# Why all this love for Tyson?



## Ceochase (Jun 24, 2002)

I know he is in his third year and all of 20 yrs old but why does this guy get a pass? He has no offensive game whatsoever........no J, no hands, and besides a dunk here and there on a putback he gives us nothing offensively. I keep hearing how we should build around him and Curry but I disagree about Tyson.

He says all the right things and goes hard on defense...I'll give you guys that. I hated the Brand trade but what is done is done.

Maybe it's just me but he is the same type player as JYD from Toronto and I don't see anyone thinking about giving him a MAX contract. I don't hate Tyson at all and although I think Fizer is a better overall player and fit for this team, I just don't know why you guys love Tyson so much.

I believe he has gotten better on defense and rebounding but people keep saying we have to give Tyson a Max or near Max contract when the time comes. I just don't see it fellas, I really don't.

Don't hate me for this post but I'm just calling like I see it every night on League Pass. I mean really what does Tyson do that Jerome Williams....Malik Rose types do?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ceochase</b>!
> Don't hate me for this post but I'm just calling like I see it every night on League Pass. I mean really what does Tyson do that Jerome Williams....Malik Rose types do?


Rose and Williams are valuable role players in the league. TC was able to give similar production at the ripe old age of 20. Player peak at age 28-32. Do the math.

This guy gets a lot better just by putting on some pounds and adding some strength. Of course, he will add some skills, too, and really be a monster.  

Do you think Cartwright is BSing us when he says his goal is for TC to be the best forward in the Eastern Conference in a few years?


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

T C doesn't get a "pass".The talk of a max contract is based on where we expect Tyson to be when his contract comes up for renewal.You concede how Tyson is effectively defensively.Let me ask you,does Ben Wallace deserve a max contract?Just curious.

Chandler alters the way teams attack the Bulls.He is going to CONTROL the paint in the very near future.And he was averaging a double double prior to him going out for the season.Regardless of if it's on putbacks or not,he's getting the job done.Plus he's an emotional leader as well.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I gotta agree with Ceochase here but only slightly. IF Tyson shows little to no flashes of any offensive game and only rebounds and plays D then he does not deserve anything near the max. However, I do think he deserves around 6-7 mil a year (maybe similar to the contract we gave E-Rob). Now in the next two years if he puts up 15/10 a game then i think we give him something close to the max otherwise sorry Tyson.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

For the month of March, this 20 year old _averaged_ a double/double and shot 55% from the field. Keep in mind this was only his second NBA season.

Highlights:
2/12 vs Phil: 21pts, 17rebs.
2/15 vs Den: 19pts, 22rebs.
3/6 vs GS: 23pts, 14rebs.
3/16 vs SA: 10pts, 11rebs.
3/18 vs Atl: 13pts, 11rebs.
3/22 vs NY: 13pts, 13rebs.
3/29 vs Sac: 15pts, 12rebs.

For the entire season he shot 53% from the field. What kind of numbers do you think a kid like this might put up when he's 23, maybe 7'1" and a solid 250 lbs _and_ he's a six year veteran?

Absolutely we're doing some long term projections here. But what else are you supposed to do with a 20 year old who never played college ball? If he continues to improve this season there's no telling how much better he can get. Does anyone know how to measure "a lot?"


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> For the month of March, this 20 year old _averaged_ a double/double and shot 55% from the field. Keep in mind this was only his second NBA season.
> 
> Highlights:
> ...


:yes: EXACTLY!!!


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

I completely agree with Ceochase. Tyson brings shot blocking skills to the team but little else, in my opinion. I think Bulls fans are mesmerized by his athleticism. So what, ERob is athletic also. There is no way Chandler should be a max player. I would have traded Tyson straight up for the #3 pick (Carmelo) in a heartbeat. I would even have thrown in ERob and Bagofdreck also. 

Personally I think the reason he is so limited offensively is that he has terrible hands and even worse shooting mechanics. You can fix the mechanics with time and patience but his small brittle hands will keep him from becoming a star. Curry, on the other hand has big, soft hands. He is the much better player even though he is not as athletic as Chandler. Jordan, Pippen, and Brand have enormous hands and this led to their great Bulls' careers. 

As long as I am writing this, my feeling is that if Pippen cannot make up his mind by the 16th we should grab Newble. If Paxson loses Newble he will be a loser in my mind. Yes, Pippen is the more skillful player but I feel he is "playing" the Bulls to get a better offer somewhere else. If he can't, he will sign with the Bulls in the end. However, Newble will be gone by then. I think Pippen is the type of guy who will screw you and keep you dangling.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

Tyson doesn't have to be domninant on offense for him to be successful. Hopefully, he'll be a dominant defender with his rebounding and shot blocking skills. Hopefully, he'll provide more offense than Ben Wallace(which will definitely happen)

The Bulls already have an offensive big man in Eddy Curry. Tyson compliments Curry perfectly. Fizer gives instant offense which is why he is such a great 6th man.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I wrote about Tyson's lack of skills once:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16122&highlight=extremely+uncoordinated

Jerry Krause thinks he's going to show signs this year of being one of the best players in the NBA. We'll have to wait and see. I hope his esophagus problem doesn't slow him down.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

Don't get me wrong, I think Ty is going to be one hell of a defensive player. (a Ben Wallace type with 6 more inches... are you kidding me!???!??)

But I must agree with part of the original post. Many fans are sleeping on Fizer because they are convinced Tyson will be a superstar. People pull out stretches of 5-10 games where Tyson has been a big pimp. But when given the minutes, Fizer has been one hell of a player too. I cringe when I se trade scenarios in which he is basically a "throw-in". :no:

Marcus is 24, not exactly an old man...

Marcus doesn't get nearly the consistant minutes Chandler does, yet when *he does* get minutes... look what he does:

Dec 16th vs Celtics: 20 &17 (28 min)
Dec 18th vs Raptors: 15 & 13 (26 min)
Dec 20th vs Pacers: 26 & 12 (35 min)
Dec 21st vs Pacers: 18 & 3 (38 min) (Yell had 15 boards this game  )
Dec 23 @ Nets: 16 & 9 (27 min)
_(Next game: 17min)_

Jan [email protected] Heat: 16 & 8 (37 min)
Jan [email protected] Hawks: 24 & 10 (27 min)
Jan [email protected] Magic: 17 & 5 (24 min)
_(Then back down to less then 20min a game)_

While I believe that Chandler will be the better player when all is said and done, I have to agree with Ceochase that he is given a pass around here, while guys that HAVE shown far more at the NBA level (like Fizer), do not. 

He has a lot of work to do to live up to our expectations on this board, that's for sure.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>charlietyra</b>!
> I completely agree with Ceochase. Tyson brings shot blocking skills to the team but little else, in my opinion.


