# Fun with numbers: Curry and Chandler



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> 2002	35.6 mins	FG:50%	12.8 &	8.5
> 2003	43.8 mins	FG:56%	19.7& 11.2


Nice improvement, right. Elton Brand numbers, right? Candidate for MIP. Who is it? Well, the title gave it away. It's EC's and TC's numbers combined.

We could see a big jump this year if the two could handle 56 to 60 minutes this year. Clearly, playing better D, turning the ball over less and items that don't show up in this stat line will play a big factor in determining this.

But I feel good that we had such good improvement last year while our two youngsters improved and are already combined playing more than starters minutes at one spot.


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

unftunately that isnt how you justify trades, Eddy was never in the deal. Tyson will NEVER reach Elton's production, Eddy will.. i have no idea where all this Chandler jockriding comes from, it must be the denzel washington looks because his play definately dosent back it up.


----------



## the_disco_pimp (Jul 25, 2002)

Tyson might reach elton's potential and surpass it even, maybe not at elton's age, but it takes longer for big men to develop... Tell me who you'd rather have had in 10 years... i'd bet 50-1 odds on tyson.


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>the_disco_pimp</b>!
> Tyson might reach elton's potential and surpass it even, maybe not at elton's age, but it takes longer for big men to develop... Tell me who you'd rather have had in 10 years... i'd bet 50-1 odds on tyson.



so you'r willing to wait 10 years for tyson to pan out? :laugh: by that time Elton will be a lock for the HOF


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Curry is a low post player. Brand is too. Not much room for two players like those two underneath. Chandler is not a offensive presence. He runs the floor extremely well. He has no offense what-so-ever that is ran through him. Gives Curry the low post. 

Chandler is long and extremely fast. I think his defense and rebounding is what JK was looking at. So far he has shown very little in both of these. He has had games where bulls fans were happy to have him, but so far he hasn't put together back to back to back games. 

I am hoping that this year, in rebounding and defense we will see more consistancy from him.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> unftunately that isnt how you justify trades, Eddy was never in the deal. Tyson will NEVER reach Elton's production, Eddy will.. i have no idea where all this Chandler jockriding comes from, it must be the denzel washington looks because his play definately dosent back it up.


Chandler has a chance to be an major force at both ends of the floor. I'd rather than Chandler than Brand if I was either the Bulls or the Clippers. 


How is that for justification? :grinning:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Brand has a chance to be a force at both ends of the floor.

Oops, he already is a force at both ends of the floor.

;-)


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Brand has a chance to be a force at both ends of the floor.
> 
> Oops, he already is a force at both ends of the floor.
> 
> ;-)


I definitely would not call him a "force" on the defensive end- I would say that he is an adequate defender for his size.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> I definitely would not call him a "force" on the defensive end- I would say that he is an adequate defender for his size.



I agree and I definitely would not call Brand a "force" on the offensive end either - If he is a team's best post option, they are in trouble.

Brand is getting paid $11M this year and next, I would rather have Chandler, Marshal and Pippen for just an extra million or so. Next year, too. 

And by the time Chandler gets paid, he will be better than Brand.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://probasketball.about.com/library/weekly/bl_nbaawardprojections.htm

NBA Awards: 2002-2003 NBA Award Predictions 

Handing out the NBA Hardware Just in Time for Christmas 

Defensive Player of the Year 
Winner: Ron Artest, G/F, Indiana -- Scariest player in the game 
Runner Up: Elton Brand, F, L.A. Clippers -- Surprise. Check the numbers 

http://www.fullsportpress.com/awards031603.html

2003 NBA Award Predictions

All-Defense Second Team 
Kevin Garnett 
Elton Brand 
Shaquille O'Neal 
Kobe Bryant 
Jason Kidd 

&c


Not only has he averaged 2.0 and 2.5 blocks per game the past two seasons, he's also averaged 11.6 and 11.3 rebounds per game. To go along with 52.7% and 50.2% FG shooting and scoring averages of 18.2 and 18.5.

Since only ONE Bull scored 18.2 PPG this past season, perhaps we might have a little respect for Brand's offense. Since NO Bull rebounded 11.3 or blocked 2.5 per game, perhaps we might have a little respect for him on the defensive end.

People look at his 6'8" height and do not realize his 7'6" wingspan makes up for that.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> so you'r willing to wait 10 years for tyson to pan out? :laugh: by that time Elton will be a lock for the HOF


Elton a lock for the hall of fame?


----------



## Jay Marioti (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottVdub</b>!
> 
> 
> Elton a lock for the hall of fame?


Kemp, isn't even a lock for HOF


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> http://probasketball.about.com/libr...projections.htm
> 
> NBA Awards: 2002-2003 NBA Award Predictions
> 
> ...


Regardless of those articles, I will be extremely surprised if Elton ever gets a DPOY or is named to the all-defensive first team. Whoever wrote that is absolutely crazy to mention Sir Elton ahead of the likes Ben Wallace, Bruce Bowen, Doug Christie, Allen Iverson (league leader in steals), KG, Duncan, Kobe, Kidd, Gary Payton, Theo Ratliff and Al Harrington (MJ called him the toughest defender in the league today, along with Artest). 

Elton is a guy that makes the most of his modest size, and for that he is to be commended- but he can never have the type of defensive impact that Chandler _already_ has. As far as I can tell, Elton gets alot of blocks because he is a good weakside help defender- he swoops in and swats the shots of players that have already beaten their man off the dribble and committed to the basket (the fact that the Clips' defense is so porous definitely helps in this area). He is more like a Raef LaFraentz on D than a Ben Wallace: Raef also puts up excellent shotblocking numbers, but in case you haven't noticed, has little-to-no success in stopping the layup-lines that opponents form in the paint when they play the Mavs. A guy like Ben Wallace, on the other hand, changes the entire outlook of the game with his mere presence on the floor. Opposing players see him in the lane and think twice abouttaking it to the hole- it severely limits their options as offensive players. It was the same case with Dikembe Mutumbo, David Robinson, Hakeem Oljuwon and every other truly great shotblocker in the history of the league, and thus far it has proven true with Chandler. Have you noticed how much the quality of the Bulls' defense falls off when Chandler leaves the game? The Bulls D with Chandler vs. the Bulls D without Chandler is like night and day- he is the *backbone* of our defense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Find ONE article that predicts Chandler will even get a vote for NBA all-defensive team (1st team, 2nd team, whatever).

Enough said.


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottVdub</b>!
> 
> 
> Elton a lock for the hall of fame?



you might wanna re-read that, 10 years of 20/10 plus the 4 seasons he's already been in the NBA(14 years of 20/10) is hall of fame territory.


----------



## Jay Marioti (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> you might wanna re-read that, 10 years of 20/10 plus the 4 seasons he's already been in the NBA(14 years of 20/10) is hall of fame territory.


What about rings and the Clipper jersey.
Thats just if he does anyway. He has not proven he is a lock for HOF yet. He hasn't even won enough games he a loser as of now.


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> 
> 
> What about rings and the Clipper jersey.
> Thats just if he does anyway. He has not proven he is a lock for HOF yet. He hasn't even won enough games he a loser as of now.



and what exactly has chandler won? DOH!


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> and what exactly has chandler won? DOH!


more games then elton did last year. 20/10 isnt a lock for the hall of fame when you never even made the playoffs. and elton is really around 18/10 and he made 1 all star game as a fill in for somebody who couldnt play. SUre i know what you're gonna say, thats more than what tyson did yadda yadda yadda. That move to trade Tyson for Brand will always be a questionable one but if the bulls ever win a championship with Tyson playing a part it will be justified. I think Brand was traded to make room for Curry because Curry and Brand would just get in eachothers way and Tyson plays the type of game where he can take a backseat to Curry and fill in whatever holes need to be filled.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

People dont understand trading for potential and that is amazing. 

Chandler is 20, Brand is 24

Curry is the player the Bulls are putting their future behind, and Chandler fits his style of play perfectly by being almost a complete opposite. Chandler also is the same age. 

Brand is not a franchise player, and Chandler will never be a franchise player. That makes them both roleplayers, and Chandlers fits the Bulls better than Brand does, case closed. 

It amazes me how some people dont understand that trade.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> People dont understand trading for potential and that is amazing.
> 
> Chandler is 20, Brand is 24
> ...


well i understand the trade completely but i can understand why people think it was a bad trade. Once we start winning maybe everyone will shut up, but probably not.


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> People dont understand trading for potential and that is amazing.
> 
> Chandler is 20, Brand is 24
> ...


exactly, Tyson is a roleplayer and people should treat him like a roleplayer. unfortuntely we have delusional Tyson Chandler jockriders like johnston who think Tyson will dominate(and no, im not basing that on one post)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> 
> 
> Kemp, isn't even a lock for HOF


He may get a nice plaque at Krispie Creme though...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

To DaBulls, 

www.fullsportpress.com

www.About.com :laugh: 

Is this the best you can do?

