# 15 points, 20 rebounds, 5 blocks



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Now THAT is the Ben Wallace we paid for. He has got to keep it up.

By comparison, for the season, Tyson scored 10 points twice, grabbed 18 boards once (11/21) and just recorded a season high 4 blocks (12/11). In one game, Ben eclipsed Chandler's season high in each stat. 15/20/5.

Yeah, I know, some think we should have kept both, but I don't think they complimented each other, and financially, well, we know how that goes. The Bulls are staked by enough trust funds that fiscal irresponsibility is simply not an option.

Anyway, despite people getting down on Ben and weeing on themselves over the season Tyson is having, the numbers actually compare pretty positively, with, IMO, a slight edge in the Bulls' favor. 

Tyson 5.6 ppg 11.9 rebounds .9 assists .58 steals 1.26 blocks 3.4 fouls and 1.05 turnovers

Ben 6.7 ppg 9.6 rebounds 1.6 assists, 1.45 steals 1.86 blocks 2.3 fouls and 1.41 turnovers

I believe as the season progresses, Ben will continue to progress towards his dominating self and Tyson will cool somewhat after the initial burst of adrenalin has worn off.

I'm pretty happy after last night, am even less worried about the Bulls for the season and even more glad that we pulled the trigger on the Wallace deal.

And I think headbandgate is safely behind us. Someday we'll all look back and have a good laugh.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ranks #13 in the NBA in Rebounds Per Game (9.6) 
Ranks #18 in the NBA in Steals Per Game (1.45) 
Ranks #13 in the NBA in Blocks Per Game (1.86)


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

I can't believe I missed that game, but que sera, sera. I think Ben has always been a better player than Tyson: on the defensive end, depsite his comparative lack of size, he's always gotten more blocks.

Offensively, he's got much better hands, can pass and circulate the ball better, he just has terrible finishing "skills", so to speak.

He has a 4 year window of opporunity to succeed, whereas Tyson has 12. That's also the other fact to note.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

He was fun to watch last night, and you're right, that's the Big Ben the Bulls paid for. I hope he can keep it up.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Great game.

Let's hope the inconsistently great play does not plague him all season.

This isn't some 20 year old on a rookie contract after all. You expect such inconsistency with those guys.

He's a 30+ year old, 60 million dollar man, multi-time all-star, DPOY.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Great game.
> 
> Let's hope the inconsistently great play does not plague him all season.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the information. Until reading your post, I did not realize that he is 30+ years old and under a $60 million contract.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Thanks for the information. Until reading your post, I did not realize that he is 30+ years old and under a $60 million contract.


He is also a multi-time all-star and DPOY.

He did not, however, play on our 47 win team, which posted the 3rd best record in the East.

Just so you know.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> He is also a multi-time all-star and DPOY.
> 
> He did not, however, play on our 47 win team, which posted the 3rd best record in the East.
> 
> Just so you know.


But is he "found money"?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

You guys are killing me. :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Maybe K4E will be forced to say something new?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> You guys are killing me. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Maybe K4E will be forced to say something new?


p...p...p...probably not.

But that's ok. 

We love him anyhow.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Funny, that description of Ben Wallace was thrown about on a daily basis when we were talking about what a great FA acquisition he would be.

Comical that a Wallace vs Chandler comparison is even being made since both could easily be on this team. 

And that Wallace *should* be better than Chandler. Much better. He's being paid double what Chandler makes.


----------



## nitric (Dec 14, 2006)

He is a really strong rebounder. The way he rebounds seems so powerful like he wants the ball more than anyone


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> In one game, Ben eclipsed Chandler's season high in each stat. 15/20/5.
> 
> Yeah, I know, some think we should have kept both, but I don't think they complimented each other, and financially, well, we know how that goes. The Bulls are staked by enough trust funds that fiscal irresponsibility is simply not an option.
> 
> Anyway, despite people getting down on Ben and weeing on themselves over the season Tyson is having, the numbers actually compare pretty positively, with, IMO, a slight edge in the Bulls' favor.





> believe as the season progresses, Ben will continue to progress towards his dominating self and Tyson will cool somewhat after the initial burst of adrenalin has worn off.
> 
> I'm pretty happy after last night, am even less worried about the Bulls for the season and even more glad that we pulled the trigger on the Wallace deal.



..


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> He has a 4 year window of opporunity to succeed, whereas Tyson has 12. That's also the other fact to note.


It would be funny if down-the-road we re-acquired Tyson to play the AD/PJ role to some other young, dumb tall guy. By then, he'd probably be known as TC.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> It would be funny if down-the-road we re-acquired Tyson to play the AD/PJ role to some other young, dumb tall guy. By then, he'd probably be known as TC.


Tyson with AD/PJ hops. I shudder at the sight.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> And that Wallace *should* be better than Chandler. Much better. *He's being paid double what Chandler makes*.


THAT is what really should be taken into consideration. Wallace's #s aren't TWICE as good as Chandler's. Simple as that. If he's getting paid twice as much, supposed to be twice as good, then his #s should ALWAYS be like this last game. It shouldn't be an issue where he has ONE game where his #s are better than #s Tyson has put up several times. As of right now, I'd say their numbers overall are equal. That just isn't right, when you pay a guy with no upside double the money, and he's producing very comparable #s. As the stats TB1 posted show:

Tyson 5.6 ppg 11.9 rebounds .9 assists .58 steals 1.26 blocks 3.4 fouls and 1.05 turnovers

Ben 6.7 ppg 9.6 rebounds 1.6 assists, 1.45 steals 1.86 blocks 2.3 fouls and 1.41 turnovers

Tyson is average 2.3 more rebounds per game, and only .6 less blocks...that's a wash IMO, or the edge goes to Tyson. Then the turnvoers and assists offset eachother. That leaves Ben with an edge of 1.1 points, and .87 steals. Is that worth an extra $7 million or w/e a year? Sure as hell isn't to me. Hopefully Big Ben will go on a tear now and actually be a dominant player, like he's paid to be. THEN, and ONLY then will he be worth the money he's being paid.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> THAT is what really should be taken into consideration. Wallace's #s aren't TWICE as good as Chandler's. Simple as that. If he's getting paid twice as much, supposed to be twice as good, then his #s should ALWAYS be like this last game.


This is flawed logic. I'm not going to look up salaries, but think about Shaq's numbers vs. Wade's. Really, think about any super highly paid player vs. a skilled mid-level exception guy vs. a guy on the veteran's exception. There will always be diminishing returns towards the top.

If a guy who makes 3 million on team X averages 10 points, then the guy who makes 15 million on team X must make average 50? Nope.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

badfish said:


> Tyson with AD/PJ hops. I shudder at the sight.


