy. 

Some of these names being thrown around are ridiculous to me. Przbilla (however his name is spelled), Swift, Harrington, whoever. They are not going to get the attention Curry gets in the paint.

If Curry is traded then the Bulls are looking to be a fast break team. Their half court offense will be horrendous with some of the names mentioned.

People want to talk about defensive numbers but they led the league in opponents fg% with Curry on the team. What more do you want to see?

The team needs scoring and they need to be able to do it in any style of game. That's where Eddy is so valuable. In a halfcourt set he is the main option and whenever he's used (and not ignored) he normally makes the other team pay.

I don't think the article is trustworthy but if it is and Eddy is traded for garbage then I'll lose some faith in Paxson. I really hope that doesn't happen. I've watched the Bulls since before they became champions, through the rings and after when they were horrible. The light is seen at the end of the tunnel and Paxson has stated numerous times that Eddy will be a Bull. I always thought that was very important and if he goes against that now, and breaks up a team as young as the Bulls are before they get a chance to improve on their already successful season then I'll have to believe his word isn't gold anymore. I have had faith in him and have found few changes that I hated. This would be the first.

Maybe Curry will go to a team that actually likes to use their bigs, unlike Skiles (who I have great respect for and was hoping that the small ball talk was something he could change when he had personnel that fit other styles) and he will be used as a scoring option throughout games. I could very easily see him being the second highest scoring center after Shaq in the nba next year.

Already he has led the league in fg% once and been in the top 5 again this year. His scoring is something that others will take advantage of and he will blossom.

I rarely post here because some seem to want to trade away all the pieces that have helped improve this team from the laughing stock of the nba. If they aren't allowed to grow and given a chance to show what they can do for at least a couple more years then it seems a waste of time to me. What good is winning 47 games, with such a young core, when you break up the core the following year?

Another reason why I rarely post here is because some of the members seem to be more into their messageboard "image" than into discussing the Bulls with an open mind. There are clubs that people make and it seems to me that when some posters join those clubs they feel they have to follow the expectations that go along with being in it. Many of these posters rarely change stances and will beat a horse until there's nothing left of it, no matter how much has changed in the organization and the product we all see.

I'm not judging anybody and I hope it doesn't look that way. I'm just making observations and discussing my preferences. I'm a Bulls fan first and foremost over any player and definitely a Bulls fan over any perceived messageboard "credibility." I want to see the Bulls win and I believe they have the pieces to do that in a few years if they keep the core they have now and make minor adjustments in the future. If trading Curry is a good idea in 3 years then I'd be all for it. I'd just love for this team to be allowed to grow before making that kind of drastic decision, losing a 22 year old Eddy is moving backwards at this point. There are countless reasons why I feel this way and since my post is already long enough I won't get into any more. The bottomline is that I've seen improvement in his game over the years and expect to see more in the coming years. Even if he stayed at the level he is now, he is invaluable to this team unless you can get a Yao to replace him. 

I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes my post and breaks it down piece by piece. Have at it, I won't respond. I have never had any desire to go back and forth arguing over a messageboard. We all have our views and they don't necessarily have to be "wrong" or "right", they just have to be our own.

That's my opinion. 

I hope Eddy's here to stay for a long time.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> I re-did the same analysis, but only for the Bulls vs. Playoff teams. I'm not saying it validates everything I've said, but both the winning pct and point differentials now strongly favor Curry. I don't think the differences here are "splitting hairs" at all. *The whole point is beating good teams, and without Curry we simply weren't competitive. He was not adequately replaced by Chandler/Davis/Harrington.*
> 
> Sorry for the tables being a little off, but they should be more or less legible.
> 
> ...


