# Official Championship History of the SF position, including recent history thread



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luol Deng is overrated for championship play at his salary. Jnr thinks he is not and that having a complete player who makes what Deng makes as a top 5 guy at his position is some kind of recipe for success. Additionally, you're a terrible scientist if you ignore recent examples of SFs in championship play. 

Let's take a closer look. Let's see how many SFs are paid as much as Deng or more. And for those who are paid that much and have won rings, let's see how many guys Deng is as good as.

Luol Deng
2010-11 Salary: 11.3 million
2010-11 Regular season stats - 17.4 PPG 5.8 RPG 2.8 APG 1.0 SPG 0.6 BPG 46.0% FG 75.3% FT 15.5 PER
2010-11 Playoff stats - 16.9 PPG 6.6 RPG 2.7 APG 1.5 SPG 0.6 BPG 42.6% FG 83.9% FT 15.4 PER

2010-11 NBA Champions - The Dallas Mavericks
Starting SF: Shawn Marion
2010-11 salary: 7.9 million
2010-11 Regular season stats - 12.5 PPG 6.9 RPG 1.4 APG 0.9 SPG 0.6 BPG 52.0% FG 76.8% FT 17.0 PER
2010-11 Playoff stats - 11.9 PPG 6.3 RPG 2.1 APG 1.0 SPG 0.9 BPG 46.7% FG 85.1% FT 15.1 PER

So the question becomes, did we get value for Deng relative to Marion? Is the difference between 15.4 PER and 15.1 PER in the playoffs really 3.4 million dollars? 

My contention is that Marion, like Deng, is a role player, like most SFs in NBA championship history. Neither of them are stars that define their team in any meaningful way the way that Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade defined their title teams.

Dallas, unlike the Bulls, appeared to have gotten the salary part right. 7.9 is about what you pay a role player in the Marion Deng range of performance.

So, if I'm wrong and there really are guys getting paid what Deng (on title teams both recent and distant past) is making and producing less or producing less relative to greater or lower pay, I'll admit it.

But my contention on Deng v. Marion is that anyone saying that Deng is appropriately paid for an appropriate role on a title team is 0-for-1.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Luol Deng is overrated for championship play at his salary. Jnr thinks he is not and that having a complete player who makes what Deng makes as a top 5 guy at his position is some kind of recipe for success. Additionally, you're a terrible scientist if you ignore recent examples of SFs in championship play.
> 
> Let's take a closer look. Let's see how many SFs are paid as much as Deng or more. And for those who are paid that much and have won rings, let's see how many guys Deng is as good as.
> 
> ...


Youth has more value than an old player like Marion.

Young Fish would cost more than old Fish.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Ballscientist said:


> Youth has more value than an old player like Marion.
> 
> Young Fish would cost more than old Fish.


Deng is not a guy where you say "okay, he's failing at things now because he's 24, but what an athlete. The potential is there." Deng is likely at the peak or near the peak of his production. 

We're going to compare what is/was, and not what coulda, woulda or shoulda been. 

You know what. If you could get near the same production for 7.9 from an older player, do it. I didn't make Paxson go for the young guy. Deng was not youth that's gonna be worth 13.3 next year.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Deng is paid perfectly fine. He is an above average player on offense and he's a terrific defender. Considering that Luol is the best in the game at defending Bron Bron, and the Heat are an ever present threat to the Heat, I'd say he's paid a reasonable amount. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over a mil or two if I'm a Bulls fan.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Your sample is only Shawn Marion.

Let me expand the sample for SF:

Hedo

Rudy Gay

Caron Butler (Mavs)

Lewis (at the time of signing SF)

Peja (Hornets)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Quite convenient to pick one stat out of the air to "prove" your point. Marion signed his current deal at age 31. Deng at 23.

Marion
21 1999-00 Phoenix Suns NBA $1,546,320 
22 2000-01 Phoenix Suns NBA $1,662,240 
23 2001-02 Phoenix Suns NBA $1,778,160 
24 2002-03 Phoenix Suns NBA $2,265,375 
*25 2003-04 Phoenix Suns NBA $10,960,000*
26 2004-05 Phoenix Suns NBA $12,330,000 
27 2005-06 Phoenix Suns NBA $13,700,000 
28 2006-07 Phoenix Suns NBA $15,070,000 
29 2007-08 Miami Heat NBA $16,440,000 
30 2008-09 Toronto Raptors NBA $17,810,000 
31 2009-10 Dallas Mavericks NBA $6,635,068 
32 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks NBA $7,305,500 

Deng
19 2004-05 Chicago Bulls NBA $2,273,400 
20 2005-06 Chicago Bulls NBA $2,443,920 
21 2006-07 Chicago Bulls NBA $2,614,440 
22 2007-08 Chicago Bulls NBA $3,320,339 
23 2008-09 Chicago Bulls NBA $9,385,000 
24 2009-10 Chicago Bulls NBA $10,370,425 
*25 2010-11 Chicago Bulls NBA $11,345,000 *


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

VanillaPrice said:


> Deng is paid perfectly fine. He is an above average player on offense and he's a terrific defender. Considering that Luol is the best in the game at defending Bron Bron, and the Heat are an ever present threat to the Heat, I'd say he's paid a reasonable amount. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over a mil or two if I'm a Bulls fan.


I understand that you'd say it. You like Luol Deng. We're not going to go by your pre-conclusory opinion though. We're going to put Luol Deng to the test. If he's really worth his salary and if we're a championship team with him as our #2, he'll measure up just fine right?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Quite convenient to pick one stat out of the air to "prove" your point. Marion signed his current deal at age 31. Deng at 23.
> 
> Marion
> 21 1999-00 Phoenix Suns NBA $1,546,320
> ...


I don't care what age a player is. You go care about Luol Deng being young. 

Are you getting value or aren't you? That's the question. How can the answer be "wellll, we aren't, but the guy is young." So what? At age 25 or 35 you either do or you don't.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Unless there is a clear upgrade, why are we even talking about Luol Deng. 

Hes a Bull, hes going to be a Bull for the remainder of his contract, mostly because nobody wants that contract but still. Whats the damn point of arguing, I don't see Rudy Gay or Kevin Durant available so yeah.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Unfortunately that's just not how it works... a players value has to be relative to something - you can't just ignore that the market pays older players less when comparing Deng's salary to Marion's.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

He wants to make it clear that he's absolutely right and that everyone else is wrong and loves Paxson and should expect failure and nothing but failure for the rest of time.

There's no give, so there's no discussion. It's cool.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

...and yeah, I'm exaggerating.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hoodey said:


> I understand that you'd say it. You like Luol Deng. We're not going to go by your pre-conclusory opinion though. We're going to put Luol Deng to the test. If he's really worth his salary and if we're a championship team with him as our #2, he'll measure up just fine right?


I don't think that I am more indifferent to any player in the NBA than I am to Luol Deng. But that doesn't change the fact that he is an above average offensive player, a terrific defender and is young. When a player has all three of those things going for him he's going to get paid. Especially if he does it on a winning team. Quit putting words in people's mouth just because you *don't* like Luol Deng.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luol Deng
2010-11 Salary: 11.3 million
2010-11 Regular season stats - 17.4 PPG 5.8 RPG 2.8 APG 1.0 SPG 0.6 BPG 46.0% FG 75.3% FT 15.5 PER
2010-11 Playoff stats - 16.9 PPG 6.6 RPG 2.7 APG 1.5 SPG 0.6 BPG 42.6% FG 83.9% FT 15.4 PER

2009-10 NBA Champions - The Los Angeles Lakers
Starting SF: Ron Artest
2009-10 Salary: 5.8 million
2009-10 Regular season stats - 11.0 PPG 4.3 RPG 3.0 APG 1.4 SPG 0.3 BPG 41.4% FG 68.8% FT 12.1 PER
2009-10 Playoffs - 11.2 PPG 4.0 RPG 2.1 APG 1.5 SPG 0.5 BPG 39.8% FG 57.9% FT 10.8 PER

Again, it looks like another champion going with a role player (four times on all-defensive team) and paying him accordingly. The Lakers clearly just didn't give a lot of emphasis to the SF position.

That's the point. Championship teams either give little emphasis to SF or get a lot more out of their star SF than we get out of Deng. There's not a lot of in between. 

2008-09 NBA Champions - The Los Angeles Lakers
Starting SF: Ron Artest
Salary: 3.1 million
2008-09 Regular season statistics - 8.9 PPG 4.3 RPG 1.8 APG 1.7 APG 0.3 BPG 46.0% FG 71.0% FT 15.5 PER
2008-09 Playoff statistics - 11.3 PPG 4.2 RPG 2.3 APG 1.5 SPG 0.4 BPG 49.7% FG 56.3% FT 14.7 PER

Clearly the Lakers clearly emphasized the SF position. Their two starters made 5.8 mill and 3.1 mill when they won their titles. Ariza just proved that if you have good centers and a superstar guard you can go get a guy off the street to play SF (obvious hyperbole alert). 

Oh and what's this Deng fan boys? Ariza was 23 years old in 2009. But I guess since he is young he's supposed to make 11 mill right?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> Unless there is a clear upgrade, why are we even talking about Luol Deng.
> 
> Hes a Bull, hes going to be a Bull for the remainder of his contract, mostly because nobody wants that contract but still. Whats the damn point of arguing, I don't see Rudy Gay or Kevin Durant available so yeah.


Because he's overpaid. He's not worth 11.3 (or 13.3 next year) in a CBA that puts the cap where it's currently at.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Unfortunately that's just not how it works... a players value has to be relative to something - you can't just ignore that the market pays older players less when comparing Deng's salary to Marion's.


See 2008-09 Championship SF Trevor Ariza - 3.1 million, PER close to Deng...


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Ariza was a second round pick playing on a deal signed after a rookie season at a 13.3 PER (your favorite stat).

Your disregard for the market and its impact on why players get paid what they do is remarkable. It's fine that you'd like certain players to make certain amounts of money, but you're living in a fantasy world.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Because he's overpaid. He's not worth 11.3 (or 13.3 next year) in a CBA that puts the cap where it's currently at.


So whats your solution? Amnesty?

With Boozer and Noah's contracts there is no damn way in hell Deng gets amnestied before these guys.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

wow - so just to be clear Deng is above average for his position and has a salary commiserately market rate to reflect that

and there are a ton of salaries that are much more egregious - the bobcats are paying almost 11m for Corey Maggette this year for god's sake - the lakers are paying 12.4 for a combination of Metta World Peace and Luke Walton 

would you trade Deng to us for a package of Metta and Luke? please... please?? (tear?)


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> Ariza was a second round pick playing on a deal signed after a rookie season at a 13.3 PER (your favorite stat).
> 
> Your disregard for the market and its impact on why players get paid what they do is remarkable. It's fine that you'd like certain players to make certain amounts of money, but you're living in a fantasy world.


Okay. 

Why does this change my point? My point is that championship teams aren't paying what we pay for SFs, and in the rare case they do, they're getting performances from guys like Bird, Worthy, Pippen and Pierce that are much greater than Deng.

You guys are replying (because you love Luol and think he's Scottie Pippen) with "well this guy was old." "Well that guy was on the second year of a deal signed when he was a rookie." 

How does that change what I said. So you're telling me that instead of signing Ariza the Lakers couldn't have gone out and paid a young SF 11 mill if they wanted to? You're telling me that if Deng was the way to go that Dallas couldn't have found a guy like him and paid 11? 

Hey, Jnr accused me of "not giving a large enough sample size" and "not considering recent examples." All I'm doing is taking what we were talking about and making sure I hit every year.

You and the rest of the Deng super fans are taking a break from arguing that Ditka would beat god long enough to say "well this guy was old" and "that guy was a second round pick" as if this makes it impossible for Paxson to have said "the offer is 5 years, 40 mill. Any more than that and you'll have to make your money elsewhere."


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> So whats your solution? Amnesty?
> 
> With Boozer and Noah's contracts there is no damn way in hell Deng gets amnestied before these guys.


No way. I'd much rather amnesty Boozer. 

The discussion jnr and I were having was a broader discussion about whether you'd include Deng and Noah in a trade if Howard were to not resign. My argument is that he's overpaid to begin with and that his contract is an albatross since he's not a #2 and won't ever be a #2. Further, title teams don't emphasize the SF position and when they do, and therefore pay Deng money or greater, they get much greater production. Much greater.

It was also a discussion of why we didn't have to sign anyone if Boozer was the best we could get. The inevitable reply from the super fans is "well, the cap room would have evaporated." That's because Paxson overpaid Deng and Noah. 

So Boozer's contract was good money thrown after bad money.

*It's not about how we have to get rid of Deng. We don't have to rid ourselves of the man. He's a good player and a guy I'd LOVE to have at 7 million, which is about where you're getting value for him. I'm saying that if we have to risk Deng going in a Howard trade in which Howard might leave, you do it, period. You do it and then you amnesty Turkoglu.*


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

There you go again putting words in people's mouths. It's good. I'm done. Everyone has their own bit of fantasy they like to believe is real. You can have yours.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

e-monk said:


> wow - so just to be clear Deng is above average for his position and has a salary commiserately market rate to reflect that
> 
> and there are a ton of salaries that are much more egregious - the bobcats are paying almost 11m for Corey Maggette this year for god's sake - the lakers are paying 12.4 for a combination of Metta World Peace and Luke Walton
> 
> would you trade Deng to us for a package of Metta and Luke? please... please?? (tear?)


You're using an often used Chicago tactic called lowering the standard, by a lot.

When did the Bobcats and the stupid crap they do become part of that? That's what you've got? "Forget what championship teams tend to pay their SFs. At least we aren't the Bobcats." 

I'm not concerned with being above average or making decisions on contracts that are merely "not as stupid as a lot of NBA teams." A lot of NBA teams didn't get lucky on Derrick Rose, so they're constantly rolling dice to try to come up with something. 

We are one of the few teams that got lucky and landed a superstar, so we need to compare ourselves to the teams that have superstars. 

Some of those teams win NBA Finals. I've gone through 3 championship teams and here are the salaries:

Luol Deng 11.3 million
Shawn Marion 7.9 million
Ron Artest 5.8 million
Trevor Ariza 3.1 million

So far the Bulls approach is 0-3 when compared to the 3 most recent champions.

But I guess I should shut up since John Paxson is smarter than the freaking deplorable Bobcats. Wow. THIS is how the Cubs have gone 104 years...


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> There you go again putting words in people's mouths. It's good. I'm done. Everyone has their own bit of fantasy they like to believe is real. You can have yours.