1) Tyson is already intimidating in the paint, and a good (soon to be great) rebounder. 

2) Right now he is able to put up 12ppg or so consistently, and that is with no offensive game whatsoever outside a developing jumper and lots of hustle and heart. Think about it. He can do so much based on his athleticism and hustle alone, imagine what he will do when he adds a few moves and perfects his jumpshot. I think he can be a very good face up player because he is so quick. His go to game will never be back to the basket, but once he becomes more polished offensively he should be a good offensive player.

3) I see Chandler being capable of scoring 20+ppg in his prime(I realize I may be in the minority here) for the reasons I outlined in #2. He won't be a dominant offensive player who will go on huge scoring runs or be a main fourth quarter go to guy. What he will do is get a put back here, a transition dunk there, and slash past a defender for a layup or hit a 12 foot jumper and before you know it he has 20 points. He might do it more quietly, but between his hustle points (around 12ppg) and running him a play or two here or there (8ppg) he can get 20ppg easily IMO.



> I think Bulls fans are mesmerized by his athleticism. So what, ERob is athletic also. There is no way Chandler should be a max player. I would have traded Tyson straight up for the #3 pick (Carmelo) in a heartbeat. I would even have thrown in ERob and Bagofdreck also.


The difference: Erob is athletic as heck, but he has no work ethic whatsoever. Tyson is athletic as heck AND he is a very hard worker.



> Personally I think the reason he is so limited offensively is that he has terrible hands and even worse shooting mechanics. You can fix the mechanics with time and patience but his small brittle hands will keep him from becoming a star. Curry, on the other hand has big, soft hands. He is the much better player even though he is not as athletic as Chandler. Jordan, Pippen, and Brand have enormous hands and this led to their great Bulls' careers.


Personally I think the reason he is so limited offensively is that he is two years removed from highschool and in highschool all he had to do was dunk over people a foot shorter than him. You can have hands like king kong but if you don't have any offensive game you aren't going to score. I think Tyson has been focusing on gaining weight and on his defense. He works very hard over the summer. One of these years he's going to come back from a summer of working on his game with small arsonal of moves and a jumpshot. 

I think he's going to be pretty special . . . so sit back and enjoy the ride till he gets there. Its going to be great.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*why all the love for Tyson? because*

He is tall.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> 2) Right now he is able to put up 12ppg or so consistently, and that is with no offensive game whatsoever outside a developing jumper and lots of hustle and heart. Think about it. He can do so much based on his athleticism and hustle alone, imagine what he will do when he adds a few moves and perfects his jumpshot. I think he can be a very good face up player because he is so quick. His go to game will never be back to the basket, but once he becomes more polished offensively he should be a good offensive player.


I see him just as far away from playing face up as playing back to the basket. His ball handling is VERY undeveloped. Big weakness.



> Personally I think the reason he is so limited offensively is that he is two years removed from highschool and in highschool all he had to do was dunk over people a foot shorter than him.


Yes, but Curry has an impressive arsenal of offensive moves, and he also was in high school two years ago dunking over 6 foot power forwards.



> One of these years he's going to come back from a summer of working on his game with small arsonal of moves and a jumpshot...
> 
> I think he's going to be pretty special . . . so sit back and enjoy the ride till he gets there. Its going to be great.


I am somewhat skeptical, but I hope you're right.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> Don't get me wrong, I think Ty is going to be one hell of a defensive player. (a Ben Wallace type with 6 more inches... are you kidding me!???!??)
> 
> But I must agree with part of the original post. Many fans are sleeping on Fizer because they are convinced Tyson will be a superstar. People pull out stretches of 5-10 games where Tyson has been a big pimp. But when given the minutes, Fizer has been one hell of a player too. I cringe when I se trade scenarios in which he is basically a "throw-in". :no:
> ...


I love Fizer. His offense is great and his rebounding is coming around. But I love him coming off the bench. Tyson and Fizer make a great 1-2 punch. Tyson is a madman on the glass and roams the paint, then Fizer comes in and lights up the scoreboard. I just don't see him starting (yet) because of his defense. There are a lot of PF's in this leauge that are good scorers and I think Fizers poor defense would be exposed a lot. However, off the bench he can score easily and in bunches, and his defense is not as much of a liability because he is playing against 2nd stringers some of the time.

Great teams need great reserve players (see Van Exel, B.Jackson, etc) and Fizer could give us that edge off the bench. I think he could win 6th man of the year when he really gets rolling and we are a good team. I just hope that he will be satisfied with a 6th man role. IMO If we are winning, I think he will be ok with it, but if not he may want to move somewhere where he can start.

Fizer may be a better player right now . . . maybe . . . but his style would clash with Curry (that would be the worst defensive lineup in the leauge) as they would both be clogging up the paint. Tyson gets the start because according to the plan he is one of our franchise players . . .

:twocents:


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

Anyone who tries to create an argument favoring guys like Fizer, JYD or whomever else over Tyson based on statistics do not know very much about the game of basketball. Stats can be very hollow, but a player's impact can run much much deeper than his stats.

Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace are two examples of players whose impacts go so much further than their numbers -- even with their great rebounding numbers. I'm not gonna compare Tyson to these two, but I think his impact will be similar AND THEN SOME. Tyson is proving early on that he has the ability to be an ELITE defender and rebounder in this league. His impact can run much deeper however because of his height and offensive production.

Tyson gets a bad rap on offense. I agree he doesn't have very good hands, but to say that that's the reason why he will never be a good offensive player is narrowminded. He has major advantages on offense that shouldn't be discounted -- namely his height and athleticism. He is learning to use these -- despite his poor hands -- to become an efffective scorer. His baby hook is quickly becoming a serious weapon and something he will improve over time. At 7'1, shooting over 6'8-6'10 PFs is easy for him. He's also able to score very easily in close from rebounds or cutting from the weak side. He also seems to throw down a lob at least once a game. At the end of the game, maybe his buckets aren't very pretty, but they add up to good scoring outputs. If you don't think he's gonna be scoring 15-20 a night in the near future, your expectations are too low.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DMD</b>!
> I see him just as far away from playing face up as playing back to the basket. His ball handling is VERY undeveloped. Big weakness.


good point. I don't think he's going to wake up tommorow and be a good face up player. I thinks thats a few years down the road. I think its his best bet though because he is so skinny he will get pushed around a lot in the post and it will be hard for him to establish position or take a bump on the way up. I was thinking more of a Kmart style face up - explode to the basket, 1 dribble, and take it up hard hopefully for a dunk/layup or get fouled. I remembered him saying something about wanting to eventually get a faceup game to take advantage of his quickness at the beggining of last summer, which is why I brought it up



> Yes, but Curry has an impressive arsenal of offensive moves, and he also was in high school two years ago dunking over 6 foot power forwards


yes, but Curry's natural strength is at the offensive game, and right now he is impressive on offense and sucks at defense. Chandlers natural strength is defense and right now he is an impressive rebounder/help defender, and not so good at offense. 