Dang, I didn't think about it that way. That would definitely be on my "sights to shudder at" list as well.


----------



## nitric (Dec 14, 2006)

I wouldn't want TC back to the bulls. He was the most frustrating player to watch last season!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> He is also a multi-time all-star and DPOY.
> 
> He did not, however, play on our 47 win team, which posted the 3rd best record in the East.


That was the Bulls' only winning season since Jordan.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Now THAT is the Ben Wallace we paid for. He has got to keep it up.
> 
> By comparison, for the season, Tyson...


Fantastic game for Ben. It was the first time anyone has gone for 15, 20, and 5 in over a year.

As far as a comparison with Tyson, I more or less agree with you that Ben probably has a slight edge right now and there's a chance it'll widen as the season progresses. The big problem though is not the difference in the two players' salaries as some have mentioned, it's the difference in their ages. If the gap between them is moderate then what's it going to look like next year when Ty is a year older and wiser and Ben's body has another year's worth of miles on it? Even worse how are the two going to stack up in three years?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Really his stats aren't important. It's defense that wins championships and there's no stats that can measure just how badly Ben managed to shut down all-star center Johan Petro and hold him well below his season averages.

The fact Wallace was responsible for getting Ray Allen hurt a few games ago so he couldn't play last night was certainly a factor too. Again, some of these things just don't show up in the statlines...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> ''I thought we were very aggressive on the defensive end, forcing guys to take shots, running guys off their shots,'' said center Ben Wallace, who had his best all-around effort since joining the Bulls, including season highs in points (15), rebounds (20) and blocks (five). ''That's what it's all about. *It's time for us to stop getting caught up in the X's and O's, wins and losses, and go out there and have a little fun.* Try not to go out there and think too much, just go out and play the game.''


I think the substance of this statement from Wallace is of critical importance to the team.

He needs to have fun. I've noticed that in the last couple of weeks he appears to be lightening up and having more fun out there. This is immensely important to his success, and the team's success, in my opinion. 

Its starting to come together, in my opinion. I didn't think it would really happen until mid-January, but last night encouraged me to think that perhaps it will happen sooner than that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> The fact Wallace was responsible for getting Ray Allen hurt a few games ago so he couldn't play last night was certainly a factor too. Again, some of these things just don't show up in the statlines...


Before the game they showed statistics illustrating that the Sonics are winning at a much higher percentage, scoring more points, allowing far less points, and shooting at a higher percentage without Allen. 

I'm just saying. 

I think your post makes a somewhat valid point, but the reality is he completely dominated the game from beginning to end and played with an incredible amount of energy. I don't care if it came against the Bobcats or the Spurs. I'm just glad it happened. 

And that includes making Chris Wilcox, who many in here pined for instead of Wallace earlier in the season, look like a little girl.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is flawed logic. I'm not going to look up salaries, but think about Shaq's numbers vs. Wade's. Really, think about any super highly paid player vs. a skilled mid-level exception guy vs. a guy on the veteran's exception. There will always be diminishing returns towards the top.
> 
> If a guy who makes 3 million on team X averages 10 points, then the guy who makes 15 million on team X must make average 50? Nope.


No it's not flawed logic. I didn't mean it specifically the way you took it with your analogies. You can't expect the same contribution from a guy who is evaluated, AND paid as a role-player, vs an all star. The fact that there IS a valid comparison between the 2 shows you that something is DEFINITELY wrong with Ben's production this year....or with trading Chandler....or both. I personally say both.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

In 22 games, this is his third with 15+ rebounds.
Chandler's done it 6 times, just to put the Chandler vs. Wallace thing in perspective.

He was phenominal last night, everything we expected from him when we signed him. Let's hope he does bring it every night from now on. He seriously hasn't done it all season long, to date.

Here's hoping Boerwinkle gets to gloat about Wallace's performance more than 3 times in the next 22 games!
:cheers:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Really his stats aren't important. It's defense that wins championships and there's no stats that can measure just how badly Ben managed to shut down all-star center Johan Petro and hold him well below his season averages.
> 
> The fact Wallace was responsible for getting Ray Allen hurt a few games ago so he couldn't play last night was certainly a factor too. Again, some of these things just don't show up in the statlines...


nfire:S C O R C H

Bring out the:

:wahmbulance:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Before the game they showed statistics illustrating that the Sonics are winning at a much higher percentage, scoring more points, allowing far less points, and shooting at a higher percentage without Allen.
> 
> I'm just saying.


Yeah, but what is the truth when compared with some witty sarcasm? 



> I think your post makes a somewhat valid point, but the reality is he completely dominated the game from beginning to end and played with an incredible amount of energy. I don't care if it came against the Bobcats or the Spurs. I'm just glad it happened.
> 
> And that includes making Chris Wilcox, who many in here pined for instead of Wallace earlier in the season, look like a little girl.


Funny, no mention of Wilcox's 16 min, 4 pt on 2-7 shooting, 3 reb, 2 TO night? Huh, imagine that...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Before the game they showed statistics illustrating that the Sonics are winning at a much higher percentage, scoring more points, allowing far less points, and shooting at a higher percentage without Allen.
> 
> I'm just saying.


You've been jonesing for a trade lately... what do you think about trying to acquire Allen?

Edit: Not just throwing that back at you, I'm serious... he looks like he'd be a better fit than Iverson, and potentially ready for a move.



> I think your post makes a somewhat valid point, but the reality is he completely dominated the game from beginning to end and played with an incredible amount of energy. I don't care if it came against the Bobcats or the Spurs. I'm just glad it happened.
> 
> And that includes making Chris Wilcox, who many in here pined for instead of Wallace earlier in the season, look like a little girl.


I think most of the pining for Wilcox was to another guy_ in addition to_ Wallace, _not in stead of_, to really try and put us over the top. Not that Wilcox would really put us over the top by himself, but the idea was to strike while the iron was hot, and get another guy without giving too much up.

Same idea with Iverson really. If you can get him - a guy that would seem to mesh quite well in terms of age and abilities and push our "win now" quotient firmly into the "now" category, then we've got a good push on to win a championship for the next couple of years.

That all comes back to this thread in its myopic focus on time horizons. JeremyB is right on the money here in my book. Our investment in Wallace at Chandler's expense (in practical terms) was, arguably, a nice short-run boost. 

So far though, that boost has probably been less than expected and I don't think we're boosting anywhere special unless we make another (good) move or two.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Yeah, but what is the truth when compared with some witty sarcasm?