 :clap: :clap:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

A GM comes in and takes over a certain set of circumstances. Expecting them to correct it in the 1st season is one thing, but then holding that 1st season against them after they do correct it in the 2nd season by doubling your win total, it's just silly. The 1st season wasn't their fault because of their situation, and the drastic improvement in the 2nd season is almost completely because of the changes Paxson made. Batting .500 my butt.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I re-did the same analysis, but only for the Bulls vs. Playoff teams. I'm not saying it validates everything I've said, but both the winning pct and point differentials now strongly favor Curry. I don't think the differences here are "splitting hairs" at all. *The whole point is beating good teams, and without Curry we simply weren't competitive. He was not adequately replaced by Chandler/Davis/Harrington.*
> 
> Sorry for the tables being a little off, but they should be more or less legible.
> 
> ...


Very nice work and pretty convincing. But now we are relying on just seven games to say anything about how the teams plays without Curry. And in five of those games, the Bulls were missing Deng as well. The Bulls were 1-1 in games after the 0-9 start where Curry was out but Deng was in. 

What we may have learned here is that the Bulls are not going to beat playoff teams very often when they are missing both Curry and Deng.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Welcome back, Tyson for President... you sure do seem to love you some Eddy Curry, LB.

Hahahaha...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Very nice work and pretty convincing. But now we are relying on just seven games to say anything about how the teams plays without Curry. And in five of those games, the Bulls were missing Deng as well. The Bulls were 1-1 in games after the 0-9 start where Curry was out but Deng was in.
> 
> What we may have learned here is that the Bulls are not going to beat playoff teams very often when they are missing both Curry and Deng.


Thanks, and agreed all around... we're running out of data to work with :|

Even if we conclude that Curry offers something AD/Harrington/Chandler can't, that's still a different question from what Ron Cey points out. Could a guy like SAR or Harrington, who have more or less proven themselves capable of scoring 20 points a game come in and fill Curry's role?

That's certainly a possibility, because I think part of the story my data is telling is that short of Curry the Bulls don't have anyone who's at all a threat inside. Othella is, I guess, but he's certainly not a threat in the way SAR or All Harrington is. 

I tend to think here though that Curry is a different type of player than a guy like SAR or Al. They get their points in different ways, and I think in more controllable ways by a defense. Curry can draw doubles, and even though he sucks at passing out of them, it's still something that he can draw them. A guy like SAR, on the other hand, teams seem to let him get his 20 points and not really worry about him. 

In any case, I think to really be contenders, the Bulls need to get one of those guys (a SAR/Harrington type) and keep Curry as well. As you point out, the data shows without Deng and Curry get clobbered and with them we only hold our own.

We can hope for some internal improvement, but the possibility of title contention, I think, rests with keeping the guys we have and adding a potent offensive player like Harrington next summer who can take us from being a marginal offensive team to a strong one (and in Harrington's case helping us defensively too).


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Welcome back, Tyson for President... you sure do seem to love you some Eddy Curry, LB.
> 
> Hahahaha...




that's not him. relax.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TysonForPresident said:


> This is how I feel. I don't care too much about numbers, I go by what I see.
> 
> I saw a team in the playoffs that because of no inside scoring option turned into a jump shooting squad. In the first couple of games they were hitting them and the Bulls won. In the next games they were missing them more often and the team lost because they didn't have somebody to get easy inside points with their outside shots being off.
> 
> ...



Looks like this guy is going to join the minority of himself and Gipper that watch the same games that I do.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> My general thoughts here:
> 
> 1. This board often lacks, to an astonishing degree, an ability to look at the big picture. Here's the big picture, as I see it.
> 
> ...




_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jnrjr79 again._


right back at ya!

:biggrin:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jnrjr79 again._
> 
> 
> right back at ya!
> ...



Jeepers. Thanks!

And congrats on your 3000th post, if you noticed.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

This much uproar over a speculative McGraw article? Holy macaroni.

Brings back memories of the threads where people were criticizing Paxson for reportedly considering trades he DIDN'T make. Now he's being criticized for a trade he not only hasn't made yet, but has been on record for months now as saying he's ostensibly not interested in making (as he's said repeatedly that Curry is staying here, and at least once even after the heart condition became known). 