Curry's bad defense may be caused by the combination of not having a natural knack for it and never having to learn to box out or play defense in highschool because he was so much bigger than everyone else. Chandler's bad offense may be caused by the combination of not having a natural knack for it and not having to develop an offensive game in highschool outside of the dunk because he was so much bigger than everyone else. However, both players have quickly been succesfull in the areas where their natural ability is strongest, because the natural ability was able to overcome the lack of skills they had in HS. They quickly picked up new techniques and skills their strong areas. Where the natural ability does not shine through as well, they will have to work harder and longer to become good. They don't improve as fast in those areas and are playing catchup. They aren't good in their weak areas yet, but they will be eventually.




> I hope you're right


me too :yes:


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Anyone who tries to create an argument favoring guys like Fizer, JYD or whomever else over Tyson based on statistics do not know very much about the game of basketball. Stats can be very hollow, but a player's impact can run much much deeper than his stats.
> 
> Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace are two examples of players whose impacts go so much further than their numbers -- even with their great rebounding numbers. I'm not gonna compare Tyson to these two, but I think his impact will be similar AND THEN SOME. Tyson is proving early on that he has the ability to be an ELITE defender and rebounder in this league. His impact can run much deeper however because of his height and offensive production.
> ...


amen brother. excellent post.:greatjob:


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

I look at Chandler as a taller version of KMart. KMart is not a good scorer but can some how manage to put up 15+ points consistently. I think the Nets lost in the Finals had something to do with KMart's lack of offensive game. The Nets couldn't find anyone to pass inside to score so they depended a lot of the outside shots. 

Back to Tyson, I think he will be a pretty good player. I dont' think it matters whether it's offensively or defensively, as long as he can help his team, he is valuable. In our case, we already have our offense forces so Chandler is even more important to us because of his defensive play. 

As far as how much we should pay him, it all depends on his level of development over the next couple of years.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> While I believe that Chandler will be the better player when all is said and done, I have to agree with Ceochase that he is given a pass around here, while guys that HAVE shown far more at the NBA level (like Fizer), do not.


Fizer and TC has averaged roughly the same minutes (23 vs. 24) per game in their careers. 

How has Fizer shown far more?

Is it his career 44% shooting? (vs. 54% 
for TC)?
Is it his career .32 BPG (vs. 1.36 for TC)?
Is it the inferior rebounding? The inferior D?
Is it the measley extra 2.5 ppg that he puts up?

Help me out here.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Does anyone know how to measure "a lot?"


um, in acres?


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

*Re: why all the love for Tyson? because*



> Originally posted by <b>Dornado</b>!
> He is tall.


Such an acute analysis. . .

:laugh:


----------



## CHawk (May 31, 2002)

I agree with 1 point on this thread......Fizer is the better player right now anyway.
If minutes keep going the way they are, yeah, Tyson may catch and pass Fizer, but If Fizer gets the minutes or gets traded to where he will get the playing time.....it will be very hard, for Tyson to catch Marcus. Tyson has to increase size and strength, and offensive ability. Fizer just needs to work on D and rebounding a little. I think that Tyson is superior defensively (blocked shots), and on help defense(Blocked shots), but thats it. Marcus has the edge in overall skill, Tyson just has the length advantage. Together though...the work great together on the court at the same time.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Fizer and TC has averaged roughly the same minutes (23 vs. 24) per game in their careers.
> ...


Sure, glad to help.

While thier minutes may end up being similar, I think the averages are misleading. Fizer has never, IMO had a shot at consistant starter-type minutes. He had Brand, Oakley, Chandler & Marshall ahead of him at various times. He's played out of position at the 3 and the 5. I can't think offhand of any time he's started more then 4 games in a row at his natural position.
*
My post was NOT meant as a knock on TC in any way,* though obviously you took it that way.

1)44% vs 54%. Don't even tell me you think Tyson has the range on his game that Fizer has? When your game is closer to the hoop, you should shoot higher. I expect Tyson's % to drop as he develops his face up and post games.

2)Blocks. Tyson is clearly the better shot blocker, I'm not even going to disagree with this one. He has the physical tools to be one of the best shot blockers ever.

3) "inferior rebounding?" 5.9 (TC) to 5.1 (MF) isn't much to write home about.... "The inferior D?" That's debatable. I think thier Man-D is comparable. Marcus has the advantage in help-D, and Tyson in weak-side shotblocking. This would be a push IMO.

4) The "measley" 2.5 points was the difference between a lot of wins and losses for us last year. Easily a 10 win swing with all the tight games and overtime games we played. Not measley at all in my book.

Stats aside, I don't see how anyone could argue with a striaght face that Fizer was not more prepared then Tyson from day 1. Yet he was never given a chance at big time minutes.

That was the basis of my point. That in an effort to give Ty every chance in the world to be a superstar, we're really sleeping on a very good PF, right under our noses.


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Fizer and TC has averaged roughly the same minutes (23 vs. 24) per game in their careers.
> ...


Yes, yes Fizer's stats haven't been that great. Go ahead compare the stats to make yourself feel more secure about Tyson.
Anyway he never said they were better than Tyson's. He just feels Fizer fits better. I think Fizer could be a great starter for us too, same with Tyson. But Tyson gets the nod because um... yeah. 
All right, I think I could come up with some decent excuses as to why Fizer hasn't put up great stats so far, but they are still excuses. There is no point since all that is in the past, and he will dominate this year -- absolutely dominate. Even on the boards he will. 

Note- I think Tyson is awesome. There is a huge misconception that I don't like him or something, but that is inaccurate.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure, glad to help.
> ...


Jim, 

You said Fizer had SHOWN far more than Tyson in the NBA. 

After seeing the facts in black and white, you now seem to be saying that Fizer is roughly the same given that Fizer has not gotten same chances.

Which is it?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> Jim Ian,
> 
> ...


I don't think your quite getting it. 

In his limited time, Fizer has *shown*, in comparison to Tyson, a much better handle, more range, better post moves and better man and help defense. In addition to the obvious intangibles which Tyson has not yet learned due to his young age (i.e. boxing out, sealing your man, setting good picks, offensive sets)

It was your stat-giving that prompted me to attempt to explain them, by explaining to you that Fizers minutes, while on the surface seemingly similar, were not.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

You have to love chandler. Without Chandler, Curry would be too much of a defensive liabilty. Fizer doesn't cover up as many mistakes as Chandler does. And on offense, Curry covers for Tyson. They are a duo in every sense of the word at this point in their careers. You can't just throw Marcus Fizer out on the floor and expect the same things to happen.