I'm not sure, but its 3.7 times better than witless sarcasm.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> You've been jonesing for a trade lately... what do you think about trying to acquire Allen?
> 
> Edit: Not just throwing that back at you, I'm serious... he looks like he'd be a better fit than Iverson, and potentially ready for a move.


I'd be interested. I'm not jonesing for a trade, though. In fact, I've blasted several of the rumors. But there were two of them, Richardson/Murphy and Camby, depending significantly on what the asking price is, that I think have the potential to improve the team. 

I also think, as I'v made annoyingly clear :biggrin: , that a trade is inevitable. So I don't have that initial shock of "give up a member of the core?!?!?!?!" reaction that some fans have when I see a proposal. 

Back to Ray Allen. I'd be interested. But unlike Camby or Richarson/Murphy, I suspect the asking price would be beyond what I'm willing to support. 



> I think most of the pining for Wilcox was to another guy_ in addition to_ Wallace, _not in stead of_, to really try and put us over the top. Not that Wilcox would really put us over the top by himself, but the idea was to strike while the iron was hot, and get another guy without giving too much up.


I don't agree. Much of the pining was for Wilcox instead of Wallace early in the season. Same with Gooden, Harrington, Nene, you name it. 

Wilcox "in addition to" Wallace isn't an option, unless you are one of the delusional who simply assume the Sonics couldn't wait to trade their young and improving power forward for the right to pay a then-severely-regressing Tyson Chandler $50 million. 



> Same idea with Iverson really. If you can get him - a guy that would seem to mesh quite well in terms of age and abilities and push our "win now" quotient firmly into the "now" category, then we've got a good push on to win a championship for the next couple of years.


I agree. I love AI. He's one of my absolute favorites. But I don't think he and Skiles can co-exist. That can certainly fairly be viewed as a flaw in the organization. 



> That all comes back to this thread in its myopic focus on time horizons. JeremyB is right on the money here in my book. Our investment in Wallace at Chandler's expense (in practical terms) was, arguably, a nice short-run boost.
> 
> So far though, that boost has probably been less than expected and I don't think we're boosting anywhere special unless we make another (good) move or two.


I actually agree with most of that. I've developed serious doubts about the wisdom of trading Chandler - a trade I once strongly supported. But I'm not totally convinced yet. 

But I do think, trade or no trade, this team is a contender. A real, valid contender. I've felt that all season long. 

That said, there is absolutely room for improvement via trade. Hence my (qualified) support of the Richardson and Camby rumors.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Does anyone really like to see rock-hands Chandler, who can't seem to catch a pass unless the passer tells him first? It also looks like Wallace as a 12+% advantage in free throw percentage (mathematically-speaking a 38% advantage, but you know what I mean) over Chandler. 

It's a long season, and the Bulls do have the better record, but we'll see, won't we?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'd be interested. I'm not jonesing for a trade, though. In fact, I've blasted several of the rumors. But there were two of them, Richardson/Murphy and Camby, depending significantly on what the asking price is, that I think have the potential to improve the team.
> 
> I also think, as I'v made annoyingly clear :biggrin: , that a trade is inevitable. So I don't have that initial shock of "give up a member of the core?!?!?!?!" reaction that some fans have when I see a proposal.
> 
> ...


As one of the original Wilcox piners ---

I can say unequivocally that it was post Ben W signing, with the hope that something better than PJ was on the horizon, paired up with Ben.

Admittedly, Chris W probably wasn't the way to go, in retrospect.

That's why I'm nobody's GM.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Now THAT is the Ben Wallace we paid for. He has got to keep it up.
> 
> By comparison, for the season, Tyson scored 10 points twice, grabbed 18 boards once (11/21) and just recorded a season high 4 blocks (12/11). In one game, Ben eclipsed Chandler's season high in each stat. 15/20/5.
> 
> ...


Where do you discuss invidual defense in here? Or how about ball movement. Those are the two greatest advantages that Wallace provides over Chandler for us that do not show up on paper.

So if the numbers are close, then the defense and ball movement Ben provides makes this a clear upgrade for us.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

One thing that Ben does that doesn't show in the stat sheet is that he initiates a fast break better than anyone we've had since the championship seasons. Our guards can literally go park out at the half court line and trust him to fire the ball up to them. When you add Deng, Noc, Hinrich, and Duhon to the mix, that's a very good passing starting five; not to mention our bench: Gordon, Thabo, & Tyrus. 

You can't be a fast break team if your forwards and centers aren't good at making outlet passes. Ben has enabled our running game to step it up a notch.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Good Hope said:


> As one of the original Wilcox piners ---
> 
> I can say unequivocally that it was post Ben W signing, with the hope that something better than PJ was on the horizon, paired up with Ben.


I'm sure there are others like you who wanted him in addition to Wallace. But most of it was "look, we could have had Wilcox and Gooden (not even true) instead of Ben Wallace. Sigh" and crap like that. 

But, as I wrote above, the notion that Wilcox was ever on the table for Chandler in a sign and trade is absurd in my opinion.

Chandler is having a wonderful year. But this summer, when he was traded, his value was low, low, low. He was coming off a season of SUBSTANTIAL regression and was still owed $50+ million on his deal. Seattle was very public about saying they wouldn't trade Wilcox for anything short of an allstar. Nobody ponied up with one. So they signed him. 

The only way we could have gotten him, Nene or Gooden was to throw outrageous money at them and hope their teams would flinch at the cost. And that means no Wallace.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> One thing that Ben does that doesn't show in the stat sheet is that he initiates a fast break better than anyone we've had since the championship seasons. Our guards can literally go park out at the half court line and trust him to fire the ball up to them. When you add Deng, Noc, Hinrich, and Duhon to the mix, that's a very good passing starting five; not to mention our bench: Gordon, Thabo, & Tyrus.
> 
> You can't be a fast break team if your forwards and centers aren't good at making outlet passes. Ben has enabled our running game to step it up a notch.


Yeah, and Skiles made reference to this (and a thinly veiled shot at Tyson IMHO) in the press conference after the game.

He said that "He is a very good outlet passer. We are still getting used to him." Skiles then added that in the past, our guards had to go back and get the ball from the rebounder.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

A motivated, comfortable Ben Wallace is a better basketball player than Tyson Chandler right now. No doubt about it.

Better at staying on the court. Better passer. Better understanding of the game. 

That's probably one of the reasons he's been to the all-star game and won the DPOY. Its also the reason he's paid such a massive sum of money.

Old age is a ***** though. Just ask PJ Brown, the "player" we traded Tyson Chandler for.

If Wallace plays consistently like he did last night, then at least we're getting the Big Ben we paid for. Should make the team a much more formidable force. Maybe we can even beat the good teams.

