# Second Half Schedule Analysis: 50+ Win Team



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

In another thread, I wrote my prediction that the Bulls are on the verge of breaking out and dominating the second half of the schedule ultimately finishing the season with 50+ wins. 

Later, DaBullz set out a factually accurate breakdown of the schedule going forward that raises some very real concerns - specifically that it is road game heavy. 

*I took a look at a lot of other factors as well, and have concluded that the schedule, in my opinion, actually favors a strong run for the second half of the season and reinforces my prediction of 50+ wins.* Obviously, I also expect the team to improve as the season goes on which has been a staple in the past, but this thread relates only to an anlysis of the schedule. 

In part, I've used DaBullz perfectly sound factual observations as points for rebuttal.



> We have a .333 win % on the road, and even recent games aren't any better than that (1-2 this month, for example).
> 
> We've played 22 games at home, and 18 on the road, so the rest of the way is a bit stacked with road games. In fact, we have 9 road games in February, and 5 at home. It's going to be a "fun" month. 5-9 is in line with how the team's performed to date (.333 win % on the road, .772 at home).


Obviously, this is all undeniably true. But it discounts the *nature* of the road games we've already played and the *nature* of those that lie ahead. 

The Bulls began the season 1-8 on the road with the toughest stretch of road games they'll play all season which seriously impacts the use of the current road winning percentage as a predictive measure. Since that start, as the road schedule has become more reasonable, the Bulls have gone 4-4. I think this is far more predictive of what the Bulls are going to do on the road going forward. 

The early road games were saturated with West playoff elite. Of the Western conference playoff teams, we only have 2 road games remaining - 1 against Phoenix and 1 against Utah. The rest of the West are against current lottery teams. 



> We are 23-17 (.575) right now with 23 road games and 19 home games left. To win 50, we have to go 27-15 (.643) the rest of the way. (Only 5 teams in the whole NBA are playing .643 ball for half a season).


Undeniably true again. But would it really be that hard to go 27-15 on the remaining schedule? I dont' think so. If the Bulls win against Utah tonight to finish the first half of the season, the first half record will be 24-17. They'd then have to improve a whopping 2 games out of 41 to end up at 26-15 for the second half, and finish with 50 wins.

*So, is the schedule (ignoring team improvement) conducive to that 2 win improvement despite the fact that it is a little road heavy?* I think it is. Here is why:

*The second half of the schedule is Eastern Conference heavy.* 28 games against the East, and only 13 against the West (vs. 17 against the West in the first half).

During the first half of the season, the Bulls record against the East was 18-7 (.720 winning%). If the Bulls maintain that winning percentage, they get 20 of their needed 26 wins against the East. 

*So what about the West?* Can the Bulls go 6-7 in their 13 remaining games against the West? They should, because unlike the first half that was packed with both games against the likes of Houston-Lakers-Minny-Spurs-Dallas who we won't see again, the remaining 13 games are packed with projected lottery teams. 

In the second 41 games, *only 3* are against current West playoff teams - Utah, Phoenix and Denver. 

Here are the remaining 10: Portland (2 games), Clippers (2 games), Warriors (2 games), Sonics (1), NO (1), Mem (1), and Sactown (1). Throwing out Phoenix and even Utah and just predicting them as losses, the Bulls would need to go a modest 6-5 in the other 11 against teams with a current collective record of 128-184 (.410 winning %.)

Now, I realize there are probably more considerations. For example, the Bulls have only played Orlando and Detroit once each. But I think they've only played Charlotte and Atlanta once each as well. So it kind of balances out for the East, I think.

In summary, I think the schedule - again, completely ignoring the factor of internal improvement from the team and the rooks - bodes very well for the prospect of breaking through to 50+ wins. To me, the "second 41" looks ripe for the picking. I predict the Bulls on the brink of a major surge.

Of course, I like this team. But for the purpose of this thread I'm trying to focus on proveable facts, not opinions. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

Yeah nobody ever wants to understand the Bulls always have a tough schedule to start the season. Once we start playing those easy teams 50 wins will be in clear view.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Penguin, obviously, I hope you're right and it's certainly possible. However, I'm going to need to drink some more Kool-aid to consider your scenario likely.

In part, Wallace's inconsistency makes it hard for me to don the rose-colored glasses. When he's inspired, he's the Ben Wallace I though we were getting. When he's not, he's frighteningly mediocre...and he only seems to get inspired every third game or so. When Wallace is mediocre (not bad, which he is occasionally), this Bulls team looks to me like a .500 club.

Net, I don't trust Wallace and until I do, I don't see this team playing .640 ball for an extended stretch.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> Penguin, obviously, I hope you're right and it's certainly possible. However, I'm going to need to drink some more Kool-aid to consider your scenario likely.
> 
> In part, Wallace's inconsistency makes it hard for me to don the rose-colored glasses. When he's inspired, he's the Ben Wallace I though we were getting. When he's not, he's frighteningly mediocre...and he only seems to get inspired every third game or so. When Wallace is mediocre (not bad, which he is occasionally), this Bulls team looks to me like a .500 club.
> 
> Net, I don't trust Wallace and until I do, I don't see this team playing .640 ball for an extended stretch.


With him already playing like that, the Bulls require only a 2, or at worst 3 if they lose tonight, game improvement in the second half of the season. 

Do you think, all things staying the same with Wallace and everyone else on the roster with no improvements, that the nature of the schedule going forward can facilitate that 2-3 game improvement over the course of 41 games?

Thats just to get to 50 wins. (I actually think the Bulls will end up with more like 52-53.)


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I agree with Ron Cey, though I don't have any factual proof to add. I think power rankings like Hollinger's page on ESPN or the Sagarin rankings on USA Today do this sort of analysis more rigorously, and the Bulls rank highly in both.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> I agree with Ron Cey, though I don't have any factual proof to add. I think power rankings like Hollinger's page on ESPN or the Sagarin rankings on USA Today do this sort of analysis more rigorously, and the Bulls rank highly in both.


