# Remarkable stat which outlines the extent of Tyson's stink-bomb of a season



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

I was recently admiring how Tyson has managed to average 3.75 PPG, 7.5 RPG and 4 personal fouls over his last four games (yes, when we needed everyone on this team to step up the most, dude is averaging more personal fouls than points). Then it hit me. I started to count and I couldn't even believe what I was seeing. With 15 games left in the season:

*Tyson Chandler has had 29 games where he's had at least as many fouls as points!* TWENTY NINE! That is bleeping ridiculous. And it's not just one bad month. Every month is littered with games like this, including FIVE this month, after Tyson's 12 consecutive good games led to him being forgiven for missing half a season.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2006)

Oddly enough, I was doing some research and determined that "the other guy" has _never_ in his NBA career had more assists than fouls.

And he's ugly.

And his mother sews socks that smell.

[reference -- anyone? anyone?]


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

....


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

That was the quickest yet. One post, BAM, Curry. Beautiful.

Chandler has also had no games this year in which he hasn't fouled.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Who said the Cu word? Someone eluded to him and then you said the dreaded word man.
> 
> Hey Tyson sucks. Independent of you-know-who I am going to harp on him sucking to the point of nausea until nobody can act like they "don't see" his sucking and continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Don't you understand that "harping on [insert agenda here] to the point of nausea" *is exactly what we need to get away from?*

I mean, I don't want to read anybody's take on ANYTHING to the point of nausea. Nausea is not an enjoyable experience. I want to check out the board and have an enjoyable experience.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Don't you understand that "harping on [insert agenda here] to the point of nausea" *is exactly what we need to get away from?*
> 
> I mean, I don't want to read anybody's take on ANYTHING to the point of nausea. Nausea is not an enjoyable experience. I want to check out the board and have an enjoyable experience.


Shouldn't have this been directed at Spud instead of Pip?


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Spud said:


> Oddly enough, I was doing some research and determined that "the other guy" has _never_ in his NBA career had more assists than fouls.
> 
> And he's ugly.
> 
> ...


Richard Pryor from SNL right? :rofl:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Shouldn't have this been directed at Spud instead of Pip?


It is directed at everyone.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> LOL assists from the center position... the polar opposite position of the one that is supposed to rack them up. Kinda like rushing yards from the WR position. Last I checked, the team with the most points wins the game. I know a lot of people like to pretend that PPG isn't a stat, but PPG from a main offensive option (even a top 2, maybe top 3 offensive option on a team) is more important than RPG and APG combined.
> 
> But hey, you're attacking one guy at the expense of a "rebounding specialist" that gets paid 63 million to average an awe-inspiring 9.1 RPG.


Oddly enough, our PPG and offensive efficiency has increased over the past three seasons.

That's with trading away our top PPG scorer the past two seasons and Chandler getting more fouls than points 29 times this year.

Point being, everyone has recognized how bad Chandler is on offense, so his role has been reduced to setting screens and crashing the offensive glass. Until he develops a consistent jumper or a post move, I'm fine with not force feeding him the ball to see if he can get his.

With all the negatives being said about Chandler, his passing has vastly improved.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Hey Tyson sucks. Independent of you-know-who I am going to harp on him sucking to the point of nausea until nobody can act like they "don't see" his sucking and continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. One guy got crucified daily for being pretty good on a 47 win team BEFORE he got his payday. The other sucks, didn't show up for half a season, doesn't show up for big games, has had TWO verbal altercations during games with Scott Skiles, IS getting paid, on a mediocre team, and *all these hypocrites who professed these grand beliefs like "no excuses" and "you have to play a certain way" and "you don't ask for 10 million dollars unless you show up EVERY night" are nowhere to be found.* Now people just kinda act like his big stink bomb of a season isn't REALLY happening, because if they don't talk about it maybe it never really happened and they can brush it under the rug right? Right!?! Right!! LOL. NOW it's "oh you know Tyson gets to take the year off, poor guy, I know he'll pull it together next year."



who cares? honestly.

and if some of us want to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, what are you going to do? come over to our house and beat us up?

if you are not interested in anyone else's point of view, why should we give yours a second thought?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Measuring Chandler's success as a player by his offensive numbers is pretty useless. He'll never be a good offensive player. Once the Bulls get a couple of decent to good offensive bigs, people will stop worrying about his offense and I think he'll score more like last season. What concerns me more is the decrease in his blocked shots and rebounds.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Tyson Chandler has most certainly had a roller coaster season. It appeared as though he bounced back from his awful start admirably, but lately he's back in a funk. 

I just hope he returns to his earlier quality play in time for this final stretch. 

I'm still glad the Bulls re-signed Tyson. I think the way the season started for him, ugly and infuriating as it was, was an anomoly. If he goes in the crapper again next season, I'll start to be concerned.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Rebuilding is sometimes ugly. So is cultivating and developing players.


Give it all some more time.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Don't you understand that "harping on [insert agenda here] to the point of nausea" *is exactly what we need to get away from?*
> 
> I mean, I don't want to read anybody's take on ANYTHING to the point of nausea. Nausea is not an enjoyable experience. I want to check out the board and have an enjoyable experience.


OK TB I get it. I know man. But all I'm saying is I feel like 5 people are having the conversation and I want everyone else to join. Once we all talk about it as a group (LOL), and I've had my group therapy on the issue, I'll tone it down on Tyson sucking. That's a decent stance isn't it? Kinda like the movie "The Dream Team" LMAO.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> OK TB I get it. I know man. But all I'm saying is I feel like 5 people are having the conversation and I want everyone else to join..


I think that you mean that only 5 people share your opinion. :biggrin:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> Oddly enough, our PPG and offensive efficiency has increased over the past three seasons.
> 
> That's with trading away our top PPG scorer the past two seasons and Chandler getting more fouls than points 29 times this year.
> 
> ...


It's at the expense of changing the tempo. Last year our PPG were down and our FG% was down from this year, but our PPG allowed was down too right? I mean last time we had that talk it was. That could have changed.

Last year we didn't score as much, but we had complete control of the tempo. We'd go to the halfcourt when we wanted to and we runned and gunned when we wanted too.

But all that aside, you're right, there are areas where Tyson has improved. Passing and he doesn't bobble EVERY pass that's thrown to him anymore. But far more areas he has stayed the same. Should it be acceptable that he is averaging a CAREER low in PPG and it isn't even close? Should we pay him to, as you said "crash the glass" and watch his rebounds go DOWN from last year? His blocked shots go DOWN .5 BPG? We're paying him and getting an almost grossly inferior product from what we got last year. And last I checked that was unacceptable and there are no excuses. Except for Tyson. That kinda irritates and confuses me and I just want someone reasonable who disagrees with me to kinda talk me through that rationale. I'm always open to having my mind changed. I'm just running out of the ability to be optomistic about this guy at all.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Measuring Chandler's success as a player by his offensive numbers is pretty useless. He'll never be a good offensive player. Once the Bulls get a couple of decent to good offensive bigs, people will stop worrying about his offense and I think he'll score more like last season. *What concerns me more is the decrease in his blocked shots and rebounds.*


Exactly. I was simply just pointing to something that kinda shocked me. I mean half the games he'd get 3 fouls and not even surpass that. Look, if you really are crashing the boards with reckless abandon, you should get more than 3 points just off of tip-ins. But I agree. The really disburing thing is when on one hand people acknowledge that he'll "never be a good offensive player" and then on the other hand you see that he gets paid to be a "rebounding and defensive specialist" and his blocks and rebounds are DOWN from when he was coming off the BENCH on a rookie contract. 

:banana:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> who cares? honestly.


Me. I like Skiles approach. He is tough, but fair. He was tough on my favorite player, AND got the best out of him, but unlike Cartwrong you knew that Jalen was gonna get the SAME treatment as the young guys. He really is tough on everyone DURING games and in practice. And IMO if we professed all these grand beliefs when it came to one person, they should apply equally across the board. NOW, you don't want them to apply equally (should that be your stance)? Fine, but at least let's get that out there :biggrin:.



> and if some of us want to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, what are you going to do? come over to our house and beat us up?