You haven't really made a point that defeats what I'm saying. Title teams don't pay big money for SFs, and when they do they get guys who are much, much better than Deng.

You replied with "well this guy signed his deal at this time" as if the Lakers couldn't have said "no, damn it, small forward is a priority, Ariza is not enough, we need a guy with a 16.2 PER and we need to pay 11 million. 

But be done with the rest of the guys who think Luol Deng is some kind of stud, even though he can't drive, isn't a passing SF, isn't an all-NBA defender despite how good you people think he is. 

We're overpaying him, period.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Let's look at previous champions and their starting 3 in comparison to Deng-

2011 - Mavs - Shawn Marion. Deng is better on both ends of the floor. And really wasn't that much more expensive
2010 - Lakers - Ron Artest. About equal defensively but Deng has a big edge on the other side of the court.
2009 - Lakers - Trevor Ariza. See above post. Ariza was a better three point shooter but that's about it
2008 - Celtics - Paul Pierce. Big edge to the Celtics and PP. But he was the Finals MVP so take it with a grain of salt
2007 - Spurs - Bruce Bowen. Bowen was better defensively but Luol is on another planet offensively.
2006 - Heat - Antoine Walker. Significant edge to Luol on both sides of the ball.
2005 - Spurs - Bruce Bowen. See above Bowen post.
2004 - Pistons - Tayshaun Prince. Push defensively (maybe edge to Prince) but edge goes to Deng due to scoring.
2003 - Spurs - Bruce Bowen. See 2005 & 2007
2000-2002 - Lakers - Deng was better than anyone not named Shaquille or Kobe on those Lakers.

So Deng is better than all but one championship small forward in over a decade. I'd say he's worth the money.

The Bulls real problem is that they didn't land Amar'e or Bosh and were stuck with Boozer, who is mediocre unless playing with an elite pick 'n roll point guard. Which Rose is not at this point. The other four starters, the bench, and the coach are fine. It's the fact that they spent max money on a mediocre basketball player, and I'm not talking about Deng.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> No way. I'd much rather amnesty Boozer.
> 
> The discussion jnr and I were having was a broader discussion about whether you'd include Deng and Noah in a trade if Howard were to not resign. My argument is that he's overpaid to begin with and that his contract is an albatross since he's not a #2 and won't ever be a #2. Further, title teams don't emphasize the SF position and when they do, and therefore pay Deng money or greater, they get much greater production. Much greater.
> 
> ...


Its a moot point, Howard does not want to play in Chicago long term. He wants to waste away in Brooklyn playing for a crap team. 

Arguing whether anyone would trade Deng for Howard is pointless because its not going to happen.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Okay.
> 
> Why does this change my point? My point is that championship teams aren't paying what we pay for SFs, and in the rare case they do, they're getting performances from guys like Bird, Worthy, Pippen and Pierce that are much greater than Deng.
> 
> ...


The point is all you are doing is using a piece of evidence that supports your theory that you are the only one who knows what it takes to win a Championship. Any time anyone combats something you say or actually uses stats to counter you point, you discount that by believing they are Paxson apologists and think Scottie Pippen was the greatest player until Luol Deng came around. You are delusional.

You call Jnr out for being condescending, yet all you are doing is "look at me and what I know" and spew the same garbage across every thread. You clearly like to use stats to "prove" your point, yet you have no idea how statistics actually work. A sample size of four, six, or eight games has absolutely no impact on what is going to happen the next four, six, or eight. Might Boozer play worse when the pressure is on? Perhaps, but his overall playoff record points to no. Forget that fact that he was injured in the playoffs and hadn't had much time all season to play with the full starting lineup.

Us paying Luol what we are doing in no way makes us a flawed team based on the sequence of events. Despite Boozer not being the ideal pickup, he was the BPA out of the guys we could have gotten in the only offseason to get a non MLE FA. Yes, I agree that Boozer is overpaid. Still better to have him than the Bulls at a reduced payroll and only have Noah, Gibson, and Asik in our frontcourt. Argue all you like that we should never have offered Deng, Noah, or Boozer their contracts. Then try and come up with a solution that would have improved this team more than what we have constructed. That might be more interesting discussion.

You are in favor of the Howard trade, as are a majority of Bulls fans. Explain to me how if you never signed Deng, Noah, or Boozer, how we would even have the assets to acquire a Dwight Howard in a trade not involving DRose. The Charlotte pick, Gibson, and Asik would never get it done. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Has Paxson done a perfect job? No one in here would say that. I think he has done a solid job, has drafted very well outside of Tyrus, but doesn't seem to have a lot of pull with the superstars, which has impacted our upper tier FA acquisitions. You take with the bad with the good until you find someone who can do a better job. No one is going to be perfect. I'd give him a solid B during his tenure here.

No one in here has ever thought that Paxson might be the next Scottie Pippen. Sure, he showed some flashes that got people excited in his rookie and sophomore seasons, but anyone would be foolish to think that he is the next Scottie. Scottie was a rare talent, that really wasn't discovered until he had been in the NBA a few years. Clearly, no one before the draft thought so.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> We're overpaying him, period.


And I hope you realize that every offseason is fluid, depending on who is available and who has dollars to spend at positions of need. Supply and demand.

If you had Luol Deng at your $8M salary, how would we have used that extra money to improve the current team? Sign a guy to replace Asik or John Lucas III?

Who would you have signed instead had you let Deng walk away because some other team was willing to pay Deng $10M?

What if they said no?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

If Deng went out on the open market after this season I absolutely guarantee that he would get a better contract than he has now. The Bulls aren't the only team which would like to contain Lebron. When you go to war you make a plan, but when the bullets start flying the other guy gets a vote too and your plan usually goes to shit in a real hurry. The simple fact is that Deng would be desired by at least 90% of NBA teams over their current starting SF and if you gave them the opportunity they would pay him what you do plan upon paying him.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luol Deng
2010-11 Salary: 11.3 million
2010-11 Regular season stats - 17.4 PPG 5.8 RPG 2.8 APG 1.0 SPG 0.6 BPG 46.0% FG 75.3% FT 15.5 PER
2010-11 Playoff stats - 16.9 PPG 6.6 RPG 2.7 APG 1.5 SPG 0.6 BPG 42.6% FG 83.9% FT 15.4 PER

2007-08 NBA Champions - The Boston Celtics
Starting SF: Paul Pierce
2007-08 Salary: 16.3 million
2007-08 Regular season stats - 19.6 PPG 5.1 RPG 4.5 APG 1.3 SPG 0.5 BPG 46.4% FG 84.3% FT 19.6 PER
2007-08 Playoff stats - 19.7 PPG 5.0 RPG 4.6 APG 1.0 SPG 0.3 BPG 44.1% FG 80.2% FT 17.4 PER

Especially considering how good he was in the Finals, here is a guy who is a true #2 on a title team. This is the guy you want to be paying the 13.3+ Deng will make next year. 

Not Luol Deng who is supposedly so good despite the fact that:

> He's not a passer - his 2.9 APG (11-12) are well short of what you'd call a passing SF
> It's well known that he's not going to put the ball on the floor in the half court with any degree of success. He's not a penetrator
> Despite how good he supposedly is defensively, he's not on any all-defensive teams
> His scoring efficiency is rather pedestrian

I think a lot of people just LIKE Luol Deng. Which is fine, but that doesn't mean you're actually good.

So, on the list of championship teams, what they pay their SFs (with Deng added) here is where we're at

Paul Pierce (08) 16.3 million
Luol Deng (11) 11.3 million
Shawn Marion (11) 7.9 million
Ron Artest (10) 5.8 million
Trevor Ariza (09) 3.1 million


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

thebizkit69u said:


> Its a moot point, Howard does not want to play in Chicago long term. He wants to waste away in Brooklyn playing for a crap team.
> 
> Arguing whether anyone would trade Deng for Howard is pointless because its not going to happen.


I seriously doubt that Howard would leave a ton of money on the table to leave a contender and sign with a bad Brooklyn team. It's one thing to dare a guy to walk on a bad franchise with little chance of success in the immediate future, but Howard just won't do it if he's in a good situation in Chicago. If I'm Paxson I'd go ahead and try to land Howard anyway, because when push comes to shove he _will_ re-sign.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> Let's look at previous champions and their starting 3 in comparison to Deng-
> 
> 2011 - Mavs - Shawn Marion. Deng is better on both ends of the floor. And really wasn't that much more expensive
> 2010 - Lakers - Ron Artest. About equal defensively but Deng has a big edge on the other side of the court.
> ...


Marion - Made about 2/3 what Deng made. Lebron disappeared in 4th quarters, why? Are you suggesting it's because if he was locked in a gym by himself, he wouldn't have scored on air he was so bad, or was somebody MAKING him that bad? This is where you people are beyond laughable. It's clear you just LIKE Deng, which is fine, but that doesn't make him as good as your fan boy opinion suggests he is.

Artest - Not really as good, but as you say close enough. However, paid about half the money. I don't hate Deng or think he isn't good at all. He's just good at a particular price. 11.3 or 13.3 aint it. That's #2 money and he's not a #2.

Ariza - Paid about 1/4 what Deng makes! How can you ignore that? The point is, LA won a title by paying low money to a SF, thus showing where their priority was at. Superstar guard and two centers. Ariza wasn't as good, but he wasn't PAID. If this was major league baseball with no cap, you sign Deng all day, but you only get so many paid players before you're going with unpaid guys and that's the point. 

*It makes you decide where your priorities are. For teams who decide SF is a priority, they either don't win titles OR you get names like Bird, Worthy, Erving, Pippen, Pierce. NOT Luol Deng.

I know you want to live in a fantasy world where Jerry West was wrong and John Paxson is right. Unfortunately, outside of K.C. Johnson's apartment, no one else agrees.*

Pierce - You're giving a result (finals MVP) as if that predicates the point. I know he was Finals MVP. The point is, if you're going to make SF a priority (and thus pay for one), Paul Pierce needs to be about the minimum you are getting as a return. Otherwise * (lean in and listen really good), go with a role player who may or may not be as good as Luol Deng, but PAY role player money.*

Bowen - This just shows how you think you know but you don't. Bowen was a spot up shooter who took the open shot. He couldn't create, but guess what? Deng can't off the dribble either. Deng can't catch the ball with a defender in his face and drive to the hoop with a guy guarding him. He's slow as molasses. 

So where is this "other planet" Deng is on offensively? Is he a guy who dices up defenses with his passes like Scottie Pippen? 2.9 APG. Is he a great shooter? Well Bowen shot 44.6% from three in the playoffs in 07. 44.6%! Bowen, it appears, just TOOK fewer shots. Bowen did what role players who are paid 3.5 mill always give you value if they do. He played way better defense than Luol Deng and was a better spot up shooter who took the open shot and didn't try to create when he didn't have an open shot. And that's fine because he made about a quarter of the money.

To get markedly better defense out of a guy you're paying about 1/4 the money, and to have that guy stick open jumper after open jumper at a better clip than Deng from three? I'm sure the Spurs were just fine with it. 

Isn't it funny that we're talking Bowen - the guy who IS the defender that dilusional Deng fans THINK Luol Deng is. 

Walker - 14.4 PER on both ends. I'd take Deng at even money, but once again, the point is, he made 6.8. Or roughly half of the salary Deng will make next year. 

Prince - Put up a 15.3 playoff PER and like you said, push defensively. He made *971K!!!*

This entire conversation is two fold:

1. Are you making SF a priority by paying big money

2. If you are, are you getting a sufficient return to justify the difference in DOLLARS

The answer on every guy you listed is NO. He's paid more than everyone but Pierce (who is way better) and doesn't give you a sufficient return v. the other guys to justify the difference in priority. 

If Bruce Bowen circa 03 was on this team making 11.3 million I'd be mad about that too. But the Spurs paid him 3.5 and could thus add more to their team/pay for more on their team at other positions.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> I seriously doubt that Howard would leave a ton of money on the table to leave a contender and sign with a bad Brooklyn team. It's one thing to dare a guy to walk on a bad franchise with little chance of success in the immediate future, but Howard just won't do it if he's in a good situation in Chicago. If I'm Paxson I'd go ahead and try to land Howard anyway, because when push comes to shove he _will_ re-sign.


I wouldn't try reason or logic. These guys love Luol Deng and Joakim Noah more than Boston fans ever could have loved Larry Bird.

That means that they're not overpaid no matter how many other examples you show them of how championship teams pay similar players AND Dwight wouldn't want to stay here. They know this for a fact. Further, if he doesn't want to stay here it's not Paxson's fault for not being able to SELL him on staying here. Also, if Dwight leaves, no other good players will want to come here and play with Derrick Rose, even though Rip came here for 5 mill when he easily could have made that elsewhere. 

Basically, they love Deng as much as Paxson is in love with all the players he drafts and you're going to have to pull Deng from their cold, dead hands.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> The point is all you are doing is using a piece of evidence that supports your theory that you are the only one who knows what it takes to win a Championship. Any time anyone combats something you say or actually uses stats to counter you point, you discount that by believing they are Paxson apologists and think Scottie Pippen was the greatest player until Luol Deng came around. You are delusional.


I'm the only one who knows what it takes to win a championship? No. I'm pretty sure I'm citing teams who actually DID win championships, and fully crediting their GMs for knowing better than Paxson. If there is any mistake as to who knows better about how to win a title, me or Pat Riley, let me clarify. It's Pat Riley. 

Also, my point is that championship teams make SF less of a monetary priority, and when they do pay for a guy, get a better player than Deng. Who has used stats to disprove that. Give me the exact paragraph in a quote.

You call me delusional, but all you people are is a bunch of guys who fall in love with your hometown players and then give opinions with little actual basis or argument.

Here's a typical point: "I guarantee you Deng would make more on the open market." Okay, I'm talking about what championship teams pay their SFs. How does the argument that, if he became a free agent, someone like the Bobcats might come along and pay him the same he makes now or more defeat that? The Bobcats aren't winning a title either!

Face it, nobody is doing anything but giving their opinions with little support. Jnr says Deng isn't a role player because he's a complete player. Really? For 13.3 he makes next year, he's around 2.8 to 2.9 APG. Is he some miraculous passer compared to guys who are paid role player money?

Is he some miraculous dribble penetrator compared to guys who make role player money? 

Is he an all league defender?

But despite the fact that as Payton said, I give actual facts to back up my arguments, Jnr's points are to be taken as a given because Jnr said so. Eh, okay. 



> Us paying Luol what we are doing in no way makes us a flawed team based on the sequence of events.