I think they base those on the schedule already played. And based on that, they do take opponent winning %, home/road, and recent trends (at least Hollinger does) into consideration. 

There are other things that would bode well for the Bulls, such as their conference best point differential, but I just wanted to break down the second half schedule.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> With him already playing like that, the Bulls require only a 2, or at worst 3 if they lose tonight, game improvement in the second half of the season.
> 
> Do you think, all things staying the same with Wallace and everyone else on the roster with no improvements, that the nature of the schedule going forward can facilitate that 2-3 game improvement over the course of 41 games?
> 
> Thats just to get to 50 wins. (I actually think the Bulls will end up with more like 52-53.)


Alas, no I don't.

The Bulls I've been watching aren't good enough to win 50% of their road games for the remainder of the season. They are good enough to win 70+% of their home games, but not 80%. They still play best against the better teams, which may serve them well in the playoffs, but not in the regular season.

In the end, from what I've seen, these Bulls are a good team, but not a great team. Again, I hope my eyes are wrong and that yours are right.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

This team lost AT New York, beat Atlanta by 2 AT Atlanta, lost AT Washington, lost AT New Jersey, lost AT Cleveland, lost AT Orlando, lost AT Philadelphia. All eastern conference teams, some of them not particularly good teams.

Seems like the road is more a factor than the team they play against.

The last 6 road games, they're 2-4.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> This team lost AT New York, beat Atlanta by 2 AT Atlanta, lost AT Washington, lost AT New Jersey, lost AT Cleveland, lost AT Orlando, lost AT Philadelphia. All eastern conference teams, some of them not particularly good teams.
> 
> *Seems like the road is more a factor than the team they play against.*
> 
> The last 6 road games, they're 2-4.


Thats a good point.

4 of those teams you listed are playoff teams. I'm glad we don't have 2 road games remaining against them. It would make the schedule that much more difficult.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

To add to my previous post...

The bulls have had it rather easy. We go into Milwaukee and get a win. But... Milwaukee was without FOUR starters (Redd, Villanueva, Mo Williams, and Simmons) and we looked horrible for three quarters against their depleted squad.

The depleted squad issue has been in the bulls' favor to a ridiculous degree. We beat teams at home in games like Detroit minus Billups, or teams on the road like Toronto minus Bosh.

We beat the Lakers at home minus Mihm and Odom, Seattle at home minus Ray Allen, Indiana at home minus four starters (suspensions and food poisoning), Boston minus Wallyworld, New Orleans on the road minus Peja and Bobby Jackson, Knicks minus Frye, Richardson, and Jeffries, etc.

Hinrich missed a couple of games due to a minor injury, but we've been otherwise quite healthy. 

The bulls aren't the only team that can improve their play over the 2nd half - there's a lot of teams that can do that AND get their star players back, too.

Knock on wood the bulls don't suffer an injury or two and have to play short handed for a stretch of games.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

I wish I could feel optimistic abt this team on the road and thus be able to predict 50 or more wins. But I can 't. So far our road wins have come against Miami on opening day, a SUCKY Knicks team, a NO team missing everybody, a sucky Hawks team, a so-so Toronto squad and a Milwaukee team missing all of their top players. All 6 of these teams have losing records and with the exception of the injury-riddled NO they're all EC teams. We'll soon be hitting the road again against the WC and that will be brutal. W/ the exception of Portland I can't picture the Bulls beating anyone else. They haven't proven they can and have historically SUCKED in those buildings.

I'm sticking with my preseason prediction of 45-48 wins.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> To add to my previous post...
> 
> The bulls have had it rather easy. We go into Milwaukee and get a win. But... Milwaukee was without FOUR starters (Redd, Villanueva, Mo Williams, and Simmons) and we looked horrible for three quarters against their depleted squad.
> 
> ...


Fair point and you don't need it for me to question the Bulls ability to finish the season on a .640 clip.

This said, the Bulls have won without Wallace, Hinrich, Duhon and Nocioni...4 of their 5 starters. In fact, their winning % seems to be better with a starter missing (go figure). 

Actually, I don't worry too much about what most of the EC teams have or don't have. The Bulls seem to play down to their competion, but seem to win most of the games they should.

Questioning the Bulls ability to win 64% of their remaining games is a compelling argument for me. Getting into the minutia may serve to diminish what the Bulls have accomplished so far this season, but it doesn't enhance the (sound) basic argument.

DaBullz, one thing I've always respected about you is that you're all about wins and losses. Diminishing wins is no better than excusing losses. A win is a win and a loss is a loss. No style points are given.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

SPMJ said:


> *We'll soon be hitting the road again against the WC and that will be brutal. W/ the exception of Portland I can't picture the Bulls beating anyone else.*


Wow. You think Portland is the only road win the Bulls can take against the West? Seattle? Memphis? Sacramento? 

Well, obviously if you are correct then its pretty much a certainty the Bulls won't win more than 45 games or so. 

I noted the possibility that the Bulls could go 6-7 in the 13 second-half games against the West. But I actually predict they are going to be closer to 8-5.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Fair point and you don't need it for me to question the Bulls ability to finish the season on a .640 clip.
> 
> This said, the Bulls have won without Wallace, Hinrich, Duhon and Nocioni...4 of their 5 starters. In fact, their winning % seems to be better with a starter missing (go figure).
> 
> ...


I'm not excusing the wins, but I do anticipate that many of the teams with injured players will be at full strength during the 2nd half (e.g. Allen is back for Seattle and kicking tail and taking numbers). You have to account for it is all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

So much for beating Utah to end the first half of the season.