Nope. Simply have that acknowledgement and move on. As long as the score is known, even if it's an undercurrent kinda thing, it's cool. That way, like Mr. May's theory that I share, when the scapegoating of Ben gets turned up around this city (it's coming), we'll have Tyson's free pass as a reference point for the discussion. 

But no. I have no interest in violence or confrontation. I believe the post you quoted was in response to post 4, an off-topic post about... my posting lol. 



> if you are not interested in anyone else's point of view, why should we give yours a second thought?


LOL I won't completely touch this. Let's just say I'm not unrealistic enough as to presuppose that even a high majority will give it a second thought. I get enough people giving it a second thought that if you choose to completely write it off, I'm good with that. And I am very interested in the points of views of others. I play a very strong stance most of the time, but my greatest satisfaction derived from this site is when someone DOES change my mind.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Tyson Chandler has most certainly had a roller coaster season. It appeared as though he bounced back from his awful start admirably, but lately he's back in a funk.
> 
> I just hope he returns to his earlier quality play in time for this final stretch.
> 
> I'm still glad the Bulls re-signed Tyson. I think the way the season started for him, ugly and infuriating as it was, was an anomoly. If he goes in the crapper again next season, I'll start to be concerned.


Ok but let's forget his start to the season. What about the ESPN guys ragging on him for his disappearances in big games THIS past week? Tyson was a complete noshow for Milwaukee and Washington, perhaps our two biggest games of the year. 

I appreciate your stance Ron, as I know from past experience that you can admit when you are flat wrong (so I know you're not just being stubborn on this one), but let me ask this. Is our appraisal of guys in Tyson's shoes influenced, perhaps even primarily, by how much we "like" them?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> It's at the expense of changing the tempo. Last year our PPG were down and our FG% was down from this year, but our PPG allowed was down too right? I mean last time we had that talk it was. That could have changed.
> 
> Last year we didn't score as much, but we had complete control of the tempo. We'd go to the halfcourt when we wanted to and we runned and gunned when we wanted too.
> 
> But all that aside, you're right, there are areas where Tyson has improved. Passing and he doesn't bobble EVERY pass that's thrown to him anymore. But far more areas he has stayed the same. Should it be acceptable that he is averaging a CAREER low in PPG and it isn't even close? Should we pay him to, as you said "crash the glass" and watch his rebounds go DOWN from last year? His blocked shots go DOWN .5 BPG? We're paying him and getting an almost grossly inferior product from what we got last year. And last I checked that was unacceptable and there are no excuses. Except for Tyson. That kinda irritates and confuses me and I just want someone reasonable who disagrees with me to kinda talk me through that rationale. I'm always open to having my mind changed. I'm just running out of the ability to be optomistic about this guy at all.


I think Tyson's decrease in numbers is mainly a result of his foul problems. Note that he is starting this year and his MPG has decreased. He had these same problems last year and Skiles recognized that, which is why Chandler came off the bench. Curry had similar foul trouble, but having both of them out there at the same time, especially to start the game and we'd have seen a lot of what we are seeing this year. Constant fouling and being in foul trouble every quarter.

Now that Curry is gone, Chandler had to step up and play a new role at Center. He has not done well in this role, especially in the first half of the season. However with Tyson's athletic ability, I think this is an area in which he could drastically improve. Tyson's first three years, he would jump at every pump fake an offensive player threw at him. The past two seasons, Tyson has improved a lot in this area. He needs to learn when to choose his spots. Altering a shot can be just as effective as blocking a shot.

I don't think anyone is necessarily giving Tyson a free pass. He is just the only big we have with any sort of potential to be a dominating force within his role. We signed him to a contract, so we're all hoping he comes around eventually and can play 35 mpg. As soon as he can do this, I think we'll start seeing the numbers a lot of us expected to see out of him this season.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I think Tyson's decrease in numbers is mainly a result of his foul problems. Note that he is starting this year and his MPG has decreased. He had these same problems last year and Skiles recognized that, which is why Chandler came off the bench. Curry had similar foul trouble, but having both of them out there at the same time, especially to start the game and we'd have seen a lot of what we are seeing this year. Constant fouling and being in foul trouble every quarter.
> 
> Now that Curry is gone, Chandler had to step up and play a new role at Center. He has not done well in this role, especially in the first half of the season. However with Tyson's athletic ability, I think this is an area in which he could drastically improve. Tyson's first three years, he would jump at every pump fake an offensive player threw at him. The past two seasons, Tyson has improved a lot in this area. He needs to learn when to choose his spots. Altering a shot can be just as effective as blocking a shot.
> 
> *I don't think anyone is necessarily giving Tyson a free pass. He is just the only big we have with any sort of potential to be a dominating force within his role. We signed him to a contract, so we're all hoping he comes around eventually and can play 35 mpg. As soon as he can do this, I think we'll start seeing the numbers a lot of us expected to see out of him this season.*


Ahhh I see, so the approach of having to hope he turns it around even though nobody actually really thinks he deserves a free pass, because if he doesn't turn it around, then we're really screwed. Is that it? I can buy that. IMO it doesn't reflect well upon Paxson that people have to think that way, BUT I certainly can buy it. It explains the inconsistency. So it's almost like... if you want a guy out of town, you say so BEFORE we sign him, but once we do he's "part of the family"..? I don't think that the majority of people who won't come down on him think that, but I think probably a very sizable minority does. 

As far as Tyson's improvements, they haven't been nearly enough for me. Five seasons he's had. Five. Why is it Lamarcus Aldridge could easily go from 225 to 245 and yet Tyson's maybe gained 10 pounds in 5 years? 

And as far as him starting and his minutes being slightly down, I buy that. But that kinda sends a dagger through the heart of people quoting his "stats per 48 minutes." I just don't see him playing 35 minutes without his numbers dramatically diminishing per extra minute played. 

And in re foul trouble, it's Tyson's responsibility to stay out of it. If the guy put on 15 pounds of muscle he wouldn't have to put so much energy into engaging in contact. IMO he has to use too much power to do what he could easily do if he was 255, to the point that contact becomes obvious.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> I think that you mean that only 5 people share your opinion. :biggrin:


LOL you got me.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*all these hypocrites who professed these grand beliefs like "no excuses" and "you have to play a certain way" and "you don't ask for 10 million dollars unless you show up EVERY night" are nowhere to be found.*


my "who cares" response was to this specific bolded part which is dangerously close to baiting. but you know that.

why don't you just leave that part out of it if you are really interested in having a discussion about a player. it serves no purpose. 

in my thread about the season i said that i thought tyson played with his head up his *** for the beginning of the season. how is that giving him a free pass? i didn't give ben or kirk a free pass either in that thread, btw. 

it's one thing to want to engage in a conversation, but another thing entirely to post the same thing, over and over and over. it begins to fall on deaf ears.

that's it from me.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> *all these hypocrites who professed these grand beliefs like "no excuses" and "you have to play a certain way" and "you don't ask for 10 million dollars unless you show up EVERY night" are nowhere to be found.*
> 
> 
> my "who cares" response was to this specific bolded part which is dangerously close to baiting. but you know that.
> ...


Ok I can see your point. When I say hypocrites I'm speaking more to Paxson and writers in this city than to any poster by far though. To me it's the writers who have a serious scapegoating problem in this city, because they have no talent. I don't really blame readers for following them. 

I don't think you gave Tyson a free pass. The Pax fans who are still here I enjoy talking to a lot. The ones who had more hardline ridiculous stances have mostly left and gone to the fantasy board on the other site lol. 

And for what it's worth, Kirk doesn't need a pass from anyone. I've been very impressed with him and I think HE has improved as much as Tyson should have year after year. 

It's not really the same thing. It variates and I think I write it well, but that could just be my bigheaded opinion lol. I've been off and on on the criticism of Tyson. If by "same thing" you mean the discussion of you know who, I didn't bring you know who explicitly into this topic. To me that was done in posts 2 and 4. And I don't think the conversation does fall on deaf ears, because for so long, many people haven't been willing to have a conversation about it. As time has gone on, more and more have opened themselves up to the conversation of being critical of Tyson or admitting that we may have made a mistake last summer. But it's been a gradual process. I don't expect it to punctuate until Paxson drafts the wrong people, signs the wrong people and we come out not being very good next year. Then I think it will really hit the fan. I hope Pax proves me wrong. Because whatever we get this summer, we're locked into for a while. That is unless someone wants to trade us a star for three good role players.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> but another thing entirely to post the same thing, over and over and over. it begins to fall on deaf ears.




