# Comparing Detroit and Chicago



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Not an original idea here, but it seems Skiles and moreso Paxson are using the current Pistons' model for success. While Dumars had the luxury of acquiring solid players who underperformed on other teams, Paxson is using an approach of acquiring players predominantly through the draft. <b>Is Chicago a younger poor-mans version of last season's championship Detroit team?</b>

PG - Billups v. Hinrich
SG - Hamilton v. Nocioni
SF - Prince v. Deng
PF - Wallace v. Chandler
C - Sheed v. Curry

PG - Billups (whom I've always viewed as a combo guard) had a great postseason and was so deserving of the Finals MVP. Solid defensively, clutch, and could create a shot off the dribble. Was often the bailout guy in the playoffs.

SG - Hamilton plays w/in his own game and rarely takes his opponent 1 on 1. Moves extremely well w/o the ball around screens, a deadly mid-range shooter and very underrated physical defender. Actually more of a 3 than a traditional SG, but perfectly suited for this offense.

SF - Prince was the X-Factor last season that surprised so many, including myself. His length just caused opposing teams problems offensively and defensively. Nice outside touch, could put the ball on the floor and post up (smaller) defenders. Rangy and effective defensively.

PF - Putting Wallace here though he was effectively a center much of the time on the court. Little offense other than putbacks but an absolute terror defensively and on the glass. The emotional heart and soul of the Pistons.

C - Sheed was a great trade deadline pickup and fit exactly into what Detroit was trying to do. Still very effective in the post. Very good post defense and a solid help defender. Lots of length between himself, Wallace and Prince.

(I could add more here about Hunter, McDyess, Darko and now.. Delfino!!  but I'll stop here)

I know the Bulls will have probably 1/2 the regular season wins as Detroit.. but is anyone else seeing some similarities? Is Paxson using the Detroit model or what?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Is Paxson using the Detroit model or what?


Some here will laugh at this notion, but I think Pax is using the 90's Bulls model. That's the experience he has to draw on. If this model happens to correspond to the Pistons model, maybe that's because Dumars came from the same playing experience.

The difference, of course, is Paxson doesn't have talent that has developed to 90's Bulls level yet. Most of his acquisitions are still in mid-to-late 80's Bulls state of development. But he's bringing in tough-minded players who are willing to play defense and are willing to put team success before individual achievement offensively. I believe that is a model for success in the NBA (or any level of basketball, for that matter).


----------



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

Yeah, pretty much. I think were just missing some talent. Like Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, Rip Hamilton, Chauncey Billups, and Larry Brown. If we acquired those guys, there's no telling how much damage we would do around the league. Wow.

Imagine this team:

B.Wallace/Curry
R.Wallace/Chandler
Prince/Nocioni
Hamilton/Deng
Billups/Hinrich

Endless possibilities.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I disagree.

While the Pistons seem to find reasons to acquire NBA castoffs and turn them into productive players in their system, Paxson and Skiles find reasons to cast off good players... claiming they do not play the "right" way.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I disagree.
> 
> While the Pistons seem to find reasons to acquire NBA castoffs and turn them into productive players in their system, Paxson and Skiles find reasons to cast off good players... claiming they do not play the "right" way.


I agree. At this point I don't see any comparison between the Bulls who won 23 games last season....or the Bulls now who have proven nothing yet...and the Pistons...I think someone is reaching here.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. At this point I don't see any comparison between the Bulls who won 23 games last season....or the Bulls now who have proven nothing yet...and the Pistons...I think someone is reaching here.


Reaching would be saying that Dwight Howard should play the 3... and that Jamal would be an All-star within three years.  But I digress.

I didn't say the Bulls would approach the Piston's talent or win level. In fact I said they'd probably get 1/2 the amount of regular season wins this year. I was however referring to the model that Paxson is using to build this team. If you have anything useful to contribute in the matter, please feel free to do so. Gracias.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

kukoc & ace... you guys are a










Why not give it a rest? We all know where you stand on these issues by now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> kukoc & ace... you guys are a
> 
> 
> ...


What, I'm not allowed to answer the questions anymore? 

I see HUGE differences between the Pistons and the Bulls.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I disagree.
> 
> While the Pistons seem to find reasons to acquire NBA castoffs and turn them into productive players in their system, Paxson and Skiles find reasons to cast off good players... claiming they do not play the "right" way.


You have to take in consideration the order of events, kukoc4ever.

Like Rodman, Rasheed Wallace was a talented malcontent added to an already talented team.

I think it would have been just as hard to build around Rasheed and Rodman as it would Jalen Rose or Ron Artest.