Maybe I need reading glasses, but didn't the article say the Bulls are "open to" a sign and trade? What the hell kind of smoking gun is that? It's a general manager's JOB to be open to anything that stands a chance of making the team better. I don't imagine there are many Sign and Trade deals out there that will make good sense for the Bulls in Curry's case - but I'm also willing to give Paxson the benefit of the doubt that he won't pull the trigger on something that doesn't make sense. And I'll gladly join the cacophony of protests and criticisms if he DOES make a deal that doesn't make sense. But I'm not going to judge him guilty of that until it actually happens. How is that being blind or unreasonable? I just don't get it. I feel like at least a few people here would be tearing Pax a new one if McGraw said he was "not open to" moving Curry. Maybe not the same people as the ones in this thread. Then again... In any event, it's almost beyond arguing that Curry hasn't EARNED the amount of money he's likely to get (only sloth would disagree with that sentiment I think), either from us or someone else. Doing a sign-and-trade for something approaching equal value in terms of basketball ability CAN make sense if the right deal is struck, both on the court and on the balance sheet. I'm as leery as anyone of trading Curry away without bringing in a relatively comparable inside scorer, but I won't assail our GM for making that mistake until...gasp...he ACTUALLY MAKES THAT MISTAKE. And even then, disappointed as I would be, I'd have hope that the team would continue to progress without Curry.

Old habits die hard, eh? A 24-win improvement and our first playoff berth since 1998 isn't enough evidence that our GM deserves at least _some _benefit of the doubt? ONE article saying he's "open to" making a trade is enough to brand him incompetent yet again? It's a smoking gun that a deal for Olowokandi is imminent? I'm with Ron Cey on this count - who's being unreasonable here?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Eddy had 37 assists ALL SEASON, compared to 163 turnovers. That 0.227/1 assist/TO ration is downright Dare-ian, it's so bad.


thank you. sloth, it is not idiotic. He can pass, but rarely does so.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

We should trade him for Zydrunas. Eddy is a better fit in Cleveland with what they want to do. And Z is a better fit here. Z is a better passer and as good a post scorer. He also has at least heard of the word defense. And he can rebound his side of the backboard, provided he doesn't have to chase it down.

If we get Z I think we have a 3 year window to try and win a championship.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

TysonForPresident said:


> This is how I feel. I don't care too much about numbers, I go by what I see.
> 
> I saw a team in the playoffs that because of no inside scoring option turned into a jump shooting squad. In the first couple of games they were hitting them and the Bulls won. In the next games they were missing them more often and the team lost because they didn't have somebody to get easy inside points with their outside shots being off.
> 
> ...


Ty for your thoughts. And so far nobody has done what you accused they would do. The posters you speak about are knowledgeable and know they can speak their mind. The brunt of this bulls community has been together for over 5 years. We are a real community. Yes other posters do want to trade away the whole team all of the time and yes it is the same posters. But what real harm do they do. Makes for discussion.

We encourage opinion. Many don't change. Some do. Anyway you look at it it makes for good discussion but all opinions about the Bulls are encouraged to be heard. In the end we are all Bulls fans. It is all good. Or should be.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> ONE article saying he's "open to" making a trade is enough to brand him incompetent yet again?


The key portion says, _"If other NBA teams demonstrate a strong interest in Curry this weekend, the Bulls will take the opportunity to try to trade the 22-year-old center. A team insider confirmed this strategy"_

That's a lot more strongly worded than just being open to a trade.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Here is my take....

Curry is 22. He has been an effective role player from the time he was 20. He made big strides on the defensive side last year. 

Statistically, he and TC are our most effective player per minute.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/jh_Bulls.htm

From a Tendrix standpoint, he is a good defender.

http://www.dougstats.com/04-05DefensiveTendex.html

He is effective at the hardest position to fill in the NBA. Look at what NYK and the Lakers got at their draft positions trying to fill this spot.

He is young and should naturally get quite a bit better these next few years. He and Chandler are Ying and Yang.