Even worse...it begins to make the mods (mizerators?) mad.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

GB said:


> Even worse...it begins to make the mods (mizerators?) mad.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Leaving the discussion about provocation/baiting aside and focusing on Tyson, here are a couple thoughts.

There was a center here the last few seasons who isn't here anymore who suffered under a perceived double standard relating to his effort, improvement, etc. Tyson doesn't seem to be scrutinized on the same level despite a dramatic bottoming-out of his play for most of this season. I think that's a fair point, though maybe sometimes overstated or understated by various people, including perhaps myself. I think there are some factors at play there that have been worked to death over the preceding months and years and I won't go back there. 

I think Rhyder was on to something when he said that this year's Bulls team is in a different, more difficult position than last year's was as far as the roster makeup. Last year, that departed center had to come out and provide something in order to stay on the floor because if he didn't, we had Tyson waiting on the bench to provide energy, AD providing steady effort on both ends, and a surprisingly effective OFella. So if he didn't get us rolling offensively or provide good two-way effort or both, that individual saw his minutes slashed at least for that game if not longer. This year, even in his pathetically inept form, Tyson was our only chance to have something worthwhile on our frontline. AD is gone, the lad who used to be here is also gone, and Othella apparently has been replaced by Dickie Simpkins minus the rebounding this season - and now Songaila is even on the shelf. If we don't play Tyson, our whole lineup will be 6'9" or shorter and poor on the glass and interior help defense. We don't have a freaking choice. Sink or swim with Tyson. So, I think almost all of us were incredibly frustrated with Tyson for the first half of the season, but were also resigned to the fact that he's on a huge deal now, we have no frontcourt, and we have to just grit our teeth and hope that he'd remember how to play. He's had spurts, but even now he's not doing what a lot of us thought he'd be doing.

So, it's a different dynamic. We're basically forced to stay in Tyson's corner at the moment. If he continues to be a total clod, we're stuck with him and his deal. If he plays at least well enough to prove he has a pulse, he's providing something to the team and resurrecting his trade value for down the road. If he gets back to last year's form and builds on it, we have something worth keeping. But just saying "You suck, Tyson, take a seat for a few months and we hate you" just isn't a viable option right now. That could change in the offseason, we'll have to wait and see. He better put in the work and come back ready to bust some heads, though.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Five seasons he's had. Five. Why is it Lamarcus Aldridge could easily go from 225 to 245 and yet Tyson's maybe gained 10 pounds in 5 years?


http://www.vistamagonline.com/articles/page.php?tp=1&p=1&id=1&s=ectomorph


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Tyson doesn't seem to be scrutinized on the same level despite a dramatic bottoming-out of his play for most of this season.


Difference is the effort thats put into being incompetent. Tyson always tries, it's just that it doesn't always get bang for his 'buck'.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

GB said:


> Difference is the effort thats put into being incompetent. Tyson always tries, it's just that it doesn't always get bang for his 'buck'.


Effort is something to be applauded, no doubt. But results matter too. We know that Tyson can get results, so even if he's trying really hard to put up 2pts 6reb 5pf, he should be open for criticism like anyone else. And to be honest, I thought the young man who played center for us last season tried pretty hard most of the time - more so than he had in prior seasons at least.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Ok but let's forget his start to the season. What about the ESPN guys ragging on him for his disappearances in big games THIS past week? Tyson was a complete noshow for Milwaukee and Washington, perhaps our two biggest games of the year.


Guys have bad games. I don't attribute a bad game to a guy sucking. Gordon has had some very bad games recently during this crucial stretch as well. 

Like I said, Tyson rebounded very well from his atrocious start but now he is in a state of regression. I hope he turns it around again. Tyson has had "big games" in "big games" in the past. In 6 career playoff games he's averaged 12 points, 10 boards and over 2 blocks per game. 

I don't believe he's pulling some soft hearted disappearing act. I think he just had a couple of bad games. I'm not happy about it by any means, but I don't think it means he "sucks". I remain pleased with the signing. 



> I appreciate your stance Ron, as I know from past experience that you can admit when you are flat wrong (so I know you're not just being stubborn on this one), but let me ask this. Is *our* appraisal of guys in Tyson's shoes influenced, perhaps even primarily, by how much we "like" them?


Who is "our"? If by "our" you include yourself then feel free to answer your own question. 

As to me, I don't like Tyson Chandler. I think he's a hot-head prone to idiotic outbursts who, at times, lets his temper affect team success. I suspect if I really knew him, I wouldn't care for him at all. I do, however, think he will prove worthy of his contract and I approve of resigning him. I do think he cares and I do think he will rebound from his bizarre year with a far better season next year. 

I "like" one player on the Bulls and that is Luol Deng. He's the only guy I have a somewhat irrational soft spot for. Luckily for me, he justifies my irrational fandom with quality play.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

It's amazing when Pippenatorade writes 6 out of 7 consecutive posts. I don't know that I've seen that happen for a long time. Some of them were just in response to himself.

Chandler transitioned to a tough position. He used to dominate 6-9 PF's, now he's forced to muscle around with 7-footers (who may or may not be skilled, but play a lot more physical in general). It's not as easy to block shots or corral rebounds when you're being played and jostled by a hulking Jerome James, Dan Gadzuric, etc. That's not even looking at the Tim Duncans, Shaqs, Dwight Howards, etc.

Chandler is scoring less but averaging a much higher FG%. It's because he's not attempting shots.

Last year was a contract year. When guys are playing for a contract, you almost universally see a dip in their stats the next year.

I'm not making excuses, but who ever said Tyson was supposed to be such an incredible player in the first place? He had an offseason of NO conditioning almost at all. 

But he's a rugged rebounder and defensive machine that has the length to block shots (even if he hasn't been lately) and more importantly, the quickness to keep up with guys one-on-one. He's an emotional leader and he's 23 years old. He'll continue to get better and better, to grow stronger and stronger.

He's not the answer up front, but if we can find a legit post guy, he can be a starting center for this team for a while.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Some of them were just in response to himself.


:laugh:




Ahem. Tykes biggest problem is one of consistency.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Al Harrington, by the way, is averaging 4.1 personal fouls per game. He scores a lot more points than Tyson, but there's several occasions where he came close to outfouling his points as well.

And Nenad Krstic, probably a top 8 center in the league, has outfouled his points in four games this season as well.

Dwight Howard, probably the most promising player at his position, has almost done it a few times as well.

This isn't really that telling of a stat.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Al Harrington, by the way, is averaging 4.1 personal fouls per game. He scores a lot more points than Tyson, but there's several occasions where he came close to outfouling his points as well.
> 
> And Nenad Krstic, probably a top 8 center in the league, has outfouled his points in four games this season as well.
> 
> ...


Several times over a season is expected as everyone has their bad days, but when it's over 1/3, how can it not be.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ahhh I see, so the approach of having to hope he turns it around even though nobody actually really thinks he deserves a free pass, because if he doesn't turn it around, then we're really screwed. Is that it? I can buy that. IMO it doesn't reflect well upon Paxson that people have to think that way, BUT I certainly can buy it. It explains the inconsistency. So it's almost like... if you want a guy out of town, you say so BEFORE we sign him, but once we do he's "part of the family"..? I don't think that the majority of people who won't come down on him think that, but I think probably a very sizable minority does.
> 
> As far as Tyson's improvements, they haven't been nearly enough for me. Five seasons he's had. Five. Why is it Lamarcus Aldridge could easily go from 225 to 245 and yet Tyson's maybe gained 10 pounds in 5 years?
> 
> ...


I don't think it's necessarily so black and white.

Tyson came in and dominated fourth quarters of games last season after they were relegated to the bench. Same as Gordon. People want to see improvement in both of them over the entire course of the game.

