# Williams: NBA Futures Prieview (Bulls behind Cs in odds for EC)



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Well, they say you can't beat Vegas. I sure hope the Bulls do. 

http://www.betus.com/sports-betting/NBA_Futures_Betting_2007_08_Season_Preview-6202.aspx

NBA Futures Betting - 2007 - 08 Season Preview
By Eric Williams

* * * * * 

Boston Celtics +225 to win the eastern conference title.

The additions of veterans Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to go along with swingman Paul Pierce, has vaulted the Celtics to the top of the eastern conference championship odds - and while that is certainly a very real possibility - the Celtics should be concerned about every other position on their roster other than those three spots. My take, even as a lifelong Celtics fan, is that it will take at least one more season for the Celtics to be able to compete with the top teams in the western conference.

*Chicago Bulls +300 to win the eastern conference title.
The addition of active forward Joakim Noah should help the Bulls in the frontcourt immensely next season as will the continued growth of promising second-year forward Tyrus Thomas, and blossoming star Luol Deng.

While the Bulls have some of the best young perimeter players in the league in Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich and Deng, Chicago will need some interior scoring if they hope to reach the conference or league finals next season. If the Bulls don’t get some inside scoring next season, they could be on the outside looking in when the games that really matter, begin.*

Orlando Magic +1000 to win the eastern conference title.

The additions of new head coach Stan Van Gundy and high-scoring small forward Rashard Lewis will help this team immediately next season. If you’re looking for a team on the upswing, look no further than Orlando. I also expect shooting guard J.J. Redick to have quite a few high-scoring nights of his own next season as many teams will be concentrating on Lewis and man-child Dwight Howard.

Atlanta Hawks +3500 to win the eastern conference title.

The Hawks had an amazing draft by acquiring two NBA-ready players in power forward Al Horford and point guard Acie Law IV. While Atlanta is a team on the upswing – and one that I believe will approach a .500 record next season, the Hawks are at least another season or two away from really being able to compete in the eastern conference.

Denver Nuggets +1200 to win western conference title.

Simple and plain, I’ll be watching the Nuggets like a hawk in 2007-08. Denver has two flat-out scorers in Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony and just about everything else with players like defensive ace Marcus Camby, power forward Nene, and blossoming shooter J.R. Smith not to mention budding combination forward Linas Kleiza. I fully expect the Nuggets to be one of the top contenders to reach the western conference finals in 2007-08.

Utah Jazz +1200 to win western conference title.

Speaking of teams that will genuinely contend for the western conference title, the Utah Jazz showed in last year’s postseason that they were undoubtedly for real. The Jazz have the league’s best young point guard in Deron Williams and also grabbed the draft’s best perimeter shooter in former Rice superstar Morris Almond. This pair will eventually form one of the league’s best backcourts for years to come.

Seattle Supersonics +3500 to win western conference title.

The Sonics have the makings of something special with Kevin Durant and Jeff Green, but they are at least three years away from winning anything of significance simply because of the strength of the western conference and their glaring hole at center.

Portland Trailblazers +3500 to win western conference title.

The Blazers, like the Sonics, have something special brewing. Unlike Seattle, Portland could actually make some serious strides s early as net season. Shooting guard Brandon Roy, power forward LaMarcus Aldridge and center Greg Oden could form the league’s best trio in a half-decade.

Minnesota Timberwolves +7500 to win western conference title.

The Timberwolves actually made out pretty good getting some of the Boston Celtics’ best young players for superstar Kevin Garnett. While it may take a bit of time for them to continue to grow and develop, Minnesota undoubtedly has some players that could turn out to be downright special in forward Al Jefferson, shooting guard Randy Foye and small forwards Corey Brewer and Gerald Green. Don’t be surprised if the Timberwolves are one of the top teams in the conference in a few seasons. However, don’t expect any miracles any time soon.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I'll take those odds.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> Well, they say you can't beat Vegas. I sure hope the Bulls do.
> 
> Boston Celtics +225 to win the eastern conference title.
> 
> The additions of veterans Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to go along with swingman Paul Pierce, has vaulted the Celtics to the top of the eastern conference championship odds - and while that is certainly a very real possibility - the Celtics should be concerned about every other position on their roster other than those three spots. My take, even as a lifelong Celtics fan, is that it will take at least one more season for the Celtics to be able to compete with the top teams in the western conference.


My take is that it will take at least one more season for the Celtics to find out that they will never be able compete with the top teams in the eastern conference. The sad sack bunch of NBADL refugees and second stringers surrounding the Big 3 will be spotlighted by the competition and crushed. The group includes second stringers playing all of the minutes at the two most important NBA spots -- point guard and center.:lol: 

Can three hot shooting wings (two of which flap considerably less on one end of the floor) learn to fill in for their less talented teammates, learn to share the ball on offense, and to play effective defense together? Ask New Jersey. Can basketball players who have logged as many minutes as KG, Allen and Pierce be expected to perform at their best as they enter their 3rd decade. The odds are that they will at least slow down a bit, so don't look for Boston to score much on transition.:wahmbulance:

Is there a way of "shorting" the Celtics with a bet in Vagas?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Can three hot shooting wings (two of which flap considerably less on one end of the floor) learn to fill in for their less talented teammates, learn to share the ball on offense, and to play effective defense together? Ask New Jersey.


Good post. The thing no one discusses about the Celtics is that their biggest flaw has probably been defense and their improvement there will be marginal at best. To become an elite team with such terrible defense, you need to have amazing offensive production and I think that three stars surrounded by scrubs will make their offense very good but not incredible.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Good post. The thing no one discusses about the Celtics is that their biggest flaw has probably been defense and their improvement there will be marginal at best. To become an elite team with such terrible defense, you need to have amazing offensive production and I think that three stars surrounded by scrubs will make their offense very good but not incredible.


Right. If you look at Phoenix and their incredible offensive prowess, it still hasn't been able to get them over the hump in the playoffs. The speculation that Boston will win the East is based upon star power. Yes, they have three very, very talented players, and I think that will make them tough. I don't think it makes them a lock, or even necessarily the favorites, to win the East.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McBulls said:


> My take is that it will take at least one more season for the Celtics to find out that they will never be able compete with the top teams in the eastern conference. The sad sack bunch of NBADL refugees and second stringers surrounding the Big 3 will be spotlighted by the competition and crushed. The group includes second stringers playing all of the minutes at the two most important NBA spots -- point guard and center.:lol:
> 
> Can three hot shooting wings (two of which flap considerably less on one end of the floor) learn to fill in for their less talented teammates, learn to share the ball on offense, and to play effective defense together? Ask New Jersey. Can basketball players who have logged as many minutes as KG, Allen and Pierce be expected to perform at their best as they enter their 3rd decade. The odds are that they will at least slow down a bit, so don't look for Boston to score much on transition.:wahmbulance:


Was PG and C the two most important positions on Jordon's Bulls?

How do the Celtics post options compare to Jordon's Bulls? Aren't KG and Pierce comparable to MJ and Pip in this regard?

How does the age of the Big 3 compare to our 2nd threepeat? Younger, right.

Are they really that bad on D? Adding KG and Posey and actually competing for something must help out a bunch IMHO.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Was PG and C the two most important positions on Jordon's Bulls?
> 
> How do the Celtics post options compare to Jordon's Bulls? Aren't KG and Pierce comparable to MJ and Pip in this regard?
> 
> ...


Well, it's going to be an educational season for one of us Johnson797. 

You look at the 2007-8 Celtics and see Jordon's Bulls. I see a team that very likely won't make the playoffs.

If either of us is even close to right, the other will have to reconsider their preconceptions of how championship or even winning teams should be assembled.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Was PG and C the two most important positions on Jordon's Bulls?


 The Bulls did have savy vets if nothing else. Cartwright and Longley weren't half bad either. All the Bulls needed at the piont was a sharp shooter/half decent defender. The Celts 3 are some good ball handlers and playmakers, but not MJ and Pip.



> How do the Celtics post options compare to Jordon's Bulls? Aren't KG and Pierce comparable to MJ and Pip in this regard?


Just about, but I'd take Jordan over Garnett, and Pippen over Pierce.



> How does the age of the Big 3 compare to our 2nd threepeat? Younger, right.


But with no chemistry formed, a lot of relience on raw unproven players, and a couple star players who aren't very good defenders



> Are they really that bad on D? Adding KG and Posey and actually competing for something must help out a bunch IMHO.


I don't think so. KG is a hell of a defender, and Allen is replacing someone without much defense anyway. Perkins and Rondo should be improved as well.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

McBulls said:


> You look at the 2007-8 Celtics and see Jordon's Bulls. I see a team that very likely won't make the playoffs.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: 

EDIT - No personal attacks, please.  There aren't four teams in the Eastern conference better much less eight. And the 1 _isn't_ the most important spot on the floor. Hasn't been for ages. They have the firepower at the top that most teams don't. The better you are 1-3 the less you need 4-15. To be brutally frank, 9-15 is irrelevant anyway, so the Bulls only advantage (depth 9-15) has the least effect on the bottom line. The Celtics have solid defense out of Posey, Rondo, and Tony Allen and scoring from Eddie House. Their only weakness is at the five, which is probably the least important spot on the floor (if it were vital a team starting Francisco Elson at the 5 wouldn't be the defending champ). According to San Antonio's front office the key to winning is to find three all star players and then fill out your roster with guys willing to go through a wall to win. Nothing about potential starters or all stars, just guys willing to do whatever it takes to win. So even they disagree with you.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McBulls said:


> You look at the 2007-8 Celtics and see Jordon's Bulls. I see a team that very likely won't make the playoffs.


I am not counting the championships just yet. I just don't see age, post game, traditional PG and C play and D being the issue for this team. The issues I see are health and rotation 4-8. If they are healthy enough and if they can find some players besides the big 3, they are going to be very tough be beat (at least in the East). Even if those players are tweeners and swing guys like Posey, House, Tony Allen, Glen Davis and Powe.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hustle said:


> I don't think so. KG is a hell of a defender, and Allen is replacing someone without much defense anyway. Perkins and Rondo should be improved as well.


Garnett improved the defense at two spots for Boston, because Al Jefferson is (like Wally Szczerbiak) a player without a defensive position. Perkins, even hobbling, was forced to cover quicker forwards and handle pick & roll defense as Jefferson couldn't do either. Now Perkins will get to guard the post, which he can do adequately. Ray Allen could be a bad defender (which he isn't) and still represent a quantum leap over Wally Szczerbiak. Also, neither Pierce nor Allen will need worry about carrying the team on their back anymore (offensively) and will be able to expend more energy defensively.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Garnett improved the defense at two spots for Boston, because Al Jefferson is (like Wally Szczerbiak) a player without a defensive position. Perkins, even hobbling, was forced to cover quicker forwards and handle pick & roll defense as Jefferson couldn't do either. Now Perkins will get to guard the post, which he can do adequately. Ray Allen could be a bad defender (which he isn't) and still represent a quantum leap over Wally Szczerbiak. Also, neither Pierce nor Allen will need worry about carrying the team on their back anymore (offensively) and will be able to expend more energy defensively.


Are you of the belief that the Celtics will be winning the Eastern Conference this year?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I have no idea, I haven't seen them play at all yet. Predicting that they'll win the EC now would be nearly as idiotic as claiming they won't make the playoffs because the end of their bench sucks.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> I have no idea, I haven't seen them play at all yet. Predicting that they'll win the EC now would be nearly as idiotic as claiming they won't make the playoffs because the end of their bench sucks.


Fair enough. Just curious as you seem to be tooting Boston's horn quite a bit since they assembled their big three. At this point, Detroit, Cleveland, or Chicago would be my guess, but we'll see what happens when some games are played...


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> I am not counting the championships just yet. I just don't see age, post game, traditional PG and C play and D being the issue for this team. The issues I see are health and rotation 4-8. If they are healthy enough and if they can find some players besides the big 3, they are going to be very tough be beat (at least in the East). Even if those players are tweeners and swing guys like Posey, House, Tony Allen, Glen Davis and Powe.


Teams that don't play good defense don't go far in the playoffs -- if they manage to get there at all. Boston has major defensive problems. I know everyone is touting Rondo, but he's proven nothing yet. House...let's not talk. Everyone seems to agree the Celts center position is a trouble spot. But when did any team without a decent center advance beyond the first round of the playoffs. Heck, teams without decent centers usually don't get to the playoffs. Look at the trouble the Nets had once Kristic went down, and the trouble the Bulls had when Curry and Davis were traded away. 

Defense is essential for winning basketball. It's hard to see that Boston is much better than average in this department, even with the welcome addition of Posey.

Winning basketball teams invariably have a big man in the middle who is at least average. Even if the guy doesn't score much, the low post position needs to be manned by someone who can stop opposing centers, get rebounds and block a few shots. Scoring is pretty helpful too. Perkins ain't quite average.

Unless you are playing the triangle and have Scotty Pippen to distribute the ball, you still need a good point guard to play winning basketball. I doubt that Boston meets either contingency. Rondo may someday turn out to be a good point guard, but it usually takes at least a couple of years for a point guard to develop, and he hasn't shown much yet. Rondo is on the hot spot in his sophomore year, and that's not good news for the Celts.

Then we have the big 3. Even superstars need time to gell. These three guys are used to shooting more than 50 shots per game when they're healthy. Since I don't see the Celts playing an up-tempo game, that means that they'll have to collectively take 60% of the team's total shots. Figuring out a way of using their talents together will take some time.

Then there is the matter of age. Allen is a 3-point shooter who depends on his legs for lift. At 32, he's coming off his worst shooting year since 1998. Maybe that was an aberration, but more likely it was the beginning of the downside of his outside shooting career. Garnett has played an entire career's worth of minutes coming into this season -- 35,000. His shooting, rebounding, assists and steals are well off his carreer highs of a few years ago. Even the relatively young Pierce has nine years of NBA tread-wear, and is a player who lives off his quickness. One has to be very optimistic to assume that all three players will escape injuries this year, but even if they play most of the games, their ability to produce as well as they have in the past is questionable.

All in all, there are certainly a lot of IFs with the Celtics, including the ones you raised. In my experience, one or two IFs are OK, but not a whole boatload. The best bet in Vegas is against Boston.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

King Joseus said:


> Fair enough. Just curious as you seem to be tooting Boston's horn quite a bit since they assembled their big three.


Well, yes, they unloaded all the kids that were defensive liabilities, holding back only the ones that can play that side of the floor, and assembled a veteran team built around the best top 3 this side of San Antonio. That puts them in contention no matter how much some Chicago fans want to ignore it. Defensively this team is a whole lot better today than it was five months ago, from defensive coaching (Thibodeau is a big improvement on Tony Brown) to having a team of mostly vet personnel that know the job. And what people missed five months ago was that their biggest problems were on offense (they had the 29th best offense in the NBA, worse than the Hawks), not defense (they were 17th defensively last year, ahead of Utah and Golden State). There's no way this unit is the 29th best offense in the NBA, it's going to be a top 10 offensive unit. Defensively they just need to be average, and I believe they're capable of more than that, but we'll see how quickly they adapt to Thibodeau's set.



McBulls said:


> Winning basketball teams invariably have a big man in the middle who is at least average.


Yeah, that Francisco Elson is just an animal, it's absurd that he's never made an All-Star team.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

If the Celts need a center, KG can play C on both sides of the ball just like Ray Allen can play PG on O.



McBulls said:


> Unless you are playing the triangle and have Scotty Pippen to distribute the ball, you still need a good point guard to play winning basketball.


Lakers won 3 championships w/o a PG, too. That's 9 in the last 17 years.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> If the Celts need a center, KG can play C on both sides of the ball just like Ray Allen can play PG on O.


KG playing center for prolonged minutes would be great for the opposition.
KG vs Ming
KG vs Shaq
KG vs Amare
KG vs Krystic
KG vs Wallace
KG vs Curry
KG vs Z
KG vs Oden
KG vs Howard

He will struggle guarding most NBA starting centers man-to-man. Can't say he can't do it, but if you do it routinely, you will kill him, and he'll be in some hospital for the playoffs.

If Ray Allen plays PG, his scoring average will be dropped by 30%. Not to mention that he has no prayer of covering the quicker point guards in east (e.g., Nate Robinson, Ford, even Duhon.



> Lakers won 3 championships w/o a PG, too. That's 9 in the last 17 years.


Magic was a point guard. A HOF point guard.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

What center named Wallace will Garnett "struggle" to defend? :lol: :lol: :lol: 

If Tony Battie could guard most of those guys when he was here, I think Garnett can manage it a few minutes a game. I know that with his raw combination of power and speed Krstic compares to a young Hakeem, but I think Kev can manage it a few minutes a game. :lol: :lol: :lol:



McBulls said:


> If Ray Allen plays PG, his scoring average will be dropped by 30%. Not to mention that he has no prayer of covering the quicker point guards in east (e.g., Nate Robinson, Ford, even Duhon.


Why does Ray need to play the 1 to run the offense? Hinrich does it just fine from the 2 spot. LeBron James manages the trick just fine from the 3. I think Ray can run the offense from the 2 with Ra_on Rondo, Eddie House or Gabe Pruitt at the 1.



> Magic was a point guard. A HOF point guard.


I was unaware that Magic guided a team to a title in the last 17 years.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McBulls said:


> KG playing center for prolonged minutes would be great for the opposition.
> KG vs Ming
> KG vs Shaq
> KG vs Amare
> ...


Guys like Krystic, Ming and Z are going to put KB in the hospital? Wallace? All of those guys sound like a vacation compared to Duncan, Brand, Boozer, Gasol, etc...

Look, Celts win plenty to get into the playoffs in the reg season even if they have to play two 4's and no 5. Once there, KG can match up with the centers of any of the Eastern contenders if need be.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ehmonroe is right. Lakers won 3 championships with stellar PG play from the likes of Derek Fisher, Tyronn Lue, Ron Harper and washed up Gary Payton.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

So I just looked at Boston's offensive and defensive efficiency numbers from last season - I'd been going by memory - was forced to reconsider my stance. They were actually better at defense last year and worse at offense than I realized. With the addition of Garnett and Posey and fewer attempts to tank, they might be able to get up to 10 in defensive efficiency. 

I see offense as a bigger problem. At most, you can count on the big three for 75 points a night. After that there are three decent offensive players (Allen, House, and Powe) and everyone else is either brutal at offense or a rookie. Even worse, those three decent scorers all play at the same positions as the big three. That means you're going to be playing 3 on 5 offense all night, every night. The big three are good enough that it won't cripple the team but I think it figures to keep them from getting much higher than 10th in offensive efficiency. 

This pretty much leaves you with a team that's around 10th in offensive efficiency and around 10th in defensive efficiency. That pretty closely mirrors last years Raptors (8th in OE, 12th in DE) and Nuggets (9th in both) which sounds about right.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

McBulls said:


> Well, it's going to be an educational season for one of us Johnson797.
> 
> You look at the 2007-8 Celtics and see Jordon's Bulls. I see a team that very likely won't make the playoffs.


Wow, I'm DYING to just take a PUFF off of what you're smoking man.

Pierce ALONE with some true veteran help is ENOUGH for Boston to make the playoffs in the east. Pierce with two of the best players in the NBA puts them at the TOP of a conference, east or west.

Deleted


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ehmunro said:


> Yeah, that Francisco Elson is just an animal, it's absurd that he's never made an All-Star team.


LMAO

good one

Regardless, there isn't ONE center in the entire league besides Shaq that K.G. can't defend. Period

If Boozer can guard Ming @ 6"9 for an entire series then that pretty much puts an end to this discussion.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Wow, I'm DYING to just take a PUFF off of what you're smoking man.
> 
> Pierce ALONE with some true veteran help is ENOUGH for Boston to make the playoffs in the east. Pierce with two of the best players in the NBA puts them at the TOP of a conference, east or west.
> 
> Deleted


 Looks like the season could be an educational experience for you too, ROY. Looking forward to it.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

It seems like we are wayyyy to arrogant when it comes to discussing Boston around here. I think two things will come to light when the season starts.

1. Their 4-9 might not be of optimal talent, but when the 1-3 is so good, those deficencies can be hidden.

2. That 4-9 isn't as incredibly bad as people are assuming. Are Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo, Scott Pollard, Eddie House, and James Posey really as bad as NBDL talents? I think there a bit better than that, and although none of them are complete players, they all do something pretty well. And those are the types of players you can get away with when you've got such a start with Garnett, Pierce, and Allen.


I guess coming from a Bulls perspective, we enjoy a deep deep team, but we've got to understand that we're the exception to the the rule. You can get away with less that great depth when you top heavy...I think you've seen a ton of good teams like that. Now I will admit, you are much more susceptible to injury. The brillant thing about the Bulls is that I think there is no player that can go down with a season ending injury tomorrow...and kill there playoff chances. How many teams can say that?

Comparing the Bulls to the Celtics, there is something to be said for the Bulls ability to throw 10 good players on the court, but there is also something to be said for the Celtics ability to have the three best players on the floor at all time. 

Finally, I think the comparisons to the Nets are misguided. Not only is the Celtics big three just better, I think the Nets never really got to take off because Jason Kidd was off injured and in there big three they did not have a dominate big man. 

I'm not saying that the Bulls or the rest of the east have no chance, but we really need to understand the Celts have a good as or better shot than anybody in the east.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

theyoungsrm said:


> I'm not saying that the Bulls or the rest of the east have no chance, but we really need to understand the Celts have a good as or better shot than anybody in the east.


The Celtics absolutely have a shot of winning the East but I'm not ready to go this far. Without excellent defense or a supporting cast, I think you have to pencil them in for a win total in the upper 40s with the requisite margin of error.

Edit: Also, it's shocking to me that no one's mentioned that the big three missed a combined 68 games last season. Admittedly that number is probably exaggerated some due to tanking but if any of those guys don't suit up, they're rather beatable. If two of them ever miss the same game then you're looking at a worse version of the three terrible teams these guys played on last season.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I don't think the Celtics are going to miss the playoffs, but I don't believe they're quite up to par with Detroit, Cleveland, or Chicago yet either. I don't believe in their defense. We'll have to wait and see on that one. Chemistry is another issue that I think'll hamper Boston. Depending on the matchup, Boston is likely to exit in the first or second round of the playoffs. Any two of Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago will be in the Eastern Conference Finals.

:twocents:


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> I don't think the Celtics are going to miss the playoffs, but I don't believe they're quite up to par with Detroit, Cleveland, or Chicago yet either. I don't believe in their defense. We'll have to wait and see on that one. Chemistry is another issue that I think'll hamper Boston. Depending on the matchup, Boston is likely to exit in the first or second round of the playoffs. Any two of Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago will be in the Eastern Conference Finals.
> 
> :twocents:


This is my position as well.

I don't see them being as good as Detroit, Cleveland, or Chicago, but I do think they are better than Toronto and Washington. Perhaps come playoff time they can work out the chemistry kinks, be a serious threat and make it to the finals. My money would be against.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Given the unknown chemistry and lack of 10 deep, high quality depth, the Celtics are a bit of a question mark. 