Did you think Brand was a good defensive player before you read thise sites? 



> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> exactly, Tyson is a roleplayer and people should treat him like a roleplayer. unfortuntely we have delusional Tyson Chandler jockriders like johnston who think Tyson will dominate(and no, im not basing that on one post)


So many posts. So little insight.

If I am delusional, so is Bill Cartwright....



> Head Coach Bill Cartwright on Chandler:
> [TC] has the potential to be a three-position player, which is a huge oddity. Like Eddy, he’s going to be great to watch, but right now we can’t get too far ahead of ourselves. He’s still 20, but you wonder what he’s going to be like when he’s 23. Our aim is that he’s the best forward in the East and that he’s on the All-Star team every year.”


:yes:


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> To DaBulls,
> 
> www.fullsportpress.com
> ...


il give you credit for digging this up, but you must consider the source here.. Bill Cartwright is the last person you want to quote when seeking justification/credibility for how you feel about Chandler :dead: .The fact that Billy likes Tyson makes me :uhoh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> 
> 
> il give you credit for digging this up, but you must consider the source here.. Bill Cartwright is the last person you want to quote when seeking justification/credibility for how you feel about Chandler :dead: .The fact that Billy likes Tyson makes me :uhoh:


So what's your excuse when Pat Riley compares Chandler and Curry to Parish and McHale?


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> So what's your excuse when Pat Riley compares Chandler and Curry to Parish and McHale?


now that is one person who's opinion i value, il give you that one. I really dont hate Chandler, i like him.. but the 'dominant' talk has got to stop, he hasnt proven to have any dominant aspects of his game, let alone franchise player material. He compliments Eddy, not the other way around


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Find ONE article that predicts Chandler will even get a vote for NBA all-defensive team (1st team, 2nd team, whatever).
> 
> Enough said.


I have a challenge for you. Find *ONE vote* for from the NBA coaches that puts Brand on the NBA all-defensive team (1st team, 2nd team).

Being the sporting guy that I am, here's a hint... Of the 40 or so players that got votes in either 2001-2002 or 2002-2003, Brand ain't one of them.

http://www.nba.com/news/alldefense_030508.html

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/stories/2002-04-30-defensive.htm


p.s. I bet that About.com plaque looks pretty nice on Elton's coffee table.


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I have a challenge for you. Find *ONE vote* for from the NBA coaches that puts Brand on the NBA all-defensive team (1st team, 2nd team).
> ...


im not dabulls, but that has more to do with this being Elton's 'defensive breakthrough year' more then anything. This was the first year he was recognized as being a bigtime defender in this league... like Ron Artest the year before, Elton first has to get recognition for his improvements.. then the votes will come. This was the year he was recognized as being a great defender.. he'l get the votes next season.

Notice how Ron Artest is arguably THE best man-to-man defender in the game, yet still dosent win DPOY.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> 
> 
> im not dabulls, but that has more to do with this being Elton's 'defensive breakthrough year' more then anything. This was the first year he was recognized as being a bigtime defender in this league... like Ron Artest the year before, Elton first has to get recognition for his improvements.. then the votes will come. This was the year he was recognized as being a great defender.. he'l get the votes next season.
> ...


no he wont


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottVdub</b>!
> 
> 
> no he wont


yes he will


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I have a challenge for you. Find *ONE vote* for from the NBA coaches that puts Brand on the NBA all-defensive team (1st team, 2nd team).
> ...


We'll see this season. Last year, he played in 62 games, or he would have gotten votes.

Too bad people have to rip on quality players in the league, as if it somehow makes our guys better than they actually are.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> We'll see this season. Last year, he played in 62 games, or he would have gotten votes.
> ...


Brand is a quality player. No rip there.

Too bad certain Bulls fans have to put the guy on a pedestal and make him something (i.e. Great defensive player) he is not.


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> We'll see this season. Last year, he played in 62 games, or he would have gotten votes.
> ...



How do you know that Elton Brand would have gotten votes if he played all 82 games this year? You are always arguing how bad the Bulls players are and how the fans are always making excuses for them. At least they make excuses for their own players and see the positives in their game. You do just the opposite, you will make excuses for other players.

You went on posting about how great Elton is defensively, and when an article reveals that the NBA coachs don't rate him that high, it is because of his playing time. Is this the same playing time that got him into the all-star game and on team USA. Elton Brand is a great offensive player and is above average on defense. He has always been better off the offensive boards. In my opinion, he is presently better then anyone on the Bulls. It seems that NBA coaches agree that he isn't a defensive stud.

Just because someone doesn't think he is a great defender, you attribute it to "Ripping on quality players to make the 15 steaming piles of **** on the Bulls look better" That may be a misquote, but that is how I read it. Do you ever post anything positive about the Bulls? If the Bulls start doing well, will you hope for them to flop so you can be right?

Look at your two statements above. You are willing to make an excuse for Elton Brand not getting all-defense votes. I never read posts where you would make excuses for Bulls players. Instead you always post how inferior they are to the rest of the league. Then you accuse people of ripping on quality players in the league, to make Bulls players look better than they are. Yet you rip Bulls players all the time to make the "quality" players even better. Do the Bulls have any quality players? or are they just on the other teams?

Peace


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

LOL

I don't rip other teams' players, nor do I rip the Bulls' players.

I give a fair and honest assessment, minus the bias of being the fan that I am. If I post anything but "Curry and Chandler are the next Wilt and Rusell" and "Crawford is better than Michael Jordan," then I'm ripping the Bulls' players. LOL.

As for Brand's defense, it has been something he's been working hard at. And I do remember a LOT of talk by people on these boards, in the written media, and by TV announcers and the guys they interviewed. Talk about how great Brand's defense is. The two articles/URLs I posted were examples. Then he broke his leg.

When looking at the way coaches vote for players for the defensive teams, I am not making any excuses. Ben Wallace is the best defensive player, IMO, and if he played just a few games, I don't think he'd get the votes, either. Also, the Clips were a much better team two seasons ago and were thought to be on the verge of making the playoffs (sound familiar?). Yet they suffered a lot of injuries and did not make it. This may have hurt Brand's value in the eyes of the coaches.

On the offensive side of the ball, he was 9th in the NBA in FTs two seasons ago, in spite of taking just ~1000 FGA. That is a pretty good indicator of how tough he is inside.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I said that Chandler is a not franchise player, by that I mean he cant be the center of a franchise due to the fact that hes not that gifted offensively. 

Its rare for a franchise player to be a rebounder/defender/shotblocker. Ben Wallace is a very rare example, usually the leader/franchise player is a scorer and go-to guy down the stretch of games. 

Chandler has a good chance at become a Mutombo type player. I hope to God he develops a real nice offensive game, because than he would be a franchise player. But with the way hes developing now, hes going to be a mutombo type...which I'm not at all complaining about. Those type of players can change games in ways that nobody sees. Especially when theres another dominant power player alongside you with almost opposite skills and you can work together with him.


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> LOL
> 
> I don't rip other teams' players, nor do I rip the Bulls' players.
> ...


 LOL.... Did I post that Curry and Chandler are the next Wilt and Russell? Did I post that Crawford is the next Jordan? The answer is no to both. So obviously disagreeing with those statement in my eyes isn't ripping them, because I disagree with those statements. Every chance you get you throw in something negative about the Bulls. Someone says Brand isn't a great defensive player, and there you are saying too bad people have to rip quality players in the league in order to make Bulls players look better. Someone gives a fair and honest assessment about Brand's defense and because you disagree with it, it was stated just because he wants the Bulls players to look better. Are you the only one capable of a fair and honest assessment without bias?

If Ben Wallace played a few games, he probably wouldn't get voted on. However, if he played 62, I would say he would get the votes and be first team. There is quite a difference between a few games and more than 3/4 of a season. You go on to say you aren't making any excuses for Brand and then state the bad record of the Clippers for possibly being a reason for not getting votes. That sounds like an excuse to me. Are you saying players on low percentage win teams are not given the same respect as some players on playoff teams even though they may be decent players? Funny you never mention that when discussing Bulls players.

I already acknowledged Brand as being a very good offensive player. I'm not disagreeing about Brand on the offensive side of the ball. At this point I don't think he deserves votes for being an all-defensive player, that can change though, he is still young and learning.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> This was the year he was recognized as being a great defender.. he'l get the votes next season.
> 
> Notice how Ron Artest is arguably THE best man-to-man defender in the game, yet still dosent win DPOY.


You seem to be implying that despite being the best man defender in the league Ron Ron, hasn't won DPOY accolades because he is too young.

Artest has been my favorite player since his rookie year and I love watching his confrontational defensive style... 

but, he is by no means the best defensive player in the game. The way Gary Payton and to a lesser extent J Kidd play passing lanes is a thing of magic. Artest just dosen't understand team ball like these masters--defensively or offensively. 