We have seen it from Gordon and he has less experience in the league, which is why this isn't even a debate with him at this point.

We saw very marginal improvements in Tyson's game over his first three seasons and last year he came in and did something very well. He finally "got it." Now he has to learn how to "get it" over the course of an entire game. Tyson has shown that he has a steep learning curve. However, he has shown the ability to also get over the humps--defensively last season, and offensively in terms of knowing the playsets and his passing ability this year (remember how lost he used to look on offense in prior seasons?).

For me, I give him a lot of benefit of the doubt because of all the life changes that has happened to Tyson as of late. He had his first contract negotiation, got married, is having a baby, and probably most importantly his undiagnosed ailment that probably affected the first 1/4 of the season if not more.

Tyson has shown that he is an emotional, if not overly-emotional guy. From my experience with these personality types from my own releationships, they do not react to stress well. All the things aforementioned are definately stresses in his life all happening in a relatively short period of time. Wasn't it him who had a friend die and we saw him play poorly for weeks after the fact a couple of years ago?

As long as I see improvements in his game year to year and he continues to play with the same enthusiasm and energy, I'll probably be high on the guy. If he shows signs where he can't improve or this is the most we can get out of him, then I'll jump ship. For me, I just haven't seen that evidence yet.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> So, it's a different dynamic. *We're basically forced to stay in Tyson's corner at the moment.* If he continues to be a total clod, we're stuck with him and his deal. If he plays at least well enough to prove he has a pulse, he's providing something to the team and resurrecting his trade value for down the road. If he gets back to last year's form and builds on it, we have something worth keeping. *But just saying "You suck, Tyson, take a seat for a few months and we hate you" just isn't a viable option right now.* That could change in the offseason, we'll have to wait and see. He better put in the work and come back ready to bust some heads, though.


Actually, that seems a completely viable option if that's what we really believe. I don't see why we're "forced" to stay in the guy's corner. It's not like anything I or anyone else says is going to make a difference in Tyson's game.

Hence, there are two approaches a fan can take. He doesn't have to pretend his opinion makes a difference, but he might feel better about himself and his fandom if he tries his hardest to think of and defend all the possible reasons Tyson could get better than his current (in general) suckitude.

Or, you could take it for what it is and conclude that it's better to have an objective view of the team you like. Admit, however unenjoyable it might be to do, that he's played badly and has lots of flaws. That might be less comforting, but it seems to me more honest than always being "glass half full" on someone just because he's on your team. 

And ultimately, honesty is better. Because in reality, everything doesn't turn out in the "glass half full" way. So if you want to think about how your team is going to get better, which is ultimately what we all want, its better to think about it from looking at how things really, and thus what needs to be improved, than just hoping everything that's bad gets better.

As far as Tyson goes, he's got a long way to go and I think it'll take a really ideal combination of other talent to consistently bring out his best. He's not very consistent, never has been, and hasn't appeared to grow a lot as a player in his time here (in any way you want to think about it). He's fragile and he's got a very unconventional skillset, that while it has some very good things also has some glaring weeknesses that currently we can't account for. Put the right guys around him, and he'll be good. If by chance or whatever we don't have those guys though, he can be a big-time hole.



Showtyme said:


> Al Harrington, by the way, is averaging 4.1 personal fouls per game. He scores a lot more points than Tyson, but there's several occasions where he came close to outfouling his points as well.
> 
> And Nenad Krstic, probably a top 8 center in the league, has outfouled his points in four games this season as well.
> 
> ...


That's the per game figure doesn't look at minutes played. Look at per game fouls and minutes played and it becomes a more interesting story.

Howard 37 mpg, 3.5 fpg
Harrington 37 mpg, 4.1 fpg
Krstic 30 mpg, 3.9 fpg
Chandler 27mpg, 3.8 fpg


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Actually, that seems a completely viable option if that's what we really believe. I don't see why we're "forced" to stay in the guy's corner. It's not like anything I or anyone else says is going to make a difference in Tyson's game.
> 
> Hence, there are two approaches a fan can take. He doesn't have to pretend his opinion makes a difference, but he might feel better about himself and his fandom if he tries his hardest to think of and defend all the possible reasons Tyson could get better than his current (in general) suckitude.
> 
> ...


Being a sports fan is a diversion from mundane "real life" and as such should be fun. Because our rants on this board have no effect on the Bulls organization there is really no reason to hold some kind of sacrosanct opinion of "truth". Ultimately, this is all just a distraction from our lives and therefore it is not irrational for a fan to maximize their enjoyment by being optimistic. If people really want to make a statement, stop buying tickets and boycott Bulls sponsors. Consistently raining on other peoples parade accomplishes nothing except making the "rainer" feel better about themselves because they've exposed what they percieve to be other peoples naiveté.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Actually, that seems a completely viable option if that's what we really believe. I don't see why we're "forced" to stay in the guy's corner. It's not like anything I or anyone else says is going to make a difference in Tyson's game.
> 
> Hence, there are two approaches a fan can take. He doesn't have to pretend his opinion makes a difference, but he might feel better about himself and his fandom if he tries his hardest to think of and defend all the possible reasons Tyson could get better than his current (in general) suckitude.
> 
> ...


But I'm not advocating a position on being "glass half full" on him if he doesn't deserve it. I don't think the board, in general, was glass half full until he started producing (minus ppg at least) a few weeks ago. And even then, the tone seemed to be "ABOUT FREAKING TIME" moreso than "way to go, Tyson! You're number one!!" 

What I was saying is that, when we invoke the comparison between Tyson and the young man who used to play center here but no longer does, _this year_ we don't have a choice but to play Tyson and hope the he does something worthwhile. We can wring our hands about how badly he's playing and be rightly furious that he's bilking the Bulls for millions of dollars, but when you look down the bench, there's no one else to put in who can conceivably be a difference-maker. So you grit your teeth and hope Tyson gets his head in the game. The guy who used to be here didn't have that built-in job security when he was here. There were guys like AD, a more-energetic Tyson, and a serviceable Othella last year who could come in and at least hold down the fort if he was having one of his trademark "head in the clouds" types of games. And that would snowball into diatribes about how he is so talented, but can't put it together and forces us to play these working stiffs instead. To the detriment of the team this season, Tyson is spared that fate because we're stuck with him regardless of how bad he is. We can't toss him aside unless we want Malik Allen and Othella to get 30-40 minutes each every night or play Noc at the 4 all game (especially now that we're sans Songaila).

I'm not putting a value judgment on this - in fact, I think it's unfair - I'm just saying that it's my perception of the situation(s). I think Tyson got grief for being terrible earlier this season, but maybe it was muted in comparison because there was no viable alternative on the roster to put in there when he was being especially putrid. Besides Songaila having the occasional nice game offensively, we had literally nothing to fall back on. Which, most of us agree, is the biggest reason for our current position on the outside of the playoff party - where the bouncer keeps beating the pulp out of us when we try to get in.

In short - you can objectively appraise Tyson as sucking (which he indisputably has for the majority of this year) but still feel stuck with him just due to the situation and be forced to hope that he gets it together. In that circumstance, the amount of bile directed towards him might be somewhat restrained (or, it could be increased, depending on the viewpoint of the fan in question - but on balance, I'd tend toward the former reaction).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Being a sports fan is a diversion from mundane "real life" and as such should be fun. Because our rants on this board have no effect on the Bulls organization there is really no reason to hold some kind of sacrosanct opinion of "truth". Ultimately, this is all just a distraction from our lives and therefore it is not irrational for a fan to maximize their enjoyment by being optimistic. If people really want to make a statement, stop buying tickets and boycott Bulls sponsors. Consistently raining on other peoples parade accomplishes nothing except making the "rainer" feel better about themselves because they've exposed what they percieve to be other peoples naiveté.


I enjoy my optimism.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Leaving the discussion about provocation/baiting aside and focusing on Tyson, here are a couple thoughts.
> 
> There was a center here the last few seasons who isn't here anymore who suffered under a perceived double standard relating to his effort, improvement, etc. *Tyson doesn't seem to be scrutinized on the same level despite a dramatic bottoming-out of his play for most of this season. I think that's a fair point*, though maybe sometimes overstated or understated by various people, including perhaps myself. I think there are some factors at play there that have been worked to death over the preceding months and years and I won't go back there.
> 
> ...