If the chemistry is OK and the big three stay healthy, they have a real shot of winning the NBA Championship. But, it could be a Barkley, Pippen, Hakeem situation as well.

The Celtics have a better chance of winning the NBA Championship than the Bulls, given the makeup of their team. Given the uncertainty, I think the variance around their expected win total is higher than the Bulls.

We as Bulls fans can trumpet our depth, which is nice. It makes it more certain that we’ll be an above average team. But, given our lack of all-NBA type players, of which the Celtics have three, our upside this season is behind theirs.

I think several people here are puffy chested about the Bulls having less variance in their expected win total. Given that I think that the Celtics have a better chance of winning the NBA Title this season, which should be the goal IMO, not just "winning" (winning what?), I think that puffy chestedness may be a little misplaced.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> If the chemistry is OK and the big three stay healthy, they have a real shot of winning the NBA Championship. But, it could be a Barkley, Pippen, Drexler situation as well.
> 
> The Celtics have a better chance of winning the NBA Championship than the Bulls, given the makeup of their team. Given the uncertainty, I think the variance around their expected win total is higher than the Bulls.
> 
> ...


well *IF* aunt betsy had balls, she'd be uncle ben.......point is, bulls fans needn't accept a lesser opinion of their roster because of the approach the c's have adapted. further, the quote at the bottom of the above posts suggests the bulls NEED to go the EC finals or be considered to "take a step back". which is it? an EC finals contender (i guess the bull will be playing the c's) or bulls fans stay contritely humble because the c's went and gouged their roster for a chance at a ring? 

i've no doubts whatsoever about their legitmacy; but until the games are played, all this smoke blowing is just off-handed digs at one another due to the length of the off-season.

lastly, olajuwon was part of the houston triumverate, not drexler, eh?:biggrin:


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Given the unknown chemistry and lack of 10 deep, high quality depth, the Celtics are a bit of a question mark.
> 
> If the chemistry is OK and the big three stay healthy, they have a real shot of winning the NBA Championship. But, it could be a Barkley, Pippen, Drexler situation as well.
> 
> ...


It will be interesting to plug Boston into my model 20 games into the season. My inclination is that the Bulls will be significantly better at that point, but Boston will slowly climb over the course of the rest of the season. I do not expect them to climb ahead of the Bulls, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they did.

I do agree that Boston probably has the most variance out of any team, and I again reiterate that most fans love this volatility in expected result and generally tends to overweight it. I suppose if they do get the team clicking on all cylinders that their pendulum could be swinging higher than that of the Bulls. However, I think the odds of that are quite low considering they will be only in year one of their makeover.

Look at all the greats and how long it took most of them to learn how to win. All three have had exactly one season of being on an ultra competitive team. I think the expectation for them should be as a second round and out team this season.

I think Boston has an outside shot of being a contender (much like I thought the Bulls would be last year). Miami falls under this category as well because of the star factor. I think the legitimate EC contenders are Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago. Outside looking in teams are Toronto, Washington, New Jersey, and Orlando (probably fighting for the final 3 playoff spots).

In actuality, our opinions do not seem really far off from one another. You like Boston better by a bit and think they are more of a contender. I like Chicago by a bit and think they are more of a contender. Our power ranking of teams seems to be off by about 1.

Perhaps I need some puffy chest ointment. Do you know where I can pick some of that up? :biggrin:


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Celtics have a better chance of winning the NBA Championship than the Bulls, given the makeup of their team. Given the uncertainty, I think the variance around their expected win total is higher than the Bulls.
> 
> We as Bulls fans can trumpet our depth, which is nice. It makes it more certain that we’ll be an above average team. But, given our lack of all-NBA type players, of which the Celtics have three, our upside this season is behind theirs.
> 
> I think several people here are puffy chested about the Bulls having less variance in their expected win total. Given that I think that the Celtics have a better chance of winning the NBA Title this season, which should be the goal IMO, not just "winning" (winning what?), I think that puffy chestedness may be a little misplaced.


I guess I agree and disagree. The Celtics are more of an unknown quality because unlike a team like the Bulls who made minor adjustments on the off season, we can't really look back to see what the team did last season. I think the Bulls (and Cavs and Pistons) have earned the right to puff out their chests a little bit because they performed well enough last season to stake a claim as the best team in the East. This Celtics team hasn't suited up yet and there certainly are question marks so maybe I do feel like they need to earn my respect some.

I've heard some people say that the Celtics will be the biggest threat in the post season regardless because they'll peak late and can hide their depth problems better in the playoffs. For the most part, I don't agree with that. The game doesn't change much in the playoffs so I think regular season performance is about as good of a barometer as there is to go by (and I expect the Bulls to outperform the East in the regular season). Boston will still have to go 8 deep in the playoffs and I think the Bulls will be able to successfully employ a 9 or 10 man rotation in the playoffs as the Spurs have done.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm pretty SURE I didn't say anything in that post that DEsERVED to be deleted..

No arm chair moderating, please.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Just as a run down here are the comparisions made to the C's in this thread.

1) Jordan Era Bulls
2) Shaq and Kobe Era Lakers
3) San Antonio
4) A non-playoff team

Can we be real people.

There is no way the newly assembled C's blow the top off the Eastern Conference. At best they are right in they are in the same group as Detriot, Clevland, and us. They could easily also be matched or outdone by NewJersey or Toronto. Did you ever have to say that numbers 1-3 above ever had to go into a season having 5 teams that will be very competitive them while playing in the weaker conference(w/o Jordan Bulls were a 5th seed).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> lastly, olajuwon was part of the houston triumverate, not drexler, eh?:biggrin:


yup.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hustle said:



> Just as a run down here are the comparisions made to the C's in this thread.
> 
> 1) Jordan Era Bulls
> 2) Shaq and Kobe Era Lakers
> ...


Who compared them to anyone? One poster pointed out that contrary to the assertion that the PG is the most important spot on the floor that there have been several teams without point guards at all that have won titles (or like the Robinson/Duncan Spurs won with an NBA journeyman manning the spot). The only reference to the Spurs was my comment that San Antonio management has stated that the road to winning a title is to find three all stars and then a bunch of guys willing to do whatever it takes to win, after the repeated claims that bench depth is the deciding factor in who wins in the postseason. Given that Garnett and Allen have been friends since high school, I don't think that the chemistry issues are as big as people are making out. It will take a while for GAP to work out the kinks, but not nearly as long as people assume. Come 2009 when they add Duhon or Bell I think they have their big shot.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Who compared them to anyone? One poster pointed out that contrary to the assertion that the PG is the most important spot on the floor that there have been several teams without point guards at all that have won titles (or like the Robinson/Duncan Spurs won with an NBA journeyman manning the spot). The only reference to the Spurs was my comment that San Antonio management has stated that the road to winning a title is to find three all stars and then a bunch of guys willing to do whatever it takes to win, after the repeated claims that bench depth is the deciding factor in who wins in the postseason. Given that Garnett and Allen have been friends since high school, I don't think that the chemistry issues are as big as people are making out. It will take a while for GAP to work out the kinks, but not nearly as long as people assume. Come 2009 when they add Duhon or Bell I think they have their big shot.


Teams can win w/ or w/o ______, so why can't Boston. Your right they were not comparisions, point is a newly assembled team w/o depth is not in the same category as any great team, it's something in and of it's self.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hustle said:


> Teams can win w/ or w/o ______, so why can't Boston. Your right they were not comparisions, point is a newly assembled team w/o depth is not in the same category as any great team, it's something in and of it's self.


Except that they're not without depth. Brian Scalabrine is a terrible starter, but prior to coming to Boston made his name as a pretty good reserve. Posey & Eddie House are pretty good reserves. Tony Allen has also been an effective roleplayer, it may take him till December or January to begin firing on all cylinders, though. Even Ra_on Rondo & Kendrick Perkins aren't gawdawful. If Elson can be the starting center on a title winner, Perkins can certainly start on a contender. They might only be eight deep, but frankly that's all you really need. Even the Spurs only had seven guys that managed to play as much as 15 m/g in last year's playoffs (though three others averaged ten). Depth just isn't as important as you're assuming.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Except that they're not without depth. Brian Scalabrine is a terrible starter, but prior to coming to Boston made his name as a pretty good reserve. Posey & Eddie House are pretty good reserves. Tony Allen has also been an effective roleplayer, it may take him till December or January to begin firing on all cylinders, though. Even Ra_on Rondo & Kendrick Perkins aren't gawdawful. If Elson can be the starting center on a title winner, Perkins can certainly start on a contender. They might only be eight deep, but frankly that's all you really need. Even the Spurs only had seven guys that managed to play as much as 15 m/g in last year's playoffs (though three others averaged ten). Depth just isn't as important as you're assuming.


I don't think Scalabrine has ever been a pretty good reserve. He's probably one of the worst offensive players in the league. He's posted a double digit PER exactly once in his career. I'd call him a homeless man's Dan Gadzuric. 

House, Posey, Allen are okay as backups though Posey's offense is pretty non-existant these days.

Rondo and Perkins aren't god awful as the 8th or 10th man on a team but they are god awful as starters. On this team they're being relied on as starters and that spells major trouble. Elson only averaged 19 MPG for the Spurs last season. Since Perkins is pretty much the only true center he's either playing 35 MPG or the Celtics are going to be playing a ton of tiny lineups.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Food for thought:

Garnett 12 seasons 47 playoff games 2 series wins
Allen 12 seasons 37 playoff games 3 series wins
Pierce 9 seasons 37 playoff games 3 series wins
Perkins 4 seasons 6 playoff games
Rondo 1 season 0 playoff games
Total Boston starters 38 seasons 127 playoff games 8 series wins
Boston starter Achievement averages 3.3 playoff games per season; 0.2 series wins per season

Hinrich 4 seasons 22 playoff games 1 series win
Gordon 3 seasons 22 playoff games 1 series win
Deng 3 seasons 16 playoff games 1 series win
Thomas 1 season 10 playoff games 1 series win
Wallace 11 seasons 103 playoff games 13 series wins 1 title
Total Chicago starters 22 seasons 173 playoff games 17 series wins
Chicago Starter Achievement Averages 7.9 playoff games per season; 0.77 series wins/season

At least our old guy seems to know how to play winning basketball when it counts.

You'd think the "big 3" of Boston would have done a bit more winning -- after all, winning teams are defined by superstars, no?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't think Scalabrine has ever been a pretty good reserve. He's probably one of the worst offensive players in the league. He's posted a double digit PER exactly once in his career. I'd call him a homeless man's Dan Gadzuric.


His NBA coaches and GMs explicitly disagree with you here. I think I'll trust that they know what they're talking about. That and watching him I see a guy that hustles, does all the defensive dirty work you can ask of a PF, and is OK spacing the floor so long as he shoots wide open jumpers (ask the Pistons, they'll tell you). In Boston he's looked awful for playing on a horrid team where he was asked to start and actually be a key offensive contributor. Thankfully those days are over. Now he just has to do the things that he actually can in limited time. If Bruce Bowen (PER 7 and change) can be a vital contributor to an NBA team then so can Moobs (PER 6 and change). _Especially_ when the guy whose PER is about half a point higher than Moobs' is starting whereas B-Cup's an 8/9 guy.



JeremyB0001 said:


> House, Posey, Allen are okay as backups though Posey's offense is pretty non-existant these days.


Offense doesn't get more non-existent than Bruce Bowen and Francisco Elson, yet the Spurs managed just fine. Bruce Bowen's /40 scoring was about the same as what Posey averaged per game. 



JeremyB0001 said:


> Rondo and Perkins aren't god awful as the 8th or 10th man on a team but they are god awful as starters. On this team they're being relied on as starters and that spells major trouble. Elson only averaged 19 MPG for the Spurs last season. Since Perkins is pretty much the only true center he's either playing 35 MPG or the Celtics are going to be playing a ton of tiny lineups.


Perkins' /40s last year were similar to Elson's & Oberto's last year, his were 8/9 as opposed to 10/10. And, unlike the Spurs duo, he was playing injured, and forced into a role that he's poor at to cover for Jefferson (in '06 his /40s were 11/12). This year his defensive role will be to guard the lane and rebound. Two things he's actually good at. His only offensive talent is putbacks, which he didn't get last year as they moved him to the high post to create space for Jefferson, but guess what? This year his job will be to convert junk baskets, something else he can do. He's no worse than the guys the Spurs line up at the 5 no matter which way you try to spin it. Hell, apparently the complete lack of any semblance of an offensive game isn't a problem for you guys when the subject of Ben Wallace comes up. Austin Rivers is already a better offensive player than Ben and he's still in junior high. :bsmile:

As for Rondo I've gone on record that he's really the biggest difficulty the Celtics face, and why I'm pretty sure that Chris Duhon or Charlie Bell will be starting at the 1 for them next year. However, he's at least a defensive terror that frustrates the heck out of his man. If he were a second string PG he'd be considered good.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

McBulls said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> Garnett 12 seasons 47 playoff games 2 series wins
> Allen 12 seasons 37 playoff games 3 series wins
> ...


Well, the Bulls sure beat up on an injured Miami squad. But provided so little challenge to the Pistons that Detroit actually wasn't ready for the increased level of competition that the Cavs brought. Chicago has a lot further to go than you're admitting to yourselves. Unless they're fortunate enough to face another beat up squad in the postseason, the Bulls might be playing golf again before next May.

As for Pierce, when he was playing on a real team, his Celtics made the ECF and the Eastern semis in back to back years. Unfortunately for him Danny Ainge and Wyc Grousbeck rode into town and blew the team to shreds. And unfortunately, as the Eastern conference hit its nadir in 2004 and 2005 the Celtics found themselves in the postseason with craptastic teams. When all three guys played on decent teams, they won. Now they're on a pretty bloody good team.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Well, the Bulls sure beat up on an injured Miami squad. But provided so little challenge to the Pistons that Detroit actually wasn't ready for the increased level of competition that the Cavs brought. Chicago has a lot further to go than you're admitting to yourselves. Unless they're fortunate enough to face another beat up squad in the postseason, the Bulls might be playing golf again before next May.
> 
> As for Pierce, when he was playing on a real team, his Celtics made the ECF and the Eastern semis in back to back years. Unfortunately for him Danny Ainge and Wyc Grousbeck rode into town and blew the team to shreds. And unfortunately, as the Eastern conference hit its nadir in 2004 and 2005 the Celtics found themselves in the postseason with craptastic teams. When all three guys played on decent teams, they won. Now they're on a pretty bloody good team.


Well, only two of the Bulls top 9 players (Hinrich and Smith) have ever experienced a losing season in the NBA in the last five years. Most of them were also winners in college as well. In short, the Bulls have a collection of players that know how to win. Most have a hard time remembering when they ever played for a losing team. 

On the other hand it's been years since any of Boston's players have experienced winning or been in a playoff game (Posey excepted). I don't want to imply that they're a bunch of losers, so let's just say they're a little short of winning experience.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Offense doesn't get more non-existent than Bruce Bowen and Francisco Elson, yet the Spurs managed just fine. Bruce Bowen's /40 scoring was about the same as what Posey averaged per game.


You seem to be ignoring Michael Finley (I'm also trying my hardest not to let my Brent Barry love get involved).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Well, only two of the Bulls top 9 players (Hinrich and Smith) have ever experienced a losing season in the NBA in the last five years. Most of them were also winners in college as well. In short, the Bulls have a collection of players that know how to win. Most have a hard time remembering when they ever played for a losing team.
> 
> On the other hand it's been years since any of Boston's players have experienced winning or been in a playoff game (Posey excepted). I don't want to imply that they're a bunch of losers, so let's just say they're a little short of winning experience.


KG, Pierce and Allen (and Posey) have all been to the conference finals. All but Allen in the last 5 years. Seems like it's the Bulls that are a lot more likey to get tight in a pinch.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

King Joseus said:


> You seem to be ignoring Michael Finley (I'm also trying my hardest not to let my Brent Barry love get involved).


San Antonio starts a SF who might be the worst offensive player this side of Ben Wallace, and their centers would struggle to give offense to a roomful of uptight feminists, much less provide any offense on an NBA court. San Antonio's bench is far from loaded with potential all stars and starters, and is mostly loaded with over the hill roleplayers that want to win as many titles as they can. By next year, when Boston adds two more guys in free agency, they'll be ready to take their title shot. But this year, in the EC, they're contenders because the conference just isn't that strong.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> His NBA coaches and GMs explicitly disagree with you here. I think I'll trust that they know what they're talking about.


I'm pretty vocal about how much I despise this line of argumentation. It pretty much comes down to "The coaches/GMs are experts and we're just fans so we should defer to them." If you and I are incapable of adding any insight into decisions made by coaches and GMs, there's not much for us to do on message boards.



ehmunro said:


> That and watching him I see a guy that hustles, does all the defensive dirty work you can ask of a PF, and is OK spacing the floor so long as he shoots wide open jumpers (ask the Pistons, they'll tell you). In Boston he's looked awful for playing on a horrid team where he was asked to start and actually be a key offensive contributor. Thankfully those days are over. Now he just has to do the things that he actually can in limited time. If Bruce Bowen (PER 7 and change) can be a vital contributor to an NBA team then so can Moobs (PER 6 and change). _Especially_ when the guy whose PER is about half a point higher than Moobs' is starting whereas B-Cup's an 8/9 guy.


Bowen is considered perhaps the best man defender in the NBA. I'm not sure that Scalabrine is even considered to be a substantially above average man defender. He certainly doesn't have anything resembling Bowen's reputation as a stopper. Scalabrine might be able to hit a wide open jumper but he hasn't seen many in his career considering his horrid scoring rates. That's nice if he can do it but if he doesn't do it often and has no other offensive skills, it's pretty worthless. A guy who has a TS% under 50% and a points per 40 minutes under 10 most every season is close to as poor an offensive player as you'll find in the NBA, at least among players getting consistent minutes. If he can provide a bit of energy and defense comparable to Mark Madsen, that doesn't do much to help his case.



ehmunro said:


> Offense doesn't get more non-existent than Bruce Bowen and Francisco Elson, yet the Spurs managed just fine. Bruce Bowen's /40 scoring was about the same as what Posey averaged per game.
> 
> Perkins' /40s last year were similar to Elson's & Oberto's last year, his were 8/9 as opposed to 10/10. And, unlike the Spurs duo, he was playing injured, and forced into a role that he's poor at to cover for Jefferson (in '06 his /40s were 11/12). This year his defensive role will be to guard the lane and rebound. Two things he's actually good at. His only offensive talent is putbacks, which he didn't get last year as they moved him to the high post to create space for Jefferson, but guess what? This year his job will be to convert junk baskets, something else he can do. He's no worse than the guys the Spurs line up at the 5 no matter which way you try to spin it. Hell, apparently the complete lack of any semblance of an offensive game isn't a problem for you guys when the subject of Ben Wallace comes up. Austin Rivers is already a better offensive player than Ben and he's still in junior high. :bsmile:
> 
> As for Rondo I've gone on record that he's really the biggest difficulty the Celtics face, and why I'm pretty sure that Chris Duhon or Charlie Bell will be starting at the 1 for them next year. However, he's at least a defensive terror that frustrates the heck out of his man. If he were a second string PG he'd be considered good.


First of all, this an extremely optimistic view of Perkins and Rondo. I'm not sure how the Celtics are going to trade for Duhon without any decent expendable assets. Bell is apparently considering an offer from NBA team so maybe that's Boston. Really though, neither he nor Duhon are huge upgrades over Rondo. Both are still backup PG (13ish PER) types. Perkins upping his PPG one or two points per game to his previous levels with Jefferson gone doesn't make him a solid player. 

Really some of this might be my fault for playing along and comparing someone like Elson to Perkins. Comparing players position by position from other teams doesn't really work because different teams win in different ways. Comparing players on the Bulls or Spurs to players at the same position on the Celtics is comparing apples to oranges and just doesn't work. The primary and most obvious reason is that the Bulls and Spurs finished 1 and 2 in defensive efficiency last season. I haven't heard anyone suggest that the Celtics will be an elite defensive team; earlier in this thread I pegged their upside at around 10th in the league.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> San Antonio's bench is far from loaded with potential all stars and starters, and is mostly loaded with over the hill roleplayers that want to win as many titles as they can. By next year, when Boston adds two more guys in free agency, they'll be ready to take their title shot. But this year, in the EC, they're contenders because the conference just isn't that strong.


I think you're not giving San Antonio's bench nearly the credit it deserves. 

Michael Finley was in his 2nd year with the Spurs - continuity. Playoff veteran who was a solid contributor. If you'd like, you can compare him to Posey.

Brent Barry was in his 3rd year with the Spurs - more continuity (and won a title with them in 04-05). 66.6 TS% and 16.6 PER (vs. Eddie House's 53.6 TS% and 15.0 PER). If you prefer career-wise comparison of the two, it's 60.6 TS% and 16.0 PER vs. 48.8 TS% and 13.4 PER. Brent Barry is a very solid roleplayer, capable of handling the ball and hitting threes galore.

Vaughn, Bonner, Ely, and Horry vs. the likes of Pruitt, Scalabrine, Powe, and Pollard? No, sir.

You may make the argument that the East is weaker, but the continuity and defensive talents of Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago put them a notch above Boston as true contenders in the East.

As for them being "ready to take their title shot" next year, we'll see about that when it comes. We don't know what other teams' rosters are going to look like. It's likely that with a year together under their belts and some added players to the cause, Boston will be a true top-flight team in the East. Cleveland and Chicago, I'd bet on them being better as well.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Considering that Detroit didn't even break a sweat against the Bulls in the semis last year, I think it's a little early to be promoting them to the Detroit-Cleveland level. They still don't have a primary scorer, still lack a good post player, and are still a team that relies far too heavily on jumpers. Adding the offensively challenged Noah and a roleplayer hasn't changed their dynamic. Get back to me when the Bulls manage to beat a healthy first tier team in the postseason.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Considering that Detroit didn't even break a sweat against the Bulls in the semis last year, I think it's a little early to be promoting them to the Detroit-Cleveland level. They still don't have a primary scorer, still lack a good post player, and are still a team that relies far too heavily on jumpers. Adding the offensively challenged Noah and a roleplayer hasn't changed their dynamic. Get back to me when the Bulls manage to beat a healthy first tier team in the postseason.



And get back to _me_ when the Celtics do.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Considering that Detroit didn't even break a sweat against the Bulls in the semis last year, I think it's a little early to be promoting them to the Detroit-Cleveland level. They still don't have a primary scorer, still lack a good post player, and are still a team that relies far too heavily on jumpers. Adding the offensively challenged Noah and a roleplayer hasn't changed their dynamic. Get back to me when the Bulls manage to beat a healthy first tier team in the postseason.