Although I would rather watch Ron playing Kobe or Tmac down the stretch, I know that Payton, Kidd, and even a healthy Doug Christie would give my team a better chance to win. There just is a deeper understanding of situational defense and knowing when to gamble that Ron has yet to grasp--This is why Artest dosen't have a DPOY award on his mantle. His amount of time in the league is irrelevant.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FBarley</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL.... Did I post that Curry and Chandler are the next Wilt and Russell? Did I post that Crawford is the next Jordan? The answer is no to both. So obviously disagreeing with those statement in my eyes isn't ripping them, because I disagree with those statements.


Apparently, this has to be explained to some people. I'm not sure if you've read the posts where people think they're the next McHale and Parrish (they're not).

It's nice to have someone to agree with some of the time.



> Every chance you get you throw in something negative about the Bulls. Someone says Brand isn't a great defensive player, and there you are saying too bad people have to rip quality players in the league in order to make Bulls players look better. Someone gives a fair and honest assessment about Brand's defense and because you disagree with it, it was stated just because he wants the Bulls players to look better. Are you the only one capable of a fair and honest assessment without bias?


I simply see Crawford, Chandler, and Curry for what they are. Three very young players on a bad team. 30 wins is bad. All the losing this team has done for 5 years makes it a bad team. When it was a championship team, or even when Jordan retired the first time, it was a great team.

Some people see Crawford as a 16/6 (or 20/6 even) guy. I see him as a 10/4 guy. That's what the stats say. Some people see Curry as 20/6 guy. I see him as a 10/4 guy. That's what the stats say. Some people see Chandler as a 15/13 guy (Mutumbo). I see him as a 9/7 guy. That's what the stats say.

By pointing out this very big discrepency in their perceived performance and their actual performance, I'm somehow "throwing in something negative" about the Bulls? That's good for a laugh.



> If Ben Wallace played a few games, he probably wouldn't get voted on. However, if he played 62, I would say he would get the votes and be first team. There is quite a difference between a few games and more than 3/4 of a season. You go on to say you aren't making any excuses for Brand and then state the bad record of the Clippers for possibly being a reason for not getting votes. That sounds like an excuse to me. Are you saying players on low percentage win teams are not given the same respect as some players on playoff teams even though they may be decent players? Funny you never mention that when discussing Bulls players.


Here's your NBA first and 2nd All-Defensive teams, players' teams' records in parens:

1st team
Garnett (51-31)
Duncan (60-22)
Wallace (50-32)
Christie (59-23)
Bryant (50-32)

2nd team
Artest (48-34)
Bowen (60-22)
O'Neal (50-32)
Kidd (49-33)
Snow (48-34)

I see a clear correlation between the teams' record and the players chosen. And of the 27 other players who got votes, only Brian Grant (1 vote) of Miami and Nene Hilario (1 vote) of Denver played for teams with records about the same as the Clippers, and only 4 (including Grant & Hilario) of those 27 played on teams < .500 record.



> I already acknowledged Brand as being a very good offensive player. I'm not disagreeing about Brand on the offensive side of the ball. At this point I don't think he deserves votes for being an all-defensive player, that can change though, he is still young and learning.


The guy did get 1.1 SPG and 2.5 BPG. Those are EXCELLENT defensive numbers for a PF. Ben Wallace, DPOY for the 2nd straight year, put up 1.4SPG and 3.0 BPG, for comparison.

(Chandler put up 0.5 SPG and 1.4 BPG, for the record)


----------



## Jay Marioti (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> 
> 
> yes he will


ur dreaming. But remember TYSON is 20 thats enough time to build something above average offensively maybe even beyond that by 27 years of age at 2010


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Apparently, this has to be explained to some people. I'm not sure if you've read the posts where people think they're the next McHale and Parrish (they're not).
> It's nice to have someone to agree with some of the time.



I almost never call anyone the next Jordan, Shaq, Russell, and etc. Everyone has their own games and personalities, they are themselves and not someone else (whether they have a better career or worse). So you do realize that I'm not saying you rip the Bulls players because you don't say they are the next (insert whatever great player's name here.




> I simply see Crawford, Chandler, and Curry for what they are. Three very young players on a bad team. 30 wins is bad. All the losing this team has done for 5 years makes it a bad team. When it was a championship team, or even when Jordan retired the first time, it was a great team.
> 
> Some people see Crawford as a 16/6 (or 20/6 even) guy. I see him as a 10/4 guy. That's what the stats say. Some people see Curry as 20/6 guy. I see him as a 10/4 guy. That's what the stats say. Some people see Chandler as a 15/13 guy (Mutumbo). I see him as a 9/7 guy. That's what the stats say.
> 
> By pointing out this very big discrepency in their perceived performance and their actual performance, I'm somehow "throwing in something negative" about the Bulls? That's good for a laugh.


Actually this is kind of off topic from what I am talking about. I haven't mentioned a thing about you throwing out stats as a rip on Bulls players, I'll go with this though. You chose a longer timeline then most of the others on the board do. Your taking the stats from the whole season, while most are basing them on a late season surge of production. Both can be kind of flawed.

If you are stating present play for each player, taking the whole season stats waters down the production that their stats towards the end of the season showed. In otherwords, it doesn't account for the development gained from the beginning of the season to the end. Obviously this wouldn't matter too much in a ten year vet, but for 3 players playing in only their 2nd full season it can be huge. 

On the other side, taking the last two months of the season can be quite flawed also. First of all, it is too small of a time frame to get a true read on a player. Second, they are playing against first teams that have been playing major minutes (for the most part) the entire year. The 3 young players that haven't played big minutes for most of the season probably have a little more energy.





> Here's your NBA first and 2nd All-Defensive teams, players' teams' records in parens:
> 
> 1st team
> Garnett (51-31)
> ...


I was pointing out the fact that to defend the position on Brand, you were willing to bring up the horrible record of his team as for being him being underrated in the eyes of many. Yet you don't seem to ever take that position on another team with a bad record, and that other team is one that you are a fan of. On top of that when someone brings up the Bulls having decent players, one of the first things I'd notice in your posts is how bad the Bulls are and how they only won 30 games. Then you use the stats that serve your purpose (along with some flawed logic) to prove how really bad they are.





> The guy did get 1.1 SPG and 2.5 BPG. Those are EXCELLENT defensive numbers for a PF. Ben Wallace, DPOY for the 2nd straight year, put up 1.4SPG and 3.0 BPG, for comparison.
> 
> (Chandler put up 0.5 SPG and 1.4 BPG, for the record)



The comparison of Brand's numbers and Wallace's is fair, but I would say misleading. People avoid going into the lane where Ben Wallace is playing. I don't see the same reaction to Brand in the paint. Ben Wallace is presence in the lane that is avoided, he doesn't get as many opportunities per game as Brand for blocks or steals. Stats don't exactly say it all on defense. One question- When comparing stats you brought up steals and blocks, why did you leave out rebounds? It is kind of an important stat for a defender in the paint.


Wow, look at Chandler's stats. He totally sucks LOL. Once again, for what reason are Chandler's stats posted here. I did not make one statement comparing Chandler to Brand. It was not in our discussion. You felt that was necessary to put in there? If we are arguing about Brand being an all-defensive player, why are you bring up a two year player out of high school with limited minutes? I guess you are just used to it


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Apparently, this has to be explained to some people. I'm not sure if you've read the posts where people think they're the next McHale and Parrish (they're not).


Didn't we have this thread just last week? You have nothing to back your stance other than you think it's unlikely that each of our talented 20 yrs have Hall of Fame-type careers. 



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I simply see Crawford, Chandler, and Curry for what they are. Three very young players on a bad team. 30 wins is bad.


Still more wins than the great defender, Brand, was able to lead his team to.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I see a clear correlation between the teams' record and the players chosen. And of the 27 other players who got votes, only Brian Grant (1 vote) of Miami and Nene Hilario (1 vote) of Denver played for teams with records about the same as the Clippers, and only 4 (including Grant & Hilario) of those 27 played on teams < .500 record.


News flash - there is a corelation between good defense and winning. Especially in the post.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> [Brand] did get 1.1 SPG and 2.5 BPG. Those are EXCELLENT defensive numbers for a PF. Ben Wallace, DPOY for the 2nd straight year, put up 1.4SPG and 3.0 BPG, for comparison.


We all know that defensive stats tell a far worse story than offensive stats. So let's pull our heads out of the stat page for a minute. 

Were other teams' avoiding the paint when they played the Clipps? Was Brand able to shut his man down? 
Was Brand's D a factor that other team's needed to account for? Did Brand's man pass up their normal shots or moves due to his presence?

I didn't see a lot of Clippers games but from what I saw, I would say "NO" to all of those questions.

Did you watch any Clipper games? How would you anwser those questions?