Tyson's game is the perfect compliment to Curry's. And I kind of think the Bulls might be developing this on purpose. Curry is definitely doing the glamor things that get a center all of the attention. But Chandler is doing the dirty work that win you big games.

Eventually both of them will round out and we'll have 2 great centers. But for now, Tyson is one of the main reasons we can win right now.

His shotblocking instincts are very good. I expect him to be a league leader in blocked shots in a few years. He comes off the weakside very well.

And he is the emotional leader of the team right now.

I don't know. He just brings a lot of intangibles to the floor at the young age of 20. He'll develop the skills, but you can't teach heart.(or being tall).

The Love for Tyson is just an extension of the love for Curry. These two have to be kept together. There is something special about the way they play off of each other that is only going to become more and more evident in the next few years.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> I don't think your quite getting it.


I am finally with you, champ.



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> In his limited time, Fizer has *shown*, in comparison to Tyson, a much better handle, more range, better post moves and better man and help defense. In addition to the obvious intangibles which Tyson has not yet learned due to his young age (i.e. boxing out, sealing your man, setting good picks, offensive sets)


I would agree on better handle, and more range. That's about it.

On the other hand, in his limited time, Tyson has *shown*, in comparison to Fizer, better defensive rebounding, much better offensive rebounding, better shot blocking, better ability to finish on the break.



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> It was your stat-giving that prompted me to attempt to explain them, by explaining to you that Fizers minutes, while on the surface seemingly similar, were not.


Thanks for cleariyfing that Fizer has NOT shown far more by any statisitical measure in the pros. It's all by the scouting eye of Jim Ian.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think your quite getting it.
> ...


You're right, Jim. In spite of Fizer having his minutes cut last season (before the injury), his production was up.

Here's Tyson's defensive game for you. 12/27/2002, he guarded the TWolves' Rasho Nesterovic. How'd ol' Rasho do?

10-14 FG, 7 reb, 23 points

Or how about the very next game, vs. San Antonio?

Chandler 18 minutes, 2PF, 1 rebound, 4 points.
Fizer 26 minutes, 12 rebounds, 11 points

Or two games later, vs. the Wizards...

Chandler 32 minutes, 3-9 FG, 4 Reb, 5 PF
And that was guarding Brendan Hayward... sheesh.
Fizer 24 minutes, 8 rebounds, 12 points

Next game vs. Cleveland
Chandler 23 minutes, made 6 out of 9 of his dunks, 7 reb, 5 PF, 16 points.

Next game, vs. Utah.
Chandler 9 minutes, 1 reb, 4 points, 4 PF, 2 TO
And that was guarding Greg Ostergag.
Fizer 28 minutes, 10-14 FG, 7 rebounds, 28 points

Lemme skip ahead at random.

1/14/2003 vs. Knicks

Chandler 15 minutes, 1-2 FG, 5 reb, 2 PF, 4 Pts
Fizer 26 minutes, 12 rebounds, 9 Pts

Skip ahead 4 more games.

1/22/2003 vs. Magic
Chandler 25 minutes, 2 rebounds, 10 points
Fizer 24 minutes, 5 rebounds, 17 points

Here's a few games later, Bulls win vs. Rockets
Chandler 21 minutes, 5 rebounds, 4 PF, 6 points
Fizer 21 minutes, 4 rebounds, 12 points 

It was pretty much like that all season long for Chandler. Well, the first 60 games or so, until it turned to garbage time and he did OK.

I literally picked a random game in the middle of the schedule and went from there. I didn't just pick bad games by Chandler...

Peace!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Here is a good Fizer stat from last year.

7 DNP-CD in November. Beaten out by Lonnie Baxter. I hate how the coach favored those golden rookies.

Yea, Fizer never got a chance. But yet still has SHOWN far more.


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Here is a good Fizer stat from last year.
> 
> 7 DNP-CD in November. Beaten out by Lonnie Baxter. I hate how the coach favored those golden rookies.
> ...


Wow, so to you it is absolutely insane to say Fizer has shown more than Tyson? But it's not to say Tyson has shown more than Fizer? I understand you think Tyson will be the better player, so you like Tyson better and you'll bash Fizer.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Here is a good Fizer stat from last year.
> 
> 7 DNP-CD in November. Beaten out by Lonnie Baxter. I hate how the coach favored those golden rookies.
> ...


Fizer was arrested for posession of a firearm in October. That's why he got the DNPs.

Try again.

Peace!


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

Da Bullz and Jim Ian-

Excellent objective posts from both you. I'm glad you two are not being biased and choosing sides.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Fizer was arrested for posession of a firearm in October. That's why he got the DNPs.
> 
> ...


Marcus was out of shape. So he didn't play.



> Head Coach Bill Cartwright on Fizer:
> “What an incredible year he had after first coming in *out of shape. He wasn’t prepared to play [at the start of the season],* but then he made up his mind that it wasn’t the kind of player he wanted to be ...


Nice try!


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

It was tough love from BC. Fizer had a legit excuse, but BC was trying to get the message across that you need to work through the tough times. IMO, even at 15+ lbs overweight Fizer was STILL the better player than LB, but like Fize said LB did a great job.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

So, coach didn't want to rub Marcus' nose in it. Big deal.

BTW, if Chandler was so good, how did Fizer get any minutes at all? Hmmm?


http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/scoreboard/20021014/recap/433207.html

October 14, 2002

Chicago's Marcus Fizer, who was arrested on gun charges Sunday morning, scored two points in 19 minutes. Fizer did not comment on his arrest.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I like Fizer. I hope he comes back stronger than ever. But this all got started when I objected to a certain poster that stated that "guys (like Fizer) that HAVE shown far more at the NBA level [than Chandler)". 



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> BTW, if Chandler was so good, how did Fizer get any minutes at all? Hmmm?


Given your question, I can safely rest my case.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What case would that be?

It is very clear that people have unrealistic and selective memory of what our so-called future stars have actually done. That would be Curry, Chandler, and Crawford.

Crawford shot 41% FG. Curry was such a liability on the court that coach couldn't bear to put him out there for more than 19 minutes per game. Chandler's only saving grace has been his height, as he gets himself so badly out of position he either fouls or one of his teammates has to foul. 

The Bulls consistently fell behind in games when both Chandler and Curry were on the floor. They're a liability when they're both on the floor. To start last season, the Bulls were 4-11 to start the season with Curry and Chandler both starting.

FWIW, for the minutes he was on the court, Fizer was the Bulls best offensive player, period. Including Rose and Marshall. He also looked like he figured out how to rebound and looked to be Marshall's equal at that, too.