So the Bulls played arguably as well as any team in the East during the regular season last year but that's meaningless because the six games they played against the Pistons give us all the "real answers"? The Bulls are just as unproven as the Celtics even if the Bulls finish 5 or 7 games ahead of the Celtics in the standings this season because of those six games against the Pistons in the playoffs during the prior season? I happen to think there's a reason they play those 82 games. I love how nearly all the measurements of the Bulls performance last season (except for the six isolated games that support your position) are irrelevant to the discussion because you believe the Celtics look better on paper.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I _do_ find the arrogance of some Bulls fans here a constant source of amusement. With zero supporting evidence you've declared depth the most important deciding factor and promoted the Bulls to NBA title contenders on this basis. The Celtics at least have a model that's shown some success in the NBA, and have some competent roleplayers behind them, and some of you have loudly declared that they'll miss the playoffs and/or get swept in the first round. Get a grip.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> I _do_ find the arrogance of some Bulls fans here a constant source of amusement. With zero supporting evidence you've declared depth the most important deciding factor and promoted the Bulls to NBA title contenders on this basis. The Celtics at least have a model that's shown some success in the NBA, and have some competent roleplayers behind them, and some of you have loudly declared that they'll miss the playoffs and/or get swept in the first round. Get a grip.


So if A = B and C resembles A, then C = B?

When has the model of trading most of the team away for a 3-star lineup produced a championship in season 1? There has been exactly one poster who predicted that the Celtics wouldn't make the playoffs, and his position was "very likely will not make the playoffs." I guess that which gets your attention most is the loudest argument and have lumped some of us into the collective "you?"

You seem to think that because San Antonio has holes, it's just fine for Boston to have holes. What you are ignoring is that San Antonio plays the best defense in the league and is one of the most unselfish teams on offense. Who knows if Boston will ever come close to either of those, despite similar team flaws. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be excited about your team. I would be as well if I were a Boston fan. I think it is a very reasonable position that you consider yourselves real contenders as early as next season a very real one assuming you get some quality players around the core you traded for.

Now why is it that Bulls fans thinking they are contenders this year such an odd or arrogant position? The Bulls were best in the East last year by my efficiency metric. They were a top 3 team in the East last season in regular season wins. If any team in either conference were a top 3 team and did not lose any significant players, wouldn't you consider them a contender in the following season.

I also don't think the Bulls had good depth last season:
Starters: Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Brown, Wallace
Reserves: Nocioni, Duhon, Thomas

Nocioni and Duhon are quality reserves, sure, and Tyrus was a bit of a wild card. But who else could we really count on? We were 7 deep with our #8 playing impact minutes on occasion.

Our frontcourt depth is much improved with Smith and Noah (and perhaps Gray), shouldn't be forced into small ball lineups unless we choose to run them. Unless Sefolosha breaks out, we are 9 deep with assumed volatility from Thomas and Noah. We are still the same 7 deep as the previous year with one theoretical upgrade (Smith over Brown), and now have an extra weapon to use in addition to internal improvement.

If anything, it is ignorance by fans of other teams thinking the Bulls "can't win" because they have "no frontcourt scoring" and "no superstar." They undervalue our starters, Hinrich and Deng most notably.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Rhyder said:


> When has the model of trading most of the team away for a 3-star lineup produced a championship in season 1? There has been exactly one poster who predicted that the Celtics wouldn't make the playoffs, and his position was "very likely will not make the playoffs." I guess that which gets your attention most is the loudest argument and have lumped some of us into the collective "you?"


The Celtics traded the members of a 4-31 team for two superstar players. Believe me, Telfair, Green, West, et al aren't taking any teams in the NBA closer to a title. What the Celtics traded amounts to Al Jefferson and the fifth pick for Garnett and Ray Allen, and they signed better roleplayers than the ones they shipped out. They aren't going to miss the scrubs they traded, because none of those guys could play a lick of NBA defense. Some of them, like Szczerbiak, Gomes, and Jefferson were players that were literally without a defensive position in the NBA. They won't be missed. Boston divided up their young players, everyone from pool A (the defensively challenged one) got shipped out. The guys that could play defense stayed (because in theory defense is more important than offense in your roleplayers when you have Pierce, Allen, and Garnett on the floor). It was the first really good personnel decision that the new management made.



Rhyder said:


> You seem to think that because San Antonio has holes, it's just fine for Boston to have holes. What you are ignoring is that San Antonio plays the best defense in the league and is one of the most unselfish teams on offense. Who knows if Boston will ever come close to either of those, despite similar team flaws. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be excited about your team. I would be as well if I were a Boston fan. I think it is a very reasonable position that you consider yourselves real contenders as early as next season a very real one assuming you get some quality players around the core you traded for.


I don't think San Antonio "has holes". I think (and I'm echoing San Antonio's front office here) that after the big three, it's more important to have guys willing to do whatever it takes to win a title rather than the "potential starters and all stars" that some members of this board have been loudly trumpeting as necessary to winning. The Spurs' front office disagrees. They seem to have won a few titles with their "Find your three all stars and then find a bunch of guys willing to go through a wall to win" model. That gives us some indication that the approach they use actually works. Boston has the disadvantage that Garnett isn't as good as Duncan, but the other two thirds of that triangle are better, and they have the advantage of playing in the weaker conference. Odds are they just might have a little success with the approach. Next summer they can address the only real hole in their starting five when Duhon & Bell are UFAs (odds are that Bell accepts the QO from Milwaukee to hit UFA status next summer) and available for the MLE. At that point, odds are that they're ready to play for a title.



Rhyder said:


> Now why is it that Bulls fans thinking they are contenders this year such an odd or arrogant position? The Bulls were best in the East last year by my efficiency metric. They were a top 3 team in the East last season in regular season wins. If any team in either conference were a top 3 team and did not lose any significant players, wouldn't you consider them a contender in the following season.


They Pistons never so much as broke a sweat against them. The Bulls failed to address the one hole in their roster. Until they do I can't see them magically getting new results. (Hell, even Pierce would have been enough if Paxson had traded for him when he was available.)


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

double post.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> I _do_ find the arrogance of some Bulls fans here a constant source of amusement. With zero supporting evidence you've declared depth the most important deciding factor and promoted the Bulls to NBA title contenders on this basis. The Celtics at least have a model that's shown some success in the NBA, and have some competent roleplayers behind them, and some of you have loudly declared that they'll miss the playoffs and/or get swept in the first round. Get a grip.


I'm the poster who thinks there's a good chance that the Celts don't make the playoffs. I've stated most of the reasons for this opinion, but let me briefly summarize.

1. The Celts are thin on talent after their big 3. Only Celtics fans would disagree with this.

2. The big 3 are all in their 30s; an age where the probability of injury goes up exponentially. If even one of the 3 goes down for an extended period this year Boston is toast.

3. The probability of injury to the big 3 is increased by the fact that they will have to play heavy minutes even on back-to-back games -- not a recipe for keeping small injuries from becoming aggravated.

4. The Celts are weak in two important positions : center and point guard. I doubt that their plan is to move KG to center, since they really have no-one to replace him at PF, and playing him night in and night out against centers will only increase the wear and tear on his body. If Rondo doesn't grow into a quality point guard overnight, which seems unlikely, the Celts will have to develop original schemes like the triangle offense to compensate -- I doubt Rivers or the team is up to this in the first year.

5. In any case, the Celts are confronted with the undeniable fact that their starters have little experience playing together. I don't care if they are friends, it takes time for basketball teams to develop chemistry -- particularly when their point guard is a second year player. In the NBA it takes 1-2 years before chemistry is maximized. Chemistry, by the way is rather easy to assay -- just count the turnovers and assists. There are other factors of course, such as setting an effective pic that gives your teammate a shot in rhythm, blocking out assignments, help defense rotations, etc, but you can get a pretty good idea of how things are progressing with the measurable stats.

6. You would think that one advantage of combining three superstars is that they would bring the confidence of winning in the NBA to the team as a whole. But even this seems to be lacking, since the teams they have played on have been below average more often than not.

7. The issue of lack of depth is important for several reasons, both to compensate for injuries and to provide the starters rest during games -- particularly back-to-back games. It's unlikely that the big 3 will play even half of the total minutes for the Celts in the regular season. 

8. IMO defense is the most important attribute of a winning team. The Celts, as currently constructed are at best an average defensive team. The lack of chemistry probably dooms them to be poor in this critical area. Comparing the Celts to San Antonio is absurd in this regard.

9. Finally, one has to recognize that several other teams in the east have improved. We think Chicago will be better. Cleveland and Detroit will still be tough to beat. New Jersey, Charlotte, Orlando, Toronto and Milwaukee are all likely to be better teams this year. Atlanta may surprise with it's stable of excellent young players, and then there's the strange experiment in New York which at least has a gambler's chance of working, the possibility that Miami & Shaq have one more year in them or that Washington gets it's act together. 

Boston has serious competition for the playoffs and some serious internal problems to overcome if they are to qualify. It is arrogant to assume that they are a cinch to make the playoffs, much less win the ECF.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> I _do_ find the arrogance of some Bulls fans here a constant source of amusement.


We are thrilled to amuse you. Just because some posters here don't think the Celtics are the presumptive favorites in the East does not make them arrogant. Disagreeing with you is not the litmus test for arrogance, I'm afraid. As a mod you should know better than to cast aspersions like that.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

McBulls said:


> I'm the poster who thinks there's a good chance that the Celts don't make the playoffs. I've stated most of the reasons for this opinion, but let me briefly summarize.
> 
> 1. The Celts are thin on talent after their big 3. Only Celtics fans would disagree with this.


The Spurs are "thin on talent after their big 3" only a Bulls fan trumpeting the necessity of being "12 deep" would disagree with this. Whether you like it or not the current NBA title holders explicitly disagree with you.



McBulls said:


> 2. The big 3 are all in their 30s; an age where the probability of injury goes up exponentially. If even one of the 3 goes down for an extended period this year Boston is toast.


If Deng or Gordon go down the Bulls are toast. Big deal. This is a problem for every team in the NBA.



McBulls said:


> 3. The probability of injury to the big 3 is increased by the fact that they will have to play heavy minutes even on back-to-back games -- not a recipe for keeping small injuries from becoming aggravated.


No they won't. Given the depth at the wing spot I doubt Pierce or Allen averages more 35-38 m/g.



McBulls said:


> 4. The Celts are weak in two important positions : center and point guard. I doubt that their plan is to move KG to center, since they really have no-one to replace him at PF, and playing him night in and night out against centers will only increase the wear and tear on his body. If Rondo doesn't grow into a quality point guard overnight, which seems unlikely, the Celts will have to develop original schemes like the triangle offense to compensate -- I doubt Rivers or the team is up to this in the first year.


Not only are the 1 & 5 _not_ the "two most important positions on the floor" they're probably the easiest spots to fill. Take a look at the long list of scrubs that have toiled at center for the NBA's ruling dynasty (the 63 year old David Robinson, Rasho Nestorovic & Nazr Mohammed in 2005 and Elson & Oberto last year). It's not a terribly impressive list. The Heat managed to win a title with Jayson Williams at the 1, but only because the ball spent most of its time in Wade's hand. The point guards during the Lakers' threepeat was a vast collection of the elderly & infirm (Brian Shaw and Ron Harper) and the mediocre (Derek Fisher, Tyrone Lue, & Lindsey Hunter). So, contrary to your assertion, when one has the quality elsewhere, you can simply plug the hole at the 1 & 5. No need for all stars, or even good to great players. Just guys that can do the job asked of them. In Perkins case that job will be to control the defensive boards (which he's good at) and defend the post (something else he can do). He's certainly capable of doing as well as the scrubs that San Antonio will be suiting up at the 5 next year.



McBulls said:


> 5. In any case, the Celts are confronted with the undeniable fact that their starters have little experience playing together. I don't care if they are friends, it takes time for basketball teams to develop chemistry -- particularly when their point guard is a second year player. In the NBA it takes 1-2 years before chemistry is maximized.


The point guard isn't really relevant to "chemistry" in Boston. Their coach likes running a high post offense and wants his one guards to shoot and defend. Odds are that Rondo's going to lose his spot as he can only do one of those two things well. The ball is going to be in Pierce, Garnett, and Allen's hands, not Rondo's. 



McBulls said:


> 8. IMO defense is the most important attribute of a winning team. The Celts, as currently constructed are at best an average defensive team. The lack of chemistry probably dooms them to be poor in this critical area. Comparing the Celts to San Antonio is absurd in this regard.


The Celtics were an average defensive team last year, with guys like Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, and Bassy seeing major minutes. They've replaced those guys with Kevin Garnett, James Posey, and Ray Allen. They are going to be better than average whether you like it or not.



McBulls said:


> 9. Finally, one has to recognize that several other teams in the east have improved. We think Chicago will be better. Cleveland and Detroit will still be tough to beat. New Jersey, Charlotte, Orlando, Toronto and Milwaukee are all likely to be better teams this year. Atlanta may surprise with it's stable of excellent young players, and then there's the strange experiment in New York which at least has a gambler's chance of working, the possibility that Miami & Shaq have one more year in them or that Washington gets it's act together.
> 
> Boston has serious competition for the playoffs and some serious internal problems to overcome if they are to qualify. It is arrogant to assume that they are a cinch to make the playoffs, much less win the ECF.


Then it's also arrogant to assume that Chicago will make the playoffs as well, because they really haven't addressed their weakness this offseason, and all those other teams have improved.  

In the meantime, Boston's improved their defensive personnel enough to go from average to above average/good (they were #17 last year, it's reasonable to expect them to be top 12 next year) and improved their offensive personnel by about 28 orders of magnitude (they should be a top 10 squad next year after being #29 last year).


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> We are thrilled to amuse you. Just because some posters here don't think the Celtics are the presumptive favorites in the East does not make them arrogant. Disagreeing with you is not the litmus test for arrogance, I'm afraid. As a mod you should know better than to cast aspersions like that.


Where have you seen me say that the Celtics are the presumptive favourites in the East? We have one person here that insists the Celtics won't make the playoffs and a few others that are sure they're getting wiped out in the first round, all the while promoting the Bulls to title contenders, despite the fact that the Pistons wiped the floor with Chicago. They're a pretty hilarious lot.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I wonder how the 2nd three-peat Bulls would have looked without Jordan, Pippen and Rodman? All those guys were 30 or over and logged heavy minutes. I guess that was a bad way to build a team. Too risky.


Better to have 5-7 above average but not great players. Oh wait, that type of team hardly ever wins the NBA Championship... but it likely will be a "winning" team. (winning what?)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Where have you seen me say that the Celtics are the presumptive favourites in the East? We have one person here that insists the Celtics won't make the playoffs and a few others that are sure they're getting wiped out in the first round, all the while promoting the Bulls to title contenders, despite the fact that the Pistons wiped the floor with Chicago. They're a pretty hilarious lot.


You're entitled to your opinion. I just find the condascension towards the fan base to be unnecessary. The Celts have many more question marks at this point because it's an entirely new team. You're posting on the Bulls board, not the Celtics board. I think you can expect some skepticism from our side.

And by the way, your repeated characterizations about the Detroit series seem a bit inaccurate to me as well.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I challenge the notion that Detroit didn't break a sweat against the Bulls in the playoffs. The Bulls would have been swept. The first two games, Detroit did not break a sweat. After that, the Bulls were in it and pushed the Pistons to play well.



ehmunro said:


> The Spurs are "thin on talent after their big 3" only a Bulls fan trumpeting the necessity of being "12 deep" would disagree with this.


Incorrect again. The Spur bench is both talented and high on experience. Not only that, but the assertion that Boston's big three is better than San Antonio's big three just isn't true. Even, with a slight edge to SA if anything.

The Bulls addressed their size in the frontcourt, have players on the upswing (Gordon, Deng, Thabo), and have a non-injured Andres Nocioni returning. Ben Wallace may decline, but no more so than any of the Celts' "big three." He is also in his second year with the team, meaning improved chemistry and no repeat of last year's adjustment period. To believe that the Bulls have not improved and will not be a top three team in the Eastern Conference this year is ignorant.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

"Broke a Sweat" is too strong... but the Bulls/Pistons series was never in doubt and the Pistons could shut down the Bulls when they "turned it on." This was clear.

That's why I don't buy putting the Bulls in the same league as the Pistons last season. It was clear that they were not.

Now, if we get improvement from our players, a healthy Noc and the addition of Noah and Wallace does not keep slipping... and if the Pistons take a step back... that can change this season. That remains to be seen.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> You're entitled to your opinion. I just find the condascension towards the fan base to be unnecessary.


But the far greater condescension by the Bulls fans I'm laughing at _is_ necessary?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> "Broke a Sweat" is too strong... but the Bulls/Pistons series was never in doubt and the Pistons could shut down the Bulls when they "turned it on." This was clear.
> 
> That's why I don't buy putting the Bulls in the same league as the Pistons last season. It was clear that they were not.
> 
> Now, if we get improvement from our players, a healthy Noc and the addition of Noah and Wallace does not keep slipping... and if the Pistons take a step back... that can change this season. That remains to be seen.


Right now I put Detroit and Cleveland over the rest of the Eastern Conference, they've earned that consideration (Cleveland by virtue of having one of the three best players on the face of the planet). Boston and Chicago are in the second tier until they've proven themselves in the postseason. Neither has. Miami gets a pass into this group with the caveat that they're healthy come the postseason. No one else is really in this mix as of yet. (New Jersey could be if they spin Jeffeson & Krstic for a big man with game.)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Where have you seen me say that the Celtics are the presumptive favourites in the East? We have one person here that insists the Celtics won't make the playoffs and a few others that are sure they're getting wiped out in the first round, all the while promoting the Bulls to title contenders, despite the fact that the Pistons wiped the floor with Chicago. They're a pretty hilarious lot.


I define contender as a team that has a realistic title shot. I see those teams as being:

San Antonio
Phoenix
Dallas
Houston
Chicago
Detroit
Cleveland

Any other team winning the title this season would be a surprise to me.

You use a 6-game series as the defining point of our team, yet Wallace and Nocioni being injured had nothing to do with it. Did the Jordan-era Bulls have absolutely no shot at the title when the Bad Boy Pistons were wiping the floor with them as well? Is Dallas not considered a contender because they bowed out in the first round last year?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Rhyder said:


> I define contender as a team that has a realistic title shot. I see those teams as being:
> 
> San Antonio
> Phoenix
> ...


Last time I checked, Michael Jordan isn't on the Bulls roster at the moment. If Paxson gets up the intestinal fortitude to make a deal for either a post scorer or someone like Bryant, get back to me. Until then they aren't any better than a second tier Eastern team. And, as McBulls has superciliously informed us, them old guys get injured, so you have to expect that Wallace is going to go down.  

Frankly I don't think that Dallas is a contender at the moment. I'd like to think my other favourite team will be a contender this year, but I'm honest enough to admit that the Rockets have proven nothing when it counts, so I can't put them in the mix either.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder how the 2nd three-peat Bulls would have looked without Jordan, Pippen and Rodman? All those guys were 30 or over and logged heavy minutes. I guess that was a bad way to build a team. Too risky.
> 
> Better to have 5-7 above average but not great players. Oh wait, that type of team hardly ever wins the NBA Championship... but it likely will be a "winning" team. (winning what?)


When the Bulls traded for Rodman, my reaction at the time was that they had just constructed the most formidable defensive basketball team of all time. Jordan, Rodman and Pippen were already recognized as three of the best defensive players of their era. Ron Harper was not only an outstanding defensive player, but a pretty good offensive player in his own right. The "big" weakness in the team was at center, where they played Longley (a big body on defense, a decent threat on offense), backed up by two other decent centers. The bench of the 2nd 3-peat teams was deep and talented (Kuckoch, Kerr, Weddington and Armstrong sat on the bench, remember?).

How would the 2nd 3-peat Bulls have fared if one of their starters went down? I guess you could find out if you dug through the game-stats. If you did, I think you'd find that they did pretty well. A lot better than i expect Boston will in the same circumstance. It's worth noting that the Bulls would have gone to the ECF in the year Jordan decided to play baseball if Hugh Hollins hadn't decided to change the rules of basketball in NYs favor. They were pretty good without Jordan; probably good enough to win it all if the NBA had not conspired to shut them down and give the premier market team a chance at the title.

The only Boston player that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with Pippen and Rodman is KG, and his teams have never won anything. Rodman won rings BEFORE coming to the Bulls. Pippen led teams deep into the playoffs AFTER leaving the Bulls. Jordan... give me a break -- no-one on the Celts can be mentioned in the same breath.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> And, as McBulls has superciliously informed us, them old guys get injured, so you have to expect that Wallace is going to go down.


Wallace is in remarkably good condition (better than the Celts big 3), but I admit the probability that he will miss 20 or more games is reasonably high.

The downside for the Bulls in case Wallace is injured is that Noah, Thomas, Smith and Gray will have to pick up the load. The Celts can only wish they have similar quality backups for each of their big 3.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

No offense, I mean, Scottie's one of my all time favourite players, and I always come down on his side when people complain about his inclusion on the all time top 50, but Scottie didn't lead those Portland teams, the Blazers were led by the mildly insane Rasheed Wallace. Scottie was a roleplayer on those teams.



King Joseus said:


> Incorrect again. The Spur bench is both talented and high on experience. Not only that, but the assertion that Boston's big three is better than San Antonio's big three just isn't true.


If when you say "the Spurs' bench is both talented and high on experience" you actually mean "The Spurs bench is full of guys that I would be calling scrubs and broken down relics if they were suiting up for Boston" then I suppose I agree. But then, Boston's bench now has a lot of vets with postseason experience, too. And I didn't say that Boston's big three were better than San Antonio's, I started out by saying they were at a disadvantage in that regards (only that their second and third are better than Parker & Ginobli, and they are).


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

McBulls said:


> Wallace is in remarkably good condition (better than the Celts big 3),


No, he's not.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

funny thread......my .02

seems to me NO organization has put together a "team" in the offseason and actually challenged for a championship. the one example i recall being the rockets with charles, scottie, and the dream (3 HOF'ers) couldn't do it, but now the celtics with a second tier coach, bumbling gm, and borderline nba'ers is on a par with 3 teams who've been fighting for supremacy for the last couple of years? sorry, i ain't buyin' it. even the lakers attempt with the addition of malone and payton didn't work out as planned. without question, the c's will be improved (they couldn't have been worse than last year) and*will* make the playoffs; where is anybody's guess. there's too many intangibles at this juncture to do anything but banter back and forth, which is quite pointless.

also, it seems to me the pippen/jordan/rodman comparison is skewered because a) pip and mj had been playing together close to 10 years when rodman came on board; b)rodman was a proven winner, and one of the best at his position when he came on board, was rarely injured and the bulls knew exactly what they were getting. the c's can't attest to this, particularly with ray allen. c) i recently watched a documentary on the bulls last championship run, and pippen missed the first 30 odd games during which the bull had to stay afloat while the rest of the league made hay in hopes of getting a better seed for the playoffs. the rest of the documentary showed how upon pip's return, the bulls made mincemeat of the rest of the league. it'll be interesting to see who of the big 3 of the c's misses the most games, and how their "team" chemistry will be affected. 

it's fair enough to assess the bull (and celtics) as second tier until they prove they can best detroit. cleveland was fortunate last year, and may not be as good this year. bottom line, for what the EC has to offer in terms of championship run, the move boston made was a good one; will they rise to the top next season? history says no, so my money is on no. any years after that and their chances decrease incrementally.:cheers:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> How would the 2nd 3-peat Bulls have fared if one of their starters went down? I guess you could find out if you dug through the game-stats.