From watching Chandler, I would have to say that some of those "NO"s for Brand turn into "Sometimes" or "Maybe at times". I also see room for a lot of improvement.

Part of the reason that I like the trade so much.


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> 
> 
> ur dreaming. But remember TYSON is 20 thats enough time to build something above average offensively maybe even beyond that by 27 years of age at 2010



no your dreaming!!  camby had a better post game at the same age, that should tell you something.


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> 
> 
> What about rings and the Clipper jersey.
> Thats just if he does anyway. He has not proven he is a lock for HOF yet. He hasn't even won enough games he a loser as of now.


14 years of 20/10 is hall of fame regardless


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> You seem to be implying that despite being the best man defender in the league Ron Ron, hasn't won DPOY accolades because he is too young.
> ...


Ron Artest is a better defender then Jason Kidd, lets not kidd outselves.. Gary Payton is NOT the defender he was before... he's aging and is overated defensively NOWadays.. and doug cristie?... no way in hell is he a better defender then Ron. Defense is defense, Ron dosent need to gable the passing lanes like everyone else... he's a rare breed of defender who will steal the ball right from your hands without having to wait for passing lanes. 

You are just overanylizing the situation... Ron can flat-out defend. Deeper understanding? thats overdoing it a bit. Ron unlike every other defender.. plays D ALL the time, he dosent wait for certain situations to play defense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't we have this thread just last week? You have nothing to back your stance other than you think it's unlikely that each of our talented 20 yrs have Hall of Fame-type careers.


Amazing. Truly. It is you who have nothing to back up your stance, other than wishful thinking. I see two hall of famers and two kids who've proven absolutely nothing in the NBA. Yet.

Sure it's unlikely, in general, that guys don't make the hall of fame. Otherwise the hall of fame wouldn't mean anything.



> Still more wins than the great defender, Brand, was able to lead his team to.


Brand's been with the Clippers two seasons. Their record? 66-99. The Bulls' record over the past <B>THREE</B> seasons is 66-180.



> News flash - there is a corelation between good defense and winning. Especially in the post.


News flash - there is a correlation between winning and making the all-defense team. There isn't a correlation between being a good defender and making it.



> We all know that defensive stats tell a far worse story than offensive stats. So let's pull our heads out of the stat page for a minute.


You can tell the story, then. Fiction is a terrific thing when it comes to stories. Unfortunately, the stats at least measure what they measure, and without bias (a blocked shot is a blocked shot, etc.) On the other hand, the title of this thread is "<B>Fun with Numbers</B>: Curry and Chandler. ;-)



> Were other teams' avoiding the paint when they played the Clipps? Was Brand able to shut his man down?
> Was Brand's D a factor that other team's needed to account for? Did Brand's man pass up their normal shots or moves due to his presence?


The answer to all these questions is "yes." In fact, the Clips altered their defensive scheme because they had Brand. They trusted him so much to defend in the post that they abandoned double teams inside almost altogether.



> I didn't see a lot of Clippers games but from what I saw, I would say "NO" to all of those questions.


So you didn't see games, but you can make an assessment of Brand's D? 



> Did you watch any Clipper games? How would you anwser those questions?


Yes, I watched a bunch of Clippers games.



> From watching Chandler, I would have to say that some of those "NO"s for Brand turn into "Sometimes" or "Maybe at times". I also see room for a lot of improvement.


From watching Chandler, I'd have to say NO to all your questions a LOT of the time. We agree on "sometimes" and "maybe at times."

Brad Miller shot 11-16 with 14 boards against Chandler on 12/20 in a Bulls loss.

Kurt Thomas shot 9-18 with 12 boards against Chandler on 1/13 in a Bulls win.

Christian Laettner shot 5-8 (13 pts) with 11 boards and 5 assists against Chandler on 3/1 in a Bulls loss.

Jermaine O'Neal shot 16-22 with 13 boards against Chandler on 4/8 (that's april, when the 3Cs were supposed to be so great!) in a Bulls win.

Amare Stoudemire shot 7-10 with 9 boards against Chandler on 2/24 in a Bulls win.

Troy Murphy shot 6-12 with 9 boards against Chandler on 3/6 in a Bulls win.

&c



> Part of the reason that I like the trade so much.


20/10 is actually a pretty rare thing to achieve. What I didn't like about the trade is we gave up a known quantity (and thus far the best Bulls' lotto pick) for a guy who may, someday, achieve those numbers and level of play.

In Chandler's defense, when he has his very best games (on RARE occaisions), he's been better than Curry's best, and IF he could put those numbers up consistently, he would be a sure HOFer. But the same thing is true of Brand. Here's their 15 (or more) rebound games from last season:

Chandler (5 of 75 games played):
* 19 pts, 22 rebounds, 3 blk vs. DEN
8 pts, 19 rebounds, 1 blk vs. NYK
* 27 pts, 18 rebounds, 2 blk vs. POR
* 21 pts, 17 rebounds, 7 blk @ PHI
7 pts, 16 rebounds, 2 blk vs. MIA
(Three truly amazing games, IMO)

Brand (11 of 62 games played):
26 pts, 23 rebounds, 2 blk @ GSW
25 pts, 20 rebounds, 1 blk @ MIA
21 pts, 19 rebounds, 4 blk @ PHI
17 pts, 19 rebounds, 2 blk @ TOR
15 pts, 19 rebounds, 2 blk @ SEA
26 pts, 17 rebounds, 3 blk vs. MIN (hrm... Garnett)
27 pts, 16 rebounds, 4 blk @ HOU
19 pts, 16 rebounds, 4 blk vs. SEA
26 pts, 15 rebounds, 3 blk vs. HOU
34 pts, 15 rebounds, 2 blk vs. SAC (hrm... CWebb)
15 pts, 16 rebounds, 0 blk vs. SAS (hrm... Duncan)
(At least 8 truly amazing games, IMO)


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Amazing. Truly. It is you who have nothing to back up your stance, other than wishful thinking. I see two hall of famers and two kids who've proven absolutely nothing in the NBA. Yet.
> ...



good post! :yes: :clap:


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I didn't see a lot of Clippers games but from what I saw, I would say "NO" to all of those questions.




that basically sums up your whole argument. i was a skeptical of elton's defensive improvements up until i actually decided to watch him and the clippers with my own eyes.. and the rest is history


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Amazing. Truly. It is you who have nothing to back up your stance, other than wishful thinking. I see two hall of famers and two kids who've proven absolutely nothing in the NBA. Yet.
> ...


well i watched my share of clipper games and noticed that elton never really stopped other pf from gettin their points either 

using the same players sans brad miller ,kurt thomas because elton plays no center 

1/26 j.o'neal 21 pts 10 reb. 1 ast 8 block 9-16 fg clip loss 2/11 a.stoudamire 12 points 13 rebs 2 asts 5-10 fg clip win
1/31 a.stodamire 17 points 7 reb 1bl 4-7 fg clips loss
2/12c-laettner 17 points 14 rebs 2 ast 7-10fg clips loss
4/5 c.weatherspoon 12 pts 14 rebs 3 ast 4-4 fg clips loss
and just for fun 
4/11 garnett 24 pts 15 rebs 8 assist 4 blocks 10-18 fg clips loss

it seems maybe elton isn't so much better defensively than tyson if at all

fyi the game j'oneal went off on the bulls chandler left the game in 1st quarter with esphogitis or whatever its called


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> well i watched my share of clipper games and noticed that elton never really stopped other pf from gettin their points either
> ...



jermaine oneal put up his average on elton so it dosent count


how about TYson?

here are a few examples
-KMart 29 pts and 8rbs
-Troy Murphy 17 pts 13rbs
-Jamaal Magliore 18pts 10rbs(pre campbell trade)
-carlos boozer 26pts 8rbs
-christian laettner 18pts 11rbs 4ast
-Toni Kukoc 19pts 7rbs
-Al Harrington 19pts 8rbs(o'neal injured, Harrington starts)
-brad miller 26pts 13rbs(o'neal injured, foster starts)
-duncan 28pts 15rbs

and just for fun..
-Garnett 25pts 15rbs 10ast 2bks 3stl


and theres more where that came from



.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dabullz is that you?


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> dabullz is that you?



does it matter?  stats dont lie my friend


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's Garnett against Chandler:

7-16 FG, 10-11 FTA, 15 rebounds, 10 assists, 3 steals, 2 blocks, 25 points.