Yes it does. 

Title teams don't pay that much for a SF and when they do they get a much better player LIKE

Paul Pierce
Scottie Pippen
James Worthy
Larry Bird
Julius Erving

Name me other guys who have gotten paid big to start at SF for title teams and have been markedly worse than those five guys? 

My point isn't that I wouldn't take Luol Deng over Bruce Bowen if Deng made 3.5 million. It's that Deng at 11.3 is worse than 05 Bowen at 3.5. Who has given stats that disprove that? Especially when I freely acknowledge that Bowen's value at 3.5 is that he was a better defender who hit the open shot and that the stats were in the hands of the paid guys on that team - Parker, Ginobili and Duncan.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

This is a brilliant argument, although it completely ignores the fact that we do not live in an alternate reality of your creation. Deng is the second best player on the Bulls and I don't believe that there is much debate about that. He's paid second banana money. If you want to replace him with the SF of your Fantasies you should sign up for a Fantasy league, because in this reality you aren't going to get a much better SF at any price. In fact there are only a couple which are obviously better than Deng. Those guys make MAX money.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> This is a brilliant argument, although it completely ignores the fact that we do not live in an alternate reality of your creation. Deng is the second best player on the Bulls and I don't believe that there is much debate about that. He's paid second banana money. If you want to replace him with the SF of your Fantasies you should sign up for a Fantasy league, because in this reality you aren't going to get a much better SF at any price. In fact there are only a couple which are obviously better than Deng. Those guys make MAX money.


This doesn't really counter anything I've said.

The entire point is "what priorities do teams place on SF in how they pay them, and what do title teams get for that money." 

Those title teams are real. I'm highlighting a difference in philosophy. 

I fail to see how pointing out that we don't live in alternative reality counters that. 

Deng is the second best player on the Bulls. And, he's not nearly as good as second best players on title teams. Not by a long shot. That kind of accentuates my point. My point is that he shouldn't be getting #2 money, and that guys who get #2 money at SF on title teams are guys like Paul Pierce and Scottie Pippen.

Go show me guys making 11.3 on title teams at SF who are worse than Luol Deng... you won't find any.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

I think in general you can't overpay many players in order to win a championchip, because you are going to need some players to overachieve or at least live up to their expectations. I don't see how you can pinpoint one position though and say its important not to overpay SF more than any other position. I don't think Deng is overpaid though, he might make the all-star team this year and is the most important defender one of the leagues best defenses.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Go show me guys making 11.3 on title teams at SF who are worse than Luol Deng... you won't find any.


To be fair, Odom made 14 and change on the 2009 Lakers. I wouldn't say that Odom was worse that season than Deng is now(although some might), but I don't think he was definitively better, either.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

His debut Carlos Boozer thread actually originated with talk about the team and basketball issues. Since then, the moment there's a disagreement, it becomes:


Hoodey said:


> *I understand that you'd say it. You like Luol Deng. *We're not going to go by your pre-conclusory opinion though. We're going to put Luol Deng to the test. If he's really worth his salary and if we're a championship team with him as our #2, he'll measure up just fine right?





Hoodey said:


> Luol Deng
> 2010-11 Salary: 11.3 million
> 2010-11 Regular season stats - 17.4 PPG 5.8 RPG 2.8 APG 1.0 SPG 0.6 BPG 46.0% FG 75.3% FT 15.5 PER
> 2010-11 Playoff stats - 16.9 PPG 6.6 RPG 2.7 APG 1.5 SPG 0.6 BPG 42.6% FG 83.9% FT 15.4 PER
> ...





Hoodey said:


> Okay.
> 
> Why does this change my point? My point is that championship teams aren't paying what we pay for SFs, and in the rare case they do, they're getting performances from guys like Bird, Worthy, Pippen and Pierce that are much greater than Deng.
> 
> ...





Hoodey said:


> You haven't really made a point that defeats what I'm saying. Title teams don't pay big money for SFs, and when they do they get guys who are much, much better than Deng.
> 
> You replied with "well this guy signed his deal at this time" as if the Lakers couldn't have said "no, damn it, small forward is a priority, Ariza is not enough, we need a guy with a 16.2 PER and we need to pay 11 million.
> 
> ...



There's no discussion to be had. Let him argue with himself.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Bogg said:


> I seriously doubt that Howard would leave a ton of money on the table to leave a contender and sign with a bad Brooklyn team. It's one thing to dare a guy to walk on a bad franchise with little chance of success in the immediate future, but Howard just won't do it if he's in a good situation in Chicago. If I'm Paxson I'd go ahead and try to land Howard anyway, because when push comes to shove he _will_ re-sign.


First of all the Bulls will NOT trade for an unsigned Howard, that's just how Garpax roles. John Paxon does not have the vision or balls to pull of a high risk trade for an un signed Howard, so its not going to happen. 

Howard and Orlando are playing texas holdem right now, Orlando feels like its willing to call Howards bluff that he will leave money on the table and move to the Nets and Howard is certain that the Magic will not lose out on Howard for nothing.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> This doesn't really counter anything I've said.
> 
> The entire point is "what priorities do teams place on SF in how they pay them, and what do title teams get for that money."
> 
> ...


No championship team has paid a PG more than $10 million and won it all. The fact that Rose stands to make $15.5 million next season shows how inept Paxson is and how stupidly moronic all Bulls fans are since they think Rose is the next Michael Jordan. He's not.

Go show me a PG making over $10 million on a championship team. You won't find any.

Sam Perkins on the other hand. WOW. I could eat fresh fruit off of that paint destroyer's chest.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> To be fair, Odom made 14 and change on the 2009 Lakers. I wouldn't say that Odom was worse that season than Deng is now(although some might), but I don't think he was definitively better, either.


Odom that year was a guy who backed up primarily the 4 and played some 3. Their starting 3 was Ariza and in him they got value.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> His debut Carlos Boozer thread actually originated with talk about the team and basketball issues. Since then, the moment there's a disagreement, it becomes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing new. For about 7 years, whenever someone dares to challenge the idea that Paxson was gifted with some bible called "the right way," they become a bad guy. I'm not here to be the most morally just poster. You think I'm a bad guy? I think you're someone who can't talk hoops and instead is talking about who is the most awesome person behind a monitor lol.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> No championship team has paid a PG more than $10 million and won it all. The fact that Rose stands to make $15.5 million next season shows how inept Paxson is and how stupidly moronic all Bulls fans are since they think Rose is the next Michael Jordan. He's not.
> 
> Go show me a PG making over $10 million on a championship team. You won't find any.
> 
> Sam Perkins on the other hand. WOW. I could eat fresh fruit off of that paint destroyer's chest.


Rose is the league MVP. Take any PG on a title team since contracts started skyrocketing, or anyone starting at the 1 position:

John Paxson
Kenny Smith
Ron Harper
Avery Johnson
Derek Fisher
Tony Parker
Jason Williams
Rajon Rondo
Jason Kidd

Even relative to making greater dollars Derrick Rose is better than those guys dollar for dollar. 

Deng is not better relative to guys making 1/2, 1/3 or even 1/4 of what he makes and he's not better relative to the dollars than Paul Pierce.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Nothing new. For about 7 years, whenever someone dares to challenge the idea that Paxson was gifted with some bible called "the right way," they become a bad guy. I'm not here to be the most morally just poster. You think I'm a bad guy? I think you're someone who can't talk hoops and instead is talking about who is the most awesome person behind a monitor lol.


It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying and absolutely everything to do with how you are saying it.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

Deng is not better relative to guys making 1/2, 1/3 or even 1/4 of what he makes and he's not better relative to the dollars than Paul Pierce.[/QUOTE]

Pierce is making 15.3 this year, his numbers aren't any better than Dengs, and we aren't even inlcluding defense. 
You're main point was that SF's can't be an overpaid position, compared to other positions? You never really said why that is...

Or is it that you can only have a role playing SF or a really good one, but nothing inbetween?
Obviously you aren't going to win a championship with too many overpaid players because there is a cap.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

> Pierce is making 15.3 this year, his numbers aren't any better than Dengs, and we aren't even inlcluding defense.
> You're main point was that SF's can't be an overpaid position, compared to other positions? You never really said why that is...
> 
> Or is it that you can only have a role playing SF or a really good one, but nothing inbetween?
> Obviously you aren't going to win a championship with too many overpaid players because there is a cap.


1. I was talking about Pierce when he actually won the title. He's not as good as Luol now because he's old and Boston isn't winning a thing.

2. As far as SF, I think it's mostly a role player or secondary star position. If you're asking why "that" is, I'd point out that as with true PF (not guys who are 6'11" 260 or 7'0" 245-265), there are the fewest #1s winning rings. Look at guys who were the guy you would argue is the best player on a title team since 1957:

Center
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Willis Reed (1970, not 73)
Dave Cowens
Bill Walton
Moses Malone
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'neal

Power Forward
Elvin Hayes
Bob Pettit
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki

Small Forward
Rick Barry
Larry Bird

Shooting guard
Gus Williams
Michael Jordan
Dwyane Wade (definitely the best Heat in 06)
Kobe Bryant

Point guard
Walt Frazier
Magic Johnson
Isiah Thomas
Chauncey Billups

So you look at that list and say, "where do I want to put my money?" The answer is center, but also a superstar guard. 

Power forward looks enticing until you realize that since Elvin Hayes, the power forwards who have led teams to titles have been 6'11"-7'0" tall and really brought something much better than just about everyone else at the position:

Tim Duncan - 6'11" 260, basically center sized, with a John Wooden post game as fundamentally sound as Kevin McHale.
Dirk Nowitzki - Even with his ridiculous inside out game, the Mavs had to try one specialist center after another next to him to win, and his inside out game is far better than anyone else.
Kevin Garnett - 6'11" with that athleticism? 

So I will acknowledge that if a guy like that is available, pay him. 

But in regards to the above you're thinking "but you're talking about #1 guys, he isn't a #1 guy and nobody said he was." That trickles all the way down. Now add #2s

Center
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Willis Reed (1970, not 73)
Dave Cowens
Bill Walton
Moses Malone
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'neal
Wes Unseld
Clifford Ray
Robert Parish (81 only)
David Robinson

Power Forward
Elvin Hayes
Bob Pettit
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Maurice Lucas
Kevin McHale (84, 86)
Pau Gasol

Small Forward
Rick Barry
Larry Bird
John Havlicek
Julius Erving
James Worthy (87, definitely 88)
Scottie Pippen
Paul Pierce

Shooting guard
Gus Williams
Michael Jordan
Dwyane Wade (definitely the best Heat in 06)
Kobe Bryant
Jerry West
Earl Monroe
Joe Dumars
Clyde Drexler
Rip Hamilton

Point guard
Walt Frazier
Magic Johnson
Isiah Thomas
Chauncey Billups
Bob Cousy
Hal Greer
Oscar Robertson
Dennis Johnson
Kenny Smith (94)
Tony Parker
Jason Kidd (this would be the toughest pick for a #2)

So now that you have #1 and #2s, here is your list by position:

C - 13
PF - 8
SF - 7
SG - 9
PG - 11

So if you study the game, you have to say the money goes to the extremes with the middle 3 being far more likely to be role player positions. One exception I would make is that since Jordan hit the scene, I think you've seen SG really become a position where guys want to develop into stars, so you may see a trend weighing there in the future, but if you just look at # of titles won by those PGs like Cousy, Magic, etc. it's just far greater than the # of titles won by SGs.

I think you see subtle nuances in how the game changes, but never the degree of change that the D'Antoni/Nelson religious zealouts tried to cram down our throats last decade. The game will likely continue to be one where you are smart to spend your star money on centers and point guards. IF you spend elsewhere, superstar SGs and PFs with very VERY special skill sets that really are unique - are smarter ways to spend your money.

3. So, if you accept my contention that SF is a role player position, yes, I am saying you can only have a role playing SF or a really good one and nothing in between.

In fact, there is not a lot of in between spending on title teams.

Dallas 10-11
Nowitzki 17.2
Chandler 12.6
Terry 10.6
Butler 10.5
Kidd 8.6

I like the drop off from 12.6 (Chandler) to 8.6 (Kidd). I don't think there is a lot of smart money on title teams betwen the 12ish and 8ish range. I think that 8-12 million range is kind of a dead zone. 

I'm fully in favor of paying big money for your stars and then dropping down to the 8 range for role players.

"But what about Terry and Butler." Overpaid. Dallas got away with it because they had that very special PF (whom most PFs have no hope of emulating), and a good PG and C. But I'd call Terry and Butler "dead money." 

Los Angeles Lakers 09-10
Bryant 23.0
Gasol 16.4
Bynum 12.5
Odom 7.5

Notice that they drop from Superstar guard making 23, special PF making 16.4, true center making 12.5 to paying 7.5 for a role player.

So yeah, in general, guys either pass the laugh test at 12+ or you're smart to pay them 8 minus

Boston Celtics 07-08
Garnett 23.0
Pierce 16.3
Allen 16.0
Perkins *4.4*

So yeah I like the idea of paying a lot for a couple or a few guys who definitely pass the sniff test and then paying role player money to a bunch of Ronnie Brewers, Taj Gibsons, etc.

Like I said, Horace Grant is one of my favorite Bulls ever and I'd REALLY struggle to pay him 10 on this team. I think nowadays you'd look at the Bulls of 92 and if they were playing now, it would look something like this:

Jordan 30.0
Pippen 17.0
Grant 9.5

And then a bunch of guys making 5 or less.

I mean I hope I at least tried to meet you halfway in my answers and that they didn't lack quality like K4E lol.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i actually tend to agree that in most circumstances a team couldn't get away with overpaying deng the way the bulls have and win a title ....but

the bulls are the most profitable team in the nba more often than not.

rose is still on his rookie deal , and thats quite a discount for now.

the bigger issue is that the bulls dont have a true offensive star to go to outside of rose , no true 2nd option and since its been proven that rose can be slowed significantly in his efficiency by the heat the bulls really do need another go to type guy , there hasn't been a pg who has led a team so dominantly offensively maybe ever and won a title .

once a season has started for the most part all the money is spent and its no longer an issue since most top tier teams will not shake things up big time mid season.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> i actually tend to agree that in most circumstances a team couldn't get away with overpaying deng the way the bulls have and win a title ....but
> 
> the bulls are the most profitable team in the nba more often than not.


I'm glad you brought that up. Overpaying SFs and PFs is not a good way to win a title. However, it is a good way to form an entertaining team whose entertainment value and whose regular season "belief building factor" is much greater than their actual title chances.