:twocents:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Didn't Larry Brown just claim he had to "get the Chicago out of" recent acquisition Ronald Dupree?

I'm not trying to be negative... I like our players….I just don't see the parallel.

Other than B Wallace... I don't think last year's Pistons were all that physical a team. Certainly nothing like the old “bad boys” Pistons.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> 
> You have to take in consideration the order of events, kukoc4ever.
> ...


Their whole lineup consists of castoffs or players that didn't get love though.

Billups bounced around the league for years.
Most people were suprised when the Pistons took the lesser Rip Hamilton for Stackhouse.
Price didn't get any love in the draft.
Rasheed... well... I don't really think I need to say anything about his rep.
B Wallace... the Wiz and the Magic didn't think much of him.

The Pistons didn't really build around any single player. Maybe that's the similarity with the current Bulls. We don't seem to have a superstar on the roster.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> kukoc & ace... you guys are a
> 
> 
> ...


You know where I stand on whether Detroit and Chicago are comparable?  I don't think I have heretofore weighed in on such a topic. Anyway, I could say the same for most of the posters on this board....of course we know what everyones position is, we talk Bulls basketball as naseum around here.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I think the piece we lack the most compared to Pistons is Larry Brown!

ofcourse we don't have their players as well , and I'm not sure Pax is using them as a modle , but he is trying to toughen up the team - while the Pistons r the toughest at the moment.

Wer'e light years away from them - they R a championship team that even got better this year with Delfino (he's good) , Dyss and a 2nd year Darko.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> What, I'm not allowed to answer the questions anymore?
> 
> I see HUGE differences between the Pistons and the Bulls.


Sure you're allowed to answer questions. But superdave obviously was comparing the Pistons and Bulls based on the type of players each acquired. He even went as far as to provide a position-by-position breakdown.

Instead of following that lead, you saw fit to twist it into yet another opportunity to post about how the Bulls traded away your favorite players (or players you feel they shouldn't have traded) and how Pax and Skiles are incompetent. When you do this it's like listening to the presidential candidates take legitimate questions and twist them in order to jam their pre-prepared sound bites down our throats for the 500th time.

:twocents:


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

K4E, I really think you're missing the point here and, once again, turning a thread into an "Anti Skiles/Paxson" fest. The question was "Is Paxson trying to put together a team in the mold of the current Pistons?" Yes or no? SD wasn't asking whether we were as good as them or whether Dumars is a better talent evaluator than Pax or whether Brown is a better coach than Skiles, etc. You get the picture. Kneepad isn't alone in his "broken record" comment. If the thread was called "Who's better: Bulls or Pistons," then your reply would have substance. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I can't speak for anyone else, but god, some people around here are simply getting really irritating for me to read.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'd say no...sorry if that irritates anyone....


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Most people were suprised when the Pistons took the lesser Rip Hamilton for Stackhouse.


And would you NOT consider that a Paxon-ish move?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> K4E, I really think you're missing the point here and, once again, turning a thread into an "Anti Skiles/Paxson" fest. The question was "Is Paxson trying to put together a team in the mold of the current Pistons?" Yes or no? SD wasn't asking whether we were as good as them or whether Dumars is a better talent evaluator than Pax or whether Brown is a better coach than Skiles, etc. You get the picture. Kneepad isn't alone in his "broken record" comment. If the thread was called "Who's better: Bulls or Pistons," then your reply would have substance. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but god, some people around here are simply getting really irritating for me to read.


I was not trying to turn this into an anti Paxosn/Skiles fest.

He was talking about if Paxson using the Pistons "model for success," which he mentions in his post.

I said no way.

I don’t really see any similarities between Billups and Hinrich, Nocioni and Hamilton, Prince and Deng or R Wallace and Curry.

I don’t think they way they are building their teams are similar at all… and the players don’t seem similar either.

It seems I misunderstood “model for success.” If that’s the case than I apologize.

If the question was only about the current Bulls being a poor man's pistons... then i'd have to say no since the players are not similar, IMO.

Some people here annoy me as well. Chances are when you are in a room with many people... some of them are going to annoy you. That's life.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> 
> And would you NOT consider that a Paxon-ish move?


I always considered Hamilton to be a soft, skinny little shooting guard who liked to hit mid range jumpers.... before he joined the Pistons. Not a defensive powerhouse by any stretch.

So... at first blush... no.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I always considered Hamilton to be a soft, skinny little shooting guard who liked to hit mid range jumpers.... before he joined the Pistons. Not a defensive powerhouse by any stretch.
> ...


:whoknows: :frenchy: :verysad:

So chemistry wasn't an issue for acquiring Hamilton for Stackhouse?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> 
> :whoknows: :frenchy: :verysad:


So... Hamilton was known for his defensive prowess before he joined the Pistons?