Not to rub it in or anything, but the team has to win games in a convincing manner against good teams on a fairly consistent basis to live up to the half-full hype.

Transplant, you talk about US playing down to other teams' level. I scratch my head a lot of games wondering if teams like Phoenix and San Antonio aren't playing down to OUR level. I guess the former sentence is the half-full view, and the latter is the half-empty view...

Understand this: the half-empty crowd wants the team to be better. The whole on pace to win 47 bit is all about that carrot on the stick in front of our faces - appetizing and right there in front of us, but always out of reach; if we move forward to grab for it, it remains just as far out of reach as it was before.

At some point, you have to say "fool me once, shame on thee, fool me twice, shame on me."

Or as the Who once wrote: "We won't get fooled again."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

For grits and shins:

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?p=4410318#post4410318


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

To adjust my analysis:

Bulls now have to go 27-14 the rest of the way to win 50. That's a .659 clip.

Only 4 NBA teams have played at .659 clip so far: Utah (.659), San Antonio (.683), Phoenix (.795), and Dallas (.805). All Western Conference teams, so they're not playing against a bunch of chump teams.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> To adjust my analysis:
> 
> Bulls now have to go 27-14 the rest of the way to win 50. That's a .659 clip.
> 
> Only 4 NBA teams have played at .659 clip so far: Utah (.659), San Antonio (.683), Phoenix (.795), and Dallas (.805). All Western Conference teams, so they're not playing against a bunch of chump teams.


Meaning it will be much easier for the Bulls to play at that clip in a weak division, right? I think it's important to note that four other teams have played within at least two games of that .659. You seem to think that a two or so win difference over the course of half the season is profound but I think it's rather random. Just to peg you on an answer, how do you rate the difficulty of the second half schedule compared to the first half schedule? You can even consider your health projections for the other teams if necessary. I'm curious because to the average bystander the second half schedule definitely looks easier which would figure to be at least a one game improvement over the first half record, getting us up to 48 wins. Do you think it's actually more difficult than the first half schedule? Comparable, in which case you would likley project a win total in the upper 40s? Or more difficult?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> For grits and shins:
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?p=4410318#post4410318


Nice find... It certainly adds perspective.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Here's a quick analysis I did of our wins and losses in the first half:

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 251pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="334"><col style="width: 25pt;" width="33"> <col style="width: 34pt;" width="45"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="4" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 25pt;" height="17" width="33"> </td> <td class="xl25" style="width: 34pt;" width="45"> </td> <td colspan="2" class="xl25" style="width: 96pt;" width="128">*Playoffs*</td> <td colspan="2" class="xl25" style="width: 96pt;" width="128">*Lottery*</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> </td> <td class="xl25"> </td> <td class="xl25">*Wins*</td> <td class="xl25">*Losses*</td> <td class="xl25">*Wins*</td> <td class="xl25">*Losses*</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td rowspan="2" class="xl26" style="height: 28.5pt;" height="38">*East*</td> <td class="xl25">*Home*</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">7</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">1</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">5</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">1</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*Away*</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">2</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">3</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">4</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td rowspan="2" class="xl26" style="height: 28.5pt;" height="38">*West*</td> <td class="xl25">*Home*</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">1</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">4</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">3</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">1</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*Away*</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">0</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">6</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">1</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">0</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The winning percentages:
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 155pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="206"><col style="width: 25pt;" width="33"> <col style="width: 34pt;" width="45"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="2" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 25pt;" height="17" width="33">*
*</td> <td style="width: 34pt;" width="45">*
*</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">*Playoffs*</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">*Lottery*</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 24.75pt;" height="33"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 24.75pt;" height="33">*East*</td> <td class="xl24">*Home*</td> <td class="xl26" x:num="0.875" align="right">87.5%</td> <td class="xl26" x:num="0.83333333333333337" align="right">83.3%</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*
*</td> <td class="xl24">*Away*</td> <td class="xl26" x:num="0.4" align="right">40.0%</td> <td class="xl26" x:num="0.66666666666666663" align="right">66.7%</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 28.5pt;" height="38"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 28.5pt;" height="38">*West*</td> <td class="xl24">*Home*</td> <td class="xl26" x:num="0.2" x:fmla="=1/5" align="right">20.0%</td> <td class="xl26" x:num="0.75" align="right">75.0%</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl25" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*
*</td> <td class="xl24">*Away*</td> <td class="xl26" x:num="0" align="right">0.0%</td> <td class="xl26" x:num="1" align="right">100.0%</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The upcoming schedule:
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 192pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="256"><col style="width: 48pt;" span="4" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl24" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" height="17" width="64"> </td> <td class="xl25" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td> <td colspan="2" class="xl26" style="width: 96pt;" width="128"> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl27" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"></td> <td class="xl28"></td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none;" align="center">*P*</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="center">*L*</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td rowspan="2" class="xl26" style="height: 25.5pt;" height="34">*E*</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-left: medium none;">*H*</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="center">7</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="center">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*A*</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="center">8</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="center">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td rowspan="2" class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 25.5pt;" height="34">*W*</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;">*H*</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="center">2</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="center">4</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*A*</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="center">2</td> <td class="xl29" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="center">6</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Just doing a crude forecast, this projects to 27.7 wins in the second half, and 50.7 total.

However, a few obvious things jump out:
1. We had only one away game against a WC lottery team in the first half and we won it. We've got 6 in the second half, and I think it's unlikely we win all six. Those are some tough teams - the Clippers, Warriors, Blazers and Kings. A couple of them started the year unhealthy but are looking better now. So I wouldn't much trust that projection made on the basis of one game. 

2. That's also true of some of the EC teams we'll be matching up against. The Raptors have Bosh back, the Heat will have Shaq back, the Bucks may have Redd and Villanueva back. The Pistons and Pacers may or may not be better after making significant moves. In general, it looks to me like the East will be better as whole during the second half than it was in the first half. Thus, it will be tough to keep pace with that projection.