I'm talking about how to win. I realize you can pay stupidly in terms of winning rings and yet line Jerry's pockets, convince fans you are a legit contender when you're really not and put entertainment out there. 



> rose is still on his rookie deal , and thats quite a discount for now.
> 
> the bigger issue is that the bulls dont have a true offensive star to go to outside of rose , no true 2nd option and since its been proven that rose can be slowed significantly in his efficiency by the heat the bulls really do need another go to type guy , there hasn't been a pg who has led a team so dominantly offensively maybe ever and won a title .
> 
> once a season has started for the most part all the money is spent and its no longer an issue since most top tier teams will not shake things up big time mid season.


You really touch on a great point. I'd say not only PG but any guard.

Look at the guys playing big minutes on this team and their PER

Derrick Rose 25.1
Carlos Boozer 20.4
Joakim Noah 17.2
Luol Deng 16.3

Disregard Boozer because his PER dropped from 18.8 to 15.2 last year in the playoffs. In 09-10 in Utah he was at 21.3 in the regular season. Playoffs? Try 17.6. Do you hear the alarms sounding? It's "regular season player alert." 

You really could be talking about Rose at 25.0 in the playoffs with a bunch of guys in that 16-17 range.

I'll show you how that's bad.

Let's start with the 1988 Chicago Bulls, with two young up and comers in Grant and Pippen who had the room for improvement that I just don't think Noah, Deng or Boozer has.

1988-89 Chicago Bulls playoff PER
Michael Jordan 29.9
Scottie Pippen 14.4
Horace Grant 13.1

1989-90 Chicago Bulls playoff PER
Michael Jordan 31.6
Scottie Pippen 18.7
Horace Grant 15.4

1990-91 Chicago Bulls playoff PER
Michael Jordan 32.0
Scottie Pippen 22.0
Horace Grant 16.0

Notes:

1. Kinda debunks the myth that Michael Jordan didn't win because he didn't "trust his teammates." Quite to the contrary, he didn't win because Horace and Scottie were 22 in 1988 and just not GOOD ENOUGH yet, and nobody else on that team was going to get leaps and bounds better from 88 to 91. As Scottie and Horace produced more the Bulls won.

2. It's REALLY hard to rack up statistical production when a guy is posting a freaking 32.0 PER, or in the case of Horace, when you have a 22 and a 32 above you. Notice when MJ leaves, Horace posts a 21.2 playoff PER in 1994 and then a 22.7 in Orlando in 96. 

3. I hardly think that when a guy shoots above 25.0 like MJ did, you need to be closer to him. I think you'd cap it at 25.0 and say if your #2 can get close to that you're fine. 

4. I'm fine if your #2 isn't posting big PERs because he's like Dikembe Mutombo and he's just a ridiculous defender. Scottie Pippen, Gary Payton, Ben Wallace. These are guys who bely their statistical production by just controlling a game defensively. Bruce Bowen, Ron Artest, Dennis Rodman. Luol Deng and Joakim Noah aint in that category, so stats matter.

5. To your point, since I think Kobe Bryant is a better career-long talent than Rose will project to be, it's worth noting that Kobe has only had a PER higher than Derrick's current PER FOUR times in his *16 year career*. This year his PER is barely above Derrick's likely because of the lack of quality players outside of he, Bynum and Gasol. The other three times? IN BETWEEN titles in LA.

That's right. Kobe's career high in PER:

06 Bryant 28.0
03 Bryant 26.2
07 Bryant 26.1
12 Bryant 25.4
12 Rose 25.1

Bryant's title PER:

01 Bryant 24.5
09 Bryant 24.4
02 Bryant 23.2
10 Bryant 21.9
00 Bryant 21.7

Gasol's PER:

09 Gasol 22.2
10 Gasol 22.9

And then unlike Boozer his PER stayed similar or went up in the playoffs:

09 Gasol 21.9
10 Gasol 24.0

A few conclusions then:

a) If Boozer goes up to 20.5-22.0 in the playoffs and doesn't see a substantial drop off v. the Heat, I think we're all going to be very happy and I'll be the first one to acknowledge it. 

b) Rose, like Bryant, probably needs to be in that 22-25 range with his second fiddle posting something in a 20+ range (obviusly Howard could go pretty high here). 

c) It's hard to see Deng, Noah and Boozer (or 2 of the 3) shooting up like Pippen and Grant did no?

d) If Rose stays at 22-25 and in the playoffs he has a bunch of guys going for 15-17, I just don't see it happening. He's not Jordan and I'm not sure even Jordan could win with nobody doing better than a 17.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

I do see your point as far as size goes and that typically you won't have you're best player there, because he is not your quickest or your biggest. I would say that if the $15 million spent on Boozer was spent better, then the Bulls would be far closer to a ring and this would be a moot point. If Marion(who was paid 17 mil not too long ago), was making 11 mil, and terry and butler were making 8 mil. instead of 10, nothing changes, except who is getting overpaid, so I don't think it really matters who is overpaid or not, but if you have too many overpaid players, than you can't win obviously.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

DunkMaster said:


> I do see your point as far as size goes and that typically you won't have you're best player there, because he is not your quickest or your biggest. I would say that if the $15 million spent on Boozer was spent better, then the Bulls would be far closer to a ring and this would be a moot point. If Marion(who was paid 17 mil not too long ago), was making 11 mil, and terry and butler were making 8 mil. instead of 10, nothing changes, except who is getting overpaid, so I don't think it really matters who is overpaid or not, but if you have too many overpaid players, than you can't win obviously.


Okay now we're getting to the good stuff.

Say that instead of Boozer at 15, we were getting Nene at 13. I mean you can say a lot like "well, if you didn't pay Boozer then you were gonna lose the cap space." But then Nene did declare for free agency this offseason no? Well, if you had signed Deng and Noah to appropriate amounts like 8.0 and 7.0 respectively and had held money over, you could pay 13 to Nene. The point is, some want you to believe everything had to happen the way it did and that's not the case.

Now, say after Nene signs then Paxson wants to give Deng a raise to 13.3 next year. Say that he was due to expire this offseason on a much more appropriate 4 year, 32 mill deal (and I didn't just dream this up, Bernstein and Goff make fun of Deng's contract all the time). 

So now you're at:

Rose 16.8
Deng 13.3
Nene 13.0

Now, to me, Noah doesn't have to change a thing and he and Nene are a much more dangerous frontcourt against Miami than Noah and Boozer. I actually kinda like Noah at the 4 depending on who he's playing next to. Bosh has a footspeed edge on Noah, but I'm not convinced that the Bulls team defense couldn't force Bosh into a post spot with Noah where he just doesn't have the power. Further, Noah and Nene would not be pushed around by the Anthony/Haslem goon line up.

With Nene, Rose would have the inside scoring option to keep the defense off of him, and with the inside outside game of Nene-Rose, Deng can pick his spots and concentrate more on defense.

So yes, NOW if you just overpay Deng, I can still see you beating Miami. I can agree that it's not so much that Paxson overpaid Deng, but that Deng, Noah and Boozer are all overpaid without an underpaid or appropriately paid #2 in the mix with them. 

Butler and Terry were overpaid, but when you add in Chandler, Kidd and Marion who were not overpaid, then you see that it's not a problem. 

Also, notice when Marion made 17 mill he wasn't an NBA champ.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

Hoodey said:


> So yes, NOW if you just overpay Deng, I can still see you beating Miami. I can agree that it's not so much that Paxson overpaid Deng, but that Deng, Noah and Boozer are all overpaid without an underpaid or appropriately paid #2 in the mix with them.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ok, well obviously this was a post about Paxson, and I don't like Paxson either, but you were making something out of nothing concerning SF's and Deng as an unsuitable SF. It's more about not overpaying too many players. Hopefully the Bulls amnesty Boozer if an opprotunity to pick up some good players comes up. The Bulls wouldn't have to pay the entire $15 mil. either, I would expect the bid to be at least $6 million.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Per is a misleading statistic that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Centering your entire argument over a combination of numbers when talking about a fluid team oriented game doesn't make sense. We're not on a baseball forum.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The biggest problem with Hoodey's argument is the assumption that these players would have signed for less money. There is no way in hell that Noah signs for 7 mil. He's a big that averages (or close enough) a double double. He's getting 10 million plus in today's NBA. Period.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Rose is the league MVP. Take any PG on a title team since contracts started skyrocketing, or anyone starting at the 1 position:
> 
> John Paxson
> Kenny Smith
> ...


So your argument is convient except when it isn't. Or maybe your argument doesn't hold water as championship teams require special players... Rose being one of them.

Deng is a role player, yes. But he's a super role player. He is not a consistent #2 offensive option, but that is what Boozer and Rip should help provide. Unlike Boozer, when Deng is off his offensive game, he still provides tremendous value on the defensive end.

To me, I don't think we have a tremendous value contract in Deng. However, I feel he is paid fairly appropriately to slightly overpaid. He surely is a better player than anything we could have realistically attained in FA at the position.

In terms of ranking the contracts of the players you feel are overpaid, I feel from best contracts to worst:
1. Noah
2. Deng
3. Boozer

Although remember that New Jersey offered more money than we did and Boozer decided to come here. That provides some value right there, assuming we want him, and we should have as he was the BPA in an offseason where it was our last to try and acquire an above average talent. Sure, he's probably 3-5 million overpaid, but that wasn't the difference in us signing Boozer versus Bosh or LeBron. Other factors came into play with those two.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Okay now we're getting to the good stuff.
> 
> Say that instead of Boozer at 15, we were getting Nene at 13. I mean you can say a lot like "well, if you didn't pay Boozer then you were gonna lose the cap space." But then Nene did declare for free agency this offseason no? Well, if you had signed Deng and Noah to appropriate amounts like 8.0 and 7.0 respectively and had held money over, you could pay 13 to Nene. The point is, some want you to believe everything had to happen the way it did and that's not the case.
> 
> ...


So you would prefer a team of:

Rose
Rip (for lack of arguement)
Deng
Noah/Gibson
Nene/Asik

With no frontcourt scoring, we are following the old Bucks model. Perimeter shooting as your main source of offense won't win you too many playoff series either.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

thebizkit69u said:


> First of all the Bulls will NOT trade for an unsigned Howard, that's just how Garpax roles. John Paxon does not have the vision or balls to pull of a high risk trade for an un signed Howard, so its not going to happen.
> 
> *Howard and Orlando are playing texas holdem right now, Orlando feels like its willing to call Howards bluff that he will leave money on the table and move to the Nets and Howard is certain that the Magic will not lose out on Howard for nothing.*




Orlando knows they will lose this game. For some players, leaving that money on the table would be a major deciding factor... but I don't see it being a major factor for Dwight. With his age, he'd enter into his next contract a year younger, plus, the additional money he could make from playing in a better market would off-set any money lost from not re-signing with his current team.
Orlando/Otis has to see what Denver did with Melo and realize that trading a star player that wants to leave is better for the team.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> Okay now we're getting to the good stuff.
> 
> Say that instead of Boozer at 15, we were getting Nene at 13. I mean you can say a lot like "well, if you didn't pay Boozer then you were gonna lose the cap space." But then Nene did declare for free agency this offseason no? *Well, if you had signed Deng and Noah to appropriate amounts like 8.0 and 7.0 respectively* and had held money over, you could pay 13 to Nene. The point is, some want you to believe everything had to happen the way it did and that's not the case.
> 
> ...


lol. And as a GM, you'd have to lay a gun on the table and force them to sign those contracts. You think Deng/Noah aren't worth what they are paid, which is fine...but you can't assume that they would sign for much less.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Firefight said:


> [/B]
> 
> Orlando knows they will lose this game. For some players, leaving that money on the table would be a major deciding factor... but I don't see it being a major factor for Dwight. With his age, he'd enter into his next contract a year younger, plus, the additional money he could make from playing in a better market would off-set any money lost from not re-signing with his current team.
> Orlando/Otis has to see what Denver did with Melo and realize that trading a star player that wants to leave is better for the team.


When your only other trading partner is NJ what the hell can you get in return that's even close to being as valuable as Dwight? If your the Magic are you truly happy with Morrow, Brooks, an injured Lopez and an expiring injured Okur? The Nuggets got 3 starters out of the Mellow trade, the Magic would be trading a more valuable player than Melo for even less.

Obviously including Hedo makes sense cap wise but then you have to hope Kris Dum Dum Humphries accepts the trade since he needs to ok any trade. Then the biggest problem is that NOBODY is going to show up to watch a Lopez led Magic team, its going to be empty next season. While it frees up a ton of cap space in a weak free agent year, the impact financially will hurt the Magic. 

The best thing to do is rebuilt by trading him, but does the Magic front office really want to lose out on playoff money if they trade Howard this season?


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

thebizkit69u said:


> When your only other trading partner is NJ what the hell can you get in return that's even close to being as valuable as Dwight? If your the Magic are you truly happy with Morrow, Brooks, an injured Lopez and an expiring injured Okur? The Nuggets got 3 starters out of the Mellow trade, the Magic would be trading a more valuable player than Melo for even less.
> 
> Obviously including Hedo makes sense cap wise but then you have to hope Kris Dum Dum Humphries accepts the trade since he needs to ok any trade. Then the biggest problem is that NOBODY is going to show up to watch a Lopez led Magic team, its going to be empty next season. While it frees up a ton of cap space in a weak free agent year, the impact financially will hurt the Magic.
> 
> The best thing to do is rebuilt by trading him, but does the Magic front office really want to lose out on playoff money if they trade Howard this season?


You're assuming that NJ is their only trading partner. I will be willing to bet that 90% of the GM's out there have contacted Otis Smith when they heard Howard wanted out, regardless of what his list is. Are they going to get fair value for Howard?...maybe, maybe not, but I think they'll lose out on some playoff money if they can get a deal done that makes sense. Denver traded Melo, and at the time, many Denver fans were not happy with the deal. But you see what Denver is doing now, and the flexibility they have, it was a better deal for them.