More vs. Chandler numbers:
Eric Williams 5-9 FG, 8 rebounds, 3 stl, 12 pts
Dirk Nowitzky 8-14 FG, 10 rebounds, 1 stl, 24 pts, 24 minutes
Kenyon Martin 13-26, 8 rebounds, 29 pts
P.J. Brown 6-9 FG, 11 reb, 4 stl, 12 pts
Chris Webber 9-15 FG, 6 reb, 6 ast, 2 stl, 2blk, 18 pts, 23 minutes
Troy Murphy 7-13 FG, 13 reb, 17 pts
=48-84 (.571 FG% against), 56 reb, 112 pts 

More vs. Brand numbers:
Eric Williams 3-8 FG, 5 reb, 6 pts
Dirk Nowitzky 7-16 FG, 10 reb, 1 stl, 20 pts, 39 minutes
Kenyon Martin 8-16 FG, 9 reb, 16 pts
PJ Brown 3-4 FG, 6 reb, 3 stl, 6 pts
Chris Webber 11-29 FG, 7 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 22 pts, 42 minutes
Troy Murphy 3-10 FG, 10 reb, 10 Pts
=35-83 (.422 FG% against), 44 reb, 80 pts

I just picked these box scores pretty much at random (for Chandler) and then found box scores for the same guys against Brand.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> dabullz is that you?


No.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Here's Garnett against Chandler:
> 
> 7-16 FG, 10-11 FTA, 15 rebounds, 10 assists, 3 steals, 2 blocks, 25 points.
> ...


it would be best you picked them better, eric williams is a small forward so the onus for his defensive efforts would most likely be jalen rose and lamar odom 

antione walker is the 4 on the celtics ...sheesh with all the harping for walker to be a bull i thought you would know that ,also remember chandler plays 24 minutes a game unlike brand except for the pockets of the year where he played alot its really donyell so next time feel free to post the dates of these encounters


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> it would be best you picked them better, eric williams is a small forward so the onus for his defensive efforts would most likely be jalen rose and lamar odom
> ...



excuses


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Here's Garnett against Chandler:
> 
> 7-16 FG, 10-11 FTA, 15 rebounds, 10 assists, 3 steals, 2 blocks, 25 points.
> ...



more stats...... maybe if you post them with your other stats then happygrinch will get the point. he only believes in stats posted by people he likes 

here are a few examples
-KMart 29 pts and 8rbs
-Troy Murphy 17 pts 13rbs
-Jamaal Magliore 18pts 10rbs(pre campbell trade)
-carlos boozer 26pts 8rbs
-christian laettner 18pts 11rbs 4ast
-Toni Kukoc 19pts 7rbs
-Al Harrington 19pts 8rbs(o'neal injured, Harrington starts)
-brad miller 26pts 13rbs(o'neal injured, foster starts)
-duncan 28pts 15rbs

and just for fun..
-Garnett 25pts 15rbs 10ast 2bks 3stl


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> it would be best you picked them better, eric williams is a small forward so the onus for his defensive efforts would most likely be jalen rose and lamar odom
> ...


Minus Eric Williams.

Chandler 
=43-75 (.573 FG%), 48 reb, 100 pts

Brand
=32-75 (.427 FG%), 39 reb, 74 pts

Chandler played how he played, when he played, and for how long he played. If his defense was like Brand's, he'd have played more. If he didn't draw 4 fouls in 11 minutes against some of the lesser athletes he guarded, he'd have played more, too.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> excuses


hello spammer i dont believe we've been introduced 

i know why dabullz post what he does but for the life of cant figure out why he has a yes man all of a sudden 

but since you post so much (what is 80 or 90 a day ?) why dont you outline your little views instead of following behind dabullz


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> it would be best you picked them better, eric williams is a small forward so the onus for his defensive efforts would most likely be jalen rose and lamar odom
> ...


I double checked the box scores at nba.com. They list Walker as the SF. As in:
<TABLE BORDER=1>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>Delk</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>&nbsp</TD><TD>Hassell</TD><TD>G</TD><TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>Pierce</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>&nbsp</TD><TD>JWill</TD><TD>G</TD><TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>Walker</TD><TD>F</TD><TD>&nbsp</TD><TD>Rose</TD><TD>F</TD><TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>Williams</TD><TD>F</TD><TD>&nbsp</TD><TD>Chandler</TD><TD>F</TD><TR>
<TR ALIGN=LEFT><TD>Battie</TD><TD>C</TD><TD>&nbsp</TD><TD>Curry</TD><TD>C</TD><TR>
</TABLE>


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

and your point is?

if you dont know that on the celts williams is the 3 and walker is the power forward then you aren't the basketball mind you claim to be,add to which if you watched BULLS GAMES you would know that rose guards williams and not walker 

which is supposed to be the point of your post right how certain players guard each other , so getting that basic point wrong means your whole post is wrong 

but to help you out i did some research of my own by virtue of espn.com 

in the games chandler played 35 or more minutes as to not confuse his defense with the defense of fizer marshall or baxter opposing power forwards and centers (depending on which he played more at that particular game) shot .444 for 11.7 pts and 7.6 rebounds and .4 blocks 

in those same games chandler avg. .595 fg% 14.2 pts and 13.3 rebs with 1.4 blocks 

hope thats helped you in regards to chandlers defense


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Brand's been with the Clippers two seasons. Their record? 66-99. The Bulls' record over the past <B>THREE</B> seasons is 66-180.


LOL. This might be a point in Brand's favor if he hadn't been with the Bulls compling that terrible record three years ago. That year with Elton was their worst of the last 3. 



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> News flash - there is a correlation between winning and making the all-defense team. There isn't a correlation between being a good defender and making it.


 Sure DaBullz, there is no correlation between being a good defender and making the all-defensive team. I'll let you tell Ben Wallace that.

Seems like a good point to agree to disagree.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure DaBullz, there is no correlation between being a good defender and making the all-defensive team. I'll let you tell Ben Wallace that.


Tell that to Chandler, because he's God's gift to defense and didn't get a vote!



> Seems like a good point to agree to disagree.


Whatever.


----------



## nwasquad (Aug 1, 2003)

listen, this thread seems to have gotten out of hand but heres my input on it: 

the thread was created jus for fun as a way to project EC and TC's numbers if they play well like they did at the end of last year...no ones sayin anything about comparing them to all time greats like McHale and Parrish, those claims were based on POTENTIAL so it should pretty much be disregarded....this thread has gotten way to serious and with dabullz competing against everyone else pretty much, its gone wack...so lets jus end it


----------



## Jay Marioti (Aug 12, 2003)

what happened to the numbers?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> what happened to the numbers?


what happened to the fun?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> what happened to the fun?


on my last post i had fun with #s 

sadly dabullz has chosen not to respond to that


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> on my last post i had fun with #s
> ...


Those numbers with TC playing more than 35+ minutes were very impressive. I am a little skeptical of all such work in part b/c it's tough to look about boxscores and know whom guarded whom as you pointed out, but still very interesting. Thanks!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Those numbers with TC playing more than 35+ minutes were very impressive. I am a little skeptical of all such work in part b/c it's tough to look about boxscores and know whom guarded whom as you pointed out, but still very interesting. Thanks!


in all but one of the games chandler started at a certain position and against certain teams i know who chandler would guard except for one game where chandler started at center but curry also played 30 minutes so i chandler defending the power forward for most of the game

but i think its pretty interesting that in the games that chandler played big minutes the player slated to play against him usually had a sub-par game(8 out of 13 to be exact) while on the other side chandler did seem to dominate just a bit


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice improvement, right. Elton Brand numbers, right? Candidate for MIP. Who is it? Well, the title gave it away. It's EC's and TC's numbers combined.
> ...


One, finds it funny that you combine Eddy and Chandlers numbers, then find it neccessary to compare them to Brands. Last time I checked Eddy wasnt even in the trade. It's been two years left it go. Bulls fans........


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hilary_Duff</b>!
> unftunately that isnt how you justify trades, Eddy was never in the deal. Tyson will NEVER reach Elton's production, Eddy will.. i have no idea where all this Chandler jockriding comes from, it must be the denzel washington looks because his play definately dosent back it up.


i like this one, why is this guy banned


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> I definitely would not call him a "force" on the defensive end- I would say that he is an adequate defender for his size.


An adequate defender that was leading the L in blocks, before he go hurt and finished like 4th overall at seasons end. Is it that had to just admit Brand is good. You act like both cant be good players in the league. You also forgot to mention the fact Tyson knows vitually nothng about basketball, besides running and jumping. I can do that to can I play in the league. You Bulls fan are some of the biggest Homers I have ever seen, especially you. You go all around his boards going out of your way to bash brand.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> but to help you out i did some research of my own by virtue of espn.com
> 
> ...


I did the research, too. I came up with these numbers for Chandler on defense:
13 games
.491 FG% against
8.7 reb against
.9 blk against
15.8 ppg against (he was outscored, a net minus)

See attached spreadsheet.

Conveniently, you didn't mention that Chandler could only make it to 35 minutes in 13 games. The other <B>62</B> games he couldn't, because his defense was poor.

A more telling statistic is how he hacked his man because he couldn't guard him.