Lonny Baxter played 12.4 minutes/game, Chandler 24.4. If Baxter played 24 minutes/game, here's how the two compare:

FG Baxter 3.6/7.6 (46.6%), Chandler 3.4/6.5 (53.1%)
FT Baxter 2.6/3.8 (68%), Chandler 2.4/3.9 (60.8%)
REB Baxter 2.4/3.6/6.0, Chandler 2.3/4.6/6.8
AST Baxter .6, Chandler 1.0
TO Baxter 1.6, Chandler 1.8
STL Baxter 0.4, Chandler 0.5
BLK Baxter 0.8, Chandler 1.4
PTS Baxter 9.6, Chandler 9.2


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

So given all of that. You think the bulls should put their future in Fizer and Baxter?

Give me a break. The fact of the matter is, Chandler has so much more potential than Fizer. At his size and with his athleticism, he has the potential to be great. Fizer might end up a little better than Corliss Williamson. Which is not bad, but it's a waste of a lottery pick(bad draft year though, so who are you going to pick?).

And if you want to develop that potential into real talent, you don't sit that talent on the bench. Players get better by playing. And the reason Chandler starts over Fizer is because he is the bulls future. Fizer is not. So regardless of who is actually the better player right now, and it seems to be pretty even--Chandler will get better and with improvement can be a lot better than Fizer potentially can.

It's a question of which basket to put your eggs into. Clearly the entire franchise is behind Chandler and Curry. Because they realize this as well.

Dabullz, I think your far to pessimistic when judging our young players. When you are looking at young developing players, you don't look at what they've failed to do, you look at what they've done well. That's how you project these players out, and that's how you avoid the mistake of putting Fizer ahead of Chandler.

Your analysis is very good though and always interesting to read. But I can't help but feel you're looking at the wrong things.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Shawn Bradley had the same potential. He was a project from day 1, and he's only become an adequate player, just for his defense.

The reason Chandler starts over Fizer is because some idiot GM traded away a REAL DEAL player (Brand) to get him and he'd look like a fool if the coach didn't play him.

What I think is that the Bulls should play their best players, period. If that means Fizer plays over Chandler, then that's what it means. It is up to the coach to make that decision, after seeing the guys in training camp and on the court during pre-season and regular season games.

If it were up to me, I'd take a 20/10 6'8" PF over a 15/12 7'1" PF any time. I remember a pretty good team that won championships with Harper (6'7"), Pippen (6'7"), Jordan (6'7"), ROdman (6'7"), and a big oaf named Longley (7'). I'm not blinded by a guy's height. Heck, I'd take a 6'4" guy named Barkley over almost any guy much taller at the PF position.

You can look i t up on this site. Last season when we drafted Baxter, I started a thread that basically said that Baxter could and should start over Chandler if he beat him out for the job. 

Now, you give me a break. If we traded all our baggage for Kobe, TMac, Shaq, Kidd, and Duncan, I swear there would be misguided people suggesting we play Chandler, Curry, and Crawford over those guys because they have "potential."

If you agree with me that we should start those 5 megastars, then you might begin to agree that it is a matter of relativity. If Shaq is 2x the player Curry is, then why fret over playing some other guy who is 1.9x or 1.5x or even 1.1x the player? I'm fine with 1.00001x, because I want a BETTER team.

Potential, by definition, implies UNFULFILLED. Fizer as the #4 pick in the draft has potential, too. Only his is actually fulfilled to a MUCH greater extent.

The truth is that Fizer IS something greater than 1x better than Chandler, and there's no law of the universe that prohibits Chandler from developing while Fizer plays. UNTIL Chandler proves he's ready - to the coach.

The same logic applies to Pippen. He is something greater than 1x better than Crawford, and if we get him, he should play ahead of Crawford. Unless or until Crawford proves he's the man.

Frankly, I'd prefer to see both Curry and Chandler playing C this season, with the better man getting the start and most PT.

FWIW, here's the dictionary definition of "potential" and the synonims from the thesaurus:

Main Entry: potential
Function: noun
Date: 1817
1 a : something that <B>can</B> develop or become actual <a potential for violence> b : PROMISE 2


Entry Word: potential
Function: adjective
Text: 1 existing in possibility <a potential site for the new factory>
Synonyms possible
Related Word conceivable, imaginable, likely, plausible, probable, thinkable
Idioms within the realm (or range) of possibility

I agree it is (conceivable, imaginable, likely, plausible, probable, thinkable) that Curry, Chandler, and Crawford may be very good basketball players someday. I'm also willing to wait. But I see no reason why we should not try as hard as possible to win every game, no matter what it takes.

Peace!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

It is interesting to hear folks talk about Chandler as if he has no offensive skills and that he is nothing but potential.

There were 63 guys last year who played 30 games, averaged 20 minutes or more per game, and averaged more than 10 rebounds per 48 minutes. Fizer and Chandler were two of them. (Eddy Curry was not.)

*In points per 48, Fizer clearly is better than Chandler.*

Fizer is #9 on this list at 26.4 points per 48 (right between Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, Pau Gasol, and Shareef Abdur-Rahim)
Chandler is #29 on this list at 18.2 points per 48 (right between Donnell Harvey, Antonio Davis, Nene Hilario, and Rasho Nesterovic).

Fizer truly is a special scorer (all 8 guys ahead of him are All-Stars), but Chandler is no slouch. Folks who say he has no offensive game are wildly overstating their case. Remember all of the guys on this list averaged 20 or more minutes per game.

*In rebounds per 48, Chandler is slightly better than Fizer.*

Chandler is at #17 on this list at 13.5 rebounds per 48 (right between Elton Brand, Yao Ming, Amare Stoudemire, and Jermaine O'Neal)
Fizer is #28 on this list at 12.8 rebounds per 48 (right between Kenny Thomas, Chris Webber, Lorenzen Wright, and Brad Miller)

So for those who argue that Fizer isn't much of a rebounder, that's not really true. And right now Chandler is a good but not great rebounder.

*Obviously, in field goal perentage, Chandler is much better than Fizer.*

Chandler is #12 on this list at 56.2% in adjusted field goal percentage (right between Dale Davis, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Tim Duncan, Adonal Foyle).
Fizer is #49 on this list at 50.2% (right between Reggie Evans, Jelani McCoy, Drew Gooden, and Juwan Howard).

(My adjusted field goal percentage adjusts for free throws, as well.)

Of course, Fizer creates a lot more of his shots, which partially explains his lower field goal percentage. But remember Chandler is about an average scorer, so it is not as if he is a Ben Wallace-type who never creates his own shot.

*And in blocks per 48, Chandler greatly outperfoms Fizer.*

Chandler is #18 on this list at 2.8 blocks per 48 (right between Yao Ming, Eddie Griffen, Michael Olowokandi, and Pau Gasol).
Fizer is #45 on this list at 1.0 blocks per 48 (right between Vladimir Stepania, Carlos Boozer, Malik Rose, and Shawn Kemp).