3. Internal improvement will help, but internal aging will hurt. PJ Brown's career should at this point be measured in games, not seasons. Wallace has seasons left, but leaing aside questions of his consistency and desire, there are knowledgeable people calling on us to rest him. 

Now, one might say, in that circumstance, that games we lose due to "resting the old folks" should be discounted but I don't see why. From the long-term view, that's just a symptom of the underlying truth that old guys are on borrowed time. They may still be assets, but ones to conserve for special occasions rather than your every day bread and butter.

So put all that together and I think it's likely we drop a couple games off our pace. If I had to make a single number guess, I'd say if all goes well we end up at 49 wins.

That's a nice total, to be sure, but I think I would have been happier with a couple fewer wins (though it's uncertain it would have cost us) and a couple of younger players.


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

The bulls are just too streaky and most of out wins are against wounded or sub-par teams. Road trips will continue to the the downfall of the club regardless if it's against EC or WC teams. This current batch of players are definitely talented but they are still missing a final piece of the puzzle.
50+ wins is being kinda over optimistic if you ask me. i'll say a 45-47 wins is within reach though and i hope Pax will not do any silly trade that would us. It's been almost a decade of mediocre basketball since '98. Hope the rot will stop soon.

C'mon bulls!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> So much for beating Utah to end the first half of the season.
> 
> Not to rub it in or anything, but the team has to win games in a convincing manner against good teams on a fairly consistent basis to live up to the half-full hype.


I accounted for the possibility of the Utah loss in my posts. It requires a 3 game improvement oner the next 41 games instead of 2. It doesn't change my prediction or the 2nd half schedule analysis. 

Also, this isn't hype. Its my honest opinion and prediction that I'm putting out there for all to see. I really believe this is how its going to play out.

And its based in good part on the schedule. Believe me, if the halves were inversed and we had to win 66 percent of the games against the competition we'd already played, my tea leaves would read dour.

We'll see how I do. I fell short last year predicting 44 wins, so being wrong wouldn't be a first.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Meaning it will be much easier for the Bulls to play at that clip in a weak division, right? I think it's important to note that four other teams have played within at least two games of that .659. You seem to think that a two or so win difference over the course of half the season is profound but I think it's rather random. Just to peg you on an answer, how do you rate the difficulty of the second half schedule compared to the first half schedule? You can even consider your health projections for the other teams if necessary. I'm curious because to the average bystander the second half schedule definitely looks easier which would figure to be at least a one game improvement over the first half record, getting us up to 48 wins. Do you think it's actually more difficult than the first half schedule? Comparable, in which case you would likley project a win total in the upper 40s? Or more difficult?


At this point, I think the bulls are going to win between 40 and 45 games.

I don't think we're in the elite caliber of the other teams I listed (Utah, Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio). The fact that they're winning at the pace we need to against better competition is hugely impressive. The flip side is that nobody in the east is winning like that against the inferior competition. Not the bulls. Not the Wizards. Not the Cavs. Not the defending champion Heat...

And really, what's the magic about 47 wins? 42 would be an improvement over last season. 47 means we've traded away a #2 and a #4 pick, stockpiled cap space at the expense of "win now/win then" only to get back to where we were. With Wallace and PJ Brown instead of Curry and Chandler.

For Cey - the hype isn't about "your opinion" but rather about stuff like "you can't evaluate the Curry trade until we see the pick." We lost that Curry trade in a huge way, just as some of us said all along.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Let's not make this about the Curry trade please. Plenty of other threads for that done-to-death (from both sides of the argument) chatter.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Let's not make this about the Curry trade please. Plenty of other threads for that done-to-death (from both sides of the argument) chatter.


Curry's part of the hype you discounted. Though I agree we don't need to make this thread about it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I should add that if all doesn't go well, I could see it getting ugly.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> I should add that if all doesn't go well, I could see it getting ugly.


That's a bit vague. What is "well" and what is "ugly"?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...ug=cnnsi-willhistimecome&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

2. Which of the following Western teams would be capable of instantly dominating the Eastern Conference?
a. Mavericks b. Suns c. Spurs d. Rockets e. Lakers f. Jazz g. All of the above


ANSWER: g.


Dallas, Phoenix and Houston are a combined 32-5 against the East (even though the Rockets have played half their schedule without either Yao Ming or Tracy McGrady). San Antonio, Utah and the Lakers are playing in the tougher conference and yet winning at a higher rate than any team in the East.


3. Name the franchises from the East that would qualify for the playoffs in the West.


ANSWER: Cleveland. Detroit. The end.


The Cavaliers and the Pistons would surely rise to the occasion, but would they overtake any of the top six in the West? Not based on what they've shown so far.


Any of the other contenders in the East -- the Wizards, Bulls and Magic -- would be trying to fight their way out of the lottery if they had the geographical misfortune of shifting to the superior conference this season. The Nets and Heat would also be facing much a harsher second-half climb than is ahead of them now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

We're 4-7 so far this month (after losing to Indy).

The good news is I think we're going 2-2 the rest of the month, to finish at 6-9.

We now have to win 27 of our remaining 40 games, 27-13 (.675) to win 50... Only three NBA teams are playing that well over the 1st half - Phoenix, Dallas, and San Antonio.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Any of the other contenders in the East -- the Wizards, Bulls and Magic -- would be trying to fight their way out of the lottery if they had the geographical misfortune of shifting to the superior conference this season. The Nets and Heat would also be facing much a harsher second-half climb than is ahead of them now.