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Some people here annoy me as well. Chances are when you are in a room with many people... some of them are going to annoy you. That's life.


No sweat, man. All these years of being dedicated to such a losing franchise builds up much frustration. Don't take it too personally. Just an observation. It's not like I have you on ignore or anything.

Yet.

:grinning:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> No sweat, man. Don't take it too personally. Just an observation. It's not like I have you on ignore or anything.
> ...


Ditto k4e.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I'm not sure if Paxson looked at the Pistons and thought, "Hmm, I need to do what these guys are doing." But I do think that Paxson and Dumars have similar mindsets as GM's and look for the same types of players; so I guess my answer is yes, they are using similar models. 

What I find amazing about the line-up comparisons is that the Bulls have more raw, physical talent, at least in their starting lineup. Curry, Chandler, and Deng in particular. The Pistons just have guys who better use what they have, and they manage to play as a unified team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> So chemistry wasn't an issue for acquiring Hamilton for Stackhouse?


Yeah, I think it was.

The way its an anti-Paxson move is that Hamilton is a living, breathing quality NBA basketball player.

We get NOTHING in return for our guys.

I'm going to give it a rest today... I don't want this to turn into another Paxson debate.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think it was.
> ...


Well, i understand why many would disagree agree with me, but if Toronto called today and wanted AD back for Rose, I'd say hell no! I'm not that wild about AD either, but if he isn't a living breathing quality NBA basketball player at least he's close.

BTW, I think you can bash Pax all you want on this thread, it's not like it's off-topic or anything.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I agree with a lot of the sentiment here. If you want to say that The 5 man Bulls lineup is completely different from the 5 starting Pistons, then do so in the player by player framework that was set up in the original post. If there is a thread that is about Jamal, then go ahead and talk about him all day. Same is there is a thread asking you to evaluate Pax's performance. But this thread wasn't about "How do you think the Bulls' trades compare to the Pistons'." It's not about that. I value the opinions of the naysayers to the Pax/Skiles regime and I understand peoples' positions pretty well. I just don't like it when it seems that sometimes people read any topic as an opportunity to express these same points, even when on its face it seems to not be answering the question posed even slightly.


As for me, I do see some parallels in what Pax has assembled here. Although, to a certain extent, I think you could try to say that any team without a star player resembles the Pistons. Their guys are definitely upgrades at this point over ours, but it is a great assembly of guys who know how to play roles. What's remarkable to me is pretty much every team I've ever seen win a championship (I'm 25) has needed at least one superstar player to win. I think the comparison does go a little deeper than lacking star talent, however. I think all the stress on "unselfish" play is consistent. I also think the idea of stressing that players have complete games (offense, defense, passing, doing the little things, etc.) is something that the Pistons have as well. They are not a team of one dimensional players.

I'd love to see us some how get a dominant superstar. For a while I thought that was Eddy, but I don't know now whether he'll ever develop a game where he excels at anything besides scoring. In the meantime, I think trying to emulate the Pistons' model is about the only way you can go.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Reaching would be saying that Dwight Howard should play the 3... and that Jamal would be an All-star within three years.  But I digress.
> ...


Sorry but you can make parallels to ANY team if you use the right words and exaggerate the right characteristics. You can say a grade school team has parallels to the Pistons, but that doesn't mean it's substantial at all. 

What would make this parallel substantial or compelling is if our team actually produced similar results to Detroit. The characteristics you name are way too vague. You can throw labels on Tyson as a rebounder and defender and note how Ben Wallace is also a rebounder and defender --- but you very well know that they are not even close results-wise. All relativity is thrown out when characteristics are what we are arguing about.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Sorry but you can make parallels to ANY team if you use the right words and exaggerate the right characteristics. You can say a grade school team has parallels to the Pistons, but that doesn't mean it's substantial at all.
> 
> What would make this parallel substantial or compelling is if our team actually produced similar results to Detroit. The characteristics you name are way too vague. You can throw labels on Tyson as a rebounder and defender and note how Ben Wallace is also a rebounder and defender --- but you very well know that they are not even close results-wise. All relativity is thrown out when characteristics are what we are arguing about.


This is totally untrue. I don't think he's saying that the Bulls ARE the Pistons. I think the most he is saying is that we are trying to construct the Pistons-lite. Basically, the dynamics of the team and roles are similar, even if we are far less skilled overall as a team.  I think you're missing the point of the comparison. The argument is not, "Hey, Detroit is awesome, and we're just like Detroit, so we're awesome, too." Instead, it's just asking if Pax is trying to assemble a team with similar roles.