Interestingly, Chandler is a better rebounder than he is shot blocker, and his blocks do not suggest that he is quite the intimidating inside presence that everyone makes him out to be.

All in all, I think that Chandler stacks up to Fizer quite well in current production, so those who argue that he has no offensive game or that he is nothing but potential really are missing the point. Right now, he is an average scorer with an above average field goal percentage. Fizer is a phenomenal scorer with a below average field goal percentage.

The big difference is that Chandler is 20 and Fizer is 24. Given how much Fizer improved this year, I would be amazed if we didn't see similar (or greater) progress from Chandler between ages 20 and 24.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I like Fizer and Chandler both. I think they both have potential to be very good players. Offensively Fizer has realized a little more of his potential and he probably has more potential offensively than Chandler. Chandler has realized more of his defensive potential and quite frankly just MAKES oppossing teams change what they are trying to do and change their shots. You can't discount that because it makes a world of difference. 

Why is Chandler the starter and not Fizer? Several reasons. 1.) Chandler plays better defensively and the Bulls want to come out and set the tone defensively.

2.) Curry and Fizer both have back the the basket post up games and having them both on the floor at the same time is redundant, they only get in each others way trying to play the same game.

3.) Chandler is a much more team oriented player. In fact, if someone wants to look back, Chandler gave up his personal stats towards the end of the season to GET curry involved. Fizer, on the other hand, can be a little like a black hole sometimes. 

4.) Chandler is the future. I mean come on, the guy is 7'1" and hyper athletic. Once he fills out his frame a little your looking at a defensive terror. 

Sure, offensively Chandler has a little room to grow still and he definitley needs to. But, do the Bulls really need him to put up gaudy offensive stats? No. They need him to defend, rebound, distribute when appropriate and score opportunistically, which is basically what he does. 

Now I have heard from people who have watched Tysons HS career a lot more than me (RealbullsfaninLA for one) that Tyson actually has a pretty nice stroke and can shoot the ball, he just doesn't have a green light to do that in the Bulls system.

In any case, the reasons why Chandler is the starter over Fizer are pretty obvious. That being said, I like Fizer, this guy can practically score at will in the post and there are not a lot of players that can do that. But it really mixes up the Bulls opponents when they get used to guarding Tyson and Fizer comes in and punishes them in the post.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> All in all, I think that Chandler stacks up to Fizer quite well in current production, so those who argue that he has no offensive game or that he is nothing but potential really are missing the point. Right now, he is an average scorer with an above average field goal percentage. Fizer is a phenomenal scorer with a below average field goal percentage.
> 
> The big difference is that Chandler is 20 and Fizer is 24. Given how much Fizer improved this year, I would be amazed if we didn't see similar (or greater) progress from Chandler between ages 20 and 24.


:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Thank you. And to make the case you didn't even need to bring up Ty's superior physical attributes (e.g. height) or potential to dominate once he perfects some of the moves he showed last year (e.g. half hook from 8 feet)


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I love Tyson's attitude and toughness. He lit a fire under Curry (something that is NOT easy to do) last season. Tyson was the first of the towers to break out for 15 games or so, something he did earlier in the season. That pushed EC to take his game to another level. Both enjoyed a fine 2nd half of the season.

Tyson length on defense is awesome to watch. More than blocks, his height and agility really bothers people that come into the lane. He has shown good potential rebounding as well. His defense and rebounding is further ahead of his offense.

Speaking of offense (I'm not sure why everyone dogs him on this b/c he's only 20), I think he needs the most work on his footwork. He looks like Luigi in Super Mario Bros 2 with his legs all crazy. Once he gets his footwork down and adds to it 1-2 solid moves, he could be a great one. He has a nice touch from the outside, and we've heard different reports about how well he shoots in practice anyways. So the potential is there.


----------



## bullsinjection (May 15, 2003)

As far as a team concept goes here is why Chandler is such a unique talent.

On defense:

1. When a team has a guy who is 7'1" and aggressive on the boards you can only send two guys to get the rebound quite often which means that you will have a lot of 3 on 2 break opportunities. 

2. When a team has an imposing lane presence your wing defenders can gamble for steals more and make it harder for a team to run a set offense. 

On offense:

1. With his speed, Chandler can beat his man down the court and create mismatches on offense. That is where he gets a lot of his points because he floats into the lane uncovered.

2. Tyson actually has a good grasp of movement without the ball and is open for a lot of easy buckets. That is why his shooting percentage is so high.

3. Curry will draw a lot of double teams in the future. Once he learns how to recognize them he will be able to see the SF that slid over to cover Chandler because the PF id doubling Curry. Easy 2 points.

Chandler is a rare talent that has his head screwed on right. He wants to develop his game and lead this Bulls team as a 21 year old. There is a reason that a guy like Mutombo is always in demand (even at 40 years old). He is huge and causes problems. Chandler will be so much better than him. There is no reason that Chandler can't have the same effect on a game that Alonzo Mourning used to have. Alonzo was never pretty on offense either but he still kicked everyone's a$$ when they played.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Fizer has played 2 months of consistently productive basketball in his NBA career.

Chandler has played 1-2 months of consistently productive basketball in his NBA career.

Curry has played 2 months of consistently productive basketball in his NBA career.

Crawford has played 2-3 months of consistently productive basketball in his NBA career. (i say 3 b/c of his strong 2001 finish... but i don't have those stats in front of me so maybe i'm wrong... but its at least 2)

None of these guys have proven anything yet. Its not like Fizer has proven himself in the league any more than Chandler/Curry/Crawford.

The fact is.... until those two months last season... Fizer sucked.... and he was getting the minutes (25 a game in 2001)

His improvement last season was quite promising.

So.... why does Chandler play over Fizer?

1.) An organization needs to develop its talent. Unfortunately... the NBA does not have a farm system.... so.... if you want your prospects to get minutes (which is how players develop)... you need to play them.

2.) Upside. Given that both Fizer and Chandler have shown glimpses of productivity you look at other factors. Age. Height. Athleticism. Attitude. That's the elusive 'upside'.... and its really tough to measure that by running database queries. Chandler seems to have all of these things in his favor..... based on what NBA scouts/GMs look at.

Its not like Fizer is not getting a chance to play either.... when he was productive... he was getting 23-24 minutes a game... and was excelling in his 6th man PF role. Chandler was getting around 30 minutes a game at the end of the season.

I prefer to start Chandler over Fizer since I like Tyson doing the jump ball and providing an initial burst of crazy athleticism. I like Fizer coming off the bench to wreak havoc and put the ball in the hole when the scoring starters are resting. 