No big 3 looks a lot like this team.


http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=CHI&lg=n&yr=1998

That team was REAL BAD. Just like the Celts would be without their big 3.

I don't think the 2nd 3 peat Bulls would have won the NBA title without one of the big 3. Do you?

If the argument is that a team that has all-NBA level scorers, creators and defenders is the way to go, I agree. But, that's why 6 title dynasties are so rare. It will be interesting to see if players like Posey and KG help the Celtics become a good defensive team.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BULLHITTER said:


> seems to me NO organization has put together a "team" in the offseason and actually challenged for a championship. the one example i recall being the rockets with charles, scottie, and the dream (3 HOF'ers) couldn't do it


The 99 Rockets didn't "put together a team" in the offseason. That team was pretty much in tact when Pippen arrived (Barkley was in his third season there). What caught up with them was the fact that Barkley & Olajuwon were on the far side of 35 and Barkley was a 6'5" power forward.



BULLHITTER said:


> even the lakers attempt with the addition of malone and payton didn't work out as planned.


Are you _really_ trying to tell us that the 2004 Lakers weren't title contenders? I mean, _really_? The comedy's hitting new highs here.



BULLHITTER said:


> it's fair enough to assess the bull (and celtics) as second tier until they prove they can best detroit. cleveland was fortunate last year, and may not be as good this year.


I think Cleveland's making a mistake in betting the house on Daniel Gibson and Shannon Brown (in the sense that they're looking on those two as their offseason additions), but they still have LeBron James, and I am no longer comfortable betting against james (because every time I do he kicks my ***, I had $100 riding on Detroit in six last year). If they signed PJ and traded Gooden for a better guard (at either position) I'd probably bet them to win the whole thing.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> I _do_ find the arrogance of some Bulls fans here a constant source of amusement. With zero supporting evidence you've declared depth the most important deciding factor and promoted the Bulls to NBA title contenders on this basis. The Celtics at least have a model that's shown some success in the NBA, and have some competent roleplayers behind them, and some of you have loudly declared that they'll miss the playoffs and/or get swept in the first round. Get a grip.


Really? Because I think it's pretty arrogant that you're willing to discredit everything that the Bulls have achieved based on your personal notions of what works on paper (couched as tried and true principles). No one is arguing that the primary reason the Bulls will be a good team next season is improved depth. That's much closer to your style of prognosticating where you take a situation surrounded with some uncertainty and make somewhat bold predictions about how things will come together. From where I stand, projections about the Bulls seem to be primarily based on _the team's actual play and success last season_ and then to a lesser extent internal improvement and increased depth (it's not particularly controversial to suggest that replacing P.J. Brown, Malik Allen, and Michael Sweetney with Joakim Noah and Joe Smith will make the team at least slightly better).



ehmunro said:


> I don't think San Antonio "has holes". I think (and I'm echoing San Antonio's front office here) that after the big three, it's more important to have guys willing to do whatever it takes to win a title rather than the "potential starters and all stars" that some members of this board have been loudly trumpeting as necessary to winning. The Spurs' front office disagrees. They seem to have won a few titles with their "Find your three all stars and then find a bunch of guys willing to go through a wall to win" model. That gives us some indication that the approach they use actually works. Boston has the disadvantage that Garnett isn't as good as Duncan, but the other two thirds of that triangle are better, and they have the advantage of playing in the weaker conference. Odds are they just might have a little success with the approach. Next summer they can address the only real hole in their starting five when Duhon & Bell are UFAs (odds are that Bell accepts the QO from Milwaukee to hit UFA status next summer) and available for the MLE. At that point, odds are that they're ready to play for a title.


Turn it into an elite defense and then we're talking. Going from 18th to top 3 or 4 is a massive, massive stretch. It's just not that easy to play amazing defense. It takes more than just players with solid defensive capabilities - which Ray Allen, Pierce, Davis, Powe, and House don't even have - it takes cohesion and a good system. I'm not sure that Duhon and Bell are all that different than Rondo and the effect of one year of aging on three stars who are past or reaching the end of their primes shouldn't be discounted entirely. 



ehmunro said:


> They Pistons never so much as broke a sweat against them. The Bulls failed to address the one hole in their roster. Until they do I can't see them magically getting new results. (Hell, even Pierce would have been enough if Paxson had traded for him when he was available.)


So basically, the argument is that there's no correlation between regular season and post season success and the Bulls are and will continue to be an unsuccessful team because they lost a series to the Pistons last season? Or is it just that we're supposed to defer to your assertions about how good you think teams are on paper again? Or both? 



ehmunro said:


> The Spurs are "thin on talent after their big 3" only a Bulls fan trumpeting the necessity of being "12 deep" would disagree with this. Whether you like it or not the current NBA title holders explicitly disagree with you.


Bulls fans...and a number of national basketball analysts. 



kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder how the 2nd three-peat Bulls would have looked without Jordan, Pippen and Rodman? All those guys were 30 or over and logged heavy minutes. I guess that was a bad way to build a team. Too risky.


I wonder how many Championships they would've won with average defense...



kukoc4ever said:


> "Broke a Sweat" is too strong... but the Bulls/Pistons series was never in doubt and the Pistons could shut down the Bulls when they "turned it on." This was clear.


We were at home in game six. A Pistons win in game six couldn't have been guaranteed, right? Is it the game 7 the one that wasn't guaranteed? I think it's a pretty hard position to state the outcome of any one single game with such certainty.



ehmunro said:


> Right now I put Detroit and Cleveland over the rest of the Eastern Conference, they've earned that consideration (Cleveland by virtue of having one of the three best players on the face of the planet). Boston and Chicago are in the second tier until they've proven themselves in the postseason. Neither has. Miami gets a pass into this group with the caveat that they're healthy come the postseason. No one else is really in this mix as of yet. (New Jersey could be if they spin Jeffeson & Krstic for a big man with game.)


Cleveland wins 50 games and is in the top tier while the Bulls win 49 and are in the second tier? That's pretty puzzling. Oh yeah, I forgot we have to defer to your opinion of what makes a good team again.



ehmunro said:


> Frankly I don't think that Dallas is a contender at the moment.


:lol: 67 wins, reigning MVP, one year removed from the Finals...yeah there's no way they'll win an NBA title. Talk about a blow to your credibility...


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> If when you say "the Spurs' bench is both talented and high on experience" you actually mean "The Spurs bench is full of guys that I would be calling scrubs and broken down relics if they were suiting up for Boston" then I suppose I agree. But then, Boston's bench now has a lot of vets with postseason experience, too. And I didn't say that Boston's big three were better than San Antonio's, I started out by saying they were at a disadvantage in that regards (only that their second and third are better than Parker & Ginobli, and they are).


If you insist on believing this to be true, I can't change your mind. Boston's bench has vets that have postseason experience, yes, but what have they done outside of Posey? Barry and Horry were already NBA Champions coming into last year. I wouldn't tout Pollard or Scalabrine (he of the 1.7 PPG, 1.0 RPG in 6.5 MPG career playoff averages). Allen was mighty good for a stretch last year, but then he got hurt. Will he be able to come back and do it again, was it a fluke? Impossible to say, but we'll see.

My mistake on the big three bit. Apologies. On that note, Pierce is better than Parker and Ginobili. Not so sure about Allen...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Are you really trying to tell us that the 2004 Lakers weren't title contenders? I mean, really? The comedy's hitting new highs here.


the joke's on you, bucko, that wasn't written or inferred; the point was *glued together teams aren't a lock for anything*. recall this when the c's don't meet your lofty and (self-)assured prognostications.



> The 99 Rockets didn't "put together a team" in the offseason. That team was pretty much in tact when Pippen arrived (Barkley was in his third season there). What caught up with them was the fact that Barkley & Olajuwon were on the far side of 35 and Barkley was a 6'5" power forward.


semantics entirely; pip, barkley and hakeem were considered LOCKS for the finals; they failed. the additions of malone and payton to the lakers failed. the "steinbrenner" approach to championship qualifying is a flawed one as time will bear out. and for the record, i don't mind being called arrogant; when you're right it's confidence; being that the c's haven't suited up yet, fans like the author of the quote are just whistling in the graveyard.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> But the far greater condescension by the Bulls fans I'm laughing at _is_ necessary?


I am don't think I've seen that. Thinking the Celtics won't be as good as you think they will be, or even thinking they'll miss the playoffs, is not condascending. It might be _wrong_ or bad basketball analysis, but not condascending. I do find your responses to these people though to be of a tone that is less than cordial.

:twocents:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Really? Because I think it's pretty arrogant that you're willing to discredit everything that the Bulls have achieved based on your personal notions of what works on paper


I was unaware that the Pistons only plowed the field with Chicago on paper. I was under the impression that they played an actual postseason series.



JeremyB0001 said:


> No one is arguing that the primary reason the Bulls will be a good team next season is improved depth.


Au contraire, some of you arguing exactly that.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Turn it into an elite defense and then we're talking. Going from 18th to top 3 or 4 is a massive, massive stretch. It's just not that easy to play amazing defense. It takes more than just players with solid defensive capabilities - which Ray Allen, Pierce, Davis, Powe, and House don't even have


I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong here. (Excepting Davis who hasn't played a minute of NBA ball and House who's clearly on the roster for his offense). Neither Allen nor Pierce are terrible defenders. Even last year, playing on a broken foot, and forced to cover opponents' best wing scorer (because Wally Szczerbiak is one of the worst defenders on the planet) Pierce wasn't a bad defender. Look it up. He was a pretty damned good defender a few years back when playing on a vet team. He's playing on a vet team again, and has two more offensive options with him, meaning that he no longer needs to conserve energy on the defensive end. He'll be much closer to the O'Brien-era Pierce than the injured one of last year. And it doesn't take "an elite defense" to win an NBA title. The 2006 Heat weren't in the top 5, if memory serves, and I recall that the Lakers weren't even in the to half of the league in 2001, though I think they barely cleared the top 10 in 2002. In fact, NBA history shows that your defense only needs to be good enough to carry your offense, or vice versa. In Chicago's case, they need an elite defense because of their offensive shortcomings. Miami and LA didn't need an elite defense because they were pretty damned good offensive teams.




JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not sure that Duhon and Bell are all that different than Rondo and the effect of one year of aging on three stars who are past or reaching the end of their primes shouldn't be discounted entirely.


Duhon can defend and make open jumpers, which is all he'd be asked to do in Boston's offensive set. I have confidence that he'd thrive.



JeremyB0001 said:


> So basically, the argument is that there's no correlation between regular season and post season success and the Bulls are and will continue to be an unsuccessful team because they lost a series to the Pistons last season?


Those regular season win totals get inflated by the number of bad teams. Just as I wouldn't be surprised to see Boston win 48-54 games, I would be surprised to see them in the finals. In the postseason there are no games against the Bobcats or Hawks.





JeremyB0001 said:


> Bulls fans...and a number of national basketball analysts.


Could you find me the "national basketball analysts" saying that Robert Horry would be a capable starter _anywhere_? Find me any singing the praises of Elson or Oberto as good players? Beno Udrih? Matt Bonner (AKA Brian Scalabrine's evil twin)? Jacque Vaughn? Most of them were considered scrubs until they suited up for the Spurs. There isn't a single "good starter-level player" in that group (even if we added in Brent Barry). Not a one. Really all they are is a bunch of workaday players willing to do what it takes to win. That's it. That's all they're looking for in their roleplayers. You can dance like a harlot on crack and you're still wrong in your claims. If those guys were suiting up for Boston there'd be unanimous opinion here that they sucked. And you'd still be wrong.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Cleveland wins 50 games and is in the top tier while the Bulls win 49 and are in the second tier? That's pretty puzzling. Oh yeah, I forgot we have to defer to your opinion of what makes a good team again.


Well, the Cavaliers did manage to beat the team that wiped the floor with Chicago. And they were powered by LeBron James, one of the three best players alive, and they still have James, and frighteningly, James is still getting better. Get back to me when he's playing for Chicago.



JeremyB0001 said:


> 67 wins, reigning MVP, one year removed from the Finals...yeah there's no way they'll win an NBA title. Talk about a blow to your credibility...


No, not really.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> No, he's not.



Why not? The guy's nickname is "The Body." He's pretty much known for being one of the most fit players in the league.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Au contraire, some of you arguing exactly that.


Jeremy is right, I'm afraid. People aren't arguing that more depth is the source of the Bulls improvements. People are arguing that (1) Noah and Smith instead of PJ is an upgrade in talent and (2) internal improvement from the young guys will make a positive impact.

The argument that IS being made about depth is that Boston's lack thereof will mean it's not a top-tier team.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BULLHITTER said:


> the joke's on you, bucko, that wasn't written or inferred; the point was *glued together teams aren't a lock for anything*. recall this when the c's don't meet your lofty and (self-)assured prognostications.


You mean my "lofty prediction" that they're probably the third or fourth best team in the Eastern Conference? :lol: 

We weren't even discussing title contention, just EC contention, and you chimed in with a note about the failure of the 2004 Lakers. I'll take that kind of "failure" whenever I can get it. 



BULLHITTER said:


> semantics entirely; pip, barkley and hakeem were considered LOCKS for the finals; they failed. the additions of malone and payton to the lakers failed. the "steinbrenner" approach to championship qualifying is a flawed one as time will bear out. and for the record, i don't mind being called arrogant; when you're right it's confidence; being that the c's haven't suited up yet, fans like the author of the quote are just whistling in the graveyard.


I was a Rockets fan, and even I didn't consider them a lock for the finals. I worried about the rapidly aging Hakeem & Barkley, especially the vertically challenged Barkley, and I wasn't sure how Pippen altered that dynamic. As it happened, the team that went through the entire season laughingly referred to as the NBA's official old timer team ran out of gas come the playoffs. While I was disappointed, I wasn't terribly shocked. Nor were most of my friends, we were all prepared for the old age letdown.



jnrjr79 said:


> I am don't think I've seen that.


If you're not seeing it it's because you're refusing to look.



jnrjr79 said:


> Thinking the Celtics won't be as good as you think they will be, or even thinking they'll miss the playoffs, is not condascending.


Then I'm not being condescending either.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I was a Rockets fan, and even I didn't consider them a lock for the finals. I worried about the rapidly aging Hakeem & Barkley, especially the vertically challenged Barkley, and I wasn't sure how Pippen altered that dynamic. As it happened, the team that went through the entire season laughingly referred to as the NBA's official old timer team ran out of gas come the playoffs. While I was disappointed, I wasn't terribly shocked. Nor were most of my friends, we were all prepared for the old age letdown.


then you'll be sufficiently "not shocked" when the same happens to the non HOF'ers in boston. :cheers:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Why not? The guy's nickname is "The Body." He's pretty much known for being one of the most fit players in the league.


How many games has Garnett missed in his career? How many of those came before McHale's disastrous trade with the Clippers for Marko Jaric? (hint, he's missed as many games since the trade as he missed in the ten season preceding it, I think it's safe to call Kev an ironman. And the point was an ironic one, given McBulls assertion that all three Celtics players were going to miss swaths of next season to injury right before using the injury excuse for Wallace's postseason performance _and_ asserting that Wallace was in better shape than Kev, which he isn't.)


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BULLHITTER said:


> then you'll be sufficiently "not shocked" when the same happens to the non HOF'ers in boston. :cheers:


They won't be missing the playoffs, nor will they be getting swept out of the first round if that's what you're saying.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Then I'm not being condescending either.



This is intellectually dishonest. My point is that expressing disagreement is not condescending. It's the _manner_ in which you express the opinion, not the opinion itself, that is at issue. I'm not "refusing to look." You have baited and made fun of many of the posters here repeatedly in this thread. I'm asking, mod to mod, that you try to respect people's opinions more and belittle them less even though you strongly disagree.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is intellectually dishonest. My point is that expressing disagreement is not condescending. It's the _manner_ in which you express the opinion, not the opinion itself, that is at issue. I'm not "refusing to look." You have baited and made fun of many of the posters here repeatedly in this thread. I'm asking, mod to mod, that you try to respect people's opinions more and belittle them less even though you strongly disagree.


There is nothing in my manner of expression less cordial than Jeremy, McBulls and others. I have laughed at some of the more excessive statements, that _isn't_ baiting and isn't insulting of other posters. There is nothing in the ToS that requires people to _not_ laugh at flat earth claims. If you're saying that there's a rule on this board requiring Bulls' homerism, that's another item. But I wasn't aware of it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> There is nothing in my manner of expression less cordial than Jeremy, McBulls and others. I have laughed at some of the more excessive statements, that _isn't_ baiting and isn't insulting of other posters. There is nothing in the ToS that requires people to _not_ laugh at flat earth claims. If you're saying that there's a rule on this board requiring Bulls' homerism, that's another item. But I wasn't aware of it.


Of course I'm not saying there's a rule that requires "Bulls' homerism" on this board. However, your suggestion that this might be my position is another example of the rhetoric I find so distasteful.

I disagree with your characterization of your tone vs. those you have been debating with, but I'll leave it with that.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Are you this vocal about people laughing at Ballscientist?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Of course I'm not saying there's a rule that requires "Bulls' homerism" on this board. However, your suggestion that this might be my position is another example of the rhetoric I find so distasteful.
> 
> I disagree with your characterization of your tone vs. those you have been debating with, but I'll leave it with that.


I for one have enjoyed the back & fourth with ehmunro. My only complaint is that his signature is too long. My scrolling finger is getting arthritis.

Boston fans are right to be excited about their team's prospects. The stars should at least give them some exciting moments and flashes of what could be next season. If the team crashes and burns they can always hang Ainge in effigy (which let's face it, they had in mind before the season started) and start over again with a clean slate in a few years. If not... it's hard not to root for a bunch of geezers who want to give it one last try.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I disagree with your characterization of your tone vs. those you have been debating with, but I'll leave it with that.


I was going to say something similiar on my last post but didnt have the energy.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> I was unaware that the Pistons only plowed the field with Chicago on paper. I was under the impression that they played an actual postseason series.


As I've noted earlier in this thread that's a highly selective choice of which results to pay attention to and which to disregard. You're disregarding 86 of the 92 games the Bulls played last season.



ehmunro said:


> Au contraire, some of you arguing exactly that.


Do you mind directing me to a post # then because I've read the entire thread and I don't remember anything explicitly stating that. Arguing that the Celtics don't have enough depth is a completely different argument. Saying that reasonable depth is a necessary condition to be a top team is not the same as arguing that strong depth is a sufficient condition to being a top team.



ehmunro said:


> I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong here. (Excepting Davis who hasn't played a minute of NBA ball and House who's clearly on the roster for his offense). Neither Allen nor Pierce are terrible defenders. Even last year, playing on a broken foot, and forced to cover opponents' best wing scorer (because Wally Szczerbiak is one of the worst defenders on the planet) Pierce wasn't a bad defender. Look it up. He was a pretty damned good defender a few years back when playing on a vet team. He's playing on a vet team again, and has two more offensive options with him, meaning that he no longer needs to conserve energy on the defensive end. He'll be much closer to the O'Brien-era Pierce than the injured one of last year.


I never said they were terrible I said they don't have solid defensive capabilities. If you forced me to specify further, I'd peg them somewhere between mediocre and moderately below average.



ehmunro said:


> And it doesn't take "an elite defense" to win an NBA title. The 2006 Heat weren't in the top 5, if memory serves, and I recall that the Lakers weren't even in the to half of the league in 2001, though I think they barely cleared the top 10 in 2002. In fact, NBA history shows that your defense only needs to be good enough to carry your offense, or vice versa.


I view the Heat as a pretty considerable aberration. They were a 52 win team who caught fire in the playoffs, faced weak competition in the East, got some favorable treatment from the officials, and watched some of their opponents choke en route to beating a 60 win team in the Finals. They're easily one of the worst championship teams ever. Personally, I have the Celtics pegged closer to 47 or 48 wins but it'd be difficult if not impossible to completely rule out that Miami scenario for any playoff contender. I don't think it means Boston is one of the most likely teams to make the Finals out of the East or that they're better than the Bulls.

The '01 Lakers seem to be a similar story though I don't have as good of a recollection of their playoff run. They were pretty awful defensively during the regular season though they were second in offensive efficiency and I don't think the Celtics can match that mark. 

You're making a good case that Boston could upset some teams in the playoffs and win a Championship. I don't disagree but the same is true of 8 or 12 other teams.



ehmunro said:


> In Chicago's case, they need an elite defense because of their offensive shortcomings. Miami and LA didn't need an elite defense because they were pretty damned good offensive teams.


Agreed. If Boston can be in the top 2 or 3 in offensive efficiency then they can win 55 games and will be sitting pretty come playoff time. For the reasons I've stated throughout this thread I don't think it'll happen. In fact, those reasons are how we got onto the issue of defense in the first place. You were pointing out that other teams were successful despite handing major minutes to players who don't play much offense (the Spurs with Oberto and Elson and the Bulls with Wallace) but I countered that that's not an apt comparision because those teams can handle that lack of offense since they're elite defensive teams.




ehmunro said:


> Duhon can defend and make open jumpers, which is all he'd be asked to do in Boston's offensive set. I have confidence that he'd thrive.


You've claimed that Rondo is a plus defender so that wouldn't be much of an upgrade defensively. Duhon is decent at hitting open jumpers - he's not awful like Rondo - but I don't think that equates to a huge difference. He's not someone you would call a good shooter.



ehmunro said:


> Those regular season win totals get inflated by the number of bad teams. Just as I wouldn't be surprised to see Boston win 48-54 games, I would be surprised to see them in the finals. In the postseason there are no games against the Bobcats or Hawks.


Well the Bulls had pretty good success against the top teams in the NBA last year. Also, this would seem to be an argument that would come into play when EC teams play WC teams since the EC is a weaker league and that wouldn't come into play in the playoffs until the Finals. That is unless you're making some sort of argument that good teams and mediocre teams win just as often against bad teams but good teams beat good teams more often than mediocre teams. That doesn't really make sense to me.



ehmunro said:


> Could you find me the "national basketball analysts" saying that Robert Horry would be a capable starter _anywhere_? Find me any singing the praises of Elson or Oberto as good players? Beno Udrih? Matt Bonner (AKA Brian Scalabrine's evil twin)? Jacque Vaughn? Most of them were considered scrubs until they suited up for the Spurs. There isn't a single "good starter-level player" in that group (even if we added in Brent Barry). Not a one. Really all they are is a bunch of workaday players willing to do what it takes to win. That's it. That's all they're looking for in their roleplayers. You can dance like a harlot on crack and you're still wrong in your claims. If those guys were suiting up for Boston there'd be unanimous opinion here that they sucked. And you'd still be wrong.