Sorry, but why take back someone's 4th best post player from a winner (Nestrovic) or 2nd best PF from a loser (Harrington) or a guy that is completely redundant (at best) from a skill set perspective as Chandler (Foster).

p.s. Pax, just belly up and make a more than fair offer. We will still have max cap space next year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> Ty for your thoughts. And so far nobody has done what you accused they would do. The posters you speak about are knowledgeable and know they can speak their mind. The brunt of this bulls community has been together for over 5 years. We are a real community. Yes other posters do want to trade away the whole team all of the time and yes it is the same posters. But what real harm do they do. Makes for discussion.
> 
> We encourage opinion. Many don't change. Some do. Anyway you look at it it makes for good discussion but all opinions about the Bulls are encouraged to be heard. In the end we are all Bulls fans. It is all good. Or should be.


5 years? was the community over on a different board before this?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> No, we start Duhon (35%), Hinrich (40%), AD (46%), and Nocioni (40%) which is close enough to 4 Duhons. That is, not a single truly effective scorer, and not one of those guys would I worry about giving them the open shot.
> 
> I don't know what's more exciting: watching AD take that 18 foot jumper, or Nocioni (.258) shooting the three.


:laugh: first amusing post in the entire thread. :clap:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> The key portion says, _"If other NBA teams demonstrate a strong interest in Curry this weekend, the Bulls will take the opportunity to try to trade the 22-year-old center. A team insider confirmed this strategy"_
> 
> That's a lot more strongly worded than just being open to a trade.


Not really. "Strong" interest is obviously subject to interpretation, but I take that to mean the Bulls would deal Curry if it was a very good deal for them. Given the restrictions that BYC creates, I don't see that happening easily. And I don't think Pax is going to give him up for spare parts or do something that doesn't have some benefit to the team. He's earned that much leeway from me after turning this team around. I think he understands the value that an offseason of continuity has for a close-knit team like this, so I don't think he'd do something to upset that unless it was a very good deal.

Let me be clear. I don't want the Bulls to deal Curry. This article doesn't make me happy, and I AM leery of any trade that deals Curry out of town. But I'm not going to castigate Paxson for something he hasn't done yet, and as of now is only a vague rumor in one newspaper. And, even if a Curry trade does happen, I WILL have my own opinion about whether it was a good deal for the Bulls. And after that, I'll see how it plays out on the court. But not until that final step will I absolutely judge the trade, and Paxson, a total success or failure. 

I just think it's ridiculous that Paxson has already been deemed guilty by some for exploring different avenues and contingency plans, or having an open mind about doing something that, on a superficial level, may be unpopular. Pax has said for months now that he wants Eddy to be here, and one article citing an anonymous source does not quite convince me that he's deadset on moving him.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

I wanted to make an epic pro-eddy defense essay, but Tyson-for=Prez hacked into my computer and stole it.......so

We can (and are) discuss the merits of a Curry trade without offending or attacking John Paxson. We do not need a "lets not attack Paxson before he does it" post every 12 seconds. It's a message board. No one is atacking him, we're discussing a possible trade he could make. If someone says, that trade is stupid...no one is saying he's a bad GM.....only if he makes it then...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Not really. "Strong" interest is obviously subject to interpretation, but I take that to mean the Bulls would deal Curry if it was a very good deal for them.


You would make a good case if McGraw hadn't mentioned a bunch of scrubs and leftovers in defining what might be a "good deal".


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

FWIW--I think its ridiculous to even consider trading Eddy for anything less than a star big that can score. Everyone seems to be on board to bring in a 4 that can shoot, but he wont be any more effective than AD was offensively if we don't have someone that makes the Defense collapse.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

theyoungsrm said:


> I wanted to make an epic pro-eddy defense essay, but Tyson-for=Prez hacked into my computer and stole it.......so
> 
> We can (and are) discuss the merits of a Curry trade without offending or attacking John Paxson. We do not need a "lets not attack Paxson before he does it" post every 12 seconds. It's a message board. No one is atacking him, we're discussing a possible trade he could make. If someone says, that trade is stupid...no one is saying he's a bad GM.....only if he makes it then...