Either way... both are getting minutes and chances to develop. What's the big deal?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> I agree it is (conceivable, imaginable, likely, plausible, probable, thinkable) that Curry, Chandler, and Crawford may be very good basketball players someday. I'm also willing to wait. But I see no reason why we should not try as hard as possible to win every game, no matter what it takes.


The problem is.... in order for them to develop.... it seems like you have to play them. Also... to keep them happy and motivated..... you have to play them. 

OT: This is the problem with drafting high-schoolers and why I think the NBA needs a farm system.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Thanks for cleariyfing that Fizer has NOT shown far more by any statisitical measure in the pros. It's all by the scouting eye of Jim Ian.


Well, it's fairly clear to anyone reading these posts that my scouting eye is superior to that of some people, given that I don't allow hype and personal obsessions with my favorite players to get in the way of a fair evaluation of them.

As for that statistical measures, ok. Lets break em down. And I mean all of them, not just the ones that favor your arguements.

Wait a tic!! NCBullsFan did it already!!!  

I don't know what _facts_ you see in his post to support your posts that Chandler is the next best thing since sliced bread. Nor do I see such a large gap between them, since your posts seem to indicate that Marcus is a CBA talent and Tyson is a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer....

I've said it before, and i'll say it again: I think Chandler will end up being the superior player. But Marcus is quite a player in his own right. 

He's not nearly the scrub your making him out to be in order to make Chandler look better.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> I don't know what _facts_ you see in his post to support your posts that Chandler is the next best thing since sliced bread. Nor do I see such a large gap between them, since your posts seem to indicate that Marcus is a CBA talent and Tyson is a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer....


I see....

To save face, you attempt to change the arguement.... 

Nice try....

Just to refresh your memory....

You stated that "guys (like Fizer) that HAVE shown far more at the NBA level [than Chandler)". 

That was the debate.

NCBullsFan showed that your statement is incorrect from a statistical standpoint. He said, "All in all, I think that Chandler stacks up to Fizer quite well in current production."

It's fine if you want to give Fizer some props, but you overstated the case. End of story.


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

He didn't try to change the argument. . .

What's funny is if Tyse didn't play for the Bulls, and Kwame did you'd be saying Tyson is limited on offense, can't dribble, can't shoot, and has no moves. . .

One person calls Tyson out on his flaws, and makes the statement that Fizer might be a better fit, so all you Tyson backers will go and bash Fizer to make yourselves feel more secure about Tyse. 

See if you thought Fizer would be better, then you would be backing him and saying how he has shown more than Ty. . . 

I'm a huge Tyson fan, but reading these posts from his "fans" that rip on Fizer just makes me not want to be a fan. . . but I won't go to your guys' level and rip on Ty to make myself feel better about Marcus.

What's sad is if Tyson ever becomes a bust (he won't) then you guys won't even be fans of his anymore. You'll find someone else to make a one-sided arguments for. . .

Go Tyson and Marcus --- You both will be great players.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Go Tyson and Marcus --- You both will be great players.


:clap:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>comptons</b>!
> What's funny is if Tyse didn't play for the Bulls, and Kwame did you'd be saying Tyson is limited on offense, can't dribble, can't shoot, and has no moves. . .


At least based upon last year's production, Kwame is a couple notches below Fizer and Chandler. Out of the 63 guys in my original grouping, he ranks #51 in points per 48, #40 in rebounds per 48, #52 in adjusted field goal percentage, and #25 in blocks per 48.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I see....
> ...


John, your constant arrogance,  and sarcasm don't really lend anything to the thread. If you want to have a good disscusion with someone, I suggest you post like a normal person, and not like an immature little kid, rolling your eyes and being a smart *** instead of just stating your points.

As for the original point, it seems like we're spitting hairs here. Perhaps in my original statement, I was not descriptive enough for you.

What I meant by that was why are guys like Chandler given such props and starter level minutes, when guys who were obviously more NBA ready (like Marcus) are stuck behind Brand/Oak/Chandler/Marshall and never really given a real shot?

I don't think there is much doubt that Fizer came in, rookie year, ready to contribute to an NBA. He wasn't given a chance, and I think that has allowed him to slip off our (posting) radar. He's still 24, and to think he can't improve a lot is just shortsighted.

If you don't think that Fizer, * from day one *, NOT _ potentially,_ wass better suited to start and play 35 minutes a game and contribute, then I guess there's nothing more to say.... 

However, since I, and almost everyone else, thinks that Chandler has a much higher ceiling, Marcus won't be starting for the Bulls anytime soon, so I guess the point is really moot anyways... :sigh:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

As far as the people saying Tyson has no shot. I think it's like someone said, he doesn't have the green light anymore.

If you remember back to when he first came to the bulls, he was trying to play Small forward. Sit out on the outside shooting threes, and he had a nice handle(I remember at the draft the quote was "guard-like handles", one of the guys said Chandler would make the league as a point guard if he was only 6 foot. I don't remember who said that though, but I remember the quote everytime I watch Tyson play now and pass up wide open 18 footers, and not take his man off the dribble.

I would like to know where those skills went. I imagine BC told him to lose them and get his *** in the post and play like a center.



As far as how Kwame compares to Eddy and Tyson, Kwame is farther back in development thanks to Mr. Jordan. But if he got to play the bulls every game he would be an all-star. It's all mental for him anymore. When he decides he can play, I think he's going to move ahead of Tyson and possibly Eddy.

But you didn't ask about Kwame.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

About Fizer.

I disagree that Fizer played just 2 months of good basketball. He played the entire previous season of good basketball. In fact, it was more than just "good."

This is for NCBullsFan. Thanks for reaffirming the data I presented. If you wouldn't mind doing me a couple of favors:

1) Let's forget the per-48 minute stuff. On a per game basis, Fizer scored 12.3 PPG and had 5.6 APG his 2nd season. How about looking at guys who played ~26 minutes per game and let's see how Marcus' season compared with those guys. I bet he is in the creme de la creme of those guys. Or use last season's stats (even better!)... ~12PPG, 5.7 RPG, in just 21 minutes.

2) How does Lonny Baxter stack up in your top 63 players based upon 48 minutes? 


What I look for in young (not necessarily just HSers) players is year-over-year improvement in their game. Fizer has shown a marked improvement for his entire, but short career.

What is even more remarkable about Fizer's scoring in his 2nd season is that he did it with Rose (23.8 PPG), Mercer (16.8 PPG), Artest (15.6 PPG), and B. Miller (12.7 PPG) on the same team for much of the season.

Or how about comparing Fizer with, say, Shane Battier, whose name gets bandied about here as a good fit for the Bulls. Battier did outscore Fizer (Fizer's 2nd year stats) by 2 PPG and had similar rebounding figures, but played ~15PPG more. BUT IN HIS 2ND SEASON, Battier's production dropped considerably (though I do agree his overall game improved). Battier, given Fizer's minutes, would be ~3.5 rebounds, ~7 PPG.