Any talk about Drew Gooden or Chris Wilcox had a "win later" bent to it. If it also made the Bulls a better "win now" team, so be it. Paxson opted for "win now" and Wallace. Let's hope he gets it done.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Does last night's performance get rid of the nickname BENNIDICT WALLACE??

Seems like kind of a mean-spirited name to call the starting center for our contending team.

Of course, the last time we had a winning team people spent a lot of time and creative energy finding out innovative ways to hate our starting center.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

> If Wallace plays consistently like he did last night, then at least we're getting the Big Ben we paid for. Should make the team a much more formidable force. Maybe we can even beat the good teams.


I'm also interested in seeing if we can beat the good teams once we get to play one or two of them at home.

The Bulls have played 7 games against teams with winning records, and all 7 of them have been on the road. Those teams have a combined .763 winning percentage at home.

Amazing, good teams are good at defending their home court? Who would've guessed it?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Jeez, can someone write a song called "I Hate Ben Wallace" and get it over with already? Please?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Jeez, can someone write a song called "I Hate Ben Wallace" and get it over with already? Please?


I doubt you'll find anyone on a Bulls message board to write such a song.

He's the starting center for our winning team!!!!

Why would any Bulls fan want to write such a song!??!??!?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Does last night's performance get rid of the nickname BENNIDICT WALLACE??
> 
> Seems like kind of a mean-spirited name to call the starting center for our contending team.


It was mean spirited. It was intentionally mean spirited. Like calling Chris Duhon "vodka swig" right?. 

I have absolutely no reservations whatsoever about trashing a player on a team that I root for if he does something that he deserves to be trashed for. 

And I guess you didn't notice, but I dropped that nickname and my signature blasting him well over a week ago. But my opinion of him hasn't changed. I like his on court demeanor a lot more lately, but as of right now I still don't trust him as far as I could throw him. 

I don't easily forgive the type of crap he pulled. I *can* forgive it - Scottie Pippen is my favorite basketball player of all time despite the 1.8 seconds of shame - but 2.5 weeks ain't gonna get it done. 

And the quality of his play ain't gonna get it done either. Its his attitude that I took issue with. If you'll recall, I've been defending his actual play all season. I don't think he's been anywhere near as "disappointing" on the court as many have made him out to be.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I doubt you'll find anyone on a Bulls message board to write such a song.
> 
> He's the starting center for our winning team!!!!
> 
> Why would any Bulls fan want to write such a song!??!??!?


I don't think anyone would yet... but maybe after he's underachieved for 2 or 3 years??


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Any talk about Drew Gooden or Chris Wilcox had a "win later" bent to it.


No it didn't. But I won't begrudge you yet another classic re-spin like the 47 win team that you trashed while it was winning those 47 games but now proclaim, ad nauseum, to be the ideal.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No it didn't. But I won't begrudge you yet another classic re-spin like the 47 win team that you trashed while it was winning those 47 games but now proclaim, ad nauseum, to be the ideal.


Think we're going to win 47 (or more) this season?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> yet another classic re-spin


See post #43.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Jeez, can someone write a song called "I Hate Ben Wallace" and get it over with already? Please?


One more incident and I think Mr. Cey will be up to the task.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Think we're going to win 47 (or more) this season?


Yes. 

Though I don't know what that has to do with K4E's hypocrisy in trashing that team, its coach, and the GM who built it at the time while now recalling it like a republican recalls apple pies cooling in window sills while all the townspeople held hands in the 1950s.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No it didn't.


Yes it did.

If Ben Wallace keeps playing like he has the past couple of games, there is little doubt that he'll be a better player for the Bulls this season than Gooden/Wilcox.

If we are getting BENNIDICT WALLACE and some 0 rebound performances, then perhaps Gooden/Wilcox would be better, but lets hope BENNIDICT WALLACE isn't around anymore.

Gooden/Wilcox would likely be the better "win later" move... but we've been playing the "win later" game around Chicago Bulls land for too long now. I just have doubts that Paxson did enough this off-season to "win now."

For instance, we dumped a top 5 in the NBA rebounder for a glorified 8 million dollar assistant coach. The re-spinning on that move is going to be entertaining.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> See post #43.


Why? Its all 100% accurate and you know it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we are getting *BENNIDICT WALLACE *and some 0 rebound performances, then perhaps Gooden/Wilcox would be better, but lets hope *BENNIDICT WALLACE* isn't around anymore.


If you think citing that is a point of embarrassment for me you are wrong. I think it was an accurate, and funny nickname and was saddened that it didn't catch on.

It had nothing to do with his play. 

How about this: Ben Wallace is a whiny little *****. I didn't believe that before he came to the Bulls, but I do now and it pisses me off. In the back of my mind, I'm waiting for his next petulant, childish, me-first explosion. I don't trust him. 

In other words, I don't take back anything I've ever written about him. But I'm glad he's improving on the court.

And by the way, you are spelling it wrong. Its Benedict Wallace (or my favorite: Big Benedict).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yes.
> 
> Though I don't know what that has to do with K4E's hypocrisy in trashing that team, its coach, and the GM who built it at the time while now recalling it like a republican recalls apple pies cooling in window sills while all the townspeople held hands in the 1950s.


Well, after being told "wait till next year" every year whlie we put NBDL guys on the court and gave away our best players, IT IS NEXT YEAR.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> One more incident and I think Mr. Cey will be up to the task.


I prefer the written word. I have no musical talent at all.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Well, after being told "wait till next year" every year whlie we put NBDL guys on the court and gave away our best players, IT IS NEXT YEAR.


Well, that actually only happened one season. 

But I agree that the future is now (and the future is the future too for this team given how young it is). Ain't it cool?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> It had nothing to do with his play.


I wasn't happy with Wallace's play during headband-gate.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, that actually only happened one season.
> 
> But I agree that the future is now (and the future is the future too for this team given how young it is). Ain't it cool?


The future seems to be with Cleveland (13-8) and Orlando (15-9). Ain't it cool?

Maybe we should try to be better than them.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But I won't begrudge you yet another classic re-spin like the 47 win team that you trashed while it was winning those 47 games but now proclaim, ad nauseum, to be the ideal.


Please point to where I claim 47 wins as "the ideal." It just better than what we accomplished last season without Curry. I would hope we could best that this season with our now fairly mature team and the Ben Wallace signing. We are a contender after all.

My preseason win prediction in 2004-2005 was in line with most other posters on this board. I was pleasantly surprised, along with everyone else. The Twin Towers dream was finally being realized.