Orlando might not get a superstar back, but if they wanted to get something back, they can. They are trading the best center in the NBA. Howard would be willing to expand his "list" if it meant getting a sign and trade and more $$. I understand he wont agree long term in a place like Toronto or Charlotte, but the list will be higher then just NJ.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Luke said:


> The biggest problem with Hoodey's argument is the assumption that these players would have signed for less money. There is no way in hell that Noah signs for 7 mil. He's a big that averages (or close enough) a double double. He's getting 10 million plus in today's NBA. Period.


i would agree Noah is getting what he's worth for who and what he is .(a young productive center between 5-12th in the league at his position)

but deng?

i would say he was overpaid from the get go and everyone knew it .

he was young when he was re-signed but it was pretty common knowledge what his ceiling was at that point and he was just about at it.

he is what he is an above avg. starting 3 who plays really good defense, a team guy and an effort guy who cannot consistently get his own offense off the dribble, but can with ok efficiency finish off of what others create.

in the nba that is not a star small forward and thats fine but there was never a need to give him 13-14 mil. a season for a guy that would never be considered a top 5 small forward...


as for Howard offer anything thats not Rose for him..i think deng+noah plus whatever like picks for howard and hedo can get it done. Howard is good friends with boozer and playing with rose will make life easy for him.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Firefight said:


> You're assuming that NJ is their only trading partner. I will be willing to bet that 90% of the GM's out there have contacted Otis Smith when they heard Howard wanted out, regardless of what his list is. Are they going to get fair value for Howard?...maybe, maybe not, but I think they'll lose out on some playoff money if they can get a deal done that makes sense. Denver traded Melo, and at the time, many Denver fans were not happy with the deal. But you see what Denver is doing now, and the flexibility they have, it was a better deal for them.
> 
> Orlando might not get a superstar back, but if they wanted to get something back, they can. They are trading the best center in the NBA. Howard would be willing to expand his "list" if it meant getting a sign and trade and more $$. I understand he wont agree long term in a place like Toronto or Charlotte, but the list will be higher then just NJ.


Obviously 90% of the NBA inquired about Howard but lets be real here, Howard HAS a list of teams he will sign with, that LIMITS Orlando greatly. Rumor has it that now LA has been taken off the list of teams hes willing to sign an extension with, he has shown 0 interest in Chicago, interest in Dallas but its no secret that NJ is where he wants to go. 

I agree that Orlando needs to get SOMETHING back but when you are basically only talking about crap from one other team, It almost makes sense to just let him walk. Who knows, maybe Orlando letting Dwight walk away from millions actually sets a tone with the rest of league, maybe putting an end to all this trade me garbage that players are now starting to do on a yearly basis. 

The best player in the game left Cleveland without getting anything in return, well he was traded but not for players, they seem to be headed in the right direction rebuilding. Lets just say they traded Lebron to Miami for Michael Beasley, draft picks, etc. How much better would they honestly be? Maybe they would have been slightly better than last year and missed out on Kyrie Irving but honestly, sometimes just letting them walk might work better than being strong armed into a trade that doesn't fit the future of the direction you wan't to go as a franchise. 

Brook Lopez is a very good player but injured and has not been the player you can honestly build a franchise around. Aren't they better off starting from the ground up? Being mediocre with Lopez and Brooks might not really be all that much better than being bad and drafting the future again.

I can see both sides to the argument, it all just depends on what Orlando's front office want's to do. 



> "He can still walk," Magic general manager Otis Smith said Friday afternoon. "But with a $30 million haircut."
> 
> To stay in Orlando, under terms of the new collective bargaining agreement, Howard can sign a five-year deal worth $110 million. To play anywhere else — unless he is traded there first — it will be four years and $80.5 million.
> 
> The safest path for the Magic might be taking the best trade available before the March 15 trade deadline, and get something to show in return, but it makes no sense. Smith is leaning toward the all-or-nothing route, knowing recent NBA history — that no free agent superstar ever has left that much guaranteed money on the table.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

> ok, well obviously this was a post about Paxson, and I don't like Paxson either, but you were making something out of nothing concerning SF's and Deng as an unsuitable SF. It's more about not overpaying too many players. Hopefully the Bulls amnesty Boozer if an opprotunity to pick up some good players comes up. The Bulls wouldn't have to pay the entire $15 mil. either, I would expect the bid to be at least $6 million.


Deng isn't an unsuitable SF in a vacuum. I've never said that.

Is he unsuitable as a star SF when you clearly see the division between role players and stars and who you need to be to be a star SF on a title team? YES. But he's not an unsuitable SF if you're trying to put together a low level playoff team?

Is he unsuitable for the price? YES. He's not worth 13 million. However, if you're paying him 8, I don't think there's a problem with that at all. He's a good basketball player. He just needs to be paid as a role player. A really good role player can make 7-8 on a title team a la Odom or Marion.

Mark Schianowski was on the Score yesterday and even HE talks openly about how Paxson falls in love with his own guys. And that has been a recurring theme that frankly has taken us out of the running for better prospects. 

But you won't catch me fighting to keep us from amnestying Boozer. However, this all goes back to jnr and others pointing out that at this point we wouldn't have cap space anymore. The reason is overpaying Deng and Noah and subsequent decisions that became "not bad" once you accept the idea of overpaying those two.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> Per is a misleading statistic that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Centering your entire argument over a combination of numbers when talking about a fluid team oriented game doesn't make sense. We're not on a baseball forum.


Here's what I'll say about PER. 

Do you need to be able to factor in other perhaps subjective things? Sure, but not too much. At the end of the day who will I trust more, Hollinger or Luke? I'll trust Hollinger. Usually someone downplaying stats in basketball is saying "forget the stats, instead trust MY opinion."

I think anyone can understand that PER can be cast aside in cases of elite defenders, or guys whose athleticism or size just causes problems for other teams like Perkins, Marion, Chandler, etc. 

But I don't see anything that Luol Deng does as so great that you just cast aside PER. He's a player that needs to produce statistically. 

Besides, if PER is so worthless, why is it that as Scottie's went way up, the Bulls won? He's at 13.3 in 1988 and they lose (MJ's was always high). He goes up gradually to 20 in 91 and the Bulls results seem to follow suit? And Scottie WAS an elite defender.

Am I saying PER is some perfect metric? No. I've yet to hear someone complaining about it offering a better aggregate of their own.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Every team in the NBA would pay Deng more than 8 million. In fact nearly every team in the league would be happy to pay him what he's being paid. The entire premise behind this is just ridiculous. Deng is top five at his position. Everyone who is obviously better than him makes more money than he does and so do as many guys who are no better than him. We do not live in a world where NBA players earn the amount of money you think they should. They are paid what the market will bear and Deng's contract is pretty much exactly what his value is.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> The biggest problem with Hoodey's argument is the assumption that these players would have signed for less money. There is no way in hell that Noah signs for 7 mil. He's a big that averages (or close enough) a double double. He's getting 10 million plus in today's NBA. Period.


You didn't ask lol.

Unlike John Paxson, I'm NOT in love with John Paxson's draft picks. And even corporate comcast sports host Mark Schianowski said on the score yesterday, "John Paxson tends to fall in love with his own guys." 

So I would have explained to Noah's agent that Noah is a role player. He's a 245 lb. center who probably has value as a 4-5 backup, whose shoulder span isn't going to allow him to get to 255-260. He's not an athlete for his size, lacking the explosiveness of a Tyson Chandler. He has no individual offensive game and he doesn't affect the game as a defensive force. That would be like Dikembe Motumbo and he's really nowhere CLOSE. Motumbo would be a guy where you say "okay, no offense, but what a defender, let's give him 11 mill." Noah isn't even half the defender.

So I'd say, "he's a value at 7, I'd consider 8." If you won't take 7-8 at around 4-5 years I'm going to have to let you both walk.

I really wouldn't have been even slightly sad to see Deng and/or Noah walk if they wouldn't sign at value. See I'm not one of these Bulls fans who think we can never get players that good. The idea that we can't get guys that good is almost laughable. 

I'm just not one of these Bulls fans who think that if we let Noah and Deng go, then the 2002 Bulls will come get us and make us watch them forever LOL.

And if you wonder why I'm so concerned about it, listen to B and B. Dan Bernstein, for days, has been shouting down Bulls fans who insist that Deng and Noah are too valuable to trade for Howard. It's almost remarkable to listen to how stupid their arguments are when they don't have their buddies there to high five their arguments.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> So your argument is convient except when it isn't. Or maybe your argument doesn't hold water as championship teams require special players... Rose being one of them.


I don't understand how you even possibly went down this line of rationale.

Take the same question with Rose. Round up the guys who title teams are paying and the guys they aren't paying. Rose isn't like the guys that they aren't paying because he's the YOUNGEST MVP EVER, not a role player like Deng. As for the guys they are paying, he's still better than any one of them since Isiah freaking Thomas! How do you think you've landed some kind of punch here. I don't care if no title winning PG has been paid more than 8 million. Rose is a value at 16.8 even if you determine that Kidd is a value at 8 or Billups was a value at 8. 

Rose is a value, for what he does, at 16. Deng is not a value for what he does at 13.3 and I've given substantial argument to back that up.

PG has a rich championship history. SF does not. 



> Deng is a role player, yes. But he's a super role player. He is not a consistent #2 offensive option, but that is what Boozer and Rip should help provide. Unlike Boozer, when Deng is off his offensive game, he still provides tremendous value on the defensive end.


Super role players, like Horace Grant, are still role players. You wouldn't pay Horace Grant 13.3 nowadays and he was simply a better player than Luol Deng. Deng is making #2 money and on a title team he's just not a #2.



> To me, I don't think we have a tremendous value contract in Deng. However, I feel he is paid fairly appropriately to slightly overpaid. He surely is a better player than anything we could have realistically attained in FA at the position.


"At the position." The position is NOT THAT IMPORTANT. My entire point is "look what title teams are getting for 3.5-8 million at SF, we could have paid that and then taken the other 5-10 MILLION FREAKING DOLLARS and afforded Nene if we didn't sign Boozer last year (this entire line of talking goes back to "well we had to sign Boozer because we were going to be over the cap by this year if we didn't" to which my reply was "that's only true because we overpaid Noah and Deng").



> In terms of ranking the contracts of the players you feel are overpaid, I feel from best contracts to worst:
> 1. Noah
> 2. Deng
> 3. Boozer
> ...


But that's the problem with people who defend Paxson's decisions. What I'm getting is a lot of "well he did this and it's better than what Charlotte did." "Well he offered a lot, but New Jersey offered more, so there's some value." 

Yeah, I guess if you decide you LIKE Paxson and then the burden you hold him to is "just be better than Charlotte or New Jersey," you're going to do what people always do and find out that you were right about a guy you liked or didn't like. Yeah, John Paxson is better than New Jersey and guess what? NJ isn't winning anything. 

Why was it our "last try?" Because Paxson overpaid Deng and Noah. Deng should have been making 8 mill on a contract that would have expired in this offseason OR should have been gone at which point we would have been fine. 

Do you want to know how laughable it is that Deng is some irreplaceable guy? Mark my words, per the value on a rookie contract, you're going to be fine with Robbie Hummel (when his knee is better) or Scott Martin on a 2 million dollar deal v. Luol Deng at 13.3. He's not a star! Nothing Deng does is some kind of modern art miracle. 

If Deng had walked, we didn't sign Boozer and had acquired Nene, you could plug Robbie Hummel in and not miss a beat if you're controlling the paint and the point.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> Every team in the NBA would pay Deng more than 8 million. In fact nearly every team in the league would be happy to pay him what he's being paid. The entire premise behind this is just ridiculous. Deng is top five at his position. Everyone who is obviously better than him makes more money than he does and so do as many guys who are no better than him. We do not live in a world where NBA players earn the amount of money you think they should. They are paid what the market will bear and Deng's contract is pretty much exactly what his value is.


No! Not every team would pay him more than 8. A lot of teams would because a lot of teams care more about the perception that they are competitive and entertainment than they do about being a title team. The classic way to be merely competitive and entertaining is to over-prioritize SF and PF.

Title teams just aren't paying 13.3 for Luol Deng. You won't find any. 

Now, as to your contention that "We do not live in a world where NBA players earn the amount of money you think they should" my answer is, look at why the CBA was renegotiated. 

Bucher got on ESPN 1000 and specifically stated that it's "not what the Derrick Rose's are making, but what guys like Boozer are making relative to that." 13.3-15 is not role player money. It's #2 money. Now the smart teams who are winning rings aren't paying 13.3-15 for Carlos Boozer and Luol Deng. I realize a lot of teams are but those teams aren't winning RINGS and that's the point. 

Yeah, you're right, there's a lot of "contract stupid" out there, not just on Chicago.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Name me one SF who is close to Deng who makes 8 million or less


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> So you would prefer a team of:
> 
> Rose
> Rip (for lack of arguement)
> ...


Meh, see, this is the problem with Paxson's supporters. They think they have the "right way" bible of basketball, but when the discussion evolves, you realize that they can't step outside of the bubble.

Nene is a career 53.1% shooter in the playoffs. 

Here is the 09 series against the World Champion Lakers:

Game 1 - 14 points, 6-9 FG 66.7%
Game 2 - 6 points, 2-5 FG 40.0%
Game 3 - 13 points, 5-9 FG 55.9%
Game 4 - 14 points, 5-9 FG 62.5%
Game 5 - 4 points, 1-3 FG 33.3%
Game 6 - 8 points, 3-7 FG 42.9%
Totals - 9.9 PPG, 22-42 FG 52.3%

So that's 15% higher than what Boozer and Noah combined to shoot v. Miami. 15%! Now he didn't get nearly enough shots and Denver lost because Anthony is an overhyped, overrated ball hog who is more overpaid than Deng for what he really provides (he's what I call a "false star" which is worse than a role player). 

Nene is a career 53.1% FG shooter in the NBA playoffs. 

Now, *this is called research and fact-based arguing, as opposed to putting the burden on others and saying something is so because you say it's so. Here is Nene v. Miami since they acquired Lebron and Bosh*

1/13/11 Miami 102, *Denver 130* - Nene: 17 points, 6-7 FG
3/19/11 Denver 98, Miami 103 - Nene: 10 points, 3-8 FG
1/13/12 Miami 104, Denver 117 - Nene: 17 points, 6-11 FG

Totals: Denver 2-1, Nene 14.6 PPG, 15-26 FG, 57.6%

I find the idea that you'd compare a Boozer/Noah frontcourt favorably to a Nene/Noah frontcourt to be almost beyond remarkable, and yet I'm not surprised.

So I just gave you three pieces of evidence that support my conclusion.

1) Unlike Boozer, who disappeared v. Pau Gasol, Nene did fine v. Bynum/Gasol in the playoffs
2) Unlike Boozer, who shot 40.6% v. Miami in a playoff series, Nene has shot 57.6% v. them in 3 games
3) Unlike Boozer, whose FG% goes down as the competition gets tougher, and whose FG% goes down from 53% in the regular season to 48.9% in the playoffs, to 44% v. Gasol and Miami to 40.6% in the ECF, Nene goes from 56.0% in the regular season to a still admirable 53.1% in the playoffs and still does fine against the Lakers and Heat.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> Name me one SF who is close to Deng who makes 8 million or less


Easy, Shawn Marion of the 2010-11 World Champion Dallas Mavericks, who beat the team that handled us 4-1. 