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

yea i was one of the founding fathers of this argument so i hafta to agree. i mean when i think of the pistons i think real tough and gritty. not like "super athletes" atleast compared to nba standards of "super athletes". the bulls are developing a team w a lot of guys like this. nocioni, deng, hinrich etc. who are good gritty players but wont like jump out of the gym on ya ... i dont know this argument isnt true all the way around but its what im trying to get at


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

ok people both the pistons and bulls gms, dumars and paxson are old school ballers. old school ball as we all know was big time D and team play. not all this fancy schmancy hot dog/ball hog play. they both have the same vision but dumars reached it first because of the amount of time hes had compared to pax and also the tools. so once paxsons vision is reached is expect GREAT results in the win column. but we need to just be even more patient and then you will see mine and others points that the bulls are A LOT like the pistons


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> This is totally untrue. I don't think he's saying that the Bulls ARE the Pistons. I think the most he is saying is that we are trying to construct the Pistons-lite. Basically, the dynamics of the team and roles are similar, even if we are far less skilled overall as a team. I think you're missing the point of the comparison. The argument is not, "Hey, Detroit is awesome, and we're just like Detroit, so we're awesome, too." Instead, it's just asking if Pax is trying to assemble a team with similar roles.


This argument is likely to lead to something like that. What hes seems to be establishing is that we are on some similar trajectory to a winner. 

I'm saying, you can have the same mindset, dynamics with the same roles all you like hell just call us the 3rd world blind man's version of the Pistons, but it does not matter if you don't have anywhere near the developed talent.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Sorry for starting this thread guys. A few real responses, a landslide of verbiage from the anti-Pax brigade, and some joker trying to discount the thread entirely.

Back to our regularly scheduled basketball agenda.... i mean.. discussion


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I saw the title and only one thing came to mind

One team is good, one team isnt. Sorry to be blunt, not picking any fights, but there is no comparison


----------



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I saw the title and only one thing came to mind
> 
> One team is good, one team isnt. Sorry to be blunt, not picking any fights, but there is no comparison


 

I thought we were actually getting closer to their level. Instead getting annihilated by 40 points, we're only losing by 20 points to them now. Just think in a few decades, we could actually lose by a tip-in at the buzzer to them.

Oh I can't wait!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...smith,1,3155128.column?coll=cs-home-headlines



> The Bulls' model is the Detroit Pistons. Get hard-working, responsible players who aren't highly sought. Don't pay maximum salaries. And then when you're close, take a chance, as the Pistons did with Rasheed Wallace.
> 
> The Bulls are heading in that direction....


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The major differences we don't have a go to shooter (Hamilton) or an all around good big man (Rasheed), and that pretty much makes the 2 team uncomparable in my mind.

But

Chandler could very well end up being as good as Big Ben (with a little more offense and a little less d)

Hinrich will be better than Billups

Deng will be at leaat as good as Prince

Nocioni will be better than anyone on their bench.

The Bulls are a superstar or 2 very solid players away 

and

a few years (3-X) experiance away from being a Detriot caliber team.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i think the biggest difference between the 2 teams are the coaches. if the bulls had someone like rick carlisie or larry brown, they would be on their way to the playoffs and be a championship contender within 3 years. its obvious that we have enough solid neclues of young players already it's time to take off, but we just dont have the leader we desperately need to guide us how to click as a team.


----------



## JustinSane (May 26, 2003)

I think that there is a very important difference between the way Dumars built the Pistons and the approach Paxon is taking with the Bulls. Dumars aimed to quickly establish a culture of winning by building around veterans who already knew the game and had proven track records of consistent effort and professionalism. The turn-around started with players like Michael Curry, Cliff Robinson, Chucky Atkins and Ben Wallace. They were all considered role players with significant limitations in their games, but they gave all out effort in every area of the game and they knew what they were doing. The emphasis was on winning as quickly as possible. 

Upgrades were grafted on gradually after a winning attitude had taken root. Prince replaced Curry. Billups signed (which lifted Atkins from a weaker starter to an excellent back-up). Hamilton was both younger and a better fit than Stackhouse. Basically, the team was assembled through unpretentious trades and free agent signings. It was not at all built through the draft. Only one player Dumars drafted (Prince) ultimately made a real difference in winning the championship. 

The Bulls are trying to both develop a very young team and establish a winning culture at the same time. That's a very tough thing to do. Young players can contribute toward a winning team, but without overwhelming talent, teams that are depending on several very young players usually don't win much. The Bulls have 11 players on their roster 25 or younger. The Pistons have 5, and only Prince is heavily depended on. 