I'm not sure what you thought the state of the team was before the season started, since you started posting your very strong opinions only after a visible turnaround had occurred.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The future seems to be with Cleveland (13-8) and Orlando (15-9). Ain't it cool?
> 
> Maybe we should try to be better than them.


We are trying, and getting close. We're a whopping 1.5 and 2 games behind those teams, respectively - despite our bumbling start. Big whoop.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The future seems to be with Cleveland (13-8) and Orlando (15-9). Ain't it cool?
> 
> Maybe we should try to be better than them.


Other than your meaningless reference to their current records, I completely agree with this post. 

Those are the two teams to be most concerned with going forward and we should try to beat them. You'll get no argument from me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Other than your meaningless reference to their current records, I completely agree with this post.
> 
> Those are the two teams to be most concerned with going forward and we should try to beat them. You'll get no argument from me.


What's meaningless to you is they're NOW, too.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Please point to where I claim 47 wins as "the ideal."


You didn't. That is my characterization of your longing daily references to that season that you hated when it was actually happening.

EDIT: Its been nice bickering with you. Very cathartic. I'm going home now. As Bill O'Reilly would say "K4E, you have the last word!"


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> What's meaningless to you is they're NOW, too.


I meant they are meaningless for the future. They certainly have meaning now, you are correct. As does Detroit's record.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Does it mean anything that the Magic have played the 5th easiest schedule in the league so far and the Cavs have played the easiest?

Sagarin Ratings

Schedules even out by the end of the season (for teams in the same conference), but as of now the computer says the Bulls have played better overall than every other team in the East.

Whatever that's worth.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Twin Towers dream was finally being realized.


I think I just threw up in my mouth a little reading this statement. We won 47 games that year, it was a nice season, I had a lot of fun watching it. I think you can make reasoned arguments for and against keeping Curry and Chandler, but the misty-eyed nostalgia with which that season gets recalled by some around here is ridiculous.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Schedules even out by the end of the season (for teams in the same conference), but as of now the computer says the Bulls have played better overall than every other team in the East.


Also says we are 1-9 against top 16 teams.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I think I just threw up in my mouth a little reading this statement. We won 47 games that year, it was a nice season, I had a lot of fun watching it. I think you can make reasoned arguments for and against keeping Curry and Chandler, but the misty-eyed nostalgia with which that season gets recalled by some around here is ridiculous.



A playoff team with the youngest core in the league with a legit starter @ every position that was one of the top teams in the conference with nowhere to go but up? 

Yah, sorry, I guess we'll have to disagree.

"misty-eyed" 
"ideal"
"hated the season"

LOL.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If Wallace can bring it like he did last night and the rest of the team plays like they have been I think the Bulls can hang with any team in the conference.

If we can get a real power forward 
(not the clownish PJ Brown) I think we can beat them.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Anybody consider that teams will start fouling Wallace when the games get more meaningful?

Especially if he's going to get the kinds of touches we've seen the bulls give him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Anybody consider that teams will start fouling Wallace when the games get more meaningful?


No. Why? Isn't he a good free throw shooter?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> A playoff team with the youngest core in the league with a legit starter @ every position that was one of the top teams in the conference with nowhere to go but up?


:boohoo2: 

You say this now but back then you kept calling that team 'Grizzlies East' doomed for mediocrity.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No. Why? Isn't he a good free throw shooter?


He's horrible.

Teams were hacking him like they do Shaq last season and the one before for that reason.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The 47 wins a couple years ago thing I see bandied about by both sides really doesn't have a lot of meaning to me unless this team does worse. Actually, if this team only wins somewhere around that (again, I'm not accounting for general health and whatnot), I don't see how it could be anything but a failure. 

Without dwelling on the 47 win team, I'll just say that their quality of wins (especially after the bad start) appeared significantly better than our quality of wins last year (or this year to date). Once they got hot, they consistently played very well against other good teams. 

That's my first point of measurement. That team (again, after the crappy start) was good against good competition.

The second point is that our key remaining players from that time now have significantly more experience. They, independent of the other guys that came and went, should be better.

They look better individually certainly, but i want to see more wins to prove it.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Also says we are 1-9 against top 16 teams.


I already posted this once in this thread, but it once again seems like the appropriate response:



me said:


> I'm also interested in seeing if we can beat the good teams once we get to play one or two of them at home.
> 
> The Bulls have played 7 games against teams with winning records, and all 7 of them have been on the road. Those teams have a combined .763 winning percentage at home.
> 
> Amazing, good teams are good at defending their home court? Who would've guessed it?


I'd say that so far the season has played out pretty much exactly the way most of us expected it to- the first 12 games were brutal, the last 12 have been easy.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Chandler is having a wonderful year. But this summer, when he was traded, his value was low, low, low. He was coming off a season of SUBSTANTIAL regression and was still owed $50+ million on his deal.


It can be a bit of an oversimplification sometimes but: buy low and sell high. It's certainly not impossible, but players rarely peak at 22 and then fail to ever reach that level again (though sometimes it seems like Ty's offense somehow might have peaked at 21).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> He's horrible.
> 
> Teams were hacking him like they do Shaq last season and the one before for that reason.


They did?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It was pretty big news when Pat Riley used it in the playoffs last year against Detroit. But...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Wallace

His drawback is his offensive game. Wallace's averages on offense are a mediocre 6.6 points and 1.3 assists per game. His role on offense is mainly to roam near the basket for close range shots when left open and go after offensive rebounds. Like other big men in the NBA, namely Shaquille O'Neal and Wilt Chamberlain, Wallace is a poor free throw shooter. In fact, he is the worst free throw shooter in NBA history out of any player with more than 1000 attempts; as of October 2005, his NBA career average is 42.0%. *This ineptitude at the free throw line results in his sometimes becoming a target of the so-called "Hack-a-Shaq" defense (A tactic that has drawn the ire of former teammate Rasheed Wallace). *The reason for this drawback is that his right wrist has some ligaments that were cut off due to a surgery that was needed because his hand had some carpal tunnel issues. This causes his hand to go "dead" whenever he dunks, falls to the ground, or when he shoots a free throw, resulting in him being unable to make them on a consistent basis.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2006050908

Cavs coach Mike Brown was so desperate late in the first half Tuesday that he resorted to a hack-a-Ben strategy, having his players intentionally foul Ben Wallace late in the first half. The tactic backfired, perhaps because Brown might've sent his players a message that they couldn't slow the Pistons down any other way. 


When Brown instructed his players to foul Wallace, Detroit was ahead by 16. After Wallace went 2-of-4 from the line and Rasheed Wallace made a 3-pointer off the glass, the Cavs were trailing by 21. 