As to my first bolding, thank you, that's all I was saying.

As to my second bolding, what about Kirk? This team has to be a lot more difficult for him since he has no one to throw the ball to inside AND he's had to switch positions mid-season, and yet I can count on him to show the improvement in one season that I haven't seen from Tyson in five. When I see guys like Kirk, Noce, Deng and Skiles performing despite the adversity it makes me even more ticked at Tyson. I'm not saying you didn't already rip Tyson, you did. I'm just saying, you know?

Finally, I can appreciate your stance in the last paragraph. I think if I didn't prod the Tyson issue a bit, I would not be gaining the understanding that I have gained due to some of Tyson's supporters educating me on their opinion. I do not claim here that I am starting a discussion which has not been previously had, only that I am hearing things myself, that *I* have not heard previously. I honestly did not know that there was a large segment who supported him because, (some variation of this) at this point "we're stuck with him" and if he goes in the tank, we're really screwed. It's refreshing to know that for the more rational, it's THAT, and not a complete double-standard.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

GB said:


> http://www.vistamagonline.com/articles/page.php?tp=1&p=1&id=1&s=ectomorph


I agree, but if you really read about ectomorph's you'll see that it's prevailing theory that even the hardest of gainers can put on 4 pounds of muscle per year if they get everything they can out of the weight room. If Tyson did that, he'd be 255, not 245 (if that's his current weight). This was also the plight of Harvey Grant, Shawn Bradley, etc. Eddy was an endomorph where as someone like Amare is a mesomorph. I simply can't believe thought that Tyson couldn't put on more than ten pounds in 5 years. There are "supplements" that fall just short of being anabolic that can put ten pounds on a guy in one offseason. Hell, just HGH, which is not illegal and is completely safe, can do that.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

GB said:


> Difference is the effort thats put into being incompetent. Tyson always tries, it's just that it doesn't always get bang for his 'buck'.


Tyson doesn't always try. He did nothing all summer. I seem to remember someone dropping 30 lbs. the summer before last and still being ripped nonstop. Tyson does it and it's not that he decided to be lazy. The media plays it off like it happened TO him. Like he was the victim of an "inactive summer." Tyson always makes faces and swats his arms. I don't get into "effort." I'm a results guy. IT works like this:

Here is your timeline:

If I don't see marked improvement from point A, to point B, to point C, and you have talent, you aren't trying hard enough, regardless of your personality or whether you say all the right things.

Like take Ben for example. He supposedly was Mr. Workout this summer, and yet I see more improvement in Kirk's game than Ben's. One is talking the talk and one is walking the walk. "You-know-who" improved more in his first five years than Tyson. That's pretty sad.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Guys have bad games. I don't attribute a bad game to a guy sucking. Gordon has had some very bad games recently during this crucial stretch as well.
> 
> Like I said, Tyson rebounded very well from his atrocious start but now he is in a state of regression. I hope he turns it around again. Tyson has had "big games" in "big games" in the past. In 6 career playoff games he's averaged 12 points, 10 boards and over 2 blocks per game.
> 
> I don't believe he's pulling some soft hearted disappearing act. I think he just had a couple of bad games. I'm not happy about it by any means, but I don't think it means he "sucks". I remain pleased with the signing.


I don't know Ron. Having a bad game is fine. With the exception of Kirk and Skiles, I don't know who hasn't had maybe 20 subpar games this season. But when you disappear for 37 games, and then after you make your 12-18 game reappearance, you disappear again for the "two biggest games of the year" (according to many here), that to me, is a trend. And I'm more apt to give Ben a free pass because he is asked to be our offensive leader when he just isn't good enough to be that all alone without someone like Big E (heck even Nazr) to take some of the heat off. AND he didn't take the summer off. In Tyson's 6 career playoff games he was also a turnstyle for Michael Ruffin, Brenda Haywood, Jared Jeffries, Etan Thomas and anyone else who wanted to drive to the rim and poke. 

I don't think he's worth the money and I also don't think he's pulled a disappearing act. I just think that I'm sick of hearing about effort and I want results. People don't talk about how hard Kirk is trying anymore because it's pretty easy to see that he's just DOING it out there. And again, it's pretty said to me when Kirk, a player of the four-years of college variety who was thought to have the "low ceiling" label, has shown more improvement in two offseasons than Tyson (a supposed talent guy, a prep-to-pro guy) has shown in four offseasons. 

All that said Ron, I do respect your stance and enjoy reading it. 



> Who is "our"? If by "our" you include yourself then feel free to answer your own question.
> 
> As to me, I don't like Tyson Chandler. I think he's a hot-head prone to idiotic outbursts who, at times, lets his temper affect team success. I suspect if I really knew him, I wouldn't care for him at all. I do, however, think he will prove worthy of his contract and I approve of resigning him. I do think he cares and I do think he will rebound from his bizarre year with a far better season next year.
> 
> I "like" one player on the Bulls and that is Luol Deng. He's the only guy I have a somewhat irrational soft spot for. Luckily for me, he justifies my irrational fandom with quality play.


Luol certainly does do just that. Thanks Ron, I'm always happy to be witness to your opinion. I got the answer from you that I am looking for.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> Finally, I can appreciate your stance in the last paragraph. I think if I didn't attempt an attack on Tyson, I would not be getting to this level with his supporters. I honestly did not know that there was a large segment who supported him because, (some variation of this) at this point "we're stuck with him" and if he goes in the tank, we're really screwed. It's refreshing to know that for the more rational, it's THAT, and not a complete double-standard.


I can't claim to speak for others on the board, so I'm not sure that my reading of the situation applies to anybody but myself. I was just trying to put down in a post the way that I understand why Tyson, perhaps, hasn't gotten the guff that he should have coming to him this season.

I'm about to leave work, so I can't go into further depth, but I'll just say that you're right on about how Kirk especially has persevered and Tyson hasn't. It's probably because Tyson sat on his rear all summer mostly, but who knows. It is very disappointing. To be honest, if I had to place the lion's share of blame on any one person for why we're not making the playoffs, it'd be Tyson, then Pax for not fortifying the frontcourt post-trade.

OK, I've sat in the cube LONG ENOUGH! :cheers:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

step said:


> Several times over a season is expected as everyone has their bad days, but when it's over 1/3, how can it not be.


 :biggrin:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Gee, people wish that Chandler had worked harder last summer and got off to a better start and hold him accountable. How enlightening!



Pippenatorade said:


> I don't think he's worth the money and I also don't think he's pulled a disappearing act. I just think that I'm sick of hearing about effort and I want results.


For all of your posts, where do you really stand? I can't really tell.

Is this guy a complete bust that should be traded for an expiring contract?

Is Curry going to be a better player 2 years, 5 years and 10 years from now?

Is Chandler likely never to improve?

Put it down in words that we can measure it in the future, hoss.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

....


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I can't claim to speak for others on the board, so I'm not sure that my reading of the situation applies to anybody but myself. I was just trying to put down in a post the way that I understand why Tyson, perhaps, hasn't gotten the guff that he should have coming to him this season.
> 
> I'm about to leave work, so I can't go into further depth, but I'll just say that you're right on about how Kirk especially has persevered and Tyson hasn't. It's probably because Tyson sat on his rear all summer mostly, but who knows. It is very disappointing. To be honest, if I had to place the lion's share of blame on any one person for why we're not making the playoffs, it'd be Tyson, then Pax for not fortifying the frontcourt post-trade.
> 
> OK, I've sat in the cube LONG ENOUGH! :cheers:


I'd put more on Pax simply because Tyson wasn't SUPPOSED to be that good, in my opinion. I remember when Pax was saying stuff like "Oh, it would be terrific if we could get 15 ppg from Tyson... we'd really like him to step up offensively". TOTALLY unsubstantiated.

To be fair, I actually think Chandler has okay, if awkward, form on his jumper. But it sadly looks sort of like Shaq shooting from the free throw line... Shaq has also developed his own okay but awkward free throw style. But Chandler keeps his elbow tucked, has the 90 degree angle that is a tougher but more consistent release, and follows through. He just shouldn't be taking those shots at all, though.