Well, first of all this doesn't in any way contradict my statement that national basketball analysts and not just Bulls fans are troubled by the Celtics' lack of depth. Maybe you think the sportswriters are wrong but you're not doing a very good job demonstrating that it's purely bias that's leading posters in this thread to question how much the Celtics' can with with their depth.

You still seem to be ignoring the fact that the Spurs can get a bit of a pass on lacking _offensive depth_ because they're an elite defensive squad which you seem to concede the Celtics will not be. Finley's slipped a good bit but he's still a guy who was put on the All-Star team multiple times and while I don't know how Barry would fare playing 35 MPG at his age, he put up a strong 16+ PER last season and is a stellar backup.



ehmunro said:


> Well, the Cavaliers did manage to beat the team that wiped the floor with Chicago. And they were powered by LeBron James, one of the three best players alive, and they still have James, and frighteningly, James is still getting better. Get back to me when he's playing for Chicago.


This reasoning is awful. Basically you like this rule because it can't be applied to your Celtics since this team wasn't assembled last year. It penalizes any team that didn't advance to the Finals and kept their team in tact. You just can't employ it in practice and get any kind of reasonable results. It means that the 90-91 Pistons were better than the Bulls team that won the championship that year, that both Golden State and Utah will be better than the Mavericks this season, and so on and so forth. The NBA doesn't work that way. Keeping your championship team together is not a guarantee of repeating. Look at the Nets and 76ers teams that made it to the finals and then kept their teams together the next season? In the next season did they wipe the floor with the teams they advanced further than in the playoffs the season before?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> As I've noted earlier in this thread that's a highly selective choice of which results to pay attention to and which to disregard. You're disregarding 86 of the 92 games the Bulls played last season.


During the regular season the Bulls had a sub-.500 record against the other playoff teams. They were 11-13 against the other top ten teams in the NBA. The fact is that they just didn't play terribly well against good teams and beat up the bad ones to the tune of a .718 winning percentage. So, yes, the fact that they _couldn't_ beat a good team (that wasn't a walking M.A.S.H. unit) when it mattered, and didn't so much as seriously challenge them, stands as a real hindrance to listing them as a title contender. Until they show me they can beat quality opponents, they remain, like the Celtics, a pretender.



JeremyB0001 said:


> I never said they were terrible I said they don't have solid defensive capabilities. If you forced me to specify further, I'd peg them somewhere between mediocre and moderately below average.


Pierce isn't a bad defender, though. You're allowing your preconceptions to mislead you. He wasn't even really below average last year considering that he was handling the tougher assignments (because Szczerbiak & Green just couldn't do it). With vets that know the job on the floor, and a pretty damned good defender behind him in Garnett, he'll be back to his above average ways. Perkins and Rondo do little but defend, so defense isn't really an issue there, either. They weren't a bad defensive team last year, _and they held on to the players that can actually play defense_.



JeremyB0001 said:


> I view the Heat as a pretty considerable aberration. They were a 52 win team who caught fire in the playoffs, faced weak competition in the East, got some favorable treatment from the officials, and watched some of their opponents choke en route to beating a 60 win team in the Finals. ...
> 
> The '01 Lakers seem to be a similar story though I don't have as good of a recollection of their playoff run. They were pretty awful defensively during the regular season though they were second in offensive efficiency and I don't think the Celtics can match that mark.


And the Lakers 20th best defense? (I looked it up) Were they "an aberration"? Or was their offense simply good enough to carry the defense? Just as Miami's 9th best defense was good enough for the 6th best offense to win the 2nd best offense with the best player in the NBA was enough to take the Lakers to a title in 2001. The Celtics won't be awful defensively next year, so they won't need to be an elite offensive unit to be competitive.



JeremyB0001 said:


> You're making a good case that Boston could upset some teams in the playoffs and win a Championship. I don't disagree but the same is true of 8 or 12 other teams.


Personally I think there are three teams with a realistic shot at a title, and I'm skeptical of one of them because their centerpiece is a player that would struggle to defend me. Dallas & Cleveland strike me more as pretenders (though LeBron scares the bejesus out of me). Boston and Chicago are teams that need a lot of luck to win the East. Miami needs Wade to be completely healthy throughout the playoffs, something he's only been once in the last three years. They're even further back in my rankings as a result. 



JeremyB0001 said:


> Agreed. If Boston can be in the top 2 or 3 in offensive efficiency then they can win 55 games and will be sitting pretty come playoff time. For the reasons I've stated throughout this thread I don't think it'll happen. In fact, those reasons are how we got onto the issue of defense in the first place. You were pointing out that other teams were successful despite handing major minutes to players who don't play much offense (the Spurs with Oberto and Elson and the Bulls with Wallace) but I countered that that's not an apt comparision because those teams can handle that lack of offense since they're elite defensive teams.


Depends. Right now Ainge seems to believe in Pruitt, and wants to give him a shot at developing behind Rondo and House before looking elsewhere (while I disagree with that course, I can understand it as I think that Pruitt is a new & improved version of Delonte West). But if they're clicking come January and are only a combo guard away from being contenders then they'll probably make a trade for someone like Bell or Carlos Arroyo to take a shot this year.



JeremyB0001 said:


> You've claimed that Rondo is a plus defender so that wouldn't be much of an upgrade defensively. Duhon is decent at hitting open jumpers - he's not awful like Rondo - but I don't think that equates to a huge difference. He's not someone you would call a good shooter.


On jumpers, Duhon shoots an aFG% of .475 or about 160 points higher than Rondo. And unlike Rondo he actually takes shots more than 14' from the basket. On a team with Pierce, Allen, and Garnett he'd have a whole lot more wide open jumpers than he's getting now. He's streaky, Rondo is execrable and not working hard enough to correct the problem.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Well, first of all this doesn't in any way contradict my statement that national basketball analysts and not just Bulls fans are troubled by the Celtics' lack of depth. Maybe you think the sportswriters are wrong but you're not doing a very good job demonstrating that it's purely bias that's leading posters in this thread to question how much the Celtics' can with with their depth.


In other words, there are no national basketball experts that think the Spurs bench is full of potential NBA starters. 



JeremyB0001 said:


> This reasoning is awful. Basically you like this rule because it can't be applied to your Celtics since this team wasn't assembled last year. It penalizes any team that didn't advance to the Finals and kept their team in tact. You just can't employ it in practice and get any kind of reasonable results. It means that the 90-91 Pistons were better than the Bulls team that won the championship that year, that both Golden State and Utah will be better than the Mavericks this season, and so on and so forth. The NBA doesn't work that way. Keeping your championship team together is not a guarantee of repeating. Look at the Nets and 76ers teams that made it to the finals and then kept their teams together the next season? In the next season did they wipe the floor with the teams they advanced further than in the playoffs the season before?


The line of reasoning that the Cavs have one of the three best players on the face of the planet is faulty reasoning? Sorry, after he made a fool out of me in the ECF last year I am no longer placing bets against LBJ. No more than I bet against Jordan in the 90s or Magic and Bird in the 80s. I'm just not doing it. He is one of those players so good that he gives his crap team a chance to win. I'll need to know that Gibson and Brown are going to bust and Sasha Pavlovic is going to turn back into a pumpkin after his next contract before I'll demote them.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> During the regular season the Bulls had a sub-.500 record against the other playoff teams. They were 11-13 against the other top ten teams in the NBA. The fact is that they just didn't play terribly well against good teams and beat up the bad ones to the tune of a .718 winning percentage. So, yes, the fact that they _couldn't_ beat a good team (that wasn't a walking M.A.S.H. unit) when it mattered, and didn't so much as seriously challenge them, stands as a real hindrance to listing them as a title contender. Until they show me they can beat quality opponents, they remain, like the Celtics, a pretender.


Do you have a link to those numbers? I intended for my claim to be more anecdotal than statistical but I'm not sure that 11-13 is a poor record against playoff teams. Do you have a basis for the claim that it is? I doubt many teams win at a .600 or even .550 clip against playoff teams because playoff teams are good. If Detroit or Cleveland played similarly or worse against playoff teams last season then your claim that they've proven themselves and the Bulls haven't doesn't really hold any water.



ehmunro said:


> Pierce isn't a bad defender, though. You're allowing your preconceptions to mislead you. He wasn't even really below average last year considering that he was handling the tougher assignments (because Szczerbiak & Green just couldn't do it). With vets that know the job on the floor, and a pretty damned good defender behind him in Garnett, he'll be back to his above average ways. Perkins and Rondo do little but defend, so defense isn't really an issue there, either. They weren't a bad defensive team last year, _and they held on to the players that can actually play defense_.


I still haven't claimed Pierce is bad but you're the first person I've ever heard refer to him as an above average defender in all his years in the league and no offense but it doesn't carry so much weight coming from a Celtics fan.



ehmunro said:


> And the Lakers 20th best defense? (I looked it up) Were they "an aberration"? Or was their offense simply good enough to carry the defense? Just as Miami's 9th best defense was good enough for the 6th best offense to win the 2nd best offense with the best player in the NBA was enough to take the Lakers to a title in 2001. The Celtics won't be awful defensively next year, so they won't need to be an elite offensive unit to be competitive.


I don't think the Lakers were as big an aberration as the Heat but I don't either team compares well to other NBA Champions. The best team doesn't always win the championship and the championship team isn't always a particularly deserving champion. I've never denied that. I don't think the Lakers defense in '01 is good enough to win a championship most seasons even with a dominant offense and I don't think the Celtics will have a dominant offense last season.



ehmunro said:


> On jumpers, Duhon shoots an aFG% of .475 or about 160 points higher than Rondo. And unlike Rondo he actually takes shots more than 14' from the basket. On a team with Pierce, Allen, and Garnett he'd have a whole lot more wide open jumpers than he's getting now. He's streaky, Rondo is execrable and not working hard enough to correct the problem.


Sure, but he's not as good as Rondo as scoring in other ways. I guess I'm not sure why you're placing such a huge premium on jump shooters, just because you think defenses will be collapsing on the big three a lot? I still think other ways of scoring are important. On the whole Duhon is not a very good offensive player. If it's just that you need shooters, there are plenty of guys out there. 



ehmunro said:


> The line of reasoning that the Cavs have one of the three best players on the face of the planet is faulty reasoning? Sorry, after he made a fool out of me in the ECF last year I am no longer placing bets against LBJ. No more than I bet against Jordan in the 90s or Magic and Bird in the 80s. I'm just not doing it. He is one of those players so good that he gives his crap team a chance to win. I'll need to know that Gibson and Brown are going to bust and Sasha Pavlovic is going to turn back into a pumpkin after his next contract before I'll demote them.


I'm not at all down on LeBron or the Cavs at all. They just weren't a great team last year and I don't think they'll be a whole lot better. I think they can up their win total to 52 or so but I think the Bulls will win about 54.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Do you have a link to those numbers?


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba0607.htm


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Sorry to jump in but there were a few things that I disagree with in this post and I had to reply. I haven't read the whole thread so bear with me.


ehmunro said:


> During the regular season the Bulls had a sub-.500 record against the other playoff teams. They were 11-13 against the other top ten teams in the NBA. The fact is that they just didn't play terribly well against good teams and beat up the bad ones to the tune of a .718 winning percentage. So, yes, the fact that they _couldn't_ beat a good team (that wasn't a walking M.A.S.H. unit) when it mattered, and didn't so much as seriously challenge them, stands as a real hindrance to listing them as a title contender. Until they show me they can beat quality opponents, they remain, like the Celtics, a pretender.


The Cavs record vs the top ten teams in the league was 10-14. I didn't feel like figuring out Detroit's as I had to add it up manually, but obviously every teams record vs the top ten teams in the league is going to be lower than their overall record. You're right that this team needs to prove themselves in big games. They were basically asleep for the first three games against Detroit.


> Pierce isn't a bad defender, though. You're allowing your preconceptions to mislead you. He wasn't even really below average last year considering that he was handling the tougher assignments (because Szczerbiak & Green just couldn't do it). With vets that know the job on the floor, and a pretty damned good defender behind him in Garnett, he'll be back to his above average ways. Perkins and Rondo do little but defend, so defense isn't really an issue there, either. They weren't a bad defensive team last year, _and they held on to the players that can actually play defense_.


The Celtics were 17th in defensive efficiency which is pretty much middle of the pack. However Wally World only played in 33 games and Green only played in 22 min per game so it's not like their lack of defense was hurting them that much. Perkins fouls per 40 was pretty high so you better hope he's able to fix that playing with KG cause if he can't stay on the court the Celtics will be very thin at the 5. Personally I think they'll be somewhere around 10-15th in defensive efficiency.


> And the Lakers 20th best defense? (I looked it up) Were they "an aberration"? Or was their offense simply good enough to carry the defense? Just as Miami's 9th best defense was good enough for the 6th best offense to win the 2nd best offense with the best player in the NBA was enough to take the Lakers to a title in 2001. The Celtics won't be awful defensively next year, so they won't need to be an elite offensive unit to be competitive.


They may have been 20th in 2001 but the other two championship seasons they were 2nd and 7th in defensive efficiency. I don't remember exactly how that season or playoffs went but since they were really good the other two seasons it leads me to think that they were Shaqing their way through the season and then turned it on for the playoffs. Recent trends suggest that teams with strong defenses win championships.


> Personally I think there are three teams with a realistic shot at a title, and I'm skeptical of one of them because their centerpiece is a player that would struggle to defend me. Dallas & Cleveland strike me more as pretenders (though LeBron scares the bejesus out of me). Boston and Chicago are teams that need a lot of luck to win the East. Miami needs Wade to be completely healthy throughout the playoffs, something he's only been once in the last three years. They're even further back in my rankings as a result.


I don't consider either Boston or Chicago to be in the top tier of contenders either. Boston needs another season to fine tune the roster and get some chemistry and the Bulls will need some more growth from the young players. I'm expecting at least conference finals from the Bulls. Both teams are capable of winning the title if they get hot/lucky or are unexpectedly good this season 


> Depends. Right now Ainge seems to believe in Pruitt, and wants to give him a shot at developing behind Rondo and House before looking elsewhere (while I disagree with that course, I can understand it as I think that Pruitt is a new & improved version of Delonte West). But if they're clicking come January and are only a combo guard away from being contenders then they'll probably make a trade for someone like Bell or Carlos Arroyo to take a shot this year.


I think it's a mistake to entrust an important position to a second round rookie when you're trying to go after a title. They would be better off trying to sign a veteran.


> On jumpers, Duhon shoots an aFG% of .475 or about 160 points higher than Rondo. And unlike Rondo he actually takes shots more than 14' from the basket. On a team with Pierce, Allen, and Garnett he'd have a whole lot more wide open jumpers than he's getting now. He's streaky, Rondo is execrable and not working hard enough to correct the problem.


Duhon is a pretty bad shooter. Even with the Bulls he only shoots if he there isn't anybody in the same zip code and defenses slack off of him to help on some of our more capable offensive players. It's maddening how he passes up some of the open looks he gets. Only Wallace and Griffin took less field goal attempts per 40 last season. If Gordon got the looks Duhon was getting he'd average over 30 ppg easily.


> In other words, there are no national basketball experts that think the Spurs bench is full of potential NBA starters.


The Spurs have a quality rotation of bigs to compliment Duncan. Barry is a pretty good player. Finley was starting throughout the playoffs. Ginobilli spent most of the season coming off the bench. The only backup postion they're weak at is PG. Vaughn and Udrih are just scrubs who cover for Parker when he's sitting. Though if it's an important game Manu will play PG while Parker sits so there is no need to play the scrubs. So yes, the Spurs do have a good bench.


> The line of reasoning that the Cavs have one of the three best players on the face of the planet is faulty reasoning? Sorry, after he made a fool out of me in the ECF last year I am no longer placing bets against LBJ. No more than I bet against Jordan in the 90s or Magic and Bird in the 80s. I'm just not doing it. He is one of those players so good that he gives his crap team a chance to win. I'll need to know that Gibson and Brown are going to bust and Sasha Pavlovic is going to turn back into a pumpkin after his next contract before I'll demote them.


LeBron is a damn good player. He also got abused by an elite defense in the finals. I think the Bulls are one of the teams best equipped to defend the Cavs this season. Deng and Sefolosha can provide the man defense while Wallace, Tyrus and Noah can provide help if he gets past them. Deng will also make LeBron work on defense. No I'm not saying we can stop LeBron but the Bulls are one of the teams best equipped to slow him down. Also last year their bigs were better than ours which would be a problem on the boards, I think this year our bigs will be able to keep up.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba0607.htm


Thanks. This isn't the record against playoff teams that ehmunro cited but it's similar, more detailed, and IMO more accurate. The Bulls are middle of the pack at worst against the top 10 and have a similar or better record against "good teams" than the Pistons and Cavs did so hopefully this puts to rest any claims that the Bulls aren't in the top tier of Eastern Conference contenders because they have proven incapable of beating good teams.



Snake said:


> Sorry to jump in but there were a few things that I disagree with in this post and I had to reply. I haven't read the whole thread so bear with me.


Great post.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The only Boston player that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with Pippen and Rodman is KG, and his teams have never won anything.


He's led his team deeper in the playofss than Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Nocioni have been.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> He's led his team deeper in the playofss than Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Nocioni have been.


He's had 11 years of trying vs 3 for our four guys. In 8 years I'm pretty sure our four players will have much better bragging rights. Heck they already have nearly half as many playoff games under their belt as KG, and should exceed his total of 47 as soon as two years from now (it would only require getting into the second round in both years). KG has averaged little more than 4 playoff games per season over his career. Our baby bulls have averaged more than 7 per season over the last 3 years.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

To put KG's postseason accomplishments into perspective :

Total playoff games :
Kevin Garnett (11 years) 47 playoff games 
Michael Jordan (15) 179
Magic Johnson (13) 186 
Larry Bird (13) 164
Tim Duncan (10) 125
Shaq O'Neal (14) 175
Kobe Bryant (11) 124
Ben Wallace (11) 85

KG is a very good basketball player, but his postseason accomplishments don't put him in the HOF.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> KG is a very good basketball player


Why don't we notch this statement up to "all-NBA" or MVP level.

Ben Gordon is a very good basketball player. Kirk Hinrich is a very good basketball player.

Kevin Garnett is much, much better than these guys.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Snake said:


> The Cavs record vs the top ten teams in the league was 10-14. I didn't feel like figuring out Detroit's as I had to add it up manually, but obviously every teams record vs the top ten teams in the league is going to be lower than their overall record. You're right that this team needs to prove themselves in big games. They were basically asleep for the first three games against Detroit.


Sure, but unlike Chicago they could beat good teams in the postseason. That puts them a step ahead (and really, they have LeBron ****ing James, so there isn't much that the rest of us can do except complain).



Snake said:


> The Celtics were 17th in defensive efficiency which is pretty much middle of the pack. However Wally World only played in 33 games and Green only played in 22 min per game so it's not like their lack of defense was hurting them that much. Perkins fouls per 40 was pretty high so you better hope he's able to fix that playing with KG cause if he can't stay on the court the Celtics will be very thin at the 5. Personally I think they'll be somewhere around 10-15th in defensive efficiency.


Their wings last year were Wally Szczerbiak, Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, Delonte West, Tony Allen, and Paul Pierce. Exactly two of those guys could play defense. The rest were disasters. Not so coincidentally, they're also all gone. Ray Allen might not be a good defender, but he's better than the pack of jokers whose minutes he'll be playing. Replacing that pocket of effluvium with Allen and Posey represents a huge upgrade. No matter what you think of Allen. As for Perkins, part of his foul rate came from having to guard guys like Bosh, Garnett, etc. so that Jefferson could focus on offense. For a naturally slow-footed guy like Perkins that was a recipe for extra fouls. Taking him out of a position that he struggles with, and placing him where he belongs (guarding the post), he'll be more effective. Now, he'll probably still struggle against teams like the Raptors (that use all perimeter bigs), but most teams have one guy on the blocks that Perkins can handle. (I'm still hopeful that they take a flier on Brian Skinner to have a another mobile defender at the 4/5.)



Snake said:


> They may have been 20th in 2001 but the other two championship seasons they were 2nd and 7th in defensive efficiency. I don't remember exactly how that season or playoffs went but since they were really good the other two seasons it leads me to think that they were Shaqing their way through the season and then turned it on for the playoffs. Recent trends suggest that teams with strong defenses win championships.


If Jeremy and others had limited their statement to "teams have to be able to play defense if they want to win a title" I would have agreed. But they way over-inflated their claim to gerrymander the Bulls in to first tier title contention. You don't need an elite defense to win a title. You just need to be able to get key stops at the end of close games. Even very good defenses can and do do that. Top ten defenses have won titles before, and will win them again. San Antonio doesn't win titles because of their defense, they win them because they're one of the best teams in the NBA on both sides of the ball. People miss their offensive efficiency because they play so damned slow, but they're generally a top 5 team on both sides of the ball. _That's_ what makes them a handful. If defense were enough Cleveland would have done better against the Spurs (after all, they were the fourth best defensive squad in the NBA). But it isn't. Cleveland and Chicago were essentially the same team, below average offensive squads (Cleveland 18th, Chicago 20th) and stellar defense. The big difference between them is that one of them has LeBron and the other doesn't. Chicago didn't alter the offensive dynamic, so their struggle's going to continue. Cleveland hasn't altered theirs either, but they still have LeBron James. If they had a legit second option, the team would be frightening (for example, if Ainge hadn't overrated Jiri Welsch and traded the Czech bust to Cleveland along with #24 and #25 and Jim Paxson used one of the picks on Kevin Martin, the Cavs would have had a fighting chance against San Antonio).



Snake said:


> I don't consider either Boston or Chicago to be in the top tier of contenders either. Boston needs another season to fine tune the roster and get some chemistry and the Bulls will need some more growth from the young players. I'm expecting at least conference finals from the Bulls. Both teams are capable of winning the title if they get hot/lucky or are unexpectedly good this season


Yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm just happy that for the first time in years both my teams are going to be playing games that matter in the same calendar year. And, hopefully with their new offensive creativity, Houston can actually make some noise in the postseason.



Snake said:


> I think it's a mistake to entrust an important position to a second round rookie when you're trying to go after a title. They would be better off trying to sign a veteran.
> 
> Duhon is a pretty bad shooter. Even with the Bulls he only shoots if he there isn't anybody in the same zip code and defenses slack off of him to help on some of our more capable offensive players. It's maddening how he passes up some of the open looks he gets.