Marion's salary in 2011: 7.3 million, PER 17.0

Lebron disappeared in the 4th quarter, who was guarding him genius? 

This is what's so comical about you. The way you post suggests that I'm off my rocker and you know it all. And yet the more you talk the more you prove that you're just REALLY involved in your belief system and really offended by the idea that anyone would fly in the face of your belief system. 

So, I named you one. The guy who played for the WORLD CHAMPS last year. Can you stop acting like what I'm posting is so non-sensical now lol?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> lol. And as a GM, you'd have to lay a gun on the table and force them to sign those contracts. You think Deng/Noah aren't worth what they are paid, which is fine...but you can't assume that they would sign for much less.


Then you tell them to walk. And by next year my team is looking something like this:

Derrick Rose 16.8 mill
Rip Hamilton 5.0 mill, Kyle Korver 5.0
Ronnie Brewer 4.3, Jeffery Taylor 2.0 (?), Robbie Hummel .4
Hole, Taj Gibson 2.1
Nene 13.0 mill, Asik 2.3

Now I can overpay (so Sac won't match) for Jason Thompson, an up and coming guy I like. I can pursue Duncan, Garnett, Bynum (if team option is not exercised). Point is, I'd get somebody. PFs like Noah (and to me he's really that or a 4-5 backup) are not irreplaceable in this league. 

Nene, Rip and Rose would be a dangerous trio and I'd really have no problem bringing Hinrich back at the right price. You get a couple role players at SF and PF and you'll be fine with a guy like Rose and Nene down low.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Shawn Marion sucks and you're a fool if you actually believe he's anywhere close to Deng. You are either completely delusional or you are being completely dishonest if you claim that Marion is anywhere near Deng. 

Name one SF who is close to Deng's level who makes 8 million$ or less.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> Shawn Marion sucks and you're a fool if you actually believe he's anywhere close to Deng. You are either completely delusional or you are being completely dishonest if you claim that Marion is anywhere near Deng.
> 
> Name one SF who is close to Deng's level who makes 8 million$ or less.


LMFAO. And that's how you respond? Wow. You're really a guy who thinks you know a lot but actually doesn't know.

Offensively - Marion was MORE productive than Deng last year
Defensively - Lebron went away in the Finals.

I love your support for why Marion sucks. Here's how your argument breaks down:

Conclusion:

Marion sucks

Logical reasoning serving as evidence to support your conclusion:

You're a fool
You're delusional

I gave you FACTS, 17.0 PER, Lebron went away. You clearly just REALLY like Luol Deng. And that's cool, but calling me a fool and delusional isn't an argument.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

SO you can not do it then? And instead of admitting it you give us a load of crap.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

I'm gonna grab some lunch now. If anyone disagrees with me, I re-disagree with them, and my argument supporting my re-disagreement is that you're a fool and delusional with absolutely no facts to back that up.

HAhahahahaha.... that just made this the best sick day from work in a while


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> SO you can not do it then? And instead of admitting it you give us a load of crap.


No, I could. I gave you one. Shawn Marion. He made 7.3, had a higher PER than Deng and played excellent defense on Lebron in the Finals.

You didn't give me an argument controverting that. "You're a fool" is not a counter-argument.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Marion played a zone defense. Dallas plays a zone because that's the only way they can guard anyone. Lebron just did not hit perimeter shots. Of course you probably knew that and you don't care because you're so married to this alternate reality.

Name one SF who is close to Deng's level and makes 8 million.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

God damn hoodey, you must type like 1,000 wpm lol.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Unlike John Paxson, I'm NOT in love with John Paxson's draft picks. And even corporate comcast sports host Mark Schianowski said on the score yesterday, "John Paxson tends to fall in love with his own guys."


Huh?

Paxson's guys kept:
Deng
Noah
Rose

Paxson's guys now gone:
Hinrich
Gordon
Tyrus Thomas
Thabo Sefolosha
James Johnson

In fact, one of Paxson's largest early criticisms was that he was too cheap and unwilling to re-sign his own guys.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> Marion played a zone defense. Dallas plays a zone because that's the only way they can guard anyone. Lebron just did not hit perimeter shots. Of course you probably knew that and you don't care because you're so married to this alternate reality.
> 
> Name one SF who is close to Deng's level and makes 8 million.


I did. Shawn Marion. 

At the end of the day he was more productive than Deng offensively, and even if I grant you the idea that Marion was not disruptive on the defensive end (because it's his fault they play a zone, and there's no way for an individual to screw up in a zone right?), guess what, Deng isn't this great defender some of you people seem to think he is. He's good. That's it. Where are the all-league selections if he's so great? 

Being good in a zone doesn't make you bad as a defender. It means your coach plays a zone. 

Marion's offensive production was BETTER than Deng's and he made 7.3 million. Next year Deng makes 13.3 million. 

When I say Marion:

> Was more productive than Deng offensively
> Guarded James in the Finals in which he couldn't score in the final quarter

"Dallas played a zone" is not a winning response. Next?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Huh?
> 
> Paxson's guys kept:
> Deng
> ...


WTF?! 

He has overpaid Deng, Hinrich and Noah. 

I fully applaud him for letting Gordon go, but who on earth cares about James Johnson, Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha?

Again, this is where you're not getting it. Mark Schianowski, the Bulls studio guy is saying that Paxson falls in love with his guys. 

Why is he saying that? Does he also just have an illogical vendetta against Paxson? Why does J Goff say that? Why does Jay Hood say that? Why does Dan Bernstein say that?

Oh yeah, they must not know how shrewd Paxson was with James Johnson. What a joke.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nbas-most-cost-efficient-sfs

This site does cost per efficiency lists, where per unit of PER put up, Deng costs more than 23 of 31 SFs. 

Imagine that Derrick Rose puts up a 25.1 similar to this year, next season, when he will make 16.8 mill and no longer be on his rookie contract. Say that Deng continues along at his career 16.2 PER at 13.3 million, here will be the cost per 1.0 of PER production (all other players are listed at last season because I'm not looking up next years salary for everyone:

Lebron James $531K
Dwyane Wade $554K
Chris Paul $662K
Derrick Rose $668K

Luol Deng $820K (was $727K)

It costs more per production for Luol Deng than Wade, James, Paul and Rose. Yeah, but he's not overpaid. RIGHT.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hoodey said:


> This is what's so comical about you. The way you post suggests that I'm off my rocker and you know it all. And yet the more you talk the more you prove that you're just REALLY involved in your belief system and really offended by the idea that anyone would fly in the face of your belief system.


There is no way you posted this with a straight face. Not a chance.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

And if you honestly believe that Shawn Marion is a better player than Deng at this point then you're an idiot.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Luke said:


> And if you honestly believe that Shawn Marion is a better player than Deng at this point then you're an idiot.


to be fair Diable asked


> Name me one SF who is close to Deng who makes 8 million or less


i think hoodey did that and stated his case, based on last season's performance for both players which is IMO pretty similar ...both player's games are similar in what they bring(good defending , good rebounding, non creating ok efficiency finishers) though marion for higher efficiency and deng for more minutes.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> And if you honestly believe that Shawn Marion is a better player than Deng at this point then you're an idiot.


Wow, idiot from a "moderator" lol. 

He said "SF who is close to Deng" and makes less than 8 million. At the very worst he was close last year. He was more statistically productive and Deng isn't this all-league Bruce Bowen type defender that people here seem to think he is. The Mavs were able to put the job on Lebron just fine with Marion at SF and Marion was very disruptive all over in the Finals.

Now, I'm GRANTING him and you the 8 million dollar mark, because that's the premise of my argument. In reality, Luol Deng will make 13.3 next year and there's not a chance in hell he's 6 mill better than Marion was last year.

The problem people like you face is that Deng doesn't really do anything that special.

2.9 APG = not a point forward, not a guy who is gonna dice defenses up with his passes
15.9 PPG on 43% FG = not even a "really good" scorer. That's pedestrian scoring for 11.3 on bad efficiency
No All-NBA defensive teams = certainly a good defender, not the great defender people like to act like he is

You just "like him." That's fine, but that doesn't make him more than an above average player.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> to be fair Diable asked
> 
> 
> i think hoodey did that and stated his case, based on last season's performance for both players which is IMO pretty similar ...both player's games are similar in what they bring(good defending , good rebounding, non creating ok efficiency finishers) though marion for higher efficiency and deng for more minutes.


Applause.

I think the two of us (Diable and I) could bargain and say that MAYBE Deng would warrant 9 million if you really had a low opinion of Marion. 

But Deng is set to make 13.3 next year, and there's just no way that if Marion was worth 7.3 last year, Deng is worth 13.3 based on what anyone could reasonably project next year, so I applaud you for seeing that. 

Championship teams get value, overall, but especially at SF and PF. See the Bulls getting Scottie Pippen for what they got him for, and then never paying him more than 3 million, which even at the lower salaries of the 90s was a pedestrian salary.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

One might note that the only reason Marion is making so little is his new deal. He was paid more than Deng for Deng-like production for a number of years, if I recall. He doesn't get that now because he is old and on the decline, which is perfectly rational.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> One might note that the only reason Marion is making so little is his new deal. He was paid more than Deng for Deng-like production for a number of years, if I recall. He doesn't get that now because he is old and on the decline, which is perfectly rational.


Oh no doubt. Somebody was stupid and overpaid Marion. But it wasn't Dallas and that's the point. I'm well aware that the Phoenix Nash-Fantasy is capable of making very stupid decisions, and I'd include paying Marion 13 and 15 million in that. 

But Dallas signed him for value, and therefore put the appropriate monetary commitment into a starting SF of his quality. 

Also Marion on the decline was still more productive than Deng.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Hoodey... I feel like you just watched "Moneyball" and are on a sabermetrics high.

Basketball is not all about PER and $$ and stats. Yes, you can prove certain things with numbers, but they don't measure intangibles. I'm not going to draw up a long argument because I feel both cases have been exhausted in both threads... 
You just can't discount certain things, and I think that is the biggest flaw with your arguments. If you strictly look at PER, and numbers, compared to money and championships, then yes, certain players on the Bulls are overpaid. With Deng, he is paid more then the average SF, and yes, most teams do not build around a SF, but you just can't disregard certain things, like they do not matter at all...specifically, age and intangibles. 
According to you, Marion is a better deal then Deng...fine, yes, according to the stats you bring up... But in the big picture, with the age of our core, and playing time left on both Deng/Marion, that difference isn't the way you make it seem. Team chemistry is another factor you totally dismiss. 
There is only 1 "best" at each position. You cannot have a team of all the best. It just seems like you would find something wrong with every single player on every single team.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Having read the last few pages I just want to make a general note about the tone - saying things like "you're an idiot if..." and "you're a fool if..." are walking a fine line of baiting/insulting other posters. Just generally speaking, let's keep things civil... that applies to both sides of the debate.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> WTF?!
> 
> He has overpaid Deng, Hinrich and Noah.
> 
> ...


My post had nothing to do about overpaying, and everything about how Paxson does not fall in love with his guys. Despite re-signing Kirk, he has not held onto his guys too long as Schianowski is saying. Why does he say it? He is either extremely short sighted or is trying to stir up something to talk about. Most likely, the latter.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> My post had nothing to do about overpaying, and everything about how Paxson does not fall in love with his guys. Despite re-signing Kirk, he has not held onto his guys too long as Schianowski is saying. Why does he say it? He is either extremely short sighted or is trying to stir up something to talk about. Most likely, the latter.


Its not that Paxon falls in love with his players or holds on to them too long, its that he FALLS IN LOVE with a CERTAIN type of player, talent be damned.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Its not that Paxon falls in love with his players or holds on to them too long, its that he FALLS IN LOVE with a CERTAIN type of player, talent be damned.


I would definitely say that Paxson prefers guys that are willing to buy into the system. He has gone for projects in Tyrus Thomas and James Johnson and for talent guys in Ben Gordon. He also clearly took the best talent in Rose. Remember, it was either him or Beasley that was supposed to go #1.

He also took the most talented guy we could have obtained in FA in Boozer. Despite not being very athletic, Boozer has skills and is a one-way offensive player who has had some issues with coaches. Not someone who typically fits the Paxson mold.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I would definitely say that Paxson prefers guys that are willing to buy into the system. He has gone for projects in Tyrus Thomas and James Johnson and for talent guys in Ben Gordon. He also clearly took the best talent in Rose. Remember, it was either him or Beasley that was supposed to go #1.
> 
> He also took the most talented guy we could have obtained in FA in Boozer. Despite not being very athletic, Boozer has skills and is a one-way offensive player who has had some issues with coaches. Not someone who typically fits the Paxson mold.


One thing that can be said about Paxon is that he completely lacks any knowledge of what makes a player any good offensively.

Discount the Rose pick as that was the ONLY pick he was going to be allowed to make, it was a no brainer. 

As for Tyrus and James Johnson he clearly went with guy's who showed more potential on defense, remember he did trade away the far superior NBA ready Lamarcus Aldridge, primarily because he thought Tyrus was going to be a better defensive player. 

If you remember the Gordon pick, it was a pick made not just because Gordon was a decent player but because he came from a winning program. 

I give him a pass on Boozer since its obvious he wasn't even plan B, Pax struck out on Bosh and Amare, Boozer was not in his top 2 choices.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> One thing that can be said about Paxon is that he completely lacks any knowledge of what makes a player any good offensively.
> 
> Discount the Rose pick as that was the ONLY pick he was going to be allowed to make, it was a no brainer.
> 
> ...


That's not how I remembered the Tyrus selection, but perhaps that is because I wanted Aldridge. Despite the shot blocking, Aldridge is probably the better defender than Tyrus. Perhaps that was misjudgement. The James Johnson pick was to help the offense. He was a superb offensive player from a second tier program. He was not known for defense when drafted. In fact, he couldn't get on the court with a defensive minded coach. Ironically, he is playing more major minutes as a defender for his current team.