I was certainly overzealous in my posts. It's been a long week and I'm a little tightly wound. Most of the thread is a detailed analysis of what Eddy does or doesn't bring to the team, which was pretty fascinating. I tend to fall on the side that says sabermetrics don't fully take into account the impact of having a true post threat, even if that player has his flaws. I don't want to get rid of Eddy unless it's quite a deal.

But if you look at the very first page of this thread, there certainly are, if not explicit, then strongly implied attacks at Paxson going on, for a move he hasn't made. And even some contempt-in-advance for people who think Pax should get the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think this can be called a discussion about a trade that could happen, when all we have is a vague remark and a few names thrown out. None of which Pax would even think of trading for, in my opinion, outside of maybe Harrington, which I doubt unless we get a decent big SG in the deal somehow.

Anyway. I'll smoke the peace pipe now. I already regret rehashing these things when there's no real constructive point to it. Cheers.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> You would make a good case if McGraw hadn't mentioned a bunch of scrubs and leftovers in defining what might be a "good deal".


McGraw isn't Paxson. I'm not too concerned about what he thinks a good deal is.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

If the trade was with Atlanta, they would be quite happy trade there least prefered player out of Childress and Smith considering they drafted WIllimas and already have Harrington as well. If they add to that a future draft pick I wouldn't feel too bad about that trade especially considering how much more cap space it will give us going into next offseason. Im not saying I want this to happen, but Eddy does not deserve the maximum. No player with more weaknesses than strengths deserves the maximum. That doesn't even take into consideration his heart problem. I like Eddy, but Im realistic about how good he is.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> McGraw isn't Paxson.


You just found 3 words that pretty much put this entire thread to rest. 

And I want to point out my agreement with you on one thing: Though this thread does contain a lot of really interesting and well thought out discussion about Eddy Curry's level of value to the Bulls, it also (mostly early on) contained quite a few posts downgrading Paxson based on nothing more than this one article and the speculation stated therein. 

You were right to speak out against that kind of nonsensical practice that, personally, I've seen too much of in the 8 months I've been posting here. Luckily for all of us, the thread moved past that for the most part into, in my opinion, one of the more constructive and interesting debates we've had in a thread in a long time. 

Good stuff from pretty much everybody. I enjoyed it. I didn't get a damn thing done at work today, but I enjoyed it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Here is the article from the writer who has time and time again been the most consistent, and right.



> Curry excited by Bulls' message
> Vows to be in better shape than last year
> 
> By K.C. Johnson
> ...



http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...eturn,1,2651807.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


[edited by miz to add link and shorten article - can't post entire articles sloth! thanks]


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*defensive-minded guard Eddie Basden from Charlotte committed to playing on their summer-league roster. Basden, who went undrafted, is one of the players in whom the Bulls were interested if they had acquired a second-round pick in Tuesday's draft.

At 6 feet 5 inches, and with four years of college experience, Basden is considered tough and was the most valuable player in Conference USA.

"He'll have a real chance of making our regular-season roster," Paxson said.*

:clap:


----------



## lb28matrixsc (Apr 4, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> Wow. I have to actually take care of work out of the office and look what happens! It's encouraging to know that the entire Eddy Curry free agent situation has been already resolved by a reporter (who apparently isn't shoddy) and a few clairvoyant posters who have all the answers. I'm just glad I don't have to check into this situation any longer. We've gotten junk or nothing for Eddy and the Bulls are back in the lottery. There are somewhere around 14 Chris Duhons running amok - I'm thinking the Bush administration is going to be wanting some congressional inquiries on illegal cloning practices.
> 
> Maybe this thread can have a life of it's own much like a certain 3,000 page thread that was put to a merciful death.


Ok I know I'm in BBB.net/realgm.com's equivalent of HELL, but this was too funny. ROFLMFAO @ 14 Chris Duhons. The idea of 14 Chris Duhons doing ANYTHING is very Carni-ish.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> McGraw isn't Paxson. I'm not too concerned about what he thinks a good deal is.