"I've seen it before, but not in the first half," Billups said. "I was shocked. We were pretty much like, 'Wow, they showed their trump card.' But when you're a coach, especially a young coach, and you're playing a veteran group like ours, after a tough Game 1, you can get a little desperate. 


"He was just trying to help his team out, and it didn't work." 


Brown acknowledged that he didn't like telling his player to put Wallace on the line.


"But I didn't want to use all of my timeouts, and I wanted to stop the bleeding," he said.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I do believe, unless I'm entirely out of my mind, that Ron Cey is being remarkably sarcastic. But what do I know...


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Hack-a-Ben (or Hack-a-Shaq, or Hack-a-Eddy) strategies are usually a very bad idea.

Other than the aforementioned bad message it sends you own players that their defense isn't good enough to stop the other team (from DaBullz's post), it isn't really that much of a way to slow down a team.

Even Ben with his 45% FT shooting would give the Bulls 0.90 pts per poss. On the season, the Bulls only average 1.08 pts per poss. So if you intentionally foul Ben on 10 straight possessions, odds are that the Bulls would score 9 points instead of 10.8, not much of a difference.

And it puts your team in foul trouble. And most guys will start shooting FTs a little better if they are doing it on a regular basis.

I don't remember hack-a-Shaq ever costing his team a game, although I certainly haven't seen every one of his games in his career.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:
 

> Hack-a-Ben (or Hack-a-Shaq, or Hack-a-Eddy) strategies are usually a very bad idea.
> 
> Other than the aforementioned bad message it sends you own players that their defense isn't good enough to stop the other team (from DaBullz's post), it isn't really that much of a way to slow down a team.
> 
> ...


It makes sense if fts counted as 2 points each.

Rethink?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> It makes sense if fts counted as 2 points each.
> 
> Rethink?


Huh? It seems pretty simple.

10 normal possessions, the Bulls score 10.8 points.

10 "hack" possessions, Ben hits 9 FT (20 FTA x .451), the Bulls score 9.0 points.

What's to rethink???

Maybe *you* need to rethink, when you "hack" the opponent, they get 2 FTAs each possession, not one.

So you're saying my post makes sense? Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Huh? It seems pretty simple.
> 
> 10 normal possessions, the Bulls score 10.8 points.
> 
> ...


You're assuming every posession is a hack one.

For the bulls to score 108 points per 100 posessions, they have about 1/2 their posessions where they score zero.

So you are getting 1 point posessions out of Wallce instead of 2 or 3 point posessions out of anyone else.

That is, for the posessions they score on.

The bulls' FG% is about the same as Wallace's FT%. Hence the 2 point FG's are worth 2 points and Wallace's 2 FTs are worth 1.

Hence what I said still stands. It makes sense if Wallace's .451 was for 2 point baskets instead of 1 point FTs.

See?

EDIT: if you hacked Wallace EVERY posession, you'd get 90 points per 100 posessions, or an 18 point difference. Would you want to have opponents spot us 18 points every game?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> You're assuming every posession is a hack one.
> 
> For the bulls to score 108 points per 100 posessions, they have about 1/2 their posessions where they score zero.
> 
> ...


:lol: 

Nice try. Actually, not that nice, but you get an "A" for effort, at the very least.

You rarely see hack-a-anyone, for the reasons I mentioned. It just isn't that effective.

EDIT: And yes, I'd love for opponents to hack Wallace on EVERY possession, they would have 8 players foul out by the end of the 3rd quarter and we would win every game by forfeit.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> :lol:
> 
> Nice try. Actually, not that nice, but you get an "A" for effort, at the very least.
> 
> ...


laugh if you want, but he who laughs last, thinks slowest. and you are definately thinking slowest here. I showed you the math, you haven't shown that it's wrong. you missed the math lesson about fouling him every posession, too.

The hack defense has been used since the 1960s. First used against Wilt. Later against Rodman in the playoffs when he was with the bulls (he went 9-12 though).

That some pretty smart coaches, including Riley, Nelson, and others, use it from time to time indicates that it is a viable tactic. In fact, it's been used with great success in really big games (like playoffs) and not so much in regular season games.

You are right about one thing, though. It's not effective for the most part - it makes no sense to foul guys who actually make a lot of their FTs.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

This is ridiculous.

I showed YOU the math, yet you want to keep acting like it doesn't exist.

Yes, using hack-a-Ben will result in the Bulls scoring 0.18 points less on each possession he is hacked than if the team just played normal defense.

Some hack-less possessions, the Bulls would score 2 points, a few they would score three, some they would score ZERO.

Same as if Ben is hacked- if he misses the 2nd FT after making the first and the Bulls grab the rebound and score, they can score 3 points. They can score 2 points, or one, or zero.

ON AVERAGE, they will score 0.902 points if Ben is hacked, 1.08 points if he isn't.

And YOU missed the math lesson about fouling him every possession, if that happened simple math says that the Bulls would win that game by forfeit in the 3rd quarter.

Please, you're embarassing yourself.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> You're assuming every posession is a hack one.
> 
> For the bulls to score 108 points per 100 posessions, they have about 1/2 their posessions where they score zero.
> 
> ...


I don't really understand this. You appear to be assuming that Wallace will be hacked only on the possessions that the Bulls will eventually score on... What?



> The bulls' FG% is about the same as Wallace's FT%. Hence the 2 point FG's are worth 2 points and Wallace's 2 FTs are worth 1.
> 
> Hence what I said still stands. It makes sense if Wallace's .451 was for 2 point baskets instead of 1 point FTs.
> 
> See?


Okay... so let's say the Bulls FG% is 45.0 and Wallace FT% is 45.0. On 100 normal possessions, the bulls will hit 45*2 points = 90 points. On 100 fouled possesions, Wallace will hit 45 percent of 200 free throws, which is 90 points. 



> EDIT: if you hacked Wallace EVERY posession, you'd get 90 points per 100 posessions, or an 18 point difference. Would you want to have opponents spot us 18 points every game?


Like bullsville said, the opponent could not foul us every single possession. They would run out of people.

edit: Also, I feel compelled to point out that Ron Cey was being sarcastic.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

In any case, the strategy isn't to foul a Wallace or Shaq all game long, it's to do it very late in the game when your team needs to trade two (or three) point posessions for one (perhaps) point ones.

If you're down 5 points, you can use this strategy to gain 5 to 10 points (or more for every 2-for-2 FTs missed) with the game clock off/stopped for half the posessions.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

And with this, I am once again done with this board for a while.

It hasn't changed one bit, the same old posters making the same tired arguments, and I'm sure I'm included in that group.