11 min/3 PF vs. IND
10 min/4 PF vs MIL
(OK, I'll give you a free excuse - post injury)

21 min/5 PF vs. TOR
33 min/6 PF vs. PHO
25 min/5 PF @ NJN
32 min/5 PF vs. DET
26 min/5 PF @ DEN
19 min/6 PF @ PHO
21 min/4 PF vs HOU
16 min/4 PF @ MIA
13 min/3 PF @ NOR
9 min/4 PF vs UTH
23 min/5 PF vs. CLE
19 min/4 PF @ NJN
12 min/4 PF vs. IND
12 min/3 PF vs. IND
17 min/6 PF vs. MEM
12 min/4 PF vs. NJN
21 min/4 PF vs. DAL
21 min/4 PF vs. BOS
=18 games (actually 20 including the last two he played, that's ~1/3 of those 62 games)
That's 11 PF per 48 minutes (OUCH)

You don't want to see his offensive stats for those games, or rebounding figures.

Brand played 62 games. Of those, he played 34 or less minutes 13 times. Less than 30 minutes just once. 

Brand averaged 4PF per 48 minutes for the season. Chandler averaged 5.7 PF per 48 minutes for the season. If you took Brand's worst 18 games, he'd still be under 5.7 PF per 48 minutes.

Have at it.

Fun with numbers.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Im The One</b>!
> 
> 
> i like this one, why is this guy banned


How did you know he was banned???????


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Hey, I still think the trade was a bold and creative move which very well may still pan out into a potent twin towers combo.

As we've pointed out in the past, if you stand pat with Brand, the Bulls do not take Eddie Curry at #4, since the similarities in playng style would crowd things up under the basket.

So the question is, if not the trade and the Chandler/Curry draft, what do the Bulls do in 2001?

I believe the Bulls already had ERob on their wish list. Of course, this has panned out to be the TRUE mistake of the 2001 offseason.

For this reason, though, the Bulls would not want to draft a SF with the #4 pick and most of the projected top lottery prospects were threes. JRich (2/3) Battier, Griffin, RJeff. I'd rather have any of those than ERob at this point, but hindsight is 20/20. But is, say, a Brand/Battier frontcourt, with no big name center a 2001 lineup that we would have applauded? I don't think so.

Would I rather have Brand and another Center available? Diop? No, I wouldn't.

The Bulls decided that they were in big time need of a center to rebuild around. Curry was the best center projected and his game didn't mesh with Brand. So they moved Brand for a 7 foot PF/C.

And I'm not going to fault the Bulls staff for not picking a Tony Parker or a Gilbert Arenes. Everyone else let then slip too. And we still wouldn't have had a center.

I suppose we could speculate and come up with all sorts of scenarios where we could have traded down and picked up a decent vet and a mid-first rounder, but overall, I think what they did was a reasonable solution for what to do with the 2001 draft. 

And yes, the kids have taken their lumps and played like they would have been better off with a couple of years of Division I under their belts, but they are reaching the point now where that factor should level off and we can expect more professional results.

OK, the post is conceptual rather than fun with numbers but I once again return to the well-worn Benjamin Disraeli quote:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> How did you know he was banned???????


:laugh: Probably because Hilary_Duff posted several times on this thread (See at the top of Page 4 for example and each post has the legend:

Hilary_Duff
Banned Member

But I'm only speculation that's how he knew...:laugh:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I did the research, too. I came up with these numbers for Chandler on defense:
> ...


trust me on this your #s are wrong except for the fact he did play 35 min. in 13 games because i have the games in question right next to the computer and since only3 players even scored 15 points (k.thomas ,karl malone and chris webber got 19,20 &21 respectivly a figure combined is below their season avg.) i find it highly doutful them combined with 11 other games got to an avg. of 15.8(for those wondering the other 10 games the opposing players were avg. 9.3)

and 2 big reasons he didn't play more was donyell marshall and marcus fizer plus when curry emerged over the final 2 months center minutes became sparse for chandler to suppliment his pt with . 

fouls per min. or 48 min. can be fun but if cartwright wanted to play him more he could have tc only fouled out of 3 games not a high # for a post player 

and to put out any doubt of these 13 games in the future they were 
11/23 jazz vs karl malone 7-16 fg 20 pts 7 reb. 7ast
12/31 'blazer vs. r.wallace6-14 fg 14 pts 6 rebs 3 ast
1/10 bucks pryzbilla & caffey due to pryzbilla playing something like 8 minutes i included his backup for the night caffey as well
2-6 fg 7 pts 5 reb. 1ast
1/13 ny knicks k.thomas 9-18 fg 19pts 12 reb3 ast
2/12 vs philly derrick coleman 4-12fg 8 pts 8 reb 3ast
2/15 vs nene and the nuggets 4-7fg 9 pts 5 rebs 0 ast
2/19 philly and coleman again 2-8 fg 8 pts 8 reb 2 ast
2/22 vs. heat brian grant 6-10 fg 12 pts 12 reb1ast
3/6 vs t.murphy and G.S. 6-12 13 pts 9 reb 3 ast
3/8 LAC and parks (brand out with injury ) 3-8fg 6pts 3reb 1ast
3/11 LAL vs madsen 2-7 fg 4pts 7 rebs 3 ast
3/22 nyk othella harrington 4-9 fg 12 pts 7 reb. 0ast
3/29 kings and webber 9-18 21 pts 10 reb.2 ast 

and since this is about chandler's defense i'll omit his offense but trust it outweighs sum avg. of .444 fg%(64-144) 11.7 pts 7.6 rebs and 2.2 ast.

so you see in the games chandler mostly plays defense(as to isolate his defense from the defense of others) is his best asset as he usually holds his man to sub par efforts 

if you cant see that oh well 

fyi the attachment isn't any good for reason you often picked a player chandler didn't defend


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Fun with numbers: Curry and Chandler*



> Originally posted by <b>Im The One</b>!
> 
> 
> One, finds it funny that you combine Eddy and Chandlers numbers, then find it neccessary to compare them to Brands. Last time I checked Eddy wasnt even in the trade. It's been two years left it go. Bulls fans........


I combined the numbers because 12 ppg to 20 ppg are more compelling and easier to digest than the individual sums of 6 ppg to 10 ppg and 6 ppg to 10 ppg. In their second year, the kids still played limited minutes - just like every HS to Pro kid but one preceeding them in in the last 10 years including Kobe and TMAC. The one exception was KG. Amare probably makes it two exceptions this year.

The original post had nothing to do with Brand, or the trade, other than the fact that the combined #'s are similar to his excellent #'s last year. 

But clearly many of us, including me, are happy to debate the Brand trade as well. :yes:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> trust me on this your #s are wrong except for the fact he did play 35 min. in 13 games because i have the games in question right next to the computer and since only3 players even scored 15 points (k.thomas ,karl malone and chris webber got 19,20 &21 respectivly a figure combined is below their season avg.) i find it highly doutful them combined with 11 other games got to an avg. of 15.8(for those wondering the other 10 games the opposing players were avg. 9.3)
> ...


Looks to me like Chandler played C against Utah and in a number of other games, including Portland. Games that Curry played very few minutes.

Against Milwaukee, Caffee (6'8" PF) did replace Pryzbilla, but Thomas moved to C (6'10" PF/C). Frankly, it may have been Mason who moved to C to guard Chandler (they're both PF, no?). If so, Mason lit him up, but I didn't count it that way, giving Chandler the benefit of the doubt.

You also aren't considering when Chandler played against TWO players whose minutes combined to about the same as Chandler's. Against the Lakers, he guarded both Madsen and Horry.

You better go look at your "guesses" as to who he guarded a little closer. 

As to holding his man to subpar efforts. What good is it if you do it for 13 games yet give up vastly superior efforts in another 62?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Hey, I still think the trade was a bold and creative move which very well may still pan out into a potent twin towers combo.


It was bold, alright. It was something else, too. Clever? I don't think so.



> As we've pointed out in the past, if you stand pat with Brand, the Bulls do not take Eddie Curry at #4, since the similarities in playng style would crowd things up under the basket.


Makes no sense. Chandler has no game outside the lane. I see no difference in whether it's Brand or Chandler in the lane - if one hurts Curry's game, so does the other. Brand already does everything we can hope Chandler will do, and he already does them better than Chandler (so far).

Plus, Brand was a young guy himself, as he came out of college early.


So far, it truly looks like Krause ended up taking two HSers that are best suited to play C. Fun with numbers: most of Chandler's best games were when he played C against a PF-type playing C against him.

If you want to play the alternate scenario game, I suggest you start by having us take Francis instead of Brand. Before anyone starts cutting him down, remember that he's still young, and people thought Jordan would never win a championship until he did in his seventh season. Houston also has rebuilt a playoff team with a lot of (MING) upside from a quality team that featured Pip, Hakeem, Barkley, and Drexler - and a lot faster than the Bulls (who still haven't rebuilt).


Peace!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> As to holding his man to subpar efforts. What good is it if you do it for 13 games yet give up vastly superior efforts in another 62?