I agree that trusting in Pruitt's rapid development is a mistake (I said as much when I made the remark), and I'm pretty sure they're going to sign a vet next summer. They wanted Bell, but Milwaukee is hoarding him. So they'll address it next summer (though if they're close this winter they might trade for him this year). Ainge wants to see what he has (mistake, I agree). I'd prefer a trade of Rondo for a capable player at the spot, and as they'll be running a high post set they really don't need much from the one. Even Duhon can do what's necessary.



Snake said:


> The Spurs have a quality rotation of bigs to compliment Duncan. Barry is a pretty good player. Finley was starting throughout the playoffs. Ginobilli spent most of the season coming off the bench. The only backup postion they're weak at is PG. Vaughn and Udrih are just scrubs who cover for Parker when he's sitting. Though if it's an important game Manu will play PG while Parker sits so there is no need to play the scrubs. So yes, the Spurs do have a good bench.


There is zero chance that Jeremy, McBulls and others would be singing their praises if they were suiting up for Boston. They aren't good players, they're just effective in the roles in which they're deployed. And that's all that's needed from a bench. Not the "good starter-level players" that others here have claimed you need on the bench, because you really don't.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why don't we notch this statement up to "all-NBA" or MVP level.
> 
> Ben Gordon is a very good basketball player. Kirk Hinrich is a very good basketball player.
> 
> Kevin Garnett is much, much better than these guys.


I never would have figured you for an Earnie Banks fan. But you're right, you don't have to win championships, or even go to the playoffs to be a great player. But only your hometown fans will remember you if you don't win in a team sport.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I never would have figured you for an Earnie Banks fan. But you're right, you don't have to win championships, or even go to the playoffs to be a great player. But only your hometown fans will remember you if you don't win in a team sport.


Did Ernie ever lead a team to the baseball equivalent of the conference finals? 

Garnett has been there. So has Allen. So has Pierce. Garnett won the MVP of basketball, so I think more than the Minnesota fans were recognizing his greatness.

Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni and Deng have not.

Let’s hope that changes this year.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I sense a bit of a double standard here. If we had KG, my guess is you'd be saying that "he helps us to be a winning team - winning what?" for getting to the conference finals.

Oh well.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

King Joseus said:


> I sense a bit of a double standard here. If we had KG, my guess is you'd be saying that "he helps us to be a winning team - winning what?" for getting to the conference finals.


You may have me confused with MemphisX. I've always been a KG fan and am always the first to say that one man doesn't make a team (even LeBron gets a _little_ help). If Chicago had Garnett I'd list them as a title favourite, just as I stated in this thread and the previous one covering the same ground that if Chicago landed Kobe they'd vault to the top of the pecking order.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> I sense a bit of a double standard here. If we had KG, my guess is you'd be saying that "he helps us to be a winning team - winning what?" for getting to the conference finals.


A double standard based on your incorrect guess.

If we had KG and surrounded him with crap for most of his career ala Minny, yah, that would be a bad thing. The one year KG had a good supporting cast they went to the conference finals and he won MVP. Far more than any of the "core 4" have done, that's for sure.

KG will go down one of the best players in the game that hasn't won the big one unless he brings home the big one in the next few years.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Did Ernie ever lead a team to the baseball equivalent of the conference finals?
> 
> Garnett has been there. So has Allen. So has Pierce. Garnett won the MVP of basketball, so I think more than the Minnesota fans were recognizing his greatness.
> 
> ...


The proof is in the pudding, unless there is more pudding?


----------



## TheRescuer (Aug 25, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Garnett won the MVP of basketball, so I think more than the Minnesota fans were recognizing his greatness.
> 
> Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni and Deng have not.
> 
> Let’s hope that changes this year.


I don't know whether Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni or Deng will EVER win an MVP. That doesn't change the value of each to this team. All are important and all can be keys to winning the big one.

I hope at least one does win an MVP, but I'm not going to place a bet.

One way or another, though, Garnett won his MVP in his 9th season of play, and none of those Bulls are at that point yet, so I wouln't exactly put the pressure on them that they have failed to live to expectations if the MVP situation doesn't change next year.

That'd be pretty neat-o though, if it did.

KG is a top 5 player and deserved the MVP he got.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TheRescuer said:


> I don't know whether Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni or Deng will EVER win an MVP.


I was referring to making the conference finals.


----------



## TheRescuer (Aug 25, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was referring to making the conference finals.


No argument from me. We both want this team to make the conference finals and next year would be soon enough to make me happy happy.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> You may have me confused with MemphisX. I've always been a KG fan and am always the first to say that one man doesn't make a team (even LeBron gets a _little_ help). If Chicago had Garnett I'd list them as a title favourite, just as I stated in this thread and the previous one covering the same ground that if Chicago landed Kobe they'd vault to the top of the pecking order.


Apologies, I was referring to k4e.



kukoc4ever said:


> A double standard based on your incorrect guess.
> 
> If we had KG and surrounded him with crap for most of his career ala Minny, yah, that would be a bad thing. The one year KG had a good supporting cast they went to the conference finals and he won MVP. Far more than any of the "core 4" have done, that's for sure.
> 
> KG will go down one of the best players in the game that hasn't won the big one unless he brings home the big one in the next few years.


My mistake on the incorrect guess. 

My take: the Bulls are likely to make the conference finals this year, and are improving (not at their peak). Once the Bulls have made it to the conference finals (or beyond), they've achieved just as much as KG has (in terms of team). KG is an All-NBA talent, MVP-level, but his teams' playoff success has not been great. His new team has a small window of opportunity, can they take advantage of it? Can KG lead them to postseason success? We'll see.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

47 wins, 3rd best team in the East.

J/K.


Anyway, we won't have to wait long to see whether Boston's dramatic offseason plan pans out - at least for this year. It certainly will be interesting. I tend to think they'll be about in the 4-6 range in the East, but I certainly could be wrong. 

As far as KG goes - he's very good. His teams have generally been poor. We'll see this year with a brand new supporting cast whether that changes. It could. My suspicion is, though, that Boston's chances are better 1-2 years from now when the team has had a chance to build chemistry. I think continuity is a severely underrated factor in a team's success. 

This season won't tip off soon enough.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Did Ernie ever lead a team to the baseball equivalent of the conference finals?


Banks & the Cubs finished 2nd in the National league in 1969 in a close race with the Mets.

So I guess that puts him in the same category as KG.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Banks & the Cubs finished 2nd in the National league in 1969 in a close race with the Mets.
> 
> So I guess that puts him in the same category as KG.


Nope. There was a NLCS in 1969, which would be the closest equivalent to the Conference Finals.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I'll say that the changes in Boston will make it more fun to beat them this year than it was last year. Last year I just felt like a big bully rooting against them!

Deng vs. Pierce
Gordon vs. Allen
Wallace/Tyrus/Noah/Smith vs. KG
Hinrich vs. ?
Nocioni vs. ?
Thabo vs. ?
Duhon vs. ?

Lot's to look forward to!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Nothing to add to the great analysis going on in this thread, but I'd be a lot more optimistic about the Celtic's hopes if they had a coach who emphasized defense. I don't think it's so much a problem of not having the right personnel or depth - Posey, Rondo, Perkins, and Allen are all decent defensive glue guys. I just have zero confidence that Rivers is going to stress defense or knows how to teach it.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Sure, but unlike Chicago they could beat good teams in the postseason. That puts them a step ahead (and really, they have LeBron ****ing James, so there isn't much that the rest of us can do except complain).


Teams, plural? How does Cleveland get more credit for beating Toronto and Orlando than the Bulls do for beating Miami? Also, there's no logical reason why LeBron would make his team much better in the post season than he does in the regular season. It doesn't make sense that they're 18th in offense efficiency in the regular season and then he can will them to much greater heights in the regular season. He's not going to take his scoring average up from 30 PPG in the regular season to 45 PPG in the playoffs.

Look, I've explained a number of times why I think your reliance on a few playoff series and nothing more to form your opinions is extremely flawed. Unless you want to respond to those points, this discussion can't really go any further.



ehmunro said:


> If Jeremy and others had limited their statement to "teams have to be able to play defense if they want to win a title" I would have agreed. But they way over-inflated their claim to gerrymander the Bulls in to first tier title contention. You don't need an elite defense to win a title. You just need to be able to get key stops at the end of close games. Even very good defenses can and do do that. Top ten defenses have won titles before, and will win them again. San Antonio doesn't win titles because of their defense, they win them because they're one of the best teams in the NBA on both sides of the ball. People miss their offensive efficiency because they play so damned slow, but they're generally a top 5 team on both sides of the ball. _That's_ what makes them a handful. If defense were enough Cleveland would have done better against the Spurs (after all, they were the fourth best defensive squad in the NBA). But it isn't. Cleveland and Chicago were essentially the same team, below average offensive squads (Cleveland 18th, Chicago 20th) and stellar defense. The big difference between them is that one of them has LeBron and the other doesn't. Chicago didn't alter the offensive dynamic, so their struggle's going to continue. Cleveland hasn't altered theirs either, but they still have LeBron James. If they had a legit second option, the team would be frightening (for example, if Ainge hadn't overrated Jiri Welsch and traded the Czech bust to Cleveland along with #24 and #25 and Jim Paxson used one of the picks on Kevin Martin, the Cavs would have had a fighting chance against San Antonio).


You're right about San Antonio's pace but that hurts your argument that their reserves are scrubs because that deflates their numbers. 

I'm not sure anyone has stated that you must be an elite defensive team to win a championship; I haven't. I do think you probably need to be elite or close in offense _or _defense and I don't think the Celtics can manage that. 

I'm also not sure that anyone has claimed the Bulls are in the top tier of title contention. I wouldn't put them in the same tier as San Antonio, Phoenix, and Dallas. I just happen to think they have as good a shot of success as anyone in the East. 

When we're referring to what a team ranked in offensive and defensive efficiency, that's actually a pretty rough short cut because a team that ranks #2 in defense one year might be much better than a team that ranked #2 in other years. Also, a team could be #15 in offense but be a very small margin from #9 if a lot of teams are bunched up together. Listing the Bulls offense and defensive rankings doesn't sound that impressive but the margin between the two, 5.8 points, is outstanding. The Cavs by comparison were substantially worse at 4.2. There was a very strong argument to be made that the Bulls were the best team in the East heading into the playoffs and I don't believe that losing to Detroit in six games completely turns that on its head. 

Suggesting that there was only one possible way for the Bulls to improve their team is exceedingly foolish. That's never been true of any team in the history of the game. Replacing the abominable production of the front court reserves with Smith and Noah is an improvement. The further development of Thomas, Deng, Gordon, and Thabo also figures to be an improvement. The Bulls will be a better team unless one or more of their key players severely regresses and/or they suffer a devastating injury.



ehmunro said:


> There is zero chance that Jeremy, McBulls and others would be singing their praises if they were suiting up for Boston. They aren't good players, they're just effective in the roles in which they're deployed. And that's all that's needed from a bench. Not the "good starter-level players" that others here have claimed you need on the bench, because you really don't.


You act as though I've been singing the praises of Francisco Elson and Beno Udrih throughout this thread. I've spent most of the time explaining _why San Antonio can overcome unimpressive role players_ but not arguing that they have great depth. The only three San Antonio reserves I've praised in this thread are Bowen, Finley, and Barry. I don't see how you can compare anyone outside the Celtics' big three to those players, and you haven't really made a legitimate attempt to do so, you've just said that you don't think they're good. Bowen is/was arguably the best man defender on the planet. Barry has posted a PER above 15 in 5 of the last 7 seasons including a stellar 19.2 in '02-'03. He was also highly regarded enough to get the full MLE. Finley is a two time All-Star. You just can't say these things about a Kedrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo, or Eddie House.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> Nothing to add to the great analysis going on in this thread, but I'd be a lot more optimistic about the Celtic's hopes if they had a coach who emphasized defense. I don't think it's so much a problem of not having the right personnel or depth - Posey, Rondo, Perkins, and Allen are all decent defensive glue guys. I just have zero confidence that Rivers is going to stress defense or knows how to teach it.


That's what they hired Jeff van Gundy's defensive assistant for. It's also worth noting that Rivers did stress defense last year, part of their finish at #17 was their play over the back half of the season, they were a much better defensive squad by year's end then they'd started. I don't think it's fair to say that Rivers doesn't stress defense, the problem has always been that he stressed a retarded defense based on gambling for steals and turnovers (which tended to lead to lots of easy baskets). Management has finally accepted that Doc has to be forced out of this mindset, because they fired his long-time defensive assistant and hired Tom Thibodeau to take over the role (another surprisingly good decision from a front office that hadn't made a lot of them prior to this summer).



JeremyB0001 said:


> Teams, plural? How does Cleveland get more credit for beating Toronto and Orlando than the Bulls do for beating Miami? Also, there's no logical reason why LeBron would make his team much better in the post season than he does in the regular season. It doesn't make sense that they're 18th in offense efficiency in the regular season and then he can will them to much greater heights in the regular season.


Well, there was that whole matter of the Detroit series...

The Cavs have to win games the same way that Chicago does, slow the game to a crawl, make the game a defensive struggle, and hope to gut out a win in the last two minutes (the 2002 Celtics were another squad that raised this model to an artform, if Pitino hadn't been such a butthead they'd've had better personnel and had a chance to make it work). Under those circumstances it's a lot easier to win those 80-77 games when you have LeBron down the home stretch than when you're praying for Ben Gordon to step it up. Neither team really relies on firepower to win in the postseason. Against San Antonio Cleveland simply couldn't keep the games close enough for James to get them wins in the final two minutes.



JeremyB0001 said:


> You're right about San Antonio's pace but that hurts your argument that their reserves are scrubs because that deflates their numbers.


And what was it that deflated Francisco Elson's, Jacque Vaughn's, Brent Barry's, Robert Horry's, Beno Udrih's, Matt Bonner's, and Bruce Bowen's numbers for the rest of their careers? Were they just learning to play at a slow pace so that they'd be ready when their time came to play for the Spurs?



JeremyB0001 said:


> Suggesting that there was only one possible way for the Bulls to improve their team is exceedingly foolish. That's never been true of any team in the history of the game. Replacing the abominable production of the front court reserves with Smith and Noah is an improvement. The further development of Thomas, Deng, Gordon, and Thabo also figures to be an improvement. The Bulls will be a better team unless one or more of their key players severely regresses and/or they suffer a devastating injury.


The Bulls are a jumpshooting team. They remain a jumpshooting team. If you're relying on the offensively challenged Noah and Smith to significantly outperform P.J. Brown, you're in for a long wait. Backup backup wings like Thabo aren't going to have nearly the impact you're hoping for because he'd essentially be taking minutes from better players (like Deng, Gordon, Hinrich and Thomas). The team desperately needed either a primary scorer or a post scorer. They've ignored the need to date, and the dynamic simply isn't going to change by magic.



JeremyB0001 said:


> You act as though I've been singing the praises of Francisco Elson and Beno Udrih throughout this thread. I've spent most of the time explaining why San Antonio can overcome unimpressive role players but not arguing that they have great depth. The only three San Antonio reserves I've praised in this thread are Bowen, Finley, and Barry. I don't see how you can compare anyone outside the Celtics' big three to those players, and you haven't really made a legitimate attempt to do so, you've just said that you don't think they're good. Bowen is/was arguably the best man defender on the planet. Barry has posted a PER above 15 in 5 of the last 7 seasons including a stellar 19.2 in '02-'03. He was also highly regarded enough to get the full MLE. Finley is a two time All-Star. You just can't say these things about a Kedrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo, or Eddie House.


Most of them are also several knee surgeries behind Finley. Even the oldest of them is younger than San Antonio's reserves. I've heard consistently in this thread and the one that preceded it that the Celtics troika of 30 year olds will be in an old age home before the year's past, and yet the 35-40 year olds that the Spurs trot out on to the court are apparently immune from aging. Barry has never been anything but a nice roleplayer over the course of his career. That's it. James Posey is about the same thing, a nice roleplayer. God help you if you're starting him these days, but that thankfully isn't the issue here. Eddie House is instant offense off the bench, it's about the only thing he brings to the table, but he does it well. Given his skillset he actually fits well with Garnett, Pierce and Allen (outside his defense, but that's not what they signed him for). Jon Nichols' Defensive Composite Rating had Rondo ranked as the 18th best defender in the NBA, Perkins at 79th, which puts him in the top 25% of defenders. Not great, but neither is that scrub level play, especially in light of the fact that he was playing out of position and absorbing Jefferson's fouls. Those things won't be a problem this year playing alongside Garnett, as he'll move back into his more natural defensive role (cleaning up the defensive boards and guarding the post). They just aren't as bad as your optimism is misleading you to believe.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> That's what they hired Jeff van Gundy's defensive assistant for. It's also worth noting that Rivers did stress defense last year, part of their finish at #17 was their play over the back half of the season, they were a much better defensive squad by year's end then they'd started. I don't think it's fair to say that Rivers doesn't stress defense, the problem has always been that he stressed a retarded defense based on gambling for steals and turnovers (which tended to lead to lots of easy baskets). Management has finally accepted that Doc has to be forced out of this mindset, because they fired his long-time defensive assistant and hired Tom Thibodeau to take over the role (another surprisingly good decision from a front office that hadn't made a lot of them prior to this summer).


I'm not saying it can't or won't happen but it's pretty rare for an assistant coach to come in and make a large impact on a team. 



ehmunro said:


> Well, there was that whole matter of the Detroit series...


Round and round in circles we go...



ehmunro said:


> The Cavs have to win games the same way that Chicago does, slow the game to a crawl, make the game a defensive struggle, and hope to gut out a win in the last two minutes (the 2002 Celtics were another squad that raised this model to an artform, if Pitino hadn't been such a butthead they'd've had better personnel and had a chance to make it work). Under those circumstances it's a lot easier to win those 80-77 games when you have LeBron down the home stretch than when you're praying for Ben Gordon to step it up. Neither team really relies on firepower to win in the postseason. Against San Antonio Cleveland simply couldn't keep the games close enough for James to get them wins in the final two minutes.


So many of your arguments are based these truisms that are derived from conventional wisdom at best and your own personal opinion at worst. Conventional wisdom probably states that teams with superstars are better able to win close games more often than other teams. Conventional wisdom is either flat out wrong or unsubstantiated an alarmingly large amount of the time though so I don't think you can put much stock in it. When you look at this actual situation, Gordon probably actually does have a better "clutch" reputation than LeBron. LeBron isn't known for buzzer beaters. Personally, I don't believe the "clutch" factor exists and I certainly don't think it's enough to differentiate between two otherwise similar teams.



ehmunro said:


> And what was it that deflated Francisco Elson's, Jacque Vaughn's, Brent Barry's, Robert Horry's, Beno Udrih's, Matt Bonner's, and Bruce Bowen's numbers for the rest of their careers? Were they just learning to play at a slow pace so that they'd be ready when their time came to play for the Spurs?


Haha. As I noted elsewhere, Barry has excellent numbers throughout his career, Udrih has never played for another team, and I've never talked up Bowen's numbers.



ehmunro said:


> The Bulls are a jumpshooting team. They remain a jumpshooting team. If you're relying on the offensively challenged Noah and Smith to significantly outperform P.J. Brown, you're in for a long wait. Backup backup wings like Thabo aren't going to have nearly the impact you're hoping for because he'd essentially be taking minutes from better players (like Deng, Gordon, Hinrich and Thomas). The team desperately needed either a primary scorer or a post scorer. They've ignored the need to date, and the dynamic simply isn't going to change by magic.


You didn't really respond to my points at all. Do you think the Bulls can make moves other than adding a post scorer that will improve the team? If not, that's a pretty bizarre, illogical point to make so you should explain your argument. 

Starters, generally only play 35-38 minutes a game and they still count the points scored in those other minutes so how good other players are matters. Thabo doesn't need to play additional minutes, if he plays better than last year in the same number of minutes, the team will be better. Deng, Gordon, Wallace, and Kirk played somewhere around 60% of the teams minutes last season, you're telling me that what happens the other 40% of the time is irrelevant to the outcome of the game?

I suppose a lot of your argument is the conventional wisdom that a team without a post scorer can't win the post season. The more accurate way of saying that is that perimeter teams underachieve i.e. are upset in the post season. If that's true there should be a lot of examples, right? Care to provide a few? Off the top of my head, the championship Pistons team weren't upset, in fact they upset other teams. Last seasons Bulls didn't underachieve either since they lost to a lower seed.



ehmunro said:


> Most of them are also several knee surgeries behind Finley. Even the oldest of them is younger than San Antonio's reserves. I've heard consistently in this thread and the one that preceded it that the Celtics troika of 30 year olds will be in an old age home before the year's past, and yet the 35-40 year olds that the Spurs trot out on to the court are apparently immune from aging.


I conceded that Finley's best days are behind him and that Bowen's time as a great defender may have passed. Furthermore, when I talk about age, I'm doing it as a means of projecting how someone will play going forward. We're discussing last year's championship team so we know how those players performed at X age. Finley still had a higher PER that two of Boston's starters last season.



ehmunro said:


> Barry has never been anything but a nice roleplayer over the course of his career. That's it.


Oh I see. I offer several strong objective reasons that Barry is a good player (PER, large contract) but I'm wrong because you can counter that by asserting your personal opinion that he's a role player and then grind my arguments into the dirt by adding "That's it." Okay.



ehmunro said:


> James Posey is about the same thing, a nice roleplayer. God help you if you're starting him these days, but that thankfully isn't the issue here.


Posey's posted a PER over 15 once in eight seasons and Barry has done so five times in his last seven seasons. How does that make them similar players? Perhaps there's some argument to be made that Posey's edge in defense closes that gap but that really just makes him the equivalent of Bowen. The Celtics need more players to score and Barry is a phenomenal offensive player.



ehmunro said:


> Eddie House is instant offense off the bench, it's about the only thing he brings to the table, but he does it well. Given his skillset he actually fits well with Garnett, Pierce and Allen (outside his defense, but that's not what they signed him for).


Sure. You could argue he's not a whole lot worse than Barry offensively. That maybe creates the possibility that the Celtics can finish 6 or 8 in offensive efficiency. The problem is that they'll be 10 or 15 and not 2nd in defensive effeciency as the Spurs were last season. 



ehmunro said:


> Jon Nichols' Defensive Composite Rating had Rondo ranked as the 18th best defender in the NBA, Perkins at 79th, which puts him in the top 25% of defenders. Not great, but neither is that scrub level play, especially in light of the fact that he was playing out of position and absorbing Jefferson's fouls. Those things won't be a problem this year playing alongside Garnett, as he'll move back into his more natural defensive role (cleaning up the defensive boards and guarding the post). They just aren't as bad as your optimism is misleading you to believe.