Signing off...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I don't really understand this. You appear to be assuming that Wallace will be hacked only on the possessions that the Bulls will eventually score on... What?


There's an apples/oranges comparison going on here, which is the logic flaw I'm pointing out. Bullsville is looking at per 100 posessions which includes the ones they score on and the ones they don't. They're still going to have posessions they don't score on in games where Wallace is hacked.



> Okay... so let's say the Bulls FG% is 45.0 and Wallace FT% is 45.0. On 100 normal possessions, the bulls will hit 45*2 points = 90 points. On 100 fouled possesions, Wallace will hit 45 percent of 200 free throws, which is 90 points.


Seems to make sense, except the bulls score 99 points on 93 posessions per game (108 per 100 posessions, according to Bullsville).

The bulls don't hit 45% * 2 points per posession. They hit 45% on 2's and 3's combined AND there's FTAs for guys who make 80% or more of their FTs to consider, too.



> Like bullsville said, the opponent could not foul us every single possession. They would run out of people.


Exactly. Which is why those per 100 posession stats mean what I say they mean  It's more realistic that of those 100 posessions, a Shaq or Wallace can be fouled 3 players x 6 fouls or 4 players x 6 fouls, which isn't 100% of the posessions.

But the thing is, if you score 108/100 posessions and ~.9 per posession by fouling Wallace, the more you foul him, the better. See it?

That's why some teams (the ones that have to go through Shaq/Heat or Wallace/Detroit) have guys on the bench who rarely play but are there come playoff time to foul when the game's on the line.

Probably the biggest reason it doesn't happen more is that the games are really boring because they have to stop the game so much to shoot so many free throws.

When Shaq was with the Lakers, they were REALLY concerned about him getting hurt because he was getting fouled so much (hack a shaq) and people fouled him really hard all the time...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

More math.

.9 * 24 posessions (assume 4 players x 6 fouls) = 21.6 points

1.08 * 76 (100 - 24) posessions = 82.08 points


82.08 + 21.6 = 103.68 points / 100 posessions

Which is less than 108 points / 100 posessions by 4.32 points

4.32 points less and we lose against Toronto and New Orleans.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd also point out that if you were the opponents, would you rather see Gordon with the ball on the now familiar isolation play, or Wallace shooting FTs (with the game on the line)?

Then ask yourself "why?"


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

1. can't foul ben unless he has the ball in the final 2 minutes or in OT.

2. the rest of the team enjoys being in the foul bonus for the final 2 minutes. defending team cannot guard as aggressively. worse comes to worse, let teams put us in the bonus then sub wallace in and out on offense/defense in the last 2 minutes.

3. a foul shot possesion guarentees an opportunity to score points. a regular set offense allows the defense to force a turnover (not even allowing a shot attempt).

4. shooting fouls allows our defense to set up. this all but eliminates easy transition opportunites for the opponents (outside of phoenix i can't think of a team that could pull off a fast break after free throws).


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> More math.
> 
> .9 * 24 posessions (assume 4 players x 6 fouls) = 21.6 points
> 
> ...


Thanks Mr. Wizard. The idea that this "math" can be used to suggest that we should've lost to the Raptors or Hornets had they employed the correct strategy is just beyond the pale in terms of idiocy. In the history of hack a shaq, ben, wilt or whoever nobody has ever intentionally fouled 24 possessions in a single game. This is a patently ridiculous *******ization of potentially sound logic.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Where do you discuss invidual defense in here? Or how about ball movement. Those are the two greatest advantages that Wallace provides over Chandler for us that do not show up on paper.
> 
> So if the numbers are close, then the defense and ball movement Ben provides makes this a clear upgrade for us.


Good point, lou.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> One thing that Ben does that doesn't show in the stat sheet is that he initiates a fast break better than anyone we've had since the championship seasons. Our guards can literally go park out at the half court line and trust him to fire the ball up to them. When you add Deng, Noc, Hinrich, and Duhon to the mix, that's a very good passing starting five; not to mention our bench: Gordon, Thabo, & Tyrus.
> 
> You can't be a fast break team if your forwards and centers aren't good at making outlet passes. Ben has enabled our running game to step it up a notch.


Good point, SST.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> .I don't easily forgive the type of crap he pulled. I *can* forgive it - Scottie Pippen is my favorite basketball player of all time despite the 1.8 seconds of shame - but 2.5 weeks ain't gonna get it done.


OT:

They showed the 1.8 second game the other day -- either on ESPN Classics or on NBA TV, I forget which -- and believe it or not, they did not even mention the 1.8 second incident (I didn't catch the beginning of the game, maybe it was talked about before the broadcast or something).

The game was edited to show the timeout called with 1.8 seconds left, then a cut to the inbounds pass and Kukoc's jumper going in. Then the broadcast ended with "Bulls Win" and cut to the next show.

Weird.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> OT:
> 
> They showed the 1.8 second game the other day -- either on ESPN Classics or on NBA TV, I forget which -- and believe it or not, they did not even mention the 1.8 second incident (I didn't catch the beginning of the game, maybe it was talked about before the broadcast or something).
> 
> ...


This broadcast is the exclusive property of the Ministry of Truth. Any re-use or rebroadcast of this event without the express written consent of the Ministry of Truth will subject you to compulsory re-education training.

Scottie Pippen loves you.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This broadcast in the exclusive property of the Ministry of Truth. Any re-use or rebroadcast of this event without the express written consent of the Ministry of Truth will subject you to compulsory re-education training.
> 
> Scottie Pippen loves you.



Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

Commissioner Stern is Watching You.


Doubleplusgood.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Thanks Mr. Wizard. The idea that this "math" can be used to suggest that we should've lost to the Raptors or Hornets had they employed the correct strategy is just beyond the pale in terms of idiocy. In the history of hack a shaq, ben, wilt or whoever nobody has ever intentionally fouled 24 possessions in a single game. This is a patently ridiculous *******ization of potentially sound logic.


I was using Bullsville's logic, and explaining to rwj33 how the math worked.

However, as I said, the idea would be to foul him late in games when a team needed to come back from a 5-ish point deficit.

I also said that it was an apples/oranges comparison, and was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to even look at the points per 100 posession figure. The per 100 is meaningless when a team is trying to use the whole shot clock on posessions late in the game...




DaBullz said:


> In any case, the strategy isn't to foul a Wallace or Shaq all game long, it's to do it very late in the game when your team needs to trade two (or three) point posessions for one (perhaps) point ones.
> 
> If you're down 5 points, you can use this strategy to gain 5 to 10 points (or more for every 2-for-2 FTs missed) with the game clock off/stopped for half the posessions.