The problem is that being a key contributer to a losing team is not a good way for a young player to develop the mental framework needed to become a good NBA player. They don't learn what it feels like to win or what it takes to get there. It damages confidence and breeds frustration. In many cases, they are forced fed minutes before they've earned them or are ready to handle them, and any negative oncourt habits become ingrained. The whole mentality of the team can easily deteriorate. 

The Bulls have some good, hard working young players. Chandler, Deng and Hinrich would all fit in great with the Pistons. But they are too young and inexperienced to be relied on as the cornerstones of the present, and the Bulls lack veterans the caliber of Ben or Rasheed Wallace and Chauncey Billups. The load could be too heavy for developing players to lift and I fear it may crush them. I hope not, because your team has a lot of talent and they're fun to watch. I just don't know if they've got enough veterans to make this work. With great coaching and an unusual level of mental toughness on the part of your young players, you could be contenders within three or four years. I just don't know if that is the most likely scenario. 

Feel free to ignore this if you like. It's just the two cents of a Pistons fan who'd like to see a renewal of a great rivalry between these two teams. Best wishes 

Edit: Interesting statistical note. The average +/- of your four players over 40 is +6.7. The average +/- of the 7 players 25 and younger on your team who've recieved significant minutes is -.97. Unless I've missed someone, you don't have anyone between the ages of 25-30, which typically constitute the prime years of a players career. Unorthodox way to build a team. It will be interesting to see if it works.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JustinSane</b>!
> I think that there is a very important difference between the way Dumars built the Pistons and the approach Paxon is taking with the Bulls. Dumars aimed to quickly establish a culture of winning by building around veterans who already knew the game and had proven track records of consistent effort and professionalism. The turn-around started with players like Michael Curry, Cliff Robinson, Chucky Atkins and Ben Wallace. They were all considered role players with significant limitations in their games, but they gave all out effort in every area of the game and they knew what they were doing. The emphasis was on winning as quickly as possible.
> 
> Upgrades were grafted on gradually after a winning attitude had taken root. Prince replaced Curry. Billups signed (which lifted Atkins from a weaker starter to an excellent back-up). Hamilton was both younger and a better fit than Stackhouse. Basically, the team was assembled through unpretentious trades and free agent signings. It was not at all built through the draft. Only one player Dumars drafted (Prince) ultimately made a real difference in winning the championship.
> ...


Ignore you? Why? Great post. Good opinion. Many Bulls fans will agree with you. Especially after 6 to 7 years of losing with a young team.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JustinSane</b>!]
> 
> Edit: Interesting statistical note. The average +/- of your four players over 40 is +6.7. The average +/- of the 7 players 25 and younger on your team who've recieved significant minutes is -.97. *Unless I've missed someone, you don't have anyone between the ages of 25-30, which typically constitute the prime years of a players career. * Unorthodox way to build a team. It will be interesting to see if it works.


Awsome post all around. I'm bolded what I personally believe to be our biggest problem. We have no player who could even in passing be considered "the man" (a player in his prime years). It may not seem like much, but it's a HUGE flaw in building a team IMO.

As for the origninal post, I think the biggest difference in models is that of Andres and Hamilton, as they are 2 completely different type of players. Rip is, in fact, exactly what this team is really really missing, a guy who can knock down his shots and not hurt the team with mistakes.

Other then that, I can see the comparisons of Chandler/Wallace and Prince/Deng as being fairly close in thier style of plays.

Thoughtful post, but I really think Pax isn't following the Pistons model so much per se as he's just not building a team around a superstar. If he lucks into one or pulls the trigger to aquire one, I'd have to hope he would, rather then continue to follow the Pistons mold. But that's just my :twocents:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

opps


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> opps


Jeez, Jim, if you mess up, at least spell oops correctly. 

JustinSane, nice reasoned post. Post more.

I've also made the Bulls-Pistons comparison, but all of your observations are entirely valid. The similarity is that the Bulls are trying to build a contender without a true superstar by getting team-oriented talent. While difficult to do with young players, I don't see this as an impossible task.

Luck has something to do with the building of any great team. The dynasty Bulls got MJ because 2 teams decided to go big (Thorn admitted that he'd have taken Hakeem or Bowie if the Bulls had the 1st or 2nd pick). Pippen was a risk, coming from a small school and Rodman was a real risky proposition that paid off.

The Pistons got Ben Wallace for nothing, managed to get the Wiz to trade Hamilton for Stackhouse and took a Rodman-like risk to get Raheed Wallace. Kudos to Dumars, but he led a charmed life in building his nucleus.

The Bulls, on the other hand, have yet to pull a rabbit out of their hat. Deng Nocioni and Duhon may eventually get the "rabbit-hat" distinction, but it's too early to say.