I think Pax's comments at the beginning of the season really boosted Chandler, in addition with getting a big contract, that made him think that he actually could be that type of player. If we, as fans, also had that expectation, then yes, I think it WAS primarily his fault. But I never had that type of expectation outside of fantasy.

Here's another way to put it: if Chandler hustled more to focus on offensive rebounding to get easy putbacks, setting screens and working off the ball, and sprinting in transition, he'd definitely have around 8.5-9 ppg. Because that's basically what he was doing prior to this season, and that's how much he was scoring.

As for his fouls, it's been often noted that an increase in personal fouls results often from poor conditioning. If you can't keep up with your guy because you're just not as fit, as strong, or as quick, then what else can you do but leap and hack recklessly? Chandler also is a "gambler" defensively, always going for the block. 

And to be honest, *how bad is that?* It reflects badly on Tyson and racks him up with a ton of fouls, which isn't good, but we also have one of the lowest opponents FG% in the league. Knowing that a guy is there to either come up with a big block or send you to the line will make you hesitate if you're a guard that is thinking of driving into the paint.

What he needs is simply to develop as a player, to be a better defender while using more intelligence on the floor, and combine that with better conditioning. On offense, we shouldn't be expecting much more than 8 ppg from a guy like that, and be very happy if he's doing his job on defense.



> As far as something you want put down on paper... I think Tyson will always be a poor man's Marcus Camby, NEVER approaching the defensive prowess of the ridiculous Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman comparisons. The question is "how poor"...? Right now I'd say very poor, but it's kinda up to Tyson. I can't feel sorry for the guy because *he is TONS less raw on offense than SCOTTIE PIPPEN was.* Pippen of only two years of playing time at Central Arkansas despite being 23 years old. And Scottie would have been a hall of famer with only average defense based on his offense alone. So it's up to Tyson. Any time he wants he can show the improvement. One offseason like the ones Pip used to put himself through and Tyson wouldn't be needing the GM to hold his hand and tell the world that "we don't ask him to be an offensive player."


Maybe you're the expert on Pippen since you named yourself after him, but I absolutely do not believe this. I remember how he was in that playoff year, the first time MJ had gone to the playoffs, and he looked like a smooth offensive player. Tyson looks like he wouldn't get 11 ppg in college. It's a pretty bold statement. I know Pip was a nut in the offseason, and it depends on your definition of "raw", but I think Pip had a lot more talent and potential offensively than Tyson did. Having two years in the college game, even at Central Arkansas, is a lot more than having NONE.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> Maybe you're the expert on Pippen since you named yourself after him, but I absolutely do not believe this. I remember how he was in that playoff year, the first time MJ had gone to the playoffs, and he looked like a smooth offensive player. Tyson looks like he wouldn't get 11 ppg in college. It's a pretty bold statement. I know Pip was a nut in the offseason, and it depends on your definition of "raw", but I think Pip had a lot more talent and potential offensively than Tyson did. Having two years in the college game, even at Central Arkansas, is a lot more than having NONE.


First, MJ went to the playoffs three times before Scottie Pippen joined him on the Bulls. 

Second, I did watch him his rookie year, and let me just say that I think that his smoothness is an easy assumption for people to make NOW, after the fact. But the fact is, he was terrible on offense. Think a SF version of Pops Mensah-Bonsu but with even more position-specific athleticism. Scottie was a high flier whose game was as unrefined as games get. 

The story isn't just told by the fact that Pippen played only two years at Central Arkansas. They weren't his first two years. They were his third and fourth year on campus. Scottie was only 6'1" his freshman year and student-manager of the FOOTBALL team. He had zero offers be it D-I or D-IV coming out of high school. So you're talking about a guy who all the sudden, in college, while not even playing basketball grows to around 6'8" with a wingspan in excess of 7' and guard quickness. 

He had no fundamentals and little basketball instincts. On the other hand he was built like the prototypical do-it-all SF with Jordanesque athleticism (if not hang time) and the hunger to be everything he could be. If you go back to draft day he is called "Scott Pippen" during the draft and people don't really have much to say about him. 

The story of Scottie Pippen as an offensive player comes from his grueling work with Michael Jordan. Jordan literally took his UNC drills and put Scottie through them day after day before practice and after. They worked together rigorously in the offseason, Scottie being treated to a hall of fame career because Michael admired Scottie's ability to meet his every step in terms of how crazy the workouts got. Call it luck that MJ saw enough in him to make him his personal pet project. His right hand man. The "only guy I can talk to"... lol. But Scottie decided to meet him half way. So yes, Pip oozed with talent and potential as a rookie, but he was RAW. BUT at the same time, like Dean Smith said of Jordan at UNC... "he took to the drills that were there to make him better, and then he had the ability to get better." 

I'll put it this way. From my own OPINION as far as watching Pip as a rookie and then only 3 years later in 90-91, if Tyson made an improvement of that kind in three years, he'd be a better offensive player than Rasheed Wallace, cause he has that kinda talent.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> I'd put more on Pax simply because Tyson wasn't SUPPOSED to be that good, in my opinion. I remember when Pax was saying stuff like "Oh, it would be terrific if we could get 15 ppg from Tyson... we'd really like him to step up offensively". TOTALLY unsubstantiated.


But my beef with him comes from the fact that he didn't even come close to matching LAST SEASON'S performance until a few weeks ago. We're 2.5 games out of the playoffs right now, and we've lost a multitude of close games and blown what seems like dozens of 2nd half leads. Last season, Tyson got the key block or board that sealed victories and started playing at a somewhat consistent level at the same time the rest of the team found its stride. This season, he didn't start doing ANY of those things until pretty recently. I'm not that upset about his lack of scoring (though providing 8-10ppg would be helpful), but we paid this guy a boatload to alter games on defense and clear the glass. He wasn't doing much of that for far too long. I'm sure the loss of AD and Curry and forcing him into the fulltime center spot had effects on him, but the bottom line is what it is.

I'm not disappointed because he isn't putting up 15/12/3 or something great like that. It's that until February he was putting up something anemic like 5/7/1 and 5pfs waaaay too often. And even now he relapses into that mode more than I'd like.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> First, MJ went to the playoffs three times before Scottie Pippen joined him on the Bulls.
> 
> Second, I did watch him his rookie year, and let me just say that I think that his smoothness is an easy assumption for people to make NOW, after the fact. But the fact is, he was terrible on offense. Think a SF version of Pops Mensah-Bonsu but with even more position-specific athleticism. Scottie was a high flier whose game was as unrefined as games get.
> 
> ...


truthfully i cant see why people feel the need to give tyson a pass for his lack of offense.

as a rook he avg. 6.1 points in 19.6 minutes ...and this is straight out of HS.

this year he is avg. 5.3 points in 26.7 minutes thats in his 5th season 

if you know who or anyone else had regressed in important facet of their game to the point tyson is on offense they would be teared anew one on this board everyday ...so since i dont see this i can only assume he was given a free pass of sorts .

since i dont see any new post moves or even a willingness to try to improve on offense i have a problem with tyson's production on the offensive end.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Obviously the stat upon which this thread is based is pretty awful.

I'm of the opinion that if Chandler had gone to college he'd be a much better offensive player than he currently is. Tyson's hands are awful and he's not fluid around the basket, but he runs the floor like a deer and has a decent handle and good court sense for a big man. If he'd gone to school for a few years I think he would've been able to develop more of an offensive game. It seemed like he was starting to do that his second year in the league - 9.2 points in 24 minutes per game. His back injury in year three seemed to retard that process, and we've moved away from involving him in the offense. But coming out of high school he did have some skills. He had a pretty good face up game for a big guy. The problem is that in the NBA you don't get to face up a bunch when you're 7'1'' unless you're Dirk Nowitski or Kevin Garnett - and he isn't and was never going to be. His post game never developed, which isn't that surprising given his hands.