I do remember "The Right Way," but I think Paxson's track record shows he prefers more known quantities. Gordon was no known quantity despite coming from a good UConn team. He certainly did not prefer defense to offense in that pick.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

I thought we drafted Tyrus(the trade was in place prior to the draft) because our team severely lacked athleticism with Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and with Chandler on the way out. Aldridge also had that heart problem if my memory serves right. It was between Tyrus and Roy I think, since we had the issue of a small backcourt.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> One thing that can be said about Paxon is that he completely lacks any knowledge of what makes a player any good offensively.
> 
> Discount the Rose pick as that was the ONLY pick he was going to be allowed to make, it was a no brainer.
> 
> ...



There's some revisionist history in here. Rose was not the "ONLY" pick Paxson would be allowed to make, nor was it a "no-brainer," at least according to conventional wisdom. There was legitimate debate between Rose and Beasley, both within the media and certainly on this board.

I don't recall anywhere Tyrus being picked over Aldridge because he had better defensive ability. Tyrus was picked because he was perceived as having the highest ceiling and superstar potential. I still remember on draft night Jay Bilas saying over and over that Tyrus was the most talented guy on the board and legitimately could/should be picked #1, but that he was a bit of a project. It only turned out that Tyrus's sole use was a guy who could jump high and block some shots, but that wasn't necessarily what the basketball intelligentsia predicted.

You're right on Gordon. There did seem to be emphasis put on guys who came from winning programs, and probably too much so.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> There's some revisionist history in here. Rose was not the "ONLY" pick Paxson would be allowed to make, nor was it a "no-brainer," at least according to conventional wisdom. There was legitimate debate between Rose and Beasley, both within the media and certainly on this board.


There may have been debate in the papers and media, but you better believe Rose was the pick the minute they won the lottery. Chicago Kid, a winner his entire life, led a college team to a national title in his freshman year, uber athletic with a great attitude, oh and did I mention he was from CHICAGO! It was a no brainer, heck Miami was pissed when they lost to the Bulls, they wanted Rose as well.



> I don't recall anywhere Tyrus being picked over Aldridge because he had better defensive ability. Tyrus was picked because he was perceived as having the highest ceiling and superstar potential. I still remember on draft night Jay Bilas saying over and over that Tyrus was the most talented guy on the board and legitimately could/should be picked #1, but that he was a bit of a project. It only turned out that Tyrus's sole use was a guy who could jump high and block some shots, but that wasn't necessarily what the basketball intelligentsia predicted.


I said it back then, only an idiot thinks Tyrus Thomas would be anything more than an athletic shot blocking dunker, he was extremely overrated. I remember Pax talking about his athleticism but more so in a defensive minded context. Yes he drafted him because of ceiling but it backs up what I said, that Paxon has no idea how to evaluate offensive talent, Tyrus had sooo many holes in his game that expecting him to just put all that talent together in 3 years was extremely un realistic. 

Its not like Tyrus was dropping 30 and 25 points every game, he was blocking a ton of shots and getting rebounds, its pretty obvious that he was a stronger defensive player than he was an offensive player, its as simple as that. 

We can either believe that Pax took him over Aldridge based on his ceiling and defensive abilities or we can believe the crazy story that he had a weird dinner with Scott Skiles and that freaked him out, or that other crazy story about giving these weird wonderlich type tests in their 1 on 1 meetings. 



> You're right on Gordon. There did seem to be emphasis put on guys who came from winning programs, and probably too much so.


Well I remember that draft, I knew if the Bulls where in the top 5 they would go after Emeka or Gordon, Ucon Guys, Character Guys, Winners. I really wanted Shaun Livingston because at the time a 6'8 PG, wow I really thought he was going to be something very special, he was robbed by injuries so we dodged a bullet.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> There may have been debate in the papers and media, but you better believe Rose was the pick the minute they won the lottery. Chicago Kid, a winner his entire life, led a college team to a national title in his freshman year, uber athletic with a great attitude, oh and did I mention he was from CHICAGO! It was a no brainer, heck Miami was pissed when they lost to the Bulls, they wanted Rose as well.


Wasn't Reinsdorf criticized in the past for not going after home grown talent because it would provide distractions, etc? Obviously that has now changed with Rose and Butler.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Wasn't Reinsdorf criticized in the past for not going after home grown talent because it would provide distractions, etc? Obviously that has now changed with Rose and Butler.



Yes. That first surfaced when supposedly Reinsdorf had big reservations about Eddy Curry being from Chicago. Too many distractions and hangers-on was the concern.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> There may have been debate in the papers and media, but you better believe Rose was the pick the minute they won the lottery. Chicago Kid, a winner his entire life, led a college team to a national title in his freshman year, uber athletic with a great attitude, oh and did I mention he was from CHICAGO! It was a no brainer, heck Miami was pissed when they lost to the Bulls, they wanted Rose as well.


That's all well and good, but none of it changes the point I made. There was significant debate in the media and among the fanbase, your hindsight 20/20 argument notwithstanding.




> I said it back then, only an idiot thinks Tyrus Thomas would be anything more than an athletic shot blocking dunker, he was extremely overrated. I remember Pax talking about his athleticism but more so in a defensive minded context. Yes he drafted him because of ceiling but it backs up what I said, that Paxon has no idea how to evaluate offensive talent, Tyrus had sooo many holes in his game that expecting him to just put all that talent together in 3 years was extremely un realistic.
> 
> Its not like Tyrus was dropping 30 and 25 points every game, he was blocking a ton of shots and getting rebounds, its pretty obvious that he was a stronger defensive player than he was an offensive player, its as simple as that.
> 
> We can either believe that Pax took him over Aldridge based on his ceiling and defensive abilities or we can believe the crazy story that he had a weird dinner with Scott Skiles and that freaked him out, or that other crazy story about giving these weird wonderlich type tests in their 1 on 1 meetings.


The Skiles thing is hilarious and sad, in retrospect. You are simply incorrect if your assertion is that nobody believed Tyrus was going to have offensive talent. Remember, there was all this talk about how he could handle the ball, would play the 3, might develop shooting range, blah blah blah. You are correct that none of it turned out to be true. The Tyrus/Aldridge pick is obviously the biggest draft blunder made by the current front office regime. It worked out terribly. The solace you can find is that had that egregious error not been made, the franchise never gets Derrick Rose. That doesn't excuse the blunder, however.



> Well I remember that draft, I knew if the Bulls where in the top 5 they would go after Emeka or Gordon, Ucon Guys, Character Guys, Winners. I really wanted Shaun Livingston because at the time a 6'8 PG, wow I really thought he was going to be something very special, he was robbed by injuries so we dodged a bullet.



Yeah, Gordon I suppose turned out to be the best guy from among that bunch, though I'm with you that Livingston was a really talented guy who was terribly unlucky on the injury front. Gordon seems to be an example where the front office was able to identify offensive talent, though, no?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

just to clarify something here

Shawn Marion is making just better than MLE money because when his contract came up he was 32, had been bounced around to 3 teams in 2 seasons, and was coming off back to back injury plagued seasons with mediocre PER (since someone thinks that's important)

prior to that Marion was making serious money because he signed a contract when he was in his mid 20s and just peaking (low 20 PERs - that's more or less all star level)

forcing a trade to the Heat when he was 29 and contract negotiations had broken down with the Suns (because he wasnt worth what he was asking for) Marion got that extension which paid him 17m and which the Heat almost immediately regretted 

soon thereafter Marion (along with Marcus Banks) was traded for Jermaine O'Neal and Jamario Moon (please note the relative value there = cash dump + 28 year old journey-man with limited upside within 2 seasons neither player was still on the heat))

it was at this low point when Marion had essentially no leverage to negotiate with that the Mavs took a gamble (mind you) that paid off

now compare this history to Deng who at age 22 was coming off back to back seasons with PERs in the high teens 18.7, 17.0 when his new contract came up he was offered 6 years starting at 9.3m (total 6 years 71m) - this deal for a 22 year old who had just logged PERs in the high teens might not be a flat out steal but it is far from disgraceful and to characterize it as anything but what it is (market value) is delusional - given those circumstances (22 year old, back to back near all star seasons) every team in the league is going to make that offer and most would be happy to get it


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

e-monk said:


> just to clarify something here
> 
> Shawn Marion is making just better than MLE money because when his contract came up he was 32, had been bounced around to 3 teams in 2 seasons, and was coming off back to back injury plagued seasons with mediocre PER (since someone thinks that's important)
> 
> ...


very well said... 
Why are people falling in love with PER now? I just don't get it. Basketball is such a team sport where "hustle" stats and defense aren't measured. I understand you can't build a team full of hustle guys, but some of those traits are valuable and not measure in PER, or steals, or any other basketball stat. Plus, age can never be dismissed. You're running a franchise, not a one year fantasy team.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PER is flawed in a number of ways and tends to disadvantage slashy wing players, especially those who play D on the perimeter rather than boarding up and play off the ball on offense and dont get a lot of dimes - in fact playing off a guy like Rose is probably detrimental to your PER


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

PER is a number that should be used in context. It overstates the value of rebounds, which Hollinger freely admits and does not quantify many aspects of the game. In the Marion case it is merely telling us that he is a good garbage man. That is Marion is never asked to do anything and when he does do something it is easy to do it efficiently. When he actually scores it is usually be because he either catches lob passes or he puts back offensive rebounds, meaning that he scores very efficiently when you look at the numbers in a vacuum. He's a good rebounder and he does not turn the ball over because it's rarely in his hands that long. That gives you a high PER

Your PER gets lower because you are asked to do more difficult things at which you will not always succeed at a high rate. You have to take long range shots or you have to make decisions. Great players can do difficult things efficiently, most players can only do easy things efficiently and are not used expected to do the hard stuff all game long or whatsoever in Marion's case.

In this case PER is being deliberately used out of context because using it with context would lead to logical conclusions which the OP is too stubborn to accept. You see it all the time on message boards. Someone weds theirself to a position which turns out to be incorrect, but rather than admitting that they were wrong they try to obfuscate the facts to fit a preconceived idea.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> That's all well and good, but none of it changes the point I made. There was significant debate in the media and among the fanbase, your hindsight 20/20 argument notwithstanding.


Your point is moot, there was no debate in the front office, who cares what fans or the media thought. 



> The Skiles thing is hilarious and sad, in retrospect. You are simply incorrect if your assertion is that nobody believed Tyrus was going to have offensive talent. Remember, there was all this talk about how he could handle the ball, would play the 3, might develop shooting range, blah blah blah. You are correct that none of it turned out to be true. The Tyrus/Aldridge pick is obviously the biggest draft blunder made by the current front office regime. It worked out terribly. The solace you can find is that had that egregious error not been made, the franchise never gets Derrick Rose. That doesn't excuse the blunder, however.


First of all, I never said nobody believed Tyrus was going to be any good offensively, I said that only idiots thought he was going to be anything more than what he is. He is a prime example of whats wrong with scouting a prospect primarily on combine/stop watch numbers, it has its place dont get me wrong, but Tyrus was such a legit project and he had soooo many holes in his game that if the Bulls would have just developed Tyrus defensively he might still be on the Bulls. 



> Yeah, Gordon I suppose turned out to be the best guy from among that bunch, though I'm with you that Livingston was a really talented guy who was terribly unlucky on the injury front. Gordon seems to be an example where the front office was able to identify offensive talent, though, no?


He was a good shooter but damn, the guy could not Dribble, pass, defend, break a defense one on one, etc. I think they just went with the best player available, even though Livingston by far had the most potential. I'm guessing they passed on Livingston because they felt like they had the PG of the Future in Kirk, but damn, thinking that Ben Gordon was going to be the teams answer at the 2, wow. Ben was only what, 6'2 6'3 generously?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Your point is moot, there was no debate in the front office, who cares what fans or the media thought.


Upon realizing your position was demonstrably wrong, you simply move the goalposts. Also, I hope you enjoyed this meetings you had with Pax, given your apparent first-hand knowledge of the deliberations or lack thereof.



> First of all, I never said nobody believed Tyrus was going to be any good offensively, I said that only idiots thought he was going to be anything more than what he is. He is a prime example of whats wrong with scouting a prospect primarily on combine/stop watch numbers, it has its place dont get me wrong, but Tyrus was such a legit project and he had soooo many holes in his game that if the Bulls would have just developed Tyrus defensively he might still be on the Bulls.


I'm not sure what any of this has to do with our conversation vis a vis draft history.

[/quote]
He was a good shooter but damn, the guy could not Dribble, pass, defend, break a defense one on one, etc. I think they just went with the best player available, even though Livingston by far had the most potential. I'm guessing they passed on Livingston because they felt like they had the PG of the Future in Kirk, but damn, thinking that Ben Gordon was going to be the teams answer at the 2, wow. Ben was only what, 6'2 6'3 generously?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that there's anything showing they thought he was the "answer" at the 2. You're setting up strawmen.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Upon realizing your position was demonstrably wrong, you simply move the goalposts. Also, I hope you enjoyed this meetings you had with Pax, given your apparent first-hand knowledge of the deliberations or lack thereof.


Only an idiot really thinks that there was any real un certainty on who to draft that night, that pick was Rose from the moment the Bulls won the lottery. Obviously they did their homework on Beasley and obviously they had discussions on whether they should draft him, but the pick was never in question, it was going to be Rose. 



> I'm not sure that there's anything showing they thought he was the "answer" at the 2. You're setting up strawmen.


Yeah, so the Bulls drafted him #3 overall with no expectations of him becoming the starting 2 guard of the future... oy :banghead:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey - this has to be you getting ripped up by Dan Bernstein right now on the score... using all of the exact same arguments you've been using... salary/per/Jerome Kersey... why would I trust you over Hollinger, etc... I love it. Let's post the podcast.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Only an idiot really thinks that there was any real un certainty on who to draft that night, that pick was Rose from the moment the Bulls won the lottery. Obviously they did their homework on Beasley and obviously they had discussions on whether they should draft him, but the pick was never in question, it was going to be Rose.


The pick was not Rose when they won the lottery. Do you not recall Rose wowing people in pre-draft workouts relating to his offensive game? A lot of scouts/analysts said they Rose did not flash much of his one on one ability at Memphis and played within the team system. If memory serves me correctly, Beasley was the consensus #1 pick on nbadraft.net and draftexpress at the conclusion of the collegiate season until the combine and pre-draft workouts.

By draft night, I would agree there was very little question that they were going to go with Rose, but certainly not from the moment the Bulls won the lotto.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> Hoodey... I feel like you just watched "Moneyball" and are on a sabermetrics high.
> 
> Basketball is not all about PER and $$ and stats. Yes, you can prove certain things with numbers, but they don't measure intangibles. I'm not going to draw up a long argument because I feel both cases have been exhausted in both threads...


Again, I'm open to the "intangibles" thing. PER only measures offensive production per minute. 