Right now, the Bulls are still stuck on what has been a bad (or unlucky) past move (drafting Curry and Chandler and trading Brand). If this ultimately plays out to be a bad move, the Bulls will continue to be one of the have-nots, even if Paxson gets the best he can get form these devalued assets.

Lucky or not, I like Paxson's approach. While I'm sure he'd prefer to build a team around a superstar like Jordan, he understands that he doesn't have a Jordan and is unlikely to get anything remotely like him. Detroit has shown that it can be done without a superstar. 

They're as good a model as any for now.


----------



## JustinSane (May 26, 2003)

Getting Wallace was certainly a big break. Dumars knew he was good, but no-one knew he'd become the dominant defensive force in basketball. I disagree that the trades for Hamilton and Rasheed were luck however. At the time, the consensus was that Dumars had chosen to downgrade the team by trading away a boderline franchise player coming off a career year. People forget just how well Stackhouse played that season. Conventional wisdom was that Dumars made a risky cap-based move to get a cheaper, less talented player and that Jordan had taken him on the trade. It turns out that Stackhouse was not quite as good as everyone thought and Hamilton's game was not really that one-dimensional. Hamilton is just as good as Stackhouse (at a minimum), younger and cheaper. 

Trading for Rasheed was not really that much of a risk. Dumars basically traded expiring contracts and draft picks for a free look at (and Bird rights to) a talented player who had struggled with the role of franchise savior. He did his homework before the trade as well, asking a great number of Sheed's former team-mates and coaches about what type of person and teammate he really was. The pre-Sheed Pistons were simply not a contender and to become one they had to depend on Darko or Okur developing into an elite front court player. Clearly, trading for Sheed was the better choice. 

What's not commonly mentioned about Dumars is how poorly he drafted initially. Rodney White was a total bust selected over Richard Jefferson, Joe Johnson and Zach Randolph among others. Mateen Cleeves was taken ahead of Turkoglu, Desmond Mason, Quentin Richardson and Jamaal Magloire. In both cases Dumars cut his losses and quickly traded the bad picks while they still had value. Turns out the two firsts he got for them were needed to swing the trade for Rasheed. Perhaps Paxson should persue a similar tack, not necessarily looking for equal talent, but just trying to change the composition of the team.

One such possible trade is the following: 
Memphis trades: C Lorenzen Wright (7.9 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 1.2 apg in 26.1 minutes) 
SF Brian Cardinal (6.7 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.2 apg in 19.4 minutes) 
SF Shane Battier (7.3 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 1.1 apg in 28.3 minutes) 
Memphis receives: PF Antonio Davis (4.9 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.7 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (13.6 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 0.8 apg in 27.2 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -3.4 ppg, -4.2 rpg, and -1.8 apg. 

Chicago trades: PF Antonio Davis (4.9 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.7 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (13.6 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 0.8 apg in 27.2 minutes) 
Chicago receives: C Lorenzen Wright (7.9 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 1.2 apg in 26.1 minutes) 
SF Brian Cardinal (6.7 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.2 apg in 19.4 minutes) 
SF Shane Battier (7.3 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 1.1 apg in 28.3 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +3.4 ppg, +4.2 rpg, and +1.8 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Memphis and Chicago being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Memphis and Chicago had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You have been assigned Trade ID number 2081840

Quite possibly Memphis wouldn't accept this unless Chicago through in a first round pick, since Battier and Cardinal are a lot more productive right now that what the Bulls are giving up. Even if that were needed, I think this would be worth doing for Chicago. The Bulls don't lack for young talent and they don't need another young draft pick. They need veterans exactly like Battier and Cardinal. They work hard all the time, are good in every facet of the game and are consumate professionals. In a wide open Eastern Conference, this trade could even put the Bulls in the playoff race. There would still be plenty of youth left with Chandler, Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and Nocioni. Add a free agent next offseason, and those 5 along with Cardinal and Battier are a pretty darn good team. You don't necessarily need a potential star for Curry. Just a couple good players would probably serve the team better than an high risk/high reward prospect at this point.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

It is entirely possible that the Bulls are building on the Pistons model, because Paxson does seem that dumb.

Folks, the Pistons are the only team in the last 25 years to have won an NBA championship without being built around at least one superstar. Most NBA champs have been built around two. Bulls fans, of all people should know that.

The Pistons are something of a fluke made possible, in large part, by the fact that they have the greatest living coach in the game.