I don't really understand the basis for the claim that the Pistons and Cavs are at the head of the pack. A game or two lead in the standings is pretty meaningless at this point in the season. Is Thomsen claiming it is a forgone conclusion that the Bulls finish behind the Pistons and Cavs in the standings? Man I wish sports writers were held accountable for the predictions they spew more often.

Da Bullz, I really don't think your comparison of the clip the Bulls need to win at compared to the records of other teams so far this season is particularly valuable. It's not that uncommon for teams to have extreme hot or cold streaks during the season (look at the tear Phoenix has been on). Also, you're insinuating that the Bulls would have to turn into a team as good as Phoenix or Dallas overnight to finish 27-13 but that's not remotely true considering the difference in the difficulty of schedule between those teams thus far compared to the Bulls the rest of the way. 

Also, the problem with your argument is still that, yes, only 3 teams are winning at a .675 clip but 7 are winning at a .600 or better clip right now (and it's hard to say the Bulls can't dream of being in the same class as the Wizards). That means it's not unfathomable for the Bulls to go 24-16 but it is unfathomable for them to go 27-13. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't bet on it, I just wouldn't count them out yet either.

(Also, I feel like you're going to point out the number of road games left on the schedule yet again and dismantle the team over it's poor performance on the road tonight but they looked just as awful at home against Utah. Bad basketball is simply bad basketball and they've been awful the last two games.)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Two points.

Go look at the SI article, i didn't write the bit about who could contend in the west.

You've got to be kidding. Phoenix isn't playing extremely streaky good basketball. They win 15, lose one or two, then win 15 again. They're freaky good. The you've got to be kidding part is to think the bulls are nearly as good.

EDIT: ok three points, I lied.

Assume the bulls go on a 14 game win streak. They'd still have to play .500 the rest of the way to hit 50.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That's a bit vague. What is "well" and what is "ugly"?


For example, there was a moment tonight when Ben Gordon looked like he hurt his knee.

Wallace is clearly not healthy and its lingering.

Thabo played 30+ minutes tonight.

Yeah, it's vague, but there's a whole host of things that could be quite bad.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You've got to be kidding. Phoenix isn't playing extremely streaky good basketball. They win 15, lose one or two, then win 15 again. They're freaky good. The you've got to be kidding part is to think the bulls are nearly as good.
> 
> EDIT: ok three points, I lied.
> 
> Assume the bulls go on a 14 game win streak. They'd still have to play .500 the rest of the way to hit 50.


I'm not sure the Bulls will win 14 straight but that sort of thing is exactly my point. I could see then rattle off 10 out of 12 - they had a comperable stretch already this season - and at that point they only need to be a bit better than .500. I agree that Phoenix is a great team playing great basketball. My point is merely that as incredible as they are, the fact that they've won 29 out of 31 games does not make them at .935 winning percentage team or as good as a .935 winning percentage team because that would make them a 77 win team in an 82 game season. By the same token, saying the Bulls can win at a .675 clip the rest of the way doesn't mean they're as good as the Suns, Spurs, or Mavs. Doing so would not lead to a better record than those teams and they will be playing against inferior competition.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not sure the Bulls will win 14 straight but that sort of thing is exactly my point. I could see then rattle off 10 out of 12 - they had a comperable stretch already this season - and at that point they only need to be a bit better than .500. I agree that Phoenix is a great team playing great basketball. My point is merely that as incredible as they are, the fact that they've won 29 out of 31 games does not make them at .935 winning percentage team or as good as a .935 winning percentage team because that would make them a 77 win team in an 82 game season. By the same token, saying the Bulls can win at a .675 clip the rest of the way doesn't mean they're as good as the Suns, Spurs, or Mavs. Doing so would not lead to a better record than those teams and they will be playing against inferior competition.


Winning at a .675 clip over half a season is exactly what the Suns, Spurs, or Mavs have done. I don't see the bulls playing better than the Wizards right now, or Cleveland, or Orlando, or Detroit even.

Like I already said, the Bulls are 4-7 this month. They don't play well on the road, and they're going to have a schedule slanted toward more road games.

Last season was kind of magical - the bulls went on a massive run to get into the playoffs after people had written the season off. This year is a different story; the teams we're playing this time are getting their players back instead of playing without key players. The East sucks so much that everyone has a chance so they're not going to have incentive to mail it in.

If they do go 10 out of 12, they'd still have to go 17-11 the remaining games. .607 clip.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Winning at a .675 clip over half a season is exactly what the Suns, Spurs, or Mavs have done. I don't see the bulls playing better than the Wizards right now, or Cleveland, or Orlando, or Detroit even.
> 
> Like I already said, the Bulls are 4-7 this month. They don't play well on the road, and they're going to have a schedule slanted toward more road games.
> 
> ...


Ah see. That's where the fundamental disagreement lies. I'm operating under the premise that the Bulls are the best team in the East. If I think the Bulls are the 6th or 7th best team in the league and you think they're the 12th, that's a pretty big discrepancy. I'll admit the constant relapses such as the last two games give me doubt at times. Nevertheless, they're within two games of the 7th best record in the NBA and the best record in the East, they have the 5th best point differential in the NBA, and they've played a tougher schedule than most or all of the other top teams in the East. I won't deny that some part of my decision probably comes down to gut instinct but I think it's difficult to make a case that any other team in the East is demonstrably better at this point.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Ah see. That's where the fundamental disagreement lies. I'm operating under the premise that the Bulls are the best team in the East. If I think the Bulls are the 6th or 7th best team in the league and you think they're the 12th, that's a pretty big discrepancy. I'll admit the constant relapses such as the last two games give me doubt at times. Nevertheless, they're within two games of the 7th best record in the NBA and the best record in the East, they have the 5th best point differential in the NBA, and they've played a tougher schedule than most or all of the other top teams in the East. I won't deny that some part of my decision probably comes down to gut instinct but I think it's difficult to make a case that any other team in the East is demonstrably better at this point.