It's nothing personal but I've yet to see a defensive statistic that appears to be remotely credible. A rating system that pegs Balkman as the third best defender in the NBA, Millsap as the 9th best, Nene as an elite defender, McDyess as the second best defender on the Pistons, Reggie Evans as a better defender than Camby, and Speedy Claxton as a better defender than Jason Kidd is not useful. These ratings overrate players on good defensive teams, underrate players on poor defensive teams, and rely heavily on +/- which is a horrible method of evaluating players.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Barry has never been anything but a nice roleplayer over the course of his career. That's it.


JeremyB0001 already went into this a bit, but I felt the need to add my two cents. Barry is a very efficient, top-of-the-line scorer off the bench. He was a starting-quality player from 1999 to 2004, though if not on the Spurs he probably would've still been a solid starter somewhere. Barry posted an average PER of 16.9 during those years - 16.3 if you want to remove his best, healthiest season when he started 81 games and averaged 14.4 PPG (50.8% FG, 42.4% 3PT FG%, 66.8 TS%), 5.4 RPG, 5.3 APG, and 1.8 SPG. Brent Barry may be a roleplayer now, but he's a better one than Eddie House, and was more than that in the past.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not saying it can't or won't happen but it's pretty rare for an assistant coach to come in and make a large impact on a team.


Jack Ramsey, Chuck Daly, Pat Riley, P.J. Carlesimo, Larry Bird, and Jim O'Brien all asked me to tell you "Dick Harter says hi."



JeremyB0001 said:


> So many of your arguments are based these truisms that are derived from conventional wisdom at best and your own personal opinion at worst. Conventional wisdom probably states that teams with superstars are better able to win close games more often than other teams. Conventional wisdom is either flat out wrong or unsubstantiated an alarmingly large amount of the time though so I don't think you can put much stock in it. When you look at this actual situation, Gordon probably actually does have a better "clutch" reputation than LeBron. LeBron isn't known for buzzer beaters. Personally, I don't believe the "clutch" factor exists and I certainly don't think it's enough to differentiate between two otherwise similar teams.


Are you seriously trying to tell us that having one of the three best players on the face of the planet _doesn't_ help teams win those close games? I mean, _really_? And trying to justify the long wrong truism that LeBron is a choker? I mean, _seriously_? Are you next going to tell us that the 90s Bulls would have been even more dominant if they'd just traded Jordan for some roleplayers? Here's how the game of basketball works, when you have LeBron James, and the ball is in his hands down the home stretch, the entire defense has to be keyed to stop him. If they don't, he makes them pay (ask Detroit if you have any doubts about this, 'Sheed will call you a bunch of filtered names for suggesting otherwise). This produces _lots_ of wide open shots for his teammates. Some time they even make them (see Gibson, Daniel, game 6). I don't care that you don't like it. Your views on how it should work are fairly irrelevant. Ben Gordon doesn't have that same effect on the game of basketball. You and Sloth are apparently the only people on the face of the planet that think he does. Kobe, on the other hand, has that sort of effect on a game. Dwyane Wade has that sort of effect on the game on the occasions that he's healthy (and the health factor drops him behind the big 3).




JeremyB0001 said:


> As I noted elsewhere, Barry has excellent numbers throughout his career, Udrih has never played for another team, and I've never talked up Bowen's numbers.


Barry's numbers haven't been excellent, they've been OK. If Barry's numbers are "excellent" then Dennis Johnson should have been a first ballot HoFer.



JeremyB0001 said:


> You didn't really respond to my points at all. Do you think the Bulls can make moves other than adding a post scorer that will improve the team? If not, that's a pretty bizarre, illogical point to make so you should explain your argument.


I did address it. The Bulls have one glaring weakness, they didn't address that glaring weakness. That glaring weakness is pretty much a fatal flaw, once those jumpers stop falling the Bulls get buried quickly. And jumpshooters always go cold eventually. Trying to squeeze another ounce of defensive improvement out of the squad isn't going to compensate for that glaring weakness.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Starters, generally only play 35-38 minutes a game and they still count the points scored in those other minutes so how good other players are matters. Thabo doesn't need to play additional minutes, if he plays better than last year in the same number of minutes, the team will be better. Deng, Gordon, Wallace, and Kirk played somewhere around 60% of the teams minutes last season, you're telling me that what happens the other 40% of the time is irrelevant to the outcome of the game?


I'm sorry, where did Paxson plug the hole in the Bull's horrific offense? I just don't see anything there in that gap.



JeremyB0001 said:


> I suppose a lot of your argument is the conventional wisdom that a team without a post scorer can't win the post season. The more accurate way of saying that is that perimeter teams underachieve i.e. are upset in the post season. If that's true there should be a lot of examples, right? Care to provide a few? Off the top of my head, the championship Pistons team weren't upset, in fact they upset other teams. Last seasons Bulls didn't underachieve either since they lost to a lower seed.


I'm sorry, is Kobe a "post scorer"? Or is he a slasher that forces defenses to key on him producing lots of open shots for his teammates? Here's the deal, the Bulls have no one that either forces defenders to stay in the lane (creating space for the shooters) or whose slashing forces defenses to key on them (creating better scoring opportunities for his teammates). You can dance like a hobo after a jug of Thunderbird all you want and at the end of the day what the Bulls have is a team of jumpshooters. You can stop with the "Why you and your conventional wisdom are morons compared to me" schtick because the proof is in the pudding. Two years ago the (then healthy) Heat simply waited for the shooters to go cold and blew the Bulls off the court. The Pistons did the same thing last year whenever they wanted. You need to either keep the big men from rotating out to challenge the shooters (without fear of getting burned) or a slasher that defenses have to key on. 



JeremyB0001 said:


> Oh I see. I offer several strong objective reasons that Barry is a good player (PER, large contract) but I'm wrong because you can counter that by asserting your personal opinion that he's a role player and then grind my arguments into the dirt by adding "That's it." Okay.


He is a roleplayer. He's a "less is more" kind of guy. Always has been. Have a look if you don't believe me. He's that jack of all trades master of none kind of player. Useful to have coming off a bench. He's not a "starter level talent". He's an aging roleplayer.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Posey's posted a PER over 15 once in eight seasons and Barry has done so five times in his last seven seasons. How does that make them similar players? Perhaps there's some argument to be made that Posey's edge in defense closes that gap but that really just makes him the equivalent of Bowen. The Celtics need more players to score and Barry is a phenomenal offensive player.


Brent Barry has _never_ been a "phenomenal" offensive player. Not ever. Not even in his best NBA season. As Posey's been, primarily, a defensive roleplayer for his career, he does less stat padding, and is going to have a lower PER. Are you going to tell us now that Bruce Bowen, in his prime, sucked because his PER never so much as cracked double digits? I mean, obviously if he were suiting up for Boston you would, since you're saying that about Posey whose career PER is about 60% higher than Bowen's. 




JeremyB0001 said:


> You could argue he's not a whole lot worse than Barry offensively. That maybe creates the possibility that the Celtics can finish 6 or 8 in offensive efficiency. The problem is that they'll be 10 or 15 and not 2nd in defensive effeciency as the Spurs were last season.


Are you seriously telling us that the Celtics would need to be a top 5 team on both sides of the ball to be the third or fourth best team in the Eastern Conference? I mean, _seriously_?



JeremyB0001 said:


> It's nothing personal but I've yet to see a defensive statistic that appears to be remotely credible. A rating system that pegs Balkman as the third best defender in the NBA, Millsap as the 9th best, Nene as an elite defender, McDyess as the second best defender on the Pistons, Reggie Evans as a better defender than Camby, and Speedy Claxton as a better defender than Jason Kidd is not useful. These ratings overrate players on good defensive teams, underrate players on poor defensive teams, and rely heavily on +/- which is a horrible method of evaluating players.


Well, as a _below average_ defensive team, wouldn't Rondo and Perkins be _underrated_ by this claim? Balkman too, for that matter (and all three are pretty good defensive players, for the record). Also, I'm one of those that think Camby is overrated, he gets to sit in the lane because the more mobil Nene handles all the perimeter chores. So he gets to fatten the blocked shot and rebound lines that everyone oohs and ahs over. Perkins will get a similar benefit playing with Garnett, and Celtics fans will have an orgasm over him, and he'll be terribly overrated as well.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Here's how the game of basketball works, when you have LeBron James, and the ball is in his hands down the home stretch, the entire defense has to be keyed to stop him. If they don't, he makes them pay (ask Detroit if you have any doubts about this, 'Sheed will call you a bunch of filtered names for suggesting otherwise). This produces _lots_ of wide open shots for his teammates.


Always good to hear from someone who knows how the game of basketball works. We were wondering when someone like you would come along to explain it to us.

Just one question. How did a team full of superstars lose so many games in the 2004 Olympics? Maybe they don't play basketball in the Olympics. But I'm sure you can explain this to those of us who are puzzled by the difficulties that teams of NBA superstars seem to have when they play teams like Puerto Rico, Greece, Argentina and the little sisters of the poor.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Jack Ramsey, Chuck Daly, Pat Riley, P.J. Carlesimo, Larry Bird, and Jim O'Brien all asked me to tell you "Dick Harter says hi."


This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you're caught up in conventional wisdom and your own personal opinions and not reality. Harter joined Pacers staff in '86 and their defensive efficiency went from 7th the season before he got there to 7th to 14th to 23rd. He rejoined the Pacers under Bird in '97 under Bird and the team's defensive efficiency went from 12th before he got there to 5th to 23rd to 13th. With the Pistons it went from 11th the season before he got there to 14th to 16th to 9th to 15th. The guys got a great reputation but that doesn't change the fact that he hasn't come in and made vast improvements in teams' defensive success. 



ehmunro said:


> Are you seriously trying to tell us that having one of the three best players on the face of the planet _doesn't_ help teams win those close games? I mean, _really_? And trying to justify the long wrong truism that LeBron is a choker? I mean, _seriously_? Are you next going to tell us that the 90s Bulls would have been even more dominant if they'd just traded Jordan for some roleplayers? Here's how the game of basketball works, when you have LeBron James, and the ball is in his hands down the home stretch, the entire defense has to be keyed to stop him. If they don't, he makes them pay (ask Detroit if you have any doubts about this, 'Sheed will call you a bunch of filtered names for suggesting otherwise). This produces _lots_ of wide open shots for his teammates. Some time they even make them (see Gibson, Daniel, game 6). I don't care that you don't like it. Your views on how it should work are fairly irrelevant. Ben Gordon doesn't have that same effect on the game of basketball. You and Sloth are apparently the only people on the face of the planet that think he does. Kobe, on the other hand, has that sort of effect on a game. Dwyane Wade has that sort of effect on the game on the occasions that he's healthy (and the health factor drops him behind the big 3).


Wow. I think LeBron is a "choker"? I think it'd be hard to put words in my mouth much more than that. Want to point to the part of my post where I said or even hinted at that? 

LeBron's "clutch" stats on 82 games are pretty similar to Gordon's for the past few seasons. Their shot attempts and hence their points go up with their FG% remaining pretty similar to their FG% on the season, especially when you consider that the sample size is probably very small. Gordon's FG% takes a big hit in the most recent season but that's probably a sample size fluke or just an off year since his FG% actually goes up quite a bit in "the clutch" in his other seasons. 

Great players absolutely have an effect on the game but they affect the game _the entire time they're playing_. There's no reason that they're helpless to let they're team go up by more than 5 points for 46 minutes and then suddenly become 100x the superstar they already are and will their team to victory. My views on "how things work" seem to be supported not only by sound logic but by objective evidence. What supports your views? 



ehmunro said:


> Barry's numbers haven't been excellent, they've been OK. If Barry's numbers are "excellent" then Dennis Johnson should have been a first ballot HoFer.


I guess that depends in what context you're talking about. He's been an above average starter in a lot of those seasons so they're certainly excellent for a bench player. For the sake of this discussing, it doesn't really matter how you or I want to label his performance. What matters is how he stacks up against the Celtics players outside the big three and he has a much more impressive resume than they do.



ehmunro said:


> I did address it. The Bulls have one glaring weakness, they didn't address that glaring weakness. That glaring weakness is pretty much a fatal flaw, once those jumpers stop falling the Bulls get buried quickly. And jumpshooters always go cold eventually. Trying to squeeze another ounce of defensive improvement out of the squad isn't going to compensate for that glaring weakness.


The improvement I'm discussing is not just defensive but do you disagree that if the Bulls allow opponents to score less next season that will make them a better team? Because again, that would be a bizarre, illogical argument. Regardless, I've mentioned that some of the players already on the roster will likely improve offensively and how replacing the offensive ineptitude of Sweetney, Brown, and Allen will make the team better, so clearly the improvement I'm talking about is not entirely defensive.



ehmunro said:


> I'm sorry, where did Paxson plug the hole in the Bull's horrific offense? I just don't see anything there in that gap.


Here you seem to be back to suggesting that if the Bulls score more points and/or allow more points that won't make them a better team unless the improvement in offense comes purely from post offense. Again, that's borderline psychotic.



ehmunro said:


> I'm sorry, is Kobe a "post scorer"? Or is he a slasher that forces defenses to key on him producing lots of open shots for his teammates? Here's the deal, the Bulls have no one that either forces defenders to stay in the lane (creating space for the shooters) or whose slashing forces defenses to key on them (creating better scoring opportunities for his teammates). You can dance like a hobo after a jug of Thunderbird all you want and at the end of the day what the Bulls have is a team of jumpshooters. You can stop with the "Why you and your conventional wisdom are morons compared to me" schtick because the proof is in the pudding. Two years ago the (then healthy) Heat simply waited for the shooters to go cold and blew the Bulls off the court. The Pistons did the same thing last year whenever they wanted. You need to either keep the big men from rotating out to challenge the shooters (without fear of getting burned) or a slasher that defenses have to key on.


I'll repeat myself: your argument appears to be that successful teams without a post scorer underachieve i.e. are upset in the playoffs. Please clarify how your argument is different or provide some examples to support your argument. 



ehmunro said:


> He is a roleplayer. He's a "less is more" kind of guy. Always has been. Have a look if you don't believe me. He's that jack of all trades master of none kind of player. Useful to have coming off a bench. He's not a "starter level talent". He's an aging roleplayer.


There are a lot of starters in the NBA with scoring as their one main skill and people very rarely refer to them as role players. Not only _has he started_ on teams in the past and received a large contract, his PER is consistently above average and is outstanding in many years. That all suggests that he's an outstanding sixth man at the worst. Just telling me to look at his stats doesn't really mean much, I've obviously looked at them already.



ehmunro said:


> Brent Barry has _never_ been a "phenomenal" offensive player. Not ever. Not even in his best NBA season. As Posey's been, primarily, a defensive roleplayer for his career, he does less stat padding, and is going to have a lower PER. Are you going to tell us now that Bruce Bowen, in his prime, sucked because his PER never so much as cracked double digits? I mean, obviously if he were suiting up for Boston you would, since you're saying that about Posey whose career PER is about 60% higher than Bowen's.


I think you're ignoring Barry's offensive efficiency. He's led the league in TS% multiple times. Posey is probably 70% of the defender Bowen was in his prime. Also, the argument isn't just about the overall value of the player, it's about fit. I'm concerned that outside of KG the Celtics don't really have anyone on the roster who plays well on both sides of the ball.



ehmunro said:


> Are you seriously telling us that the Celtics would need to be a top 5 team on both sides of the ball to be the third or fourth best team in the Eastern Conference? I mean, _seriously_?


Absolutely not. I think the Celtics should be considered at least the 4th best team in the East going into the season. I think they'd need to be in the top 5 or 7 of both categories to win the East if they're not in the top 2 or 3 in either category and I don't think that will happen.



ehmunro said:


> Well, as a _below average_ defensive team, wouldn't Rondo and Perkins be _underrated_ by this claim? Balkman too, for that matter (and all three are pretty good defensive players, for the record). Also, I'm one of those that think Camby is overrated, he gets to sit in the lane because the more mobil Nene handles all the perimeter chores. So he gets to fatten the blocked shot and rebound lines that everyone oohs and ahs over. Perkins will get a similar benefit playing with Garnett, and Celtics fans will have an orgasm over him, and he'll be terribly overrated as well.


Are you actually arguing that all of the absurd examples I posted are accurate? I mean, if so I guess I can dig up more but most people would agree that those examples make the rating devoid of all credibility. My criticisms were general ones by the way. If they were true in every instance then it'd just be a case of making a few tweaks to the ratings and they'd be accurate; I don't think that's the case.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

McBulls said:


> Just one question. How did a team full of superstars lose so many games in the 2004 Olympics? Maybe they don't play basketball in the Olympics. But I'm sure you can explain this to those of us who are puzzled by the difficulties that teams of NBA superstars seem to have when they play teams like Puerto Rico, Greece, Argentina and the little sisters of the poor.


Because FIBA ball is designed for teams like the Bulls, those games _are_ all about the jumper (closer three point line, trapezoidal lane to keep post players 18' from the hoop, full zones), and the US Team didn't bring enough shooters. It's not like people didn't observe the difficulty at the time.



JeremyB0001 said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you're caught up in conventional wisdom and your own personal opinions and not reality. Harter joined Pacers staff in '86 and their defensive efficiency went from 7th the season before he got there to 7th to 14th to 23rd. He rejoined the Pacers under Bird in '97 under Bird and the team's defensive efficiency went from 12th before he got there to 5th to 23rd to 13th. With the Pistons it went from 11th the season before he got there to 14th to 16th to 9th to 15th. The guys got a great reputation but that doesn't change the fact that he hasn't come in and made vast improvements in teams' defensive success


New York Knicks
1990-91 107.3
1991-92 103.8
1992-93 99.3 (league average 108)
1993-94 97.6 (league average 106.3)

Indiana Pacers
1996-97 104.7
1997-98 101.5

Boston Celtics
2000-01 103.6
2001-02 100.9

Yeah, that Dick Harter, totally overrated. [edit - you made your point without the extra stuff -vf] 



JeremyB0001 said:


> Great players absolutely have an effect on the game but they affect the game the entire time they're playing. There's no reason that they're helpless to let they're team go up by more than 5 points for 46 minutes and then suddenly become 100x the superstar they already are and will their team to victory.


Are you really trying to tell us that teams don't work extra hard for key defensive stops at the end of close games? I mean _really_? Were you _not_ a heavy basketball watcher during the 90s or are you just not old enough to really remember those Bulls teams? I guess that basketball coaches are just limited by their idiotic "conventional wisdom". If you're in close game in the closing minutes, winning becomes a whole lot easier when you have Duncan, Bryant or James. Not so easy when your primary option doesn't get to the rim (producing fouls and free throws) or doesn't command a doubleteam in the post.



JeremyB0001 said:


> The improvement I'm discussing is not just defensive but do you disagree that if the Bulls allow opponents to score less next season that will make them a better team? Because again, that would be a bizarre, illogical argument. Regardless, I've mentioned that some of the players already on the roster will likely improve offensively and how replacing the offensive ineptitude of Sweetney, Brown, and Allen will make the team better, so clearly the improvement I'm talking about is not entirely defensive.


In economics terms there's this concept called diminishing returns, when you're already at 98% peak efficiency in one area, and at about 30% peak efficiency in another, pouring money into a marginal improvement in your strength is a waste of resources. Put another way, when you already have the best defense and one of the worst offenses, trying to improve your defense just doesn't help a lot. Strict enforcement of the handchecking rules is here to stay (at least for the moment), and the 2004 Pistons model of tackle basketball just isn't viable at the moment. The team has a glaring weakness, one that's proved fatal two years running. It won't magically disappear, no matter how loudly you shout. In this case, idiotic "conventional wisdom" seems to be right, if you don't address a weakness, it tends to remain a weakness.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Here you seem to be back to suggesting that if the Bulls score more points and/or allow more points that won't make them a better team unless the improvement in offense comes purely from post offense. Again, that's borderline psychotic.


Can you show support, within the current rules, for your claim that a team of jumpshooters can win a title outside FIBA rules? Dallas got blown off the court by the Heat the minute they stopped attacking the rim. So even they don't support your claim. The fact is, jumpshooters always go cold eventually, when they do they get buried quickly. Believe me, we in Boston saw it repeatedly in 2002 & 2003 (Jim O'Brien's Celtics were basically the same team, albeit they had a slasher in Pierce to help, but they were essentially a jumpshooting team, and when the jumpers stopped falling they died quickly). Give them Bryant and the dynamic changes. But right now they're praying that the shooters don't go cold. They will. They always do.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Are you actually arguing that all of the absurd examples I posted are accurate? I mean, if so I guess I can dig up more but most people would agree that those examples make the rating devoid of all credibility. My criticisms were general ones by the way. If they were true in every instance then it'd just be a case of making a few tweaks to the ratings and they'd be accurate; I don't think that's the case.


Actually, I simply pointed out that your claims were mutually contradictory, you essentially claimed that Perkins, Rondo and Balkman were overrated by DCS because the methodology would naturally overrate players on good defensive squads. Except that none of those three players were on good defensive squads. If you'd given it some thought you might have seen the actual weaknesses, but you didn't. It does reflect some things correctly, Nene absolutely has a bigger defensive effect than Camby. For example, if you paired Camby with Al Jefferson, he'd look awful. Nene's defensive ability allowed Marcus to just do those things that he actually does well. Just like Rasheed made Ben a better defender and just as Garnett will allow Perkins to just do those things that he actually does well. And the fact remains that Rondo, Balkman, and Perkins are still pretty good defensive players.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I suppose a lot of your argument is the conventional wisdom that a team without a post scorer can't win the post season. The more accurate way of saying that is that perimeter teams underachieve i.e. are upset in the post season. If that's true there should be a lot of examples, right? Care to provide a few? Off the top of my head, the championship Pistons team weren't upset, in fact they upset other teams. Last seasons Bulls didn't underachieve either since they lost to a lower seed.



I just wanted to chime in and disagree with your pointing out the Pistons as a team without post scoring. Rasheed Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, and Chauncey Billups all can score in the post.

I'm also not sure how you can argue against the reality that is a very very important factor in winning in the playoffs. Last year's final 4 teams, with maybe the exception of the Cavs had post scoring to at least some extent(pistons, cavs, spurs, jazz). Last year, it was only 2 out of the final 4(heat, pistons, mavs, suns), but still, year before that, 4 for 4(heat, pistons, spurs, suns).

Teams need a player or players who they can isolate when the set offense is struggling who can get himself close range high percentage shots, which then opens things up for the rest of the team. This doesn't necessarily need to be a post player, especially with today's defensive rules, but history seems to show that the post is the most proven way of going about it.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> I just wanted to chime in and disagree with your pointing out the Pistons as a team without post scoring. Rasheed Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, and Chauncey Billups all can score in the post.
> 
> I'm also not sure how you can argue against the reality that is a very very important factor in winning in the playoffs. Last year's final 4 teams, with maybe the exception of the Cavs had post scoring to at least some extent(pistons, cavs, spurs, jazz). Last year, it was only 2 out of the final 4(heat, pistons, mavs, suns), but still, year before that, 4 for 4(heat, pistons, spurs, suns).
> 
> Teams need a player or players who they can isolate when the set offense is struggling who can get himself close range high percentage shots, which then opens things up for the rest of the team. This doesn't necessarily need to be a post player, especially with today's defensive rules, but history seems to show that the post is the most proven way of going about it.