First, baring a few historical exceptions, kids 2 years removed vrom HS dont't play full starter minutes in the NBA. Kobe didn't do it. TMAC didn't do it.

Second, no team has ever taken 2 kids out of HS in the same year and tried to develop both at the same time. And to top it off, both of our guys play in the post.

So it seem ridiculus to give Chandler a hard time for playing less than 35 minutes when he is splitting time with guys as good as Marshal, Fizer and another Twenty year old kid with All-World potential.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Johnston, we finally agree on something.

First. Nobody has taken 2 HSers the same year and devleoped them successfully. The successful formula is to take ONE HSer and limit their minutes or start them with a quality lineup of veterans at the other positions. And for a playoff team - the constant losing has to get to a guy's ego (it did to Brand's).

Second. I'm not the one having fun with numbers trying to prove that Chandler is somehow as good or better than Brand. Brand is an established star. An all-star by his third season in the league. I think you are on the money by saying Chandler isn't good enough to get 35 minutes because there are better players on the team (Marshall, Fizer, and Baxter, too).

If or when our guys make their first half-dozen all-star teams and make all-nba teams and all-defense teams, then we can really start thinking about how they're in the same league as Parrish and McHale. Oh yeah, when they make it to the NBA finals 5 times in 10 years, too. 

That's how premature all this talk of their greatness is, and why fans of other teams come in here and are blown away by what "homers" we Bulls fans are. These other fans are used to seeing major league basketball played by a roster full of nba-ready players; it's not surprising to see them scoff at our posts pumping up our NOT ready for NBA players as if they were HOFers.

Homer. D'oh!


----------



## Jay Marioti (Aug 12, 2003)

TC does have a modest jumper.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True. Brand came out early as well and he has made an impact sooner.

Still, I think its fair to say that Ty is still on the upward arc of his learning curve. While the early talk of TC being a three position player is probably a little heavily laced with kool-aid, Ty still has the potential to develop his game so as to step outside -- maybe even handle the ball -- and be an actual threat. If he does, overall, he will be more versitile for us than Brand.

I simply don't accept that Ty's production to date are a fair indicator for how he will develop as a journeyman. Whether we had Brand or not, I AM convinced that we would still have floundered as a team for the past two seasons - so no harm no foul, to date. I've already conceded that both Eddy and Tyson probably would have been better off with a year or two of college. But whats done is done and now we have to see how they will develop now that they are men.

From a moving forward perspective, I am not ready to say the TC move was a mistake. I still believe that eventually TC + EC will prove to be a productive combination, mor so than EC + EB or EB + _________ (available top ranked player) in 2001.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> First. Nobody has taken 2 HSers the same year and devleoped them successfully. The successful formula is to take ONE HSer and limit their minutes or start them with a quality lineup of veterans at the other positions. And for a playoff team - the constant losing has to get to a guy's ego .


There is more than one way to skin a cat. B/f Jordan, no team had won with an offense centered around a SG.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Second. I'm not the one having fun with numbers trying to prove that Chandler is somehow as good or better than Brand.


Show me where anyone said this on this thread.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> If or when our guys make their first half-dozen all-star teams and make all-nba teams and all-defense teams, then we can really start thinking about how they're in the same league as Parrish and McHale. Oh yeah, when they make it to the NBA finals 5 times in 10 years, too.


Hey, clearly, you want to wait until something is patently obvious. Personally, I don't find it that intersting to say that Tracy McGrady is now on a Hall of Fame path. My dog could tell me that much.




> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> That's how premature all this talk of their greatness is, and why fans of other teams come in here and are blown away by what "homers" we Bulls fans are. These other fans are used to seeing major league basketball played by a roster full of nba-ready players; it's not surprising to see them scoff at our posts pumping up our NOT ready for NBA players as if they were HOFers.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49617&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

In the thread from last week, you indicated that you would not trade either of Chandler and Curry for anything other than a top 15 player. They are clearly not that good now so *you* must be projecting that they improve in the future.

So if it's fine for you to project their improvement, why does that make the rest of us homers?



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Homer. D'oh!


Ok, here's the deal.

If the Bulls lose more than 38 games, I will change my handle to Bulls Homer. But if the Bulls win 38 games or more, you change your handle to DaPessimist? What do you think?


----------



## Jay Marioti (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> True. Brand came out early as well and he has made an impact sooner.
> ...


Bcause he played at DUKE for 2years.:dead:


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> How did you know he was banned???????


ummm it says it under his name


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> TC does have a modest jumper.


he really does, he just is afraid to use it more


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> How did you know he was banned???????



why was hilary banned? :no:


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ringtone</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> why was hilary banned? :no:


You should know. Didn't they give you a reason?


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Nater</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't they give you a reason?



no, i was just banned out of the blue. i followed trueblues rules and still get banned :|


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> There is more than one way to skin a cat. B/f Jordan, no team had won with an offense centered around a SG.


1973 Lakers. 60 wins, 22 losses

Jerry West (and Gail Goodrich).

Try again.





> Show me where anyone said this on this thread.


OK.



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> it seems maybe elton isn't so much better defensively than tyson if at all


I see this kind of putdown of other teams' players all the time from numerous people. And he's a guy a have a lot of respect for. Homer. D'oh.




> Hey, clearly, you want to wait until something is patently obvious. Personally, I don't find it that intersting to say that Tracy McGrady is now on a Hall of Fame path. My dog could tell me that much.


It's realism. I don't find it interesting to say that Hinrich is going to be better than Stockton. That's the kind of reasoning I see going on.




> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49617&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
> 
> In the thread from last week, you indicated that you would not trade either of Chandler and Curry for anything other than a top 15 player. They are clearly not that good now so *you* must be projecting that they improve in the future.


I don't know what they're going to do in the future, but I'm willing to find out. What they are now is servicable role players, and that's how they should be used. If and when they prove, on the court, that they are truly special players (like Bird/Magic/Thomas/Jordan/Duncan), then we can truly say they are special players.



> So if it's fine for you to project their improvement, why does that make the rest of us homers?


I'm not projecting them to be the next Parrish and McHale. Or the next Hakeem and Sampson. They're truly and really not even close. The admission of the truth makes me "not a homer." Blind faith in our guys and putting down virtually every other player in the NBA does make a person a "homer." Seeing our players through rose colored glasses does make a person a "homer."

The basic argument I see used by my opponents in this debate is "I'm an expert judge of NBA talent. While the stats rarely show it, our guys are special. Forget about actual NBA all-stars, they're nothing special, and we don't want actual NBA all-stars on our team."

Well, fans of other teams are just as good evaluators of talent. Frankly, they've been watching a lot better brand of basketball than we have for half a decade. Their reaction to our posts is quite telling.



> Originally posted by <b>Im The One</b>!
> 
> An adequate defender that was leading the L in blocks, before he go hurt and finished like 4th overall at seasons end. Is it that had to just admit Brand is good. You act like both cant be good players in the league. You also forgot to mention the fact Tyson knows vitually nothng about basketball, besides running and jumping. I can do that to can I play in the league. You Bulls fan are some of the biggest Homers I have ever seen, especially you. You go all around his boards going out of your way to bash brand.


It isn't just trash talk.



> Ok, here's the deal.
> 
> If the Bulls lose more than 38 games, I will change my handle to Bulls Homer. But if the Bulls win 38 games or more, you change your handle to DaPessimist? What do you think?


How about DaRealist? Or DaHonesty?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

In response to, "_B/f Jordan, no team had won with an offense centered around a SG._'



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 1973 Lakers. 60 wins, 22 losses
> 
> Jerry West (and Gail Goodrich).
> ...


LOL. Bro, you need to try again. I would suggest another thread. 

First, Lakers didn't win in 73. They won in 72. Either way, that had Wilt the Stilt. Wilt was the MVP of the Championship in 72.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> In response to, "_B/f Jordan, no team had won with an offense centered around a SG._'
> 
> 
> ...


Gail Goodrich 25.9 PPG
Jerry West 25.8 PPG
Wilt 14.8 PPG

They were built around Goodrich and West. Wilt was Rodman to Goody's and West's Pippen and Jordan.


http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/lawrence_mitch/110858.html

What happened for the Lakers was extraordinary. That year they won 33 straight games -- a record that certainly will never be broken -- and a then-record 69 games overall. It ended with the second and final championship for Chamberlain. But waking before noon wasn't even the biggest sacrifice Sharman asked of his center that season.

Sharman figured that the Lakers had more than enough scoring with Jerry West, Gail Goodrich and Jim McMillan. So he asked Chamberlain to forget his point totals and become a more dangerous defensive player. Venture out from beneath the glass and challenge shooters. Block more shots.

To make his point, Sharman finally asked Wilt to be more like Russell. He knew that comparison would get Wilt's attention immediately.