I see the bulls as 5th best (maybe) in the East. If they had this record in the West, I'd think they were a lot better.

As I wrote to transplant earlier: some people seem to think the bulls play down to the bad teams they play, and I have to wonder if better teams than us play down to our level so the games are close. I consistently see teams put better players on the floor than we have, FWIW.

7th best record in the NBA is meaningless. To be a contender, an eastern conference team needs to win 60 games and dominate. Like last year's world champs did. Like the Pistons did.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I see the bulls as 5th best (maybe) in the East. If they had this record in the West, I'd think they were a lot better.
> 
> As I wrote to transplant earlier: some people seem to think the bulls play down to the bad teams they play, and I have to wonder if better teams than us play down to our level so the games are close. I consistently see teams put better players on the floor than we have, FWIW.
> 
> 7th best record in the NBA is meaningless. To be a contender, an eastern conference team needs to win 60 games and dominate. Like last year's world champs did. Like the Pistons did.


I'm guessing you meant to say 50 games and not 60 games. I still have a problem with such exact line drawing. It's hard for me to understand how a 50 win team is a contender and a 47 win team is not. I don't really think the Bulls can compete with whichever West team reaches the finals. My sentiment for the Bulls (and any other East team that reaches the Finals) would be that if you can reach the Finals you at least have a shot and might get lucky. In my opinion, the Heat were clearly the inferior team last season.

Is 5th best in the East your low end projection? I have a hard time envisioning a credible argument that the Magic and to a lesser extent the Wizards are a better team than the Bulls. What do they have that the Bulls don't? I guess the Wizards have the ever illusive superstar, go to player but the Bulls have the differential, the depth, the defense, (presumably) the easier second half schedule, etc. I might be able to accept an argument that those three teams are very close and the Bulls might get unlucky and finish fifth but I'd be interested to hear the argument that Orlando is likely to win more games from here on out.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

It appears as thought the timing of my prediction couldn't have been worse (for me). Two very ugly games by the Bulls with PJ and Wallace being complete non-factors. 

But like Edward John Smith, I'll not abandon ship. I just hope my ship meets a better fate than his. I still believe what I wrote. If there comes a day when I think the team isn't going to live up to that, I'll say so. But that isn't today.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm guessing you meant to say 50 games and not 60 games. I still have a problem with such exact line drawing. It's hard for me to understand how a 50 win team is a contender and a 47 win team is not. I don't really think the Bulls can compete with whichever West team reaches the finals. My sentiment for the Bulls (and any other East team that reaches the Finals) would be that if you can reach the Finals you at least have a shot and might get lucky. In my opinion, the Heat were clearly the inferior team last season.
> 
> Is 5th best in the East your low end projection? I have a hard time envisioning a credible argument that the Magic and to a lesser extent the Wizards are a better team than the Bulls. What do they have that the Bulls don't? I guess the Wizards have the ever illusive superstar, go to player but the Bulls have the differential, the depth, the defense, (presumably) the easier second half schedule, etc. I might be able to accept an argument that those three teams are very close and the Bulls might get unlucky and finish fifth but I'd be interested to hear the argument that Orlando is likely to win more games from here on out.


I meant to say 60. Six-oh.

It must be a tough schedule when you play 12 home games and 5 road games in a month.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> It appears as thought the timing of my prediction couldn't have been worse (for me). Two very ugly games by the Bulls with PJ and Wallace being complete non-factors.
> 
> But like Edward John Smith, I'll not abandon ship. I just hope my ship meets a better fate than his. I still believe what I wrote. If there comes a day when I think the team isn't going to live up to that, I'll say so. But that isn't today.


You should feel much better after tonight when we beat a very tough opponent.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> You should feel much better after tonight when we beat a very tough opponent.


I don't feel bad now. But lets not count chickens. Atlanta is 4-6 in their last 10. They are getting better.

And even if they aren't, if we can pound a healthy Miami, a healthy Milwaukee, Detroit and San Antonion - then we can just as surely go the other direction and drop one to the Hawks.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

I posted this in the other thread:

According to Hollinger our Strengh of Schedule the last 25% of games is like 0.565 which is highest in the NBA.

Our Strengh of Schedule for the remaining 40 games is 0.475. Alot of games against softer teams, especially in the East.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> To adjust my analysis:
> 
> Bulls now have to go 27-14 the rest of the way to win 50. *That's a .659 clip*.


2-1 baby!! .666 winning %. 

3 games down, 38 to go. :wink: 

(I'm totally going to regret this post later.)


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> 2-1 baby!! .666 winning %.
> 
> 3 games down, 38 to go. :wink:
> 
> (I'm totally going to regret this post later.)


 Yeah, I think you just might.

Whaddya figure they have to go on this upcoming road trip?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> Yeah, I think you just might.
> 
> Whaddya figure they have to go on this upcoming road trip?


I didn't actually break it down in that great of detail. I just looked at the caliber of competition between the first half of the season and the second. 

I predict the Bulls will go 4-3 or 3-4 on this trip, and don't think it will impact their ability to win 50 games all that significantly either way. 

If they go 1-6 or 0-7, then maybe. I estimated, for the purpose of my analysis, that they'd go 6-7 against the West during this second half of the season. Currently, they are 1-0.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I didn't actually break it down in that great of detail. I just looked at the caliber of competition between the first half of the season and the second.
> 
> I predict the Bulls will go 4-3 or 3-4 on this trip, and don't think it will impact their ability to win 50 games all that significantly either way.
> 
> If they go 1-6 or 0-7, then maybe. I estimated, for the purpose of my analysis, that they'd go 6-7 against the West during this second half of the season. Currently, they are 1-0.


Make no mistake, I hope you're right and admire your courage.