I tend to think an effective slasher is enough, the added fouls themselves have an effect (I always hated the Hack-a-Shaq strategy for just that reason, teams got so caught up in fouling Shaq that they went into the penalty sooner and ended up surrendering an extra dozen free throws or so a game). If Chicago had anyone that could get to the rim at will, it would be a different matter. But as of now I just can't see the jumper approach bearing fruit.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I'm also not sure how you can argue against the reality that is a very very important factor in winning in the playoffs.


Eddy Curry


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Eddy Curry


What about him?


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Babble-On said:


> I just wanted to chime in and disagree with your pointing out the Pistons as a team without post scoring. Rasheed Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, and Chauncey Billups all can score in the post.
> 
> I'm also not sure how you can argue against the reality that is a very very important factor in winning in the playoffs. Last year's final 4 teams, with maybe the exception of the Cavs had post scoring to at least some extent(pistons, cavs, spurs, jazz). Last year, it was only 2 out of the final 4(heat, pistons, mavs, suns), but still, year before that, 4 for 4(heat, pistons, spurs, suns).
> 
> Teams need a player or players who they can isolate when the set offense is struggling who can get himself close range high percentage shots, which then opens things up for the rest of the team. This doesn't necessarily need to be a post player, especially with today's defensive rules, but history seems to show that the post is the most proven way of going about it.


Perhaps the Bulls won't have much back to the basket post scoring this year but I think our points in the paint will be greatly improved. All Tyrus Thomas does is attack the rim and get to the line and hopefully he'll have some sort of jump shot this season. I also think people are underrating Noah. He won't have any post moves but he's faster than most of the bigs in the league. I think he's capable of putting up some points through some Amare or Howard type attacking the basket moves. Not to mention that PJ was replaced by J Smith. There is no overstating how dreadful PJ was last year. The man had a PER of 9.7. I think our attack will be more balanced this coming season although it will still be perimiter oriented.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Eddy Curry


Wow you're just gettin' wit it now.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Eddy Curry


See y'all later. I'm not in the mood for K4E psychotherapy.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> New York Knicks
> 1990-91 107.3
> 1991-92 103.8
> 1992-93 99.3 (league average 108)
> ...


I'm on the verge of frustration over your tendency to misstate my arguments and then make fun of them and I refuse to become frustrated over things that happen on a message board, so if you want to continue this discussion, try to stop. At no point did I say conventional wisdom is stupid or _always_ wrong, nor did I say assistant coaches never make a large impact on teams (I used the word "rare"), or suggest that assistant coaches don't have any impact on teams (I used the phrase "large impact"). Those are something like a third of his assistant coaching stints and he's just one independent coach so I don't really think those numbers weaken my argument much. My comments about your reliance on conventional wisdom was more in response to your "Dick Harter says hi" comment which suggested that he always or usually transforms a team's defense which is obviously not the case.



ehmunro said:


> Are you really trying to tell us that teams don't work extra hard for key defensive stops at the end of close games? I mean _really_? Were you _not_ a heavy basketball watcher during the 90s or are you just not old enough to really remember those Bulls teams? I guess that basketball coaches are just limited by their idiotic "conventional wisdom". If you're in close game in the closing minutes, winning becomes a whole lot easier when you have Duncan, Bryant or James. Not so easy when your primary option doesn't get to the rim (producing fouls and free throws) or doesn't command a doubleteam in the post.


I generally think that most teams play hard at close to maximum energy all game long but that's obviously not true in all cases. Kobe seems to guard the opposing team's defense often and we've already discussed in this thread how it seems that some of the Shaq teams played much harder on defense in the playoffs. The Bulls played defense hard all game long or they wouldn't have been an elite defensive team.

Let's clarify where we are one more time: we both agree that LeBron is going to score more in the "clutch" and hit more buzzer beaters than Gordon because he's a much better player than Gordon. My point is that this is also true in the other 43 minutes of the game and despite all of this, the Cavs only finished a couple of spots better than the Bulls in offensive efficiency. In light of that, I also agree that if teams play better defense down the stretch, LeBron will score against it more often. What I don't agree with is the notion that LeBron's offense is affected less by good defense than other players. What you're essentially arguing is that if Bron is going off with a poor defender on him and you bring in your defensive ace to guard him, it won't affect him or at least it won't affect him very much. Again, that just doesn't make logical sense to me because superstars are not actually supermen. LeBron, Kobe, Wade, and the rest have off nights too. There's a reason they don't score 60 PPG on 80% shooting. The only numbers we've looked at support this since the Bulls apparently did better in close games than the Cavs last season.



ehmunro said:


> In economics terms there's this concept called diminishing returns, when you're already at 98% peak efficiency in one area, and at about 30% peak efficiency in another, pouring money into a marginal improvement in your strength is a waste of resources. Put another way, when you already have the best defense and one of the worst offenses, trying to improve your defense just doesn't help a lot. Strict enforcement of the handchecking rules is here to stay (at least for the moment), and the 2004 Pistons model of tackle basketball just isn't viable at the moment. The team has a glaring weakness, one that's proved fatal two years running. It won't magically disappear, no matter how loudly you shout. In this case, idiotic "conventional wisdom" seems to be right, if you don't address a weakness, it tends to remain a weakness.


Sure, but a slight or moderate improvement in defense still makes the team better, right? Before you seemed to be denying that it would have any substantial impact and I think that if improved defense makes the team a couple games better that's a big deal. Also, you're still ignoring my argument that replacing three terrible offensive players who played a lot of minutes with players who play decent defense significantly improves the offense.



ehmunro said:


> Can you show support, within the current rules, for your claim that a team of jumpshooters can win a title outside FIBA rules? Dallas got blown off the court by the Heat the minute they stopped attacking the rim. So even they don't support your claim. The fact is, jumpshooters always go cold eventually, when they do they get buried quickly. Believe me, we in Boston saw it repeatedly in 2002 & 2003 (Jim O'Brien's Celtics were basically the same team, albeit they had a slasher in Pierce to help, but they were essentially a jumpshooting team, and when the jumpers stopped falling they died quickly). Give them Bryant and the dynamic changes. But right now they're praying that the shooters don't go cold. They will. They always do.


It doesn't sound like you actually want me to name examples, you're just trying to argue that because a team without a back to the basket scorer hasn't won a title in the past three seasons then it's not possible under the current rules. I find that pretty crazy. Three seasons isn't a big enough sample size to come to any conclusion. I don't really think the rule changes make a difference since quick perimeter players are supposedly the ones who benefit the most from the hand check rules. If you'd like to use the last two Dallas teams as examples of perimeter teams who underachieved, we can discuss that. I don't think the '05-'06 team is a good example. They made it to the finals and beat one team with a much better record than they had (and a true post scorer) to get there. Also, Dirk seemed to do a lot of back to the basket scoring in those playoffs. This past season might be a pretty solid example though the fact that they lost to a team who also didn't have a post scorer doesn't help.



ehmunro said:


> Actually, I simply pointed out that your claims were mutually contradictory, you essentially claimed that Perkins, Rondo and Balkman were overrated by DCS because the methodology would naturally overrate players on good defensive squads. Except that none of those three players were on good defensive squads. If you'd given it some thought you might have seen the actual weaknesses, but you didn't. It does reflect some things correctly, Nene absolutely has a bigger defensive effect than Camby. For example, if you paired Camby with Al Jefferson, he'd look awful. Nene's defensive ability allowed Marcus to just do those things that he actually does well. Just like Rasheed made Ben a better defender and just as Garnett will allow Perkins to just do those things that he actually does well. And the fact remains that Rondo, Balkman, and Perkins are still pretty good defensive players.


Again, your comments about me and my thought process or the quality of my argument is unnecessary and obnoxious. Maybe I should have phrased my sentence better but what I meant was that it often overrates players on good teams and underrates players on bad defensive teams. As I've already said, if it always did that a couple small tweaks would make it a flawless tool and that's clearly not the case. Very few people would agree about Nene and if a statistic doesn't pass most peoples' BS detector, it's not going to be given much credibility. I'm all about using numbers to uncover inaccuracies in conventional wisdom but when you have numerous examples that seem way out of whack to fans, analysts, coaches, etc. then the problem is probably with the metric and not the prevailing thought.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Babble-On said:


> I just wanted to chime in and disagree with your pointing out the Pistons as a team without post scoring. Rasheed Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, and Chauncey Billups all can score in the post.
> 
> I'm also not sure how you can argue against the reality that is a very very important factor in winning in the playoffs. Last year's final 4 teams, with maybe the exception of the Cavs had post scoring to at least some extent(pistons, cavs, spurs, jazz). Last year, it was only 2 out of the final 4(heat, pistons, mavs, suns), but still, year before that, 4 for 4(heat, pistons, spurs, suns).
> 
> Teams need a player or players who they can isolate when the set offense is struggling who can get himself close range high percentage shots, which then opens things up for the rest of the team. This doesn't necessarily need to be a post player, especially with today's defensive rules, but history seems to show that the post is the most proven way of going about it.


I don't think anyone can call Wallace, Prince, or Billups back to the basket scorers with a straight face. According to 82games, Billups and Wallace both took over 80% of their shots from outside last season and nearly 60% of Prince's shots were jumpers. I'm not sure why you think using the word "reality" makes something true. If you're using Ilgauskus and Tayshaun Prince as the support for your argument that teams need a strong post presence to succeed in the post season, you're fighting a losing battle. Much better post players were sitting at home. Again, arguing that perimeter oriented teams can't win in the playoffs because they failed to upset better teams is an invalid argument. That the teams with the best records happened to do well in the playoffs doesn't really prove much. If you want to argue that a team like the Bulls won't post a good win total next season then we can have a more substantive discussion.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't think anyone can call Wallace, Prince, or Billups back to the basket scorers with a straight face. According to 82games, Billups and Wallace both took over 80% of their shots from outside last season and nearly 60% of Prince's shots were jumpers.


All three of the players *can* post up better than their Bulls counterparts, no? Also, there % of jumpers was lower in the past (e.g. 04-05 playoffs) when they did better. (Question: how does 82games define a close shot?)


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> All three of the players *can* post up better than their Bulls counterparts, no? Also, there % of jumpers was lower in the past (e.g. 04-05 playoffs) when they did better. (Question: how does 82games define a close shot?)


Hmm. I'm not sure how much better those guys post up than Smith or maybe even Tyrus. I guess a big part of the issue is how well they can post up compared to how often they actually do it. Sheed for instance might be capable of an excellent post game but that doesn't change the fact that he virtually never does it. If people are saying the Bulls lack of a post scorer is making it extremely difficult for them to win then it seems like being able to go to that type of player 3 or 4 possessions a player isn't enough.

I can't find anything on the 82games website that explains their methodology for those measurements. The way their written ("Tips" v. "Dunk," "Jump") implies the numbers are based on more than just the distance from the basket. Your comment about the 04-05 playoffs is just an observation and not some type of measurement, right?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Hmm. I'm not sure how much better those guys post up than Smith or maybe even Tyrus. I guess a big part of the issue is how well they can post up compared to how often they actually do it. Sheed for instance might be capable of an excellent post game but that doesn't change the fact that he virtually never does it. If people are saying the Bulls lack of a post scorer is making it extremely difficult for them to win then it seems like being able to go to that type of player 3 or 4 possessions a player isn't enough.


While it is true that the Pistons' players who can post don't do it a great deal, the fact that they can go down in the post and score if needed is big. How big would it have helped against the Pistons in games three and six where the offense totally wilted away under the Pistons' half court D, if they had a guy or guys they could isolate on the post and get a high percentage shot at the basket during those tight stretches? On the other end of the court, how big was it when Prince totally owned Deng on his postups, especially in game 3?

You don't there'd be a great deal of value in being able to guy to someone who can create close range high percentage shots for himself during the Bulls' fairly frequent stretches where they can barely get off a decent shot at the hoop, much less score.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Babble-On said:


> While it is true that the Pistons' players who can post don't do it a great deal, the fact that they can go down in the post and score if needed is big. How big would it have helped against the Pistons in games three and six where the offense totally wilted away under the Pistons' half court D, if they had a guy or guys they could isolate on the post and get a high percentage shot at the basket during those tight stretches? On the other end of the court, how big was it when Prince totally owned Deng on his postups, especially in game 3?
> 
> You don't there'd be a great deal of value in being able to guy to someone who can create close range high percentage shots for himself during the Bulls' fairly frequent stretches where they can barely get off a decent shot at the hoop, much less score.


I think there'd be a great deal of value brining someone to the Bulls who actually does create close range high percentage shots with frequency. I just have trouble with this theory that the Pistons have players who can score very well in that manner but choose to do so only in the rare instances where it's absolutely crucial. If you have a way of getting high percentage shots, why only attempt it a couple times a game? Surely there must've been times in their close losses in the playoffs where the offense was sputtering a bit and they could've really used a basket. What happened there? It's not really accurate to deal in one game sample sizes. We could just as easily point to the two games against Cleveland where Prince shot 0 of 8 and 1 for 11 in two very close games. If you're struggling on offense and it's a close game, why not create a high percentage shot for yourself?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I think there'd be a great deal of value brining someone to the Bulls who actually does create close range high percentage shots with frequency. I just have trouble with this theory that the Pistons have players who can score very well in that manner but choose to do so only in the rare instances where it's absolutely crucial. If you have a way of getting high percentage shots, why only attempt it a couple times a game? Surely there must've been times in their close losses in the playoffs where the offense was sputtering a bit and they could've really used a basket. What happened there? It's not really accurate to deal in one game sample sizes. We could just as easily point to the two games against Cleveland where Prince shot 0 of 8 and 1 for 11 in two very close games. If you're struggling on offense and it's a close game, why not create a high percentage shot for yourself?


I can't rationalize why they don't do it that often. Idiocy? Wallace for instance, choses to be a mediocre jump shooter most of the time, but when he goes to the post, he's dangerous, and I don't think you can argue that if watch him play regardless of what the stats say. Thats why I've disagreed with those who have called him a great player because he chooses not to utilize his skills in a way that would most help his team. I also can't rationalize why Prince wasn't isolated on the post against the Cavs like he was against us, but the fact is, in those games they didn't go to him in the post like they did against the Bulls from what I saw watching those games.

I will, however, acknowledge that if the Pistons tried posting up Billups or Prince 15-20 times a game, they wouldn't be dominant post players, and they probably wouldn't be able to maintain the same success they have when its simply used as an extra weapon in the arsenal. However, I'll still maintain that having that as an option is very valuable.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Hmm. I'm not sure how much better those guys post up than Smith or maybe even Tyrus. I guess a big part of the issue is how well they can post up compared to how often they actually do it. * Sheed for instance might be capable of an excellent post game but that doesn't change the fact that he virtually never does it.* If people are saying the Bulls lack of a post scorer is making it extremely difficult for them to win then it seems like being able to go to that type of player 3 or 4 possessions a player isn't enough.


While he should do it much more, Rashaad Wallace's ability to post up is ALL-NBA. He did it enough to help them win. Much o the time, he posted 12 feet out which result often in a high-percent turnaround jumpers. This is why I asked the question about what Close is verses a Jumper. That's roughly where Billips would be to. If that's a jumper on 82games than their stats are not going to help you much on this topic.

Tyrus and Smith? Seems like wishful thinking.

I would agree that Pistons isn't the bar I would set as a GM for a great post game. Given they had 3 players more effective than anyone we have is a cause for concern.



JeremyB0001 said:


> I can't find anything on the 82games website that explains their methodology for those measurements. The way their written ("Tips" v. "Dunk," "Jump") implies the numbers are based on more than just the distance from the basket. Your comment about the 04-05 playoffs is just an observation and not some type of measurement, right?


No, the 04-05 playoff stats are available on 82games. All three Pistons had significantly higher non-jumper % than in 06-07. (25% for Billips and Wallace, 40% for Prince if I recall correctly)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Wallace for instance, choses to be a mediocre jump shooter most of the time, but when he goes to the post, he's dangerous, and I don't think you can argue that if watch him play regardless of what the stats say.


co-sign. Wish I had read your post before I wrote my last one. Would have saved some typing.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> While he should do it much more, Rashaad Wallace's ability to post up is ALL-NBA. He did it enough to help them win. Much o the time, he posted 12 feet out which result often in a high-percent turnaround jumpers. This is why I asked the question about what Close is verses a Jumper. That's roughly where Billips would be to. If that's a jumper on 82games than their stats are not going to help you much on this topic.


Yeah, I mean I definitely agree that he has the ability to do so. I remember one of the first plays of I want to say game two against us, he got the ball and just exploded to the basket and dunked the ball. It was really startling. It's stunning that a player with the ability to do that sits around and shoots three pointers all game long.

I don't have much of a recollection of the Pistons championship run but I'm wondering how post moves from 12 feet out would be all that valuable. Unless you're Jordan it wouldn't seem like you'd be able to get a high percentage shot or draw a double team at that distance.



johnston797 said:


> No, the 04-05 playoff stats are available on 82games. All three Pistons had significantly higher non-jumper % than in 06-07. (25% for Billips and Wallace, 40% for Prince if I recall correctly)


Very interesting. I'll have to check those out.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't have much of a recollection of the Pistons championship run but I'm wondering how post moves from 12 feet out would be all that valuable. Unless you're Jordan it wouldn't seem like you'd be able to get a high percentage shot or draw a double team at that distance.


When you're Rasheed Wallace and you have the wingspan of a giant (creating an impossibly high release point) and a remarkably soft touch on your turnaround jumper, it's a pretty high percentage shot. Any time he gets the ball on a post-up from within 12-15 feet and has enough space to pivot, he can get a good look.

as others have said, it's simply baffling that this isn't a bigger part of his (or the Pistons') offensive approach. He's almost unstoppable on the block when he decides he wants to score.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

ViciousFlogging said:


> When you're Rasheed Wallace and you have the wingspan of a giant (creating an impossibly high release point) and a remarkably soft touch on your turnaround jumper, it's a pretty high percentage shot. Any time he gets the ball on a post-up from within 12-15 feet and has enough space to pivot, he can get a good look.
> 
> as others have said, it's simply baffling that this isn't a bigger part of his (or the Pistons') offensive approach. He's almost unstoppable on the block when he decides he wants to score.



Well you know Rasheed, he might square up for the shot and his man might upset him and god forbid rasheed wouldn't get his way or would feel slight contact he might just end up going on one of his childish temper tantrums.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> While he should do it much more, Rashaad Wallace's ability to post up is ALL-NBA. He did it enough to help them win. Much o the time, he posted 12 feet out which result often in a high-percent turnaround jumpers. This is why I asked the question about what Close is verses a Jumper. That's roughly where Billips would be to. If that's a jumper on 82games than their stats are not going to help you much on this topic.
> 
> Tyrus and Smith? Seems like wishful thinking.
> 
> ...


12-foot turnaround jumpers are higher percentage than wide open 15-foot shots from the pick and roll and curls?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> 12-foot turnaround jumpers are higher percentage than wide open 15-foot shots from the pick and roll and curls?


First, the Bulls pick and roll doesn't lead to wide open jump shots on every possession which you seem to imply.

Second, the Pistons have as many or more variations of good pick and roll plays as the Bulls plus guys that can post up including at 12 feet. So the effect is additive.

Third, Rashaad Wallace posting at 12 feet with the appreciate spacing is good offensive set. Yes, IMHO, it's superior to Hinrich or Gordon with the ball at 18 feet initiating a pick and roll.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> First, the Bulls pick and roll doesn't lead to wide open jump shots on every possession which you seem to imply.
> 
> Second, the Pistons have as many or more variations of good pick and roll plays as the Bulls plus guys that can post up including at 12 feet. So the effect is additive.
> 
> Third, Rashaad Wallace posting at 12 feet with the appreciate spacing is good offensive set. Yes, IMHO, it's superior to Hinrich or Gordon with the ball at 18 feet initiating a pick and roll.


I was not intending to imply that we get open jump shots on every possession. I was trying to equate the number of times Sheed posts up from 12 feet to the number of times we get wide open jumpers from the same range in our sets.

Often, it's our pick and roll that gets us shot attempts at the basket. If the defense collapses, that's when we are left with an open shot. Unfortunately, our smalls weren't very good finishing at the basket, and a couple of our bigs were not good at knocking down that shot.

I agree that Sheed's ability to post up gives Detroit another weapon that we don't have. At the same time, Gordon and Deng do things on offense that Rip and Prince cannot replicate.

FWIW

Chicago: 68% jump, 27% close, 4% dunk, 2% tips
Detroit: 67% jump, 26% close, 5% dunk, 2% tips

Without a true back to the basket guy, we must be doing something right to make up all the differences Sheed provides Detroit.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> All three of the players *can* post up better than their Bulls counterparts, no? Also, there % of jumpers was lower in the past (e.g. 04-05 playoffs) when they did better. (Question: how does 82games define a close shot?)


The definitions are subjective according to the person charting the game. I would assume that they would have some sort of standard amongst charters so they get some sort of consistency between teams or within the same team by multiple game charters.

I always assumed that close be points in the paint other than tips or dunks, although I have never read anything definitive on the issue.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> When you're Rasheed Wallace and you have the wingspan of a giant (creating an impossibly high release point) and a remarkably soft touch on your turnaround jumper, it's a pretty high percentage shot. Any time he gets the ball on a post-up from within 12-15 feet and has enough space to pivot, he can get a good look.


Turnaround jumpers don't seem like particularly easy shots to convert to me, even if Sheed has the right tools to hit them. There's a lot of motion there and not a great deal of balance. Jordan was pretty automatic but he was Jordan. I can't think of other players off the top of my head who have be hugely successful with that shot. Are there a bunch of players I'm overlooking?



johnston797 said:


> First, the Bulls pick and roll doesn't lead to wide open jump shots on every possession which you seem to imply.
> 
> Second, the Pistons have as many or more variations of good pick and roll plays as the Bulls plus guys that can post up including at 12 feet. So the effect is additive.
> 
> Third, Rashaad Wallace posting at 12 feet with the appreciate spacing is good offensive set. Yes, IMHO, it's superior to Hinrich or Gordon with the ball at 18 feet initiating a pick and roll.


Trying to figure out where a 12 foot turn around jumper ranks inthe hierarchy of the countless different types of looks a player can get is pretty complicated. When people talk about back to the basket players getting high percentage shots, the image that comes to my mind is a shot from within a few feet of the basket. I guess even those can vary in terms of difficulty from dunks to layups to hook shots. Still, I'm pretty convinced that those shots are converted at a rate quite a bit higher than a turnaround jumper from 10-14 feet out so I wouldn't call the latter a high percentage shot.


----------