As far as this season, I don't really get what's happened. I'm inclined to agree with Miz that Tyson is a little fragile upstairs. 48% from the line this season? He'd shot 67% the last two years. That has to be mental. I think he got scared of going to the line early in the season and stopped going up strong because of it. Another factor that may have come into play is that one thing Tyson has shown flashes of being able to do is stick a 15 foot jumper. With Curry and Davis he got to do this a couple times a game, playing next to Songaila or Allen he doesn't - they're obviously superior options in that regard. I thought 12/10/2 was a very reasonable expectation coming off of last year and it hasn't happened. I still think it's a reasonable expectation if he works hard but with every year that passes it becomes less and less likely.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> truthfully i cant see why people feel the need to give tyson a pass for his lack of offense.
> 
> as a rook he avg. 6.1 points in 19.6 minutes ...and this is straight out of HS.
> 
> ...


 :banana: 

Your post sounds like someone evaluating Tyson from the "no excuses" perspective. To me, no excuses didn't walk out the door with Eddy Curry. No excuses means no excuses means no excuses. Period.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> First, MJ went to the playoffs three times before Scottie Pippen joined him on the Bulls.
> 
> Second, I did watch him his rookie year, and let me just say that I think that his smoothness is an easy assumption for people to make NOW, after the fact. But the fact is, he was terrible on offense. Think a SF version of Pops Mensah-Bonsu but with even more position-specific athleticism. Scottie was a high flier whose game was as unrefined as games get.
> 
> ...


Solid post. Sorry about my mistake; it was the first time MJ got out of the first round in the playoffs.

I just think that no matter how crazy you work, even under MJ's insane and above-all-others training life, there's some degree of offensive talent that MUST be natural. Pippen WAS raw, but either through his genius in learning or because of his hidden offensive talent, he became much smoother by his second year in the league. I think of Andre Iguodala, an athletic, raw, high-flying scorer mostly known for his defense. Unfortunately, Iggy didn't train with the same type of vigor (apparently), although he did improve.

I think what amazes me the most, what seems the boldest about your assertions, are that you think Tyson Chandler has that "it" that Scottie Pippen had to learn (or discover) offensive talent. I still cringe sometimes when I see Tyson hold the ball, and I ALWAYS cringe when I see him put it on the floor. Pippen may have been crazy raw, but that doesn't mean anyone that raw can become a dominant offensive player.

If Tyson worked at his game night and day, like a madman, shooting 1000 jumpers and running dribbling drills and putting on serious muscle in his legs and upper body and practicing a drop step or spin in the post over and over again... I just don't know if even then he'd be ready to offensively contribute more than a clean-up guy for any NBA team.

Bill Self, when he was still at Illinois, once noted that the way offensive skills develop are by learning "moves". He emphasized with all of his players that having a move and knowing how to use it, just one single move, is of critical importance. You can't just be a creative player with the ball, or hope that your turnaround jumper will go in. You have to have a move, know when you can use it, and know how the weaknesses of that move can be compensated by a timely skip pass or a shift in position.

Tyson needs just ONE move like that, and I'll be happy. Not that nasty awkward running hook; something else. Just one move.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> Solid post. Sorry about my mistake; it was the first time MJ got out of the first round in the playoffs.
> 
> I just think that no matter how crazy you work, even under MJ's insane and above-all-others training life, there's some degree of offensive talent that MUST be natural. Pippen WAS raw, but either through his genius in learning or because of his hidden offensive talent, he became much smoother by his second year in the league. I think of Andre Iguodala, an athletic, raw, high-flying scorer mostly known for his defense. Unfortunately, Iggy didn't train with the same type of vigor (apparently), although he did improve.
> 
> ...


We have mostly agreement here. Remember when I say Scottie was raw, he was still a point forward. Raw for a SF is probably still pretty gifted for a center. Scottie had the talent, maybe moreso than anyone we've ever seen, but it was something that had to be cultivated from the basement to the penthouse so to speak.

Tyson Chandler is not Donnell Harvey or someone like that. I just refuse to believe that he HAS to be THIS bad on offense. *And frankly, I don't believe he is good enough at ANYTHING he does for a coach and GM to say "we don't ask him to play offense."* What the frig is that? Phil Jackson never even conceided that about the worm, who despite being the NCAAs leading scorer, had a dreadfully one-sided game by his time in Chicago. 

I'd use Anthony Mason as a reference point. I watched Mase during his early years in New York and IMO Tyson couldn't be worse than THAT. The guys motion was about as ugly and mechanical as Rosie O'Donell being... Rosie O'Donell. You get the point. IMO if Mase can do it, anyone can learn to be at least a decent contributor on offense with Tyson's talent.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> There was a center here the last few seasons who isn't here anymore who suffered under a perceived double standard relating to his effort, improvement, etc. Tyson doesn't seem to be scrutinized on the same level despite a dramatic bottoming-out of his play for most of this season. I think that's a fair point, though maybe sometimes overstated or understated by various people, including perhaps myself. I think there are some factors at play there that have been worked to death over the preceding months and years and I won't go back there.
> 
> I think Rhyder was on to something when he said that this year's Bulls team is in a different, more difficult position than last year's was as far as the roster makeup. Last year, that departed center had to come out and provide something in order to stay on the floor because if he didn't, we had Tyson waiting on the bench to provide energy, AD providing steady effort on both ends, and a surprisingly effective OFella. So if he didn't get us rolling offensively or provide good two-way effort or both, that individual saw his minutes slashed at least for that game if not longer. This year, even in his pathetically inept form, Tyson was our only chance to have something worthwhile on our frontline. AD is gone, the lad who used to be here is also gone, and Othella apparently has been replaced by Dickie Simpkins minus the rebounding this season - and now Songaila is even on the shelf. If we don't play Tyson, our whole lineup will be 6'9" or shorter and poor on the glass and interior help defense. We don't have a freaking choice. Sink or swim with Tyson. So, I think almost all of us were incredibly frustrated with Tyson for the first half of the season, but were also resigned to the fact that he's on a huge deal now, we have no frontcourt, and we have to just grit our teeth and hope that he'd remember how to play. He's had spurts, but even now he's not doing what a lot of us thought he'd be doing.
> 
> So, it's a different dynamic. We're basically forced to stay in Tyson's corner at the moment. If he continues to be a total clod, we're stuck with him and his deal. If he plays at least well enough to prove he has a pulse, he's providing something to the team and resurrecting his trade value for down the road. If he gets back to last year's form and builds on it, we have something worth keeping. But just saying "You suck, Tyson, take a seat for a few months and we hate you" just isn't a viable option right now. That could change in the offseason, we'll have to wait and see. He better put in the work and come back ready to bust some heads, though.





Showtyme said:


> Chandler transitioned to a tough position. He used to dominate 6-9 PF's, now he's forced to muscle around with 7-footers (who may or may not be skilled, but play a lot more physical in general). It's not as easy to block shots or corral rebounds when you're being played and jostled by a hulking Jerome James, Dan Gadzuric, etc. That's not even looking at the Tim Duncans, Shaqs, Dwight Howards, etc.
> 
> Last year was a contract year. When guys are playing for a contract, you almost universally see a dip in their stats the next year.
> 
> I'm not making excuses, but who ever said Tyson was supposed to be such an incredible player in the first place? He had an offseason of NO conditioning almost at all.


I agree with both posters and while I agree, its not excuses. Criticism is deserved. Tyson is to blame. He plays better when he pushes someone else or has someone behind him pushing him. He has neither this year. And he is playing against stronger players. Again, not an excuse, just an observation. 

He had a stretch of games where he seemd like he finally got in a groove. Yet he never sustained it. 

Every avenue of his game needs to be addressed next summer. 

Pax needs to get players in here that will push Chandler for playing time.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> I agree with both posters and while I agree, its not excuses. Criticism is deserved. Tyson is to blame. He plays better when he pushes someone else or has someone behind him pushing him. He has neither this year. And he is playing against stronger players. Again, not an excuse, just an observation.
> 
> He had a stretch of games where he seemd like he finally got in a groove. Yet he never sustained it.
> 
> ...