You'd foul him every time he got a defensive rebound or if he touched the ball on offense.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Thanks Mr. Wizard. The idea that this "math" can be used to suggest that we should've lost to the Raptors or Hornets had they employed the correct strategy is just beyond the pale in terms of idiocy. In the history of hack a shaq, ben, wilt or whoever nobody has ever intentionally fouled 24 possessions in a single game. This is a patently ridiculous *******ization of potentially sound logic.


Why?

The fact that it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it's not a sound strategy. The hack-a-shaq type strategies have been contraversial and generally frowned upon as a little bit of a "dirty trick" not in the competitive spirit of things. I think that has more to do with it not being employed regularly than the math.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Why?
> 
> The fact that it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it's not a sound strategy. The hack-a-shaq type strategies have been contraversial and generally frowned upon as a little bit of a "dirty trick" not in the competitive spirit of things. I think that has more to do with it not being employed regularly than the math.


I don't disagree that the hack-a-shaq type strategy can be effective late in games, but sending Ben Wallace to the line intentionally 24 times a game strikes me as virtually impossible. Wallace shoots the ball (I'm trying to loosely figure in 2 FTA's as a shot attempt) maybe 8 times a game. To send him to the line 16 additional times, you'd have to play a huge chunk of the game in a penalty situation while fouling out a bunch of your players.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I don't disagree that the hack-a-shaq type strategy can be effective late in games, but sending Ben Wallace to the line intentionally 24 times a game strikes me as virtually impossible. Wallace shoots the ball (I'm trying to loosely figure in 2 FTA's as a shot attempt) maybe 8 times a game. To send him to the line 16 additional times, you'd have to play a huge chunk of the game in a penalty situation while fouling out a bunch of your players.


I don't disagree with you. Again, I was working with Bullsville's reasoning. You'd really have to foul him all 100 posessions for the per 100 posession comparison to be valid (the apples/oranges thing).

Though if you somehow could, you would, because the numbers would be in your favor. 

I'm not sure that it's strictly impossible though. Sham had his trivia thread, and one of the questions was "what player fouled out in the fewest minutes of a game?" The answer was Bubba Wells, who did it in Hack-A-Rodman game (in just 3 minutes). They might have sent Rodman to the line 24 times (he went 12 times), but he hit 9-12, so the strategy backfired


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Steal by Wallace. Dribbles down court. Perfect lob pass to Tyrus. Comes back down the floor and blocks a shot at the three point line.

Sorry Tyson, but you are NEVER going to do anything like that.

Wallace must be reading this message board as of late and all the Bulls fans who think Tyson is better than him, because he is playing out of his mind right now.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

27 boards tonight?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

lougehrig said:


> Steal by Wallace. Dribbles down court. Perfect lob pass to Tyrus. Comes back down the floor and blocks a shot at the three point line.
> 
> Sorry Tyson, but you are NEVER going to do anything like that.
> 
> Wallace must be reading this message board as of late and all the Bulls fans who think Tyson is better than him, because he is playing out of his mind right now.


3 double doubles in a row. He's averaging approximately 12, 20, 4, and 3 in those games. 

His season averages in almost every category are now better than his career averages and those that aren't - rebounds a blocks - are only .3 below. 

He's coming on. Even without his magical headband of empowerment.

It will be interesting to see if he can bring it on the second night of a back to back with a 6:00 p.m. start tonight after being a superfreak last night. Thats a tough scenario for this 32 year old, even an athletic freak of nature.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

SALO said:


> You say this now but back then you kept calling that team 'Grizzlies East' doomed for mediocrity.


Just to clarify, I thought a jib over talent ideology team content with .500ish play and 1st round playoff exits was doomed to become Grizzlies East. No talent infusion via lotto picks. Cap Space in a tough FA Year. 

Wallace really was a coup... but there is a reason we paid so much. Its clear from Paxson that he wasn't expecting a pick high enough to land Tyrus (FIRE PAX!!!!) via the Knicks trade. 

Skiles made the most of the talent he was given that season, maximizing the value at that point of Curry and Chandler and having one hell of a season. That team was a mix of hard nosed jib and freakish athleticism with ?able jib that Skiles was willing to work with.

My expectations were low going into that season, along with nearly everyone else around here (perhaps for different reasons), due to management's willingness to part with good players for little in return and Skiles seeming inability to deal with players he didn't care for (Curry, Chandler to a lesser degree). Curry was coming off a poor year. Chandler was seemingly injury prone. Both were in their contract years and in a system that seemingly didn't really want them. Skiles managed to use them very effectively and that gang of rookies, 2nd year players, AD, Othella and the twin towers had a surprisingly phenomenal year. During the end of that season I felt the Bulls could legitimately beat any other NBA team. I have not felt that way about a Bulls team since MJ roamed the UC.

And some posters may claim I "hated that season"... but that's a terribly incorrect mischaracterization, as anyone who sat next to me at the 40+ Bulls game I went to that season could attest to.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Wallace ties career high with 8 assists. Looks a lot more comfortable on offense and it seems like the swagger is back. Nice to see.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> Wallace ties career high with 8 assists. Looks a lot more comfortable on offense and it seems like the swagger is back. Nice to see.



He's playing great.

Everything we expected the last few games after signing that big deal.

Keep it up Ben.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Ben's been playing far too many minutes. If PJ can't be included in a deal for a bigtime player, the Bulls need to get a legit backup center for him so that Ben will have some hop in his step come playoff time.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Ben's last five games:

9.8 ppg
17.2 rpg
4.2 apg
2.2 bpg
1.6 spg


----------



## melo4life (Jun 5, 2006)

ben wallace is a bloody monsta!


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Just in case you were concerned that Ben has lost a lot of his athletic ability:


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Oh snap!


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Anyone notice that Smith and Wallace have the same facial contortion? Is that for high altitudes?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Ben's been playing far too many minutes. If PJ can't be included in a deal for a bigtime player, the Bulls need to get a legit backup center for him so that Ben will have some hop in his step come playoff time.


This is what Detroit did to him last season. By the time playoffs came around he was worn down. Skiles has to find a way to get him rest, backup center or no backup center.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Just in case you were concerned that Ben has lost a lot of his athletic ability:


Awesome pic. Thanks for that. Here's another one that's not quite as impressive, but still good.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)




----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Ben's been playing far too many minutes. If PJ can't be included in a deal for a bigtime player, the Bulls need to get a legit backup center for him so that Ben will have some hop in his step come playoff time.


Yeah, I didn't mind it to start with as it helped with get our core 6 on the same page. But yeah now he needs to drop back.


----------