The key factor when consider Fizer and Chandler is that Fizer is consisently good in his minutes. Given more minutes, Fizer continues to produce. Chandler, given 20 minutes, often puts up ~10 pts, ~10 rebounds, but given 40 minutes he'll put up ~10 pts and ~10 rebounds.

Peace!


----------



## bullsinjection (May 15, 2003)

I know that it is a open board but why are we debating between the two players? When Tyson and Fizer are in the game together they play really good. Why should we compare two of our own players when we should talk about lineups where they can be effective together.


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right, Jim. In spite of Fizer having his minutes cut last season (before the injury), his production was up.
> ...


You say you picked a random game in the middle of the season.Chandler didn't start averaging his double doubles and start turning into a monster until after the all-star break.

And based on how many teams were fighting for playoff spots,I would say that Chandler never played in garbage time games.Especially in light of the fact that he didn't play at the end of the season due to injury.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

To add to my previous post.

<B>Fizer averaged just 21 minutes/game.</B>

Scoring (< 30 min/game):

1. Bobby Jackson 28.4 min/game, 15.2 PPG
2. Michael Redd 28.2 min/game, 15.1 PPG
3. Grant Hill 29.1 min/game, 14.5 PPG
4. Yao Ming 29.1 min/game, 13.5 PPG
5. Dajuan Wagner 29.5 min/game, 13.4 PPG
6. Tim Thomas 29.5 min/game, 13.3 PPG
7. Drew Gooden 26.8 min/game, 12.5 PPG
8. Nick Van Exel 27.8 min/game, 12.5 PPG
9. Gordon Giricek 28.3 min/game, 12.3 PPG
10. Andrei Kirilenko 27.7 min/game, 12.0 PPG
11. Corliss Williamson 25.1 min/game 12.0 PPG
12. Stephen Jackson 28.2 min/game 11.8 PPG
<B>13. Marcus Fizer 21.3 min/game, 11.7 PPG</B>

Fizer would be #1 in scoring at 25 min/game or less, which is 4 min/game more than he actually played.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>realbullsfaninLA</b>!
> 
> 
> You say you picked a random game in the middle of the season.Chandler didn't start averaging his double doubles and start turning into a monster until after the all-star break.
> ...


Fizer produced at all times, given even modest minutes. Chandler did not. No excuses.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Fizer produced at all times, given even modest minutes. Chandler did not. No excuses.


Come on, DaBullz. You kill your credibility when you go out on a limb like that. Through the end of November (at which point the Bulls had already put themselves out of playoff contention, so one could argue that the rest of the season was garbage time), Fizer averaged 5.1 points and 3.2 rebounds in 13.9 minutes per game. He shot a woeful 29.8%.

In no way, shape, or form is that "producing at all times, given even modest minutes." That is why Cartwright was forced not to play him. He was killing the Bulls. You just can't have a guy on the floor who is putting up a shot about every other minute who is making less than 30 percent of his shots.

I think Fizer is underrated by many on this board, but you kill your arguments when you make statements like this one.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Come on, DaBullz. You kill your credibility when you go out on a limb like that. Through the end of November (at which point the Bulls had already put themselves out of playoff contention, so one could argue that the rest of the season was garbage time), Fizer averaged 5.1 points and 3.2 rebounds in 13.9 minutes per game. He shot a woeful 29.8%.
> ...


Fizer played in NINE of the team's SIXTEEN games through the end of November, getting 10+ minutes in just six of those. If you call that modest minutes, so be it.

Of those 9 games, when he got his 20 minutes of PT, he shot 9-21.

Peace!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Fizer played in NINE of the team's SIXTEEN games through the end of November, getting 10+ minutes in just six of those. If you call that modest minutes, so be it.
> 
> Of those 9 games, when he got his 20 minutes of PT, he shot 9-21.
> ...


Yes, he shot 43 percent in those two games, nothing to write home about.

If you look at the five games over this period in which he played 15 minutes or more, he shot 13 for 46 (28.2 percent). He averaged 18.4 minutes per game in those five games, which probably is about what he would get once Curry and Chandler grow up some.

You can let this go, and still maintain that Fizer is a good player. I believe he is a good player. He just wasn't during this period.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, he shot 43 percent in those two games, nothing to write home about.
> ...


I'm happy to let it go with this caveat: You've been able to find a measly 5 games where the math works out that he wasn't a good player, and it's really 3 games of 1-8, 2-10, and 2-7 shooting that somehow means he didn't produce on a consistent basis.

FWIW, over the same period in question, Chandler had shooting nights of 0-6, 1-6, 1-5, and 2-8.

HEHEHE


Peace!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Fizer's 2nd season*

Having your power forward scoring 12.3ppg in 25 mpg is good.... but doing that while shooting 43.8% is not. 

His shooting percentage and his rebounding is what improved the most his 3rd season. He was scoring a more ppg since he was more efficient (focusing on banging/converting down low).


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> The reason Chandler starts over Fizer is because some idiot GM traded away a REAL DEAL player (Brand) to get him and he'd look like a fool if the coach didn't play him.
> 
> If it were up to me, I'd take a 20/10 6'8" PF over a 15/12 7'1" PF any time.



Please let Elton Brand go, people.

I've never seen such great numbers that are practically meaningless in terms of wins. That man gets numbers that are up there with KG and Duncan, yet he can't come anywhere close to leading his team to wins. Why? Elton can't dominate his position. He can't be your best player -- he's not a leader. 

That "idiot" GM corrected his mistake: when he had a choice between two very talented players, Elton and Francis, he chose the safe one -- the one that will produce. However, Francis was the one who can dominate. Francis was the one who meant more to his team, in terms of wins and leadership. And Tyson is a player who can dominate -- he can be your leader.

Tyson has already given us one special thing that Elton never has in his career: completely take over a game. Tyson's game against the Blazers was amazing -- there was no answer for him. With not near the offensive skills Elton has, Tyson just decided to take over. And he did. -- That is a sign of what's to come.

Tyson will be better than Elton in defense, rebounding, and leading his teams to wins. (And who wants to give Elton the ball in the low post when you can give it to Curry?)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Cochise</b>!
> 
> Tyson will be better than Elton in defense, rebounding, and leading his teams to wins. (And who wants to give Elton the ball in the low post when you can give it to Curry?)


"Tyson will be better than ..."

JUST WHEN WILL THAT BE? IT ISN'T NOW.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> "Tyson will be better than ..."
> ...


This year. Year numero 3. Put up or shut up time. The year the pieces finally come together.

:yes:


----------