"Here I am, asking the only guy who has ever scored 100 points in a game -- the only guy who will ever score 100 points in a game -- and the only guy who averaged 50 points to adjust ... and Wilt did it," Sharman said. "His defense was a big reason we were as good as we were. But that's the way Wilt was for me. He was wonderful, very cooperative. It's just a shame what happened."


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Gail Goodrich 25.9 PPG
> ...


I noticed that you neglected to add West's league leading 9.7 APG.

Or Wilt's 22 RPG.

http://www.nba.com/history/awards/19711972.html

West - 1st team - All-NBA
Wilt - 2nd team - All-NBA, 1st Team - All-Defensive.
Goody - Not to be found.


Just your routine championship team build around a great PG and great C.

Which refutes your original point that Krause building a team around a SG had been done before.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I noticed that you neglected to add West's league leading 9.7 APG.
> ...


The Lakers were very much built around Goody and West, regardless of post season awards.

Like I said, Wilt was Rodman to West and Goody's Jordan and Pippen. Rodman was all-nba defensive team several times (including the year before he came to the Bulls) and was the closest to Wilt's 22RPG since that 1972-73 season.


There were LOTS of great teams that were not built around a PG and PF (or C) tandem. 

Like the Sonics with Gus Williams, Freddie Brown, and Dennis Johnson. Or Philly with Doug Collins and Dr. J. Or the Pistons with Thomas and Dumars. Or the Spurs with Gervin and James Silas. Or the Warriors with Phil Smith and Rick Barry. Or the Suns with Walter Davis and Westphal.

&c


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Like the Sonics with Gus Williams, Freddie Brown, and Dennis Johnson. Or Philly with Doug Collins and Dr. J. Or the Pistons with Thomas and Dumars. Or the Spurs with Gervin and James Silas. Or the Warriors with Phil Smith and Rick Barry. Or the Suns with Walter Davis and Westphal.



Still teams needed that C. Or had a dominant team and a very good to great PG.

72 Lakers needed Wilt (MVP in Championship)

Sonics had a very balanced team and had Jack Sikma. Plus Shelton and Silas as forwards.

Dr. J did not win in the NBA until he had Moses Malone (MVP in Championship) 

Spurs never won.

Suns never won.

Pistons with Isaiah had the great PG.

The one legit example that you may have pulled is Barry and the Warriors. But they were a champs just once and won just 48 games in the reg season record in a year when the Celtics and the Bullets each won 60. Whether it was a fluke or not, certainly not a dominant champion let along a dynasty.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

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


Look at the Warriors' record the season after they won the championship. 59-23. They were favorites to win again. The Warriors' center was (ex-bull) Clifford Ray. He was an absolute gamer and a winner. But not a dominant player by any stretch of the imagination.

The sonics were absolutely dominated by their guard play. Sikma was a better than average center, but again, not one of the best in the league in his time. Gus Williams was a truly great player.

Suns were in the finals. Spurs were perpetual playoff team. Philly lost in the finals three times.

Heck, the Lakers made it to the Finals 7 times in 9 years with a team built around 6'4" Jerry West and 6'5" Elgin Baylor (Wilt wasn't on any of those teams).

The Bulls with Pippen had the great PG. You don't get off the hook that easy.

The point is that Krause was not the first guy to build a team without a dominant and quality center. 

The teams that are/were consistent contenders simply had a dominant player or two (or four) at some position. Unfortunately, we haven't had that kind of player since Krause drove our best two away.

BTW, West's career scoring average was 27.0 PPG and he averaged 6.7 APG. Jordan's career scoring average was 30.1 PPG and he averaged 5.8 APG. Baylor averaged 27.4 PPG and he averaged 4.3 APG.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The teams that are/were consistent contenders simply had a dominant player or two (or four) at some position. Unfortunately, we haven't had that kind of player since Krause drove our best two away.


OK, let's say you above statement is correct.

And we know that Krause didn't feel Brand was a dominant player as defined above.

We can also assume that Krause felt Chandler and Curry both *could* be that type of dominant player.

Therefore, rather than breaking some arbitrarily rule that you have imposed on what teams should draft HS players and how many they should draft, this should justify Krause's rolling the dice for Chandler and Curry.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, let's say you above statement is correct.
> ...


Krause also thought Will Perdue was a worthy 1st round draft pick.

The Jury is Out on Chandler and Curry. It isn't on Brand. And if Krause wanted a dominant player, he could have, and should have taken Francis. For a guy who "built a championship team around an SG," it really makes sense to load up on anyone but an SG, eh?

BTW, that 71-72 Lakers team won the championship. They were in the finals the next year. They were rebuilt into a championship team by 79-80. That would be a 6-year complete rebuild. We're in year 6 of Krause's plan now. The contrast is stark.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Krause also thought Will Perdue was a worthy 1st round draft pick.


That's not the point. Picking a decent center prospect in the late lottery is a move that is accepted.

You indicated that Krause had made a strategic error by selecting 2 HS kids in the same year. 

I completely disagree. I think it's setting us up to be a power in the EAst for years to come although some of the side benefit of making small gains the next year and getting another high draft pick (JWill at #2) are lost to the JWill's accident.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

That Lakers team that was rebuilt in 6 seasons went on to win 5 NBA championships over a decade.

If that's not "years to come," then nothing is.

That Lakers team that won those 5 championships was rebuilt AGAIN.

The status of the Bulls rebuiling is clear. 30 wins.

Krause's record of evaluating talent is spotty at best. To his credit, he drafted Pippen, Grant, Armstrong, Kukoc, Brand, and Fizer. The rest of his picks are proven washouts, bench players, or guys who haven't proven to be washouts or stars.

Krause did much better in his veteran acquisitions. Rose, Marshall, Rodman, Harper, Longley, Cartwright, Kerr, Hodges.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> that 71-72 Lakers team won the championship. They were in the finals the next year. They were rebuilt into a championship team by 79-80. That would be a 6-year complete rebuild.


Bonus points if you can name the two GM's that put the pieces of the 79-80 team in place.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> That Lakers team that was rebuilt in 6 seasons went on to win 5 NBA championships over a decade.
> 
> If that's not "years to come," then nothing is.
> ...


I can't believe this thread is in danger of degenerating into another Krause-bashing.

To be fair, teams in the 70's and 80's did not have to deal with the drafting of such young players as teams today do. The Lakers didn't have to wait 2-3 years for their draft picks to contribute.

If Krause could have had the benefit of drafting the guys he did after 2, 3, or 4 years of seasoning in college, the Bulls would be much farther along in their rebuilding than they are.

Teams back then also did not have to deal with a salary cap.

But it's clear the 70-80 team was built primarily through two blockbuster deals: the trade for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in 1975 and the compensation deal worked out when free agent Gail Goodrich signed with the Jazz, which netted the Lakers the draft pick they used to select Magic Johnson.

Incidentally, I believe Jerry Krause was working as a scout in the Laker organization around that time, and I read somewhere was instrumental in their drafting of Norm Nixon.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Bonus points if you can name the two GM's that put the pieces of the 79-80 team in place.
> 
> ...


bill sharman was the only GM the lakers had during that time if memory serves me west took over in 82 

i personally could care less about the 1990 to present-seasons to me its the past i care about next year 

i believe the krause back-up plan (after t-mac) is the work of genuis and the best idea running for building a contender because it is absolutely error proof if a team makes the right decisions along the way which was 

take the most talented players possible of decent character and put them together -due to the bulls youth they were destined to lose but they are turning the corner despite a certain _critic_ might say 

the teams of the 70s and 80s had ted steipend(sp) to aquire picks from which is like the nuggets giving up #1s every year because the cavs then were pretty bad (the more things change the more they stay the same)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> To be fair, teams in the 70's and 80's did not have to deal with the drafting of such young players as teams today do. The Lakers didn't have to wait 2-3 years for their draft picks to contribute.


How old was Magic as a rookie, what was his college experience, and how long did they have to wait for him to be a contributor?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> How old was Magic as a rookie, what was his college experience, and how long did they have to wait for him to be a contributor?


Magic was, I believe, 20 years old at the beginning of his rookie year, and had 2 years of college experience. Right where Chandler & Curry are now. He contributed immediately.

Magic was also arguably one of the top 10 NBA players of all time, something the Bulls have not, as far as we can tell, had the opportunity to draft.

I believe my point still holds.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> bill sharman was the only GM the lakers had during that time if memory serves me west took over in 82


I don't believe Bill Sharman became GM until 1976.

The guy who was GM before Sharman-- the guy who made the trade for Kareem-- is a name that is well known in basketball circles, although not necessarily as a GM. I was surprised to learn who it was.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Magic was, I believe, 20 years old at the beginning of his rookie year, and had 2 years of college experience. Right where Chandler & Curry are now. He contributed immediately.
> 
> ...


Actually, you made my point for me.

(Though Jordan and Pippen were drafted by the Bulls).


----------