Of course, as I'm sure you understand, if this all goes bad, I'll deny that I know you.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> Of course, as I'm sure you understand, if this all goes bad, *I'll deny that I know you.*


I think most people that know me would totally understand that position.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Bulls have 19 losses. They can lose no more than 13 games the rest of the way and win 50.

37 games left after beating the Heat. So they have to go 24-13, or .648 the rest of the way.

At this point, Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix are the only NBA teams playing .648 or better.

Just an update.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

.750 so far. 

Go Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

28-22
32 game left

Bulls have to go 22-10 to win 50. That's a .688 clip. Only phoenix and dallas play .688 or better.

2-3 on the road trip. That .400 win % is considerably better than they've played on the road for the season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Last night's game was atrocious and this whole road trip is, in my opinion, proof positive why Paxson needs to suck it up and deal for Gasol.

That said, I still think the Bulls will go 3-4 on this trip, which was all part of my prediction as stated in this thread. 

I still think I'm right.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Last night's game was atrocious and this whole road trip is, in my opinion, proof positive why Paxson needs to suck it up and deal for Gasol.
> 
> That said, I still think the Bulls will go 3-4 on this trip, which was all part of my prediction as stated in this thread.
> 
> I still think I'm right.


At this point, the Bulls are trending 1.1 games behind my season prediction of 49 wins. I don't think 50 is out of the realm of possibility.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Last night's game was atrocious and this whole road trip is, in my opinion, proof positive why Paxson needs to suck it up and deal for Gasol.
> 
> That said, I still think the Bulls will go 3-4 on this trip, which was all part of my prediction as stated in this thread.
> 
> I still think I'm right.


They've made it pretty difficult to go 3-4.

28-23

22-9 the rest of the way to win 50 - a .710 clip


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Another "interesting" statistic...


Bulls are 20-8 against the East. That'd make them 8-15 against the West.

8-15


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

21-8 the rest of the way
.724 ball.

Trick is, how do we get all the good teams to not play their best two players?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

As long as I'm doing this kind of analysis...

It's looking to me like the Bulls may well end up with the 7th seed in the East.

We're currently the 5th seed.

However:
Indiana is just 1 game behind us.
and
Miami seems to have gotten their act together. They are the defending champs, after all. They're 7-3 in their last 10 games, and are 2.5 games behind us.

Orlando is on the skids, 3-7 in their last 10. They're 2.5 games behind us, too. But if they can win 6 of 10, 6 of 10, and 6 of 10 in their roughly 30 remaining games while we continue to play up/down ~.500 ball, they'll gain 3 games on us.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think we'll finish behind Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit, Miami. So thats #5 already. So we'll probably be #5-#8.

Although we'll end up going on a huge win streak because we really do have an easy schedule, but still, this team is a huge dissapointment. Which is sad seeing how great Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich have been playing. Ben Wallace just sucks.

I think we're going to win less than 47 games. Therefore the season is a bust if we don't win it all.

Hey, weren't we 29-24 at this point in the season 2 years ago. Why did we need to make changes to that team again?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> I think we'll finish behind Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit, Miami. So thats #5 already. So we'll probably be #5-#8.
> 
> Although we'll end up going on a huge win streak because we really do have an easy schedule, but still, this team is a huge dissapointment. Which is sad seeing how great Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich have been playing. Ben Wallace just sucks.
> 
> ...


It's amazing how a 29-24 record two seasons ago is so loved as a local high, yet this 29-24 season is so unloved even though it's a perceived low.

The Bulls would have pulled a game like the one vs. Toronto out in '05 by some sort of magic. Same thing happens this season with a Tyrus block and the ball bounces another way to give us a loss. Those "seemingly magical" 29 wins make that season so much better than this season's "easy" 29 wins. We pulled so many games out of nowhere in '05, yet more decisive wins in '07 are so much more less enjoyable. The reason '05 was so memorable is because it was the first season we made the playoffs after being a bottom feeder for years.

I didn't see Antonio Davis making much of an impact the past two seasons. DNA-gate aside, Curry and Chandler never played well when they were both on the floor together, because both players were not good passers. AD worked much better with either player because he was an above average passing big. Not liking to play in Chicago aside, Brad Miller should have been the big to pair next to Curry (in retrospect).


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The Bulls are now trending 1.0 wins behind my season prediction of 49 wins. They need to pick up 2.0 somewhere to reach 50.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> The Bulls are now trending 1.0 wins behind my season prediction of 49 wins. They need to pick up 2.0 somewhere to reach 50.


FWIW

The bulls were 15-10 on December 19. Five games over .500.

28 games later, they're still five games over .500.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW
> 
> The bulls were 15-10 on December 19. Five games over .500.
> 
> 28 games later, they're still five games over .500.


Yeah, I have been thinking for the last couple days that this team will end up around 43-45 wins tops.

They can go on a 5-6 game run then loose 3 in a row here and there as well.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW
> 
> The bulls were 15-10 on December 19. Five games over .500.
> 
> 28 games later, they're still five games over .500.


One standard deviation each way on my model was 44.7 wins to 53.1 wins. My prediction is merely the midpoint.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> One standard deviation each way on my model was 44.7 wins to 53.1 wins. My prediction is merely the midpoint.


Assuming the ~.500 play continues, a couple extra wins could get us close to 50, I guess.

It just seems for every good stretch of games, they have a nearly equally bad one. They could end on a good streak and meet your expectation, or they could end on a bad one and match last season's win total. Yikes.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Assuming the ~.500 play continues, a couple extra wins could get us close to 50, I guess.
> 
> It just seems for every good stretch of games, they have a nearly equally bad one. They could end on a good streak and meet your expectation, or they could end on a bad one and match last season's win total. Yikes.