I don't know why anyone would pick a model to build on that has only won once in the last quarter century.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Bumping this thread from October '04. I was dead wrong about Noch and was too high on him (and probably still am actually ) but another post from <b>MikeDC</b> made me re-think the Detroit-Chicago comparison. Mike wrote:



> Down the road, I can see Eddy being elite, Ben being elite on offense, and Kirk being elite. I hold out hope for Tyson and I wouldn't count out Deng, although I don't think is strength lies in being an unstoppable scorer but rather a glue guy. He's our Tayshaun Prince.
> 
> If Detroit's our model:
> Curry = Rasheed
> ...


I'll take it a step further. Perhaps a sweet shooting 4 this offseason (ala Vlad or Donyell) could serve as an Okur type off the bench. Someone who'll crash the boards and stretch the defense when Eddy is drawing attention in the post. A big guard would seem necessary as well to relieve Ben/Kirk. A veteran 4 and big guard are two things frequently mentioned for the offseason plans (though the bigger issue is keeping the Bigs)

After seeing the Bulls take it to Detroit a couple times this season, the Bulls seemed to beat them at their own game. Physical defense on/off the ball, big bodies in the post, movement w/o the ball, steady PG play, etc ,etc. I see more similarities now then I did 4 months ago.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

SD, I thought this thread was right on when you started it and it certainly seems to be the case for sure at this point. Props.

On the contrary, ShakeTiller's last post is ridiculous. The great thing about building a team with a bunch of very good players like we're doing is we have a ton of assets. If we ever feel the need to do a 2-for-1 trade for a SUPERstar, we'll be able to and there'll be plenty of combinations we could use. Not to mention, teams can't just focus on one or two guys. We have a lot of weapons, just like Detroit did last year. Their depth was a big part of what made them better than the Lakers.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> SD, I thought this thread was right on when you started it and it certainly seems to be the case for sure at this point. Props.
> 
> On the contrary, ShakeTiller's last post is ridiculous. The great thing about building a team with a bunch of very good players like we're doing is we have a ton of assets. If we ever feel the need to do a 2-for-1 trade for a SUPERstar, we'll be able to and there'll be plenty of combinations we could use. Not to mention, teams can't just focus on one or two guys. We have a lot of weapons, just like Detroit did last year. Their depth was a big part of what made them better than the Lakers.


I don't really think what he said in that post is ridiculous, unlike his continued insistence that Kirk is a 2nd round level player.

What he said had some truth to it. The Pistons ARE the only team without a superstar to win it in the last quarter century, and thus far this year haven't yet shown that their title last wasn't a flash in the pan. Plus, in the Finals, they were fortunate enough to play a team that seemed over the years to make good point guards look like superstars. Prior to that series Billups was shooting something like 35% in the playoffs.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't really think what he said in that post is ridiculous, unlike his continued insistence that Kirk is a 2nd round level player.





> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> It is entirely possible that the Bulls are building on the Pistons model, because Paxson does seem that dumb.


That makes his post ridiculous. He was right that the Pistons of last year were a very rare team because they had no one superstar. But, how many teams have ever had that much depth of very good players? Championship teams usually have two stars, surrounded by a bunch of role players. Detroit was 5-deep in all-starish players, any one of which could be their MVP any given night. Very few teams have ever had that luxury, so that Pistons team was certainly rare, but that does not necessarily make them a "fluke."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The pistons had/have 3 superstars. Wallace, Wallace, and Rip. You could build a team around any one of those three as the featured player. 

One of their guys who isn't in that group of 3 averaged 17 points per game and won the MVP of the finals. 

(Bringing my points here from the other thread).


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The pistons had/have 3 superstars. Wallace, Wallace, and Rip. You could build a team around any one of those three as the featured player.
> ...


Is Tyson Chandler really playing much worse than Ben Wallace right now?

Is Eddy Curry playing much worse than Rasheed?

Is Kirk really much below Rip Hamilton?

What about Deng and Gordon? Are they really much below the level that Chauncey is playing right now?

If you've been watching, the answers should be "no, no, no, and no."

There's a reason the Bulls are within 2 games of the Pistons in the standings. We're seeing our Bulls develop into quality NBA players right before our eyes.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The pistons had/have 3 superstars. Wallace, Wallace, and Rip. You could build a team around any one of those three as the featured player.
> ...


Aren't you basically agreeing with me, except for the fact that you're calling those three guys superstars? 

As far as those three being superstars, Rip still has yet to be an all-star, while each Wallace has been an all-star twice. Personally, I don't consider any of them "superstars." I view all of them as great 2nd option players. Put any of them with a superstar and you've got a great core for a contender, but I don't see any of them as ever being a Top 15ish player, which I'd consider a good cutoff for "superstar" status.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Is Tyson Chandler really playing much worse than Ben Wallace right now?
> ...