This to me is a very fair, very desirable stance. I'm not exactly looking for people to say "I hate Tyson." But for someone to not be able to AT LEAST come to this level of scrutiny of the young man is unfathomable to me. Good post.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> This to me is a very fair, very desirable stance. I'm not exactly looking for people to say "I hate Tyson." But for someone to not be able to AT LEAST come to this level of scrutiny of the young man is unfathomable to me. Good post.


Come on. This has gotten ridiculous. Tyson Chandler has been criticized up and down all season long and virtually every single poster on this board has acknowledged his poor play. 

Who are you even talking about? Maybe one poster that you have beef with, but thats it. 

Fans don't seem to criticize Tyson as loudly or as obnoxiously as they did Eddy Curry. I agree with you. So what? He still gets criticized. You just don't care for the more polite manner in which it happens.

I have repeatedly seen Tyson Chandler's poor play pegged as a primary, if not *the* primary, on-court reason for the Bulls under-achievement this season. And not just recently. For months. Indeed, I share in that opinion. 

This is just silly. No offense intended here, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make anymore. Its as if you declared that boiled liver tastes bad and when everyone agrees with the obviousness of your statement you respond as though you've finally drawn out a long known, but reluctantly uttered, truth. 

These are not sub rosa opinions. We've talked about it all season.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

..


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Come on. This has gotten ridiculous. Tyson Chandler has been criticized up and down all season long and virtually every single poster on this board has acknowledged his poor play.
> 
> Who are you even talking about? Maybe one poster that you have beef with, but thats it.
> 
> ...


 :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

..


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> No when I say someone, I'm not talking about a specific person. I'm simply saying that, in a fictional world, IF a particular person were to not be critical to at least this extent, I could not see how.


Oh. So this is all just a fictional hypothetical not based on fact. Seems kinda pointless.

In a fictional world, I think that IF a particular person were to be critical of Jannero Pargo because he's not a necropheliac, I could not see how. Discuss. 



> Ron I am very happy with your opinion on this issue, but at the same time I want dialogue.


If there is one thing this board did not lack this season, it was dialogue about Tyson Chandler's play. 



> I feel that when someone gets the benefit of the doubt, rarely does that mean that someone who underachieves is lauded with praise. People instead just kind of fail to actually harp on said individual. I want to hear those opinions on Tyson, even if it's pretty easy to imagine what people's actual opinions are. I've learned a lot from the opinions that people have shared on Tyson, and that includes everyone who has shared theirs in this thread.


As well as the hundreds, probably thousands, of posts by dozens of posters regarding Tyson Chandler's poor season dating back to mid-November.



> And as for the manner in which they criticize Tyson, I just want things like what you shared with me out on the table.


This falsely presupposes that these opinions were not already on the table. They actually reside in a large, heaping mound right smack in the middle of the table. 



> That way when things don't go *according to the grand "Right Way" prophecy of automatic championships* and Ben Gordon becomes the next to have everything about himself torn apart by our media, we can have the reference point of someone who got very polite treatment for not even showing up.


No such prophecy exists. This is a false premise. Again.

I don't know who "our media" is, but I think all of the Bulls players are handled with kid gloves by the Chicago press. 

The fans, on the other hand, can be harsh. 



> As for proving a point, that's futile. The greatest lesson I've learned in life is that people are going to think what they think regardless of anything you prove.


Well, not to get all word-specific, but I didn't say "prove", I said "make". I don't know what point you are trying to "make" - i.e., I don't know what your point is.

There is a significant difference.



> There are people who've read the Dow report that believe that Pete Rose never bet on baseball. There are people who believe that Barry Bonds never did steroids because he hasn't actually been convicted of it, AND furthermore, that steroids can't make you hit a ball farther.


Certainly. There are people that watch Knicks games and pine for Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry.



> So what am I really going to PROVE here. *If anything I've had more proven TO ME in this thread than anything I've proven to anyone else.*


Which suggests that you haven't been reading the board re: Chandler very attentively for the last 4 months or so.



> You could not even have this discussion on the other board, a.k.a. PaxFantasyland.com.


I certainly know that "you" couldn't have this discussion there. 

Though I prefer posting here, I read that board. Tyson Chandler has gotten the same fair criticism from those fans as the fans who post on this board. 



> The discussion is what I value. So it's pretty easy to discern the average opinion on Tyson Chandler, but, if you read this thread, you will see that the ACTUAL opinions have some rather valuable and diverse subopinions.


I didn't need this thread to know that. I've been reading those opinions for months. 



> So I had to play devil's advocate to get people talking lol. So what.


You are not playing devil's advocate. You believe what you write here. These are your actual opinions, not disinterested observations cast into play for the sake of discussion. 

But you did get people talking. The thing is, you believe, as you stated in this thread, that the content of the "talking" is new. It isn't. 

I don't mind the thread. I like the thread. My point of contention is that as the thread evolved, you behaved as though negative opinions of Tyson Chandler's season were finally surfacing thanks to your probing inquiry. Thats just not the case.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> *I'd also add something else. Tyson has been discussed negatively by a few. And up until recently a thread like that turned into an all out excuse fest.*


* 

If by negatively you mean calling his season a "stink bomb" and repeatedly pointing out that he sucks, then I agree with you. Not many do that. 

But if you mean fair criticism of his largely poor season, then I absolutely disagree.




"We don't ask him to play offense"

Click to expand...

Or: "Our team defense was the best in the league even with Curry."




"He's not being utilized properly"

Click to expand...

Or: "How can Curry learn to play well in crunch time if Skiles is always sitting him?"




"Did you expect him to work hard this summer? What about injury"

Click to expand...

Or: "He lost 30 lbs, that proves he worked hard last summer."




"Tyson will turn it around, and then don't jump on the bandwagon"

Click to expand...

Or: "Eddy will turn it around, and then don't jump on the bandwagon."




"This season is a wash for him, he'll turn it around next year"

Click to expand...

Or: "Eddy got off to a slow start due to the DNA thing." 




"The guy got married, geesh."

Click to expand...

Or: "Eddy is surrounded by the wrong kind of players in New York, you can't blame him."

In other words, Curry had his fair share of excuse makers too.




I see much more criticism/less defense of him recently. There are people who have turned only recently to being negative on Tyson.

Click to expand...

See above regarding what you mean by "negatively". 




Oh and what's hilarious is that you don't know what point I'm trying to prove. The whole dead horse discussion.

Click to expand...

I thought you weren't trying to prove a point since "the greatest lesson you've learned in life" is the futility of the attempt. 




Isn't there like a 450 page Eddy Curry bashing thread that people STILL post in floating around here somewhere??! Aren't there people that STILL bash/defend Jamal Crawford??

Click to expand...

Absolutely.*


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

....


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ron if you want to participate, cool. If not, that's cool too. Keep any kind of personal things with me to PM. I'm certainly not trying to engage anyone in anything. I want to talk about Tyson Chandler. I don't want to talk about how worthy you think my motives are, or how worthy you think my cause is, or what I'm trying to say or anything pertaining to me and my posting. I've said what I've said. If you can't take that and analyze it for what it's worth, oh well.


I was analyzing what you said. I analyzed what you said very specifically and with great detail. In fact, my posts are structured as a nearly line-by-line response to what you said. 

But Tyson Chandler has had a poor and frustrating season, I agree with you.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

...


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

For Ron Cey:

I think if I didn't prod the Tyson issue a bit, I would not be gaining the understanding that I have gained due to some of Tyson's supporters educating me on their opinion. I do not claim here that I am starting a discussion which has not been previously had, only that I am hearing things myself, that *I* have not heard previously. I do NOT claim to have started a new discussion or created a novel topic. I do NOT claim to have created a greater level of understanding for others, only for myself.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> ...


These last few have been your best posts in weeks...


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

GB said:


> These last few have been your best posts in weeks...


This relates to Tyson Chandler how?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> This relates to Tyson Chandler how?


Well, he's had a few games where he was as effective as a post that says nothing but:



> ...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> I do NOT claim to have started a new discussion or created a novel topic. I do NOT claim to have created a greater level of understanding for others, only for myself.



considering you've spent some time deleting most of the posts on the last page of this thread, i am going to guess you have obtained the answer you were seeking.

time to stick a fork in this one as it can't really go much further.

the end.


----------