Why is the 14-14 record over the last 28 more significant than the 15-10 record to start? It would be one thing to extrapolate our current winning % over the next games and create a strength of schedule factor to determine where we end up. If you asked me for a new prediction, it would be 48 wins (hence, the 1.0 trending below).

However, analyzing this sort of thing _always_ after a loss or losing streak tends to make one undervalue the team.

That said, our road record does bother me. I do believe mental preparation is a definite player in road games.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> As long as I'm doing this kind of analysis...
> 
> It's looking to me like the Bulls may well end up with the 7th seed in the East.
> 
> ...


Sure enough.

Indiana is now the 5th seed according to Yahoo. We're #6. 1.5 games ahead of Orlando and 2 games ahead of Miami.

We now can lose just 7 games and still end up winning 50.

To do so, we have to go 21-7, or .750 ball.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Here is an article from KC Johnson about the difficulty of achieving 50 wins, which, I'll admit seems less and less likely by the day:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,1460481.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Here is an article from KC Johnson about the difficulty of achieving 50 wins, which, I'll admit seems less and less likely by the day:
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,1460481.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


KC points at Nocioni's absence and bench inadequacy.



> Nocioni's manic energy and ability to wreak havoc on matchups are missed. Whether Nocioni returns from plantar fasciitis in his right foot for Tuesday's home game against Atlanta is uncertain.
> 
> Currently, the Bulls are getting very little production from their bench. Chris Duhon has emerged from a brutal January to again contribute, but the Bulls averaged 22.1 bench points in the six games Nocioni has missed.


Who are the players we need to step up at the end of the season?

Nocioni (see above)
PJ Brown (time to wake up for one last run in the playoffs)
Ben Wallace (Chemistry is what it is. Time to put a game face on every night)
Tyrus Thomas (Some intelligent play is in order after many months of practice)

These guys have all shown they can be great rebounders in the past. The Bulls should get more than their share every night.

These guys are reputed to be great defensive players. It's time their reputations showed up in the score every night.

If our bigs play defense like they can and get the boards, the team will have a nice end to the season. Too much is made of low post offense. The Bulls haven't had a hard time scoring, but they have had a hard time keeping other teams from scoring lately.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

50 wins plus 1st round playoff exit == abject failure, yes?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> 50 wins plus 1st round playoff exit == abject failure, yes?


The win total doesn't have anything to do with it, but "yes" as to the first round exit. 

That would be an abject failure for this season. I think I've written this many times before.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It's still possible to win 50 games, but it's going to be tough.

I think it is interesting to look at things from the opposite angle.

Right now, we're 32-27.

If we go 9-14, we end up with the same record as last year.

Seems to me we should play .500 or better ball the rest of the way, so 12-11 isn't unrealistic.

That'd make us a 44 win team, which is an improvement over last year, after all.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> It's still possible to win 50 games, but it's going to be tough.
> 
> I think it is interesting to look at things from the opposite angle.
> 
> ...



I agree with your assessment. Without Noc, I think it's going to be tough to play much better than .500 ball unless this team starts showing some poise. I feel like the team is perfectly capable of going 16-7, but the fact of the matter is the Bulls have no idea how to establish a lead early and hold it, for whatever reason.

If I had to guess, I'd go 13-10 or 14-9 the rest of the way. I'm optimistic when Noc comes back the team will make its customary late=season push.

What gets us to #2 or 3 in the East? We're only a couple of games behind the #2 spot at this point. I think it's a given Detroit has the #1 locked up, of course.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I agree with your assessment. Without Noc, I think it's going to be tough to play much better than .500 ball unless this team starts showing some poise. I feel like the team is perfectly capable of going 16-7, but the fact of the matter is the Bulls have no idea how to establish a lead early and hold it, for whatever reason.
> 
> If I had to guess, I'd go 13-10 or 14-9 the rest of the way. I'm optimistic when Noc comes back the team will make its customary late=season push.
> 
> What gets us to #2 or 3 in the East? We're only a couple of games behind the #2 spot at this point. I think it's a given Detroit has the #1 locked up, of course.


The next best kind of analysis is to see who we might matchup with in the playoffs. judging by tonight and earlier season games against Orlando, I'd submit that's one team we don't want to face in round 1!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

With the home Orlando loss, I cry Uncle on 50 wins. Ain't happenin. Its going to take one or two strong winning streaks to do it and I'm not seeing the consistency needed for that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> 50 wins plus 1st round playoff exit == abject failure, yes?


Yes.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The next best kind of analysis is to see who we might matchup with in the playoffs. judging by tonight and earlier season games against Orlando, I'd submit that's one team we don't want to face in round 1!


Agreed. 7 games of Howard does not seem like a good way to open the playoffs.

Other than that, though, I'm pretty comfortable with anyone besides Detroit. I know we've traditionally owned Toronto, but they also make me a little fidgety considering how well they're putting it together lately.

I'd actually enjoy seeing the Bulls take on the Wiz again.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

At this point the only playoff teams I think we're clearly favored (at least by me) against are the Wadeless Heat or the Pacers.

I agree we have a pretty good shot against the Cavs. We usually seem to play the Cavs well and I'm not at all sold on their toughness. 

The Wiz might start looking a bit better when Jamison gets his legs under him again. I sort of think they will anyway. He's a really unheralded guy. The Wiz are probably the team I think is most like us, except they're offensive oriented and we're defensive oriented. We've got one good big, but they've got several ok ones, and in their system that depth is effective. Matchup wise they're tough though. Three guys that can throw up a ton of points and several competent scorers off the bench. I have a hard time seeing us slow them down enough to outscore them 4 times.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

They do have 3 guys with high offensive outputs, but we have 4 guys with relatively high offensive outputs. We have four guys that are averaging at least 16 ppg, and anyone can drop 25 in a night with Deng and Gordon being able to drop 30 anytime.


----------