If you're a homer, the answers are yes, yes, yes.

If you're honest, the answers are in fact, no no no.

Hinrich, our best player, is basically playing about as well as Billups did last season (scoring less, a couple assists more per game).

I could easily make the case that Ben Wallace is one of the top two or three most important players in the NBA. Chandler's been playing quite well, but he's not even close to Wallace. 

Sheed was the goto guy on teams that won 59, 50, 49, and 50 games his last 4 years (in portland). He's every bit the same quality of player he was in those days.

Hamilton was already a darn good player when he was traded to Detroit. He's improved his game every season since he joined the league (better FG%s, more assists, and so on). He's a quality defender and he has size. 

As good as the Bulls have been playing lately, you might not realize that Kirk in his last 5 games is scoring 18.6 PPG on 37% FG (28% 3PT) with 7.2 APG (averaging 7.1 for the season). You might have a case for Kirk being a notch below Billups, the 4th best player on the Pistons.

There's reason to be optimistic about our players becoming much better, but let's not put the cart before the horse.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Bumping this thread from October '04. I was dead wrong about Noch and was too high on him (and probably still am actually ) but another post from <b>MikeDC</b> made me re-think the Detroit-Chicago comparison. Mike wrote:
> 
> 
> ...


I think that's about right (and thanks for the quote), but I also think it's worth drawing out some of the differences between Rip/Chauncy and Ben/Kirk

In some ways, the combination of our guys and their guys accomplish some of the same stuff, but I find the players pretty hard to match up.

Ben (so far) and Rip both have a wonderful mid-range element to their game, and are pretty good at moving without the ball.

Rip is bigger and a better defender
Rip is one of the best in the league at drawing contact. Ben, so far, is below average in this regard.

Ben can be spectacular when the ball is in his hands, Rip is spectacular at getting to a place he can get the ball and score with it.

Chauncy is a guy who's kind of a tweener, but gets to the rim a lot and draws a lot of contact. He's a good defender, but I don't think he's a great one.

Kirk is a guy who's more of a perimeter shooter. He's actually more like Rip when it comes to scoring, but with the best passing capabilities of the four and he more frequently stays outside, whereas Rip mixes it up (which is how he gets to the line so much) Defensively he's probably the best of the four as well.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't think that Paxson was trying to build the team using "the Pistons model" except to the extent that he believed in the team concept, balls-out defense and, in a stark contrast to his predecesor (Krause), he didn't believe that the only way to build a championship contender was to somehow find yourself a superstar and then build a supporting cast.

Paxson is building a team around being a team. You can't count on getting a superstar. You can count on good talent that will play together.

Hinrich's quickly becoming a star. Deng, Curry and Chandler may become stars. Gordon could become a superstar, but that's a ways off.

The Bulls may have Pistons-type talent, but it hasn't ripened yet. If they do and they can add to it, they can overtake the Pistons, maybe not this season, but next season or the season after.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> If you're a homer, the answers are yes, yes, yes.
> ...


*Rip Hamilton,* this season: +16.85 Efficiency Rating, #25 Roland Rating
Last season: +15.29 Efficiency Rating

*Chauncey Billups,* this season: +17.38 Efficiency Rating, not in top 50 Roland Rating
Last season: +16.45 Efficiency Rating

*Kirk Hinrich,* this season: +17.73 Efficiency Rating, #18 Roland Rating (Hinrich averages more points, assists, rebounds and steals in fewer minutes than does Billups).


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> If you're a homer, the answers are yes, yes, yes.
> ...


We're better than Detroit, honestly. The defensive rules have changed and they're not a championship-calibre team anymore. It's not backlash from the Wallace suspension at all; they've just been exposed. 



> Meanwhile, defensive-minded teams like the Pistons and Jazz have struggled all season to cut off penetration. While neither Detroit coach Larry Brown nor Utah coach Jerry Sloan will say it publicly, some observers (including SI.com colleague John Hollinger) think those teams have been seriously hurt by their inability to get as physical on the perimeter. "It seems like Detroit has been giving up a lot of layups and dunks this year," one scout says. "I think some of it has to be the new [guidelines]."


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/marty_burns/01/26/defense/index.html


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj33 - i

interesting thoughts, but I have another theory.

When you go deep in the playoffs, especially winning a championship, you don't get much time off before the next season starts. Maybe the Pistons are 1) not used to that little time off, 2) saving it for playoff time, 3) banged up a little more than they would be if they had rest, and so on. Only a guy like Sheed on that team was used to going deep in the playoffs like they did.

Utah? Harpring's injury. Maybe Boozer isn't such a hot defensive guy.

Cheers


----------