Well, that's a different argument, isn't it? Why parse his sentences if McGraw can't understand a simple thing like what a good deal would be like?


----------



## TysonForPresident (Oct 25, 2004)

bullsville said:


> Welcome back, Tyson for President... you sure do seem to love you some Eddy Curry, LB.
> 
> Hahahaha...


That would be a little funny if it was true.

Give me a break man. There are many Bulls fans who think this team is heading in the right direction with the makeup we have now. Many who never even read messageboards.

I'm not a writer and never claimed to be. I can't stand trying to type an argument, I'm no good at it because I don't like to have to come back and look for a response and I never say exactly what I want to in posts.

I just think that if the Bulls got rid of Curry they'd be like every other team out there. Looking for a big center that can score. Centers that can rebound and play defense are much easier to find, you never have to force your defense to play him. Centers that can score open up the team and allow them to do a lot more than they could without their presence.

I don't want the Bulls to be like every other team. Why get rid of one the the few scoring centers in the nba, that's only 22 years old and with his first real coach, and then have to start looking for another one?

Tyson isn't a scorer..AD and Othella are getting up in age..Reiner has little upside..who is going to get the easy points in the paint? Tyson would have a hard time defending centers nightly and even if we got a decent scoring pf, there are many more pf's in the nba that are very good. There would be no advantage there unless we could get a top 5 pf, that's not going to happen.

A scoring center is hard to find. Why get rid of one, especially since he has a lot of years to get better?

I said I wasn't going to respond but since you called me a name of another poster I had to. Curry is the one guy that makes this team different than most other teams. Even the blind should be able to see it. He's our one advantage that other teams have a hard time matching up with. We have a smallish backcourt and the post up options are limited. I don't see the point in getting rid of him.

Again, I'm a Bulls fan first and to me, Curry is the one guy on the Bulls that they need to retain to keep moving forward. If that makes me LB then there are many LB clones in the real world. Disagree with me all you want but don't type crap about me that isn't true. 

I'm not about certain players other than what they mean to the team. Curry is an important part of the team in my mind. If they got rid of him and they did better then I'd be as happy as anyone. I just don't think that's realistic.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Don't sweat it, apparently LB is allowed on this board once again, which means I have absolutely no interest in posting or reading here, so what I think doesn't mean bubkus.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Don't sweat it, apparently LB is allowed on this board once again, which means I have absolutely no interest in posting or reading here, so what I think doesn't mean bubkus.



childish, its a message board, your better than this...


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

HAWK23 said:


> childish, its a message board, your better than this...


Childish? Well, that's up for debate.

Polish? Yes, and I have no interest in reading how "Cleveland is a dirty city full of Polish people" ever again.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

bullsville said:


> Childish? Well, that's up for debate.
> 
> Polish? Yes, and I have no interest in reading how "Cleveland is a dirty city full of Polish people" ever again.


And, thankfully, neither do the admins of the site. Kudos to them.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

How come TysonforPresident got banned? That cat knows what he's talking about.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Well, that's a different argument, isn't it? Why parse his sentences if McGraw can't understand a simple thing like what a good deal would be like?


I wasn't going to bump the thread back up, but someone else did.

And I still don't know what you're getting at here. He was _reporting_ on the Bulls being open to exploring sign and trades if there's strong interest in Curry. As far as I can tell, though, the names he threw out were him _speculating_. And since he's not Paxson, his speculation doesn't much concern me. And, if you didn't notice from my posts above, neither does what he reported, at this point. I was expressing surprise at how much distress the article caused, because I don't think it means much, if anything. So I'm not sure what you're attempting to call me out on here.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

My goodness aren't we quick with the ban-stick? :sfight:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> How come TysonforPresident got banned? That cat knows what he's talking about.


I'm assuming he was really Matrix, like I thought all along. Maybe not, but why else would he get banned?


----------