There is also defense and intangibles. But:

a) I've watched Bruce Bowen, Ron Artest and Dennis Rodman when he was young and still more of a 3. Luol Deng isn't that.

b) I've watched the clutch performers like Joe Dumars, Dennis Johnson, Byron Scott, Reggie Miller, Robert Horry; guys who always seemed to come up way bigger than their regular performance when it mattered most. There is none of that in Luol Deng.

Look, as a Bulls fan, I wish Luol Deng was a guy who got to the ECF and just started dropping bombs like Big Game James Worthy. But he's not. In big moments, he doesn't outplay his normal standard the way Derek Fisher, Danny Ainge or Jerry West did. And we're not talking about being as good as West or Ainge, merely how well you play in big moments relative to your normal play. 

[quite]You just can't discount certain things, and I think that is the biggest flaw with your arguments. If you strictly look at PER, and numbers, compared to money and championships, then yes, certain players on the Bulls are overpaid. With Deng, he is paid more then the average SF, and yes, most teams do not build around a SF, but you just can't disregard certain things, like they do not matter at all...specifically, age and intangibles. 
According to you, Marion is a better deal then Deng...fine, yes, according to the stats you bring up... But in the big picture, with the age of our core, and playing time left on both Deng/Marion, that difference isn't the way you make it seem. Team chemistry is another factor you totally dismiss. 
There is only 1 "best" at each position. You cannot have a team of all the best. It just seems like you would find something wrong with every single player on every single team.[/QUOTE]

When you say "age of our core" why are you pretending that Deng is somehow linked to Derrick Rose long term? They're two different kind of players. One is a guy who will be one of many "good" players on a team like the 93 Cavs. The other is a guy who you can match up with a legit #2 and a bunch of guys and win titles. 

Luol Deng in the 2 star - 10 role player format is a #3/high end role player a la Horace Grant. The problem is that they're paying him like a #2, especially once we get to next year. He's not a #2 on a title team. 

A #2 on a traditional format title team (not the 04 Pistons, an anomale on so many levels), is Pau Gasol, Paul Pierce, Tony Parker, Shaquille O'neal (06), Kobe Bryant.

I'll put it to you this way. Is Luol Deng as good as Rip Hamilton was in 04? In terms of tangibles or intangibles?

Rose will likely have to enter another "life cycle of a team" to win a title. There is no "beloved core" that includes Noah, Deng, etc. long term. Eventually the Bulls will have to break that up and get a legit #2, and then we'll win with ten guys off the street and one guy like Luol Deng playing the #3 role. 

Mind you, if paid like a #3, Deng is fine, but then you can't pay Boozer like a #2.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> My post had nothing to do about overpaying, and everything about how Paxson does not fall in love with his guys. Despite re-signing Kirk, he has not held onto his guys too long as Schianowski is saying. Why does he say it? He is either extremely short sighted or is trying to stir up something to talk about. Most likely, the latter.


I think you can look at "falling in love with your own guys" two ways. Not only holding on to them too long, but overpaying.

The problem is this. Everyone seems to acknowledge that Boozer is nowhere close to a championship #2 player, and yet is paid #2 money. 

But no one will acknowledge that that was a bad decision, because Paxson they claim HAD TO do it, because we were going to lose the cap room we could have held over and not spent once Rose signed his current deal.

My counter point is, well, you overpaid Deng. But Paxson's supporters want to live in a world where he had to do everything and no one decision made things bad.

Maybe overpaying Deng was bad not because of his value in a vacuum, but because you had to look at the money beyond 8 mill AND/OR the money you paid Noah beyond a certain sum, and say "well, this will impact our window in terms of how long we'll be able to have money available to pick up a #2.

After all, when Deng signed, the team already knew they had Derrick Rose. Are you telling me if you low ball Deng and he walks, you won't be able to ever find a #2 to play with Rose.

This would be like, instead of getting Pippen, the Bulls overpaid Charles Oakley. Oakley was a good basketball player, but had that hampered the Bulls ability to get a Pippen (Paxson has to pay for one because he'll never pull a coup like that in a trade), I'd have been pretty ticked.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> That's not how I remembered the Tyrus selection, but perhaps that is because I wanted Aldridge. Despite the shot blocking, Aldridge is probably the better defender than Tyrus. Perhaps that was misjudgement. The James Johnson pick was to help the offense. He was a superb offensive player from a second tier program. He was not known for defense when drafted. In fact, he couldn't get on the court with a defensive minded coach. Ironically, he is playing more major minutes as a defender for his current team.
> 
> I do remember "The Right Way," but I think Paxson's track record shows he prefers more known quantities. Gordon was no known quantity despite coming from a good UConn team. He certainly did not prefer defense to offense in that pick.


I liked the Hirnich and Deng picks at the time. I wanted to get Iguodala instead of Gordon, but mostly because I just didn't like Gordon. Even though I thought Josh Smith was the better talent in a vacuum, I questioned whether he could work here with the Chandler and Curry debaucle.

However, I never though Hirnich and Deng would get paid here, especially 11.3-13.3 like Deng. I thought that they would be players who would deliver us from being a perpetual Wizards team (current Wizards), and then we'd look to add players with more talent as time went on and we were no longer a non-competitor.

At this point, my question becomes one of whether we need the Dengs and Noahs of the world. We have Derrick Rose. We don't need Right Way Baskenomics. The 2002 Bulls aren't going to come back and take us over if we go for a real #2. 

The Right Way should have been something that came and went in 2-4 years. And yet we still have Luol Deng getting paid as a #2 along with Boozer. Now, if Boozer WAS a legit #2 and Deng was our #3, that would be fine. Deng would be a damn fine #3 on a team with two legit players serving as #1 and #2.

The problem isn't Deng, Noah or Boozer in a vacuum individually. It's the fact that when you add them and their salaries together, we're still missing a #2. Deng is a damn fine basketball player.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> There's some revisionist history in here. Rose was not the "ONLY" pick Paxson would be allowed to make, nor was it a "no-brainer," at least according to conventional wisdom. There was legitimate debate between Rose and Beasley, both within the media and certainly on this board.
> 
> I don't recall anywhere Tyrus being picked over Aldridge because he had better defensive ability. Tyrus was picked because he was perceived as having the highest ceiling and superstar potential. I still remember on draft night Jay Bilas saying over and over that Tyrus was the most talented guy on the board and legitimately could/should be picked #1, but that he was a bit of a project. It only turned out that Tyrus's sole use was a guy who could jump high and block some shots, but that wasn't necessarily what the basketball intelligentsia predicted.
> 
> You're right on Gordon. There did seem to be emphasis put on guys who came from winning programs, and probably too much so.


No, Rose was definitely a no-brainer. If you love tweener forwards and combo guards then Beasley was probably a guy who you could try to rationalize to fit into your view basketball.

I remember when there was talk in the CHICAGO media that Paxson was considering Beasley. I was not living in Chicago at the time and the rection where I was living was "really, on what planet??" 

There was debate on this board because at that time the board was full of almost a religion that the game was changing, that positions were going away, and that there was no such thing as too many forwards. In fact, THAT there was debate by some on this board about picking Beasley says it all about those people. 

It's like when someone tries to critique Jay Cutler, and you remember that the same guy was a Rex Grossman fanatic. It gets a little hard to take them seriously.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

e-monk said:


> just to clarify something here
> 
> Shawn Marion is making just better than MLE money because when his contract came up he was 32, had been bounced around to 3 teams in 2 seasons, and was coming off back to back injury plagued seasons with mediocre PER (since someone thinks that's important)
> 
> ...


It doesn't change that Dallas got a deal. 

Dallas made a judgment call that he wasn't that guy anymore, and yet used what happened there to get a deal favorable to them.

This is no different than when Krause traded for Rodman, whom everyone had left for dead. Had Rodman had a rep as a "great guy" there's no way he gets Rodman for Will Perdue. 

Or when Joe Dumars traded practically nothing for Rasheed Wallace. Wallace was bouncing around and just acting insanely stupid. But if he was stable and acting like a totally calm guy, there's no way Dumars could have afforded him. 

Dallas rolled the dice, which you usually have to do. Take Scottie Pippen for example. If anyone knew he was going to be that good, do you think you get him for Olden Polynice? NO. 

Always remember this... it applies to the value that you get when you draft Hakeem Nicks or Michael Floyd and they turn out to be very good, as opposed to paying #1 free agent money for Vincent Jackson, and it applies to Marion.

When you decide that you know a guy is going to be good, but the rest of the world doesn't know, whether it's a guy who has been acting up, or a college player in the draft as opposed to free agents who command top dollar, you always get rewarded if you're right, because the price for unknown is way cheaper than the price for known.

Yes, Dallas took a shot. I only wish we would take more shots. But we can't, because we're crippled by the monumental fear that we somehow might lose the irreplaceable Luol Deng. This organization has been crippled by fear for 7 years (which isn't quite as bad as what we were crippled by before that lol). 

Also, nothing about a 17.0 PER, absent some kind of Bruce Bowen-like defensive prowess, or some Robert Horry-like clutch-ability, says "let's pay this guy a six year contract with four years of 11.3-13.3."


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> very well said...
> Why are people falling in love with PER now? I just don't get it. Basketball is such a team sport where "hustle" stats and defense aren't measured. I understand you can't build a team full of hustle guys, but some of those traits are valuable and not measure in PER, or steals, or any other basketball stat. Plus, age can never be dismissed. You're running a franchise, not a one year fantasy team.


My criticism of Deng is simple. First, he's good, I just feel he's overpaid. Let's not turn this into a discussion where I'm saying he's not a good basketball player. He's a good #3 on a title team built around two legit stars. A lower middle class man's Horace Grant in terms of impact, not style of play.

It's that Deng isn't a #2, and yet is paid like one, especially next year when his salary jumps to 13.3.

His PER is not a #2 PER. I'm not in love with that, as I am willing to credit anyone for defense or clutch play if that's what makes them so valuable. 

But when I'm thinking about #2s making a living on defense despite pedestrian offensive production, I'm thinking of Dikembe Motumbo, an aging David Robinson circa 1999 (next to Duncan), Scottie Pippen, Bruce Bowen (whose defense was #2 quality despite him not being there as a player), Dennis Rodman (ditto). 

Luol Deng's defense just isn't there. 

When I'm thinking of clutch ability that would make Deng worth the money despite pedestrian production and pretty good (not great) defense, I'm thinking of a clutch player along the lines of Joe Dumars or Robert Horry. Guys who, despite how good they are in a given moment, are that much better when the going gets tough.

If you'll remember, I noted Marion's PER and the fact that that defense contained Lebron with him. I did not merely say "PER! It's all over!" 

Come on now, be fair.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> PER is a number that should be used in context. It overstates the value of rebounds, which Hollinger freely admits and does not quantify many aspects of the game. In the Marion case it is merely telling us that he is a good garbage man. That is Marion is never asked to do anything and when he does do something it is easy to do it efficiently. When he actually scores it is usually be because he either catches lob passes or he puts back offensive rebounds, meaning that he scores very efficiently when you look at the numbers in a vacuum. He's a good rebounder and he does not turn the ball over because it's rarely in his hands that long. That gives you a high PER
> 
> Your PER gets lower because you are asked to do more difficult things at which you will not always succeed at a high rate. You have to take long range shots or you have to make decisions. Great players can do difficult things efficiently, most players can only do easy things efficiently and are not used expected to do the hard stuff all game long or whatsoever in Marion's case.
> 
> In this case PER is being deliberately used out of context because using it with context would lead to logical conclusions which the OP is too stubborn to accept. You see it all the time on message boards. Someone weds theirself to a position which turns out to be incorrect, but rather than admitting that they were wrong they try to obfuscate the facts to fit a preconceived idea.


But what is Luol Deng asked to do that is so difficult? He's not a passing SF and the Bulls never ask him to drive to the basket. Are you talking about all of those difficult wide open jumpers they ask him to take? 

Oh and Deng's best stat relative to great SFs IS rebounds per game, where he's averaging 7.3. 

Here are two players at age 25:

Scottie Pippen 1990-91 - 17.8 PPG 7.3 RPG 6.2 APG 2.4 SPG 1.1 BPG 52.0% FG 70.6% FG
Luol Deng 2011-12 - 16.0 PPG 7.3 RPG 2.5 APG 1.2 SPG 0.7 BPG 43.9% FG 75.8% FG

The one area Deng hangs with Pippen, a legit #2, statistically IS rebounds per game. 2.4 APG? That's really really lower pedestrian. If you're not being asked to distribute the basketball (because you're coddled and not asked to drive to the basket period) then how good are you? 

I thought it would be nice to compare Deng at the same age to the guy his fans THINK he is.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> He was a good shooter but damn, the guy could not Dribble, pass, defend, break a defense one on one, etc. I think they just went with the best player available, even though Livingston by far had the most potential. I'm guessing they passed on Livingston because they felt like they had the PG of the Future in Kirk, but damn, thinking that Ben Gordon was going to be the teams answer at the 2, wow. Ben was only what, 6'2 6'3 generously?


Gordon's talent offensively was as a modern Vinnie Johnson, nothing more.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Small Forward leaders

Assists Per Game
Lebron James 6.9
Andre Iguodala 5.2
Paul Pierce 4.7
Hedo Turkoglu 4.7
Carmelo Anthony 4.2
Kevin Durant 3.4
Gordon Hayward 3.3
Stephen Jackson 3.3
Trevor Ariza 3.2
Danilo Gallinari 2.6
Luol Deng 2.5
Gerald Wallace 2.5

10 guys with higher APG than Deng. Five guys with APG at least 1.7 higher than Deng.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Boers and Bernstein Link

Hoodey - seriously, that's you at the 7:03 mark, right?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> The pick was not Rose when they won the lottery. Do you not recall Rose wowing people in pre-draft workouts relating to his offensive game? A lot of scouts/analysts said they Rose did not flash much of his one on one ability at Memphis and played within the team system. If memory serves me correctly, Beasley was the consensus #1 pick on nbadraft.net and draftexpress at the conclusion of the collegiate season until the combine and pre-draft workouts.
> 
> By draft night, I would agree there was very little question that they were going to go with Rose, but certainly not from the moment the Bulls won the lotto.


One of the first things my brother and I said to each other after the shock of winning the lottery was, wow we are going to get Derrick Rose. Every other person I bumped into kept asking, so Derrick Rose right? 

Those mocks fluctuated through out the collegiate year, Rose shot to the top at the end of the season but by time the lottery was over he was #1 I believe, either way Pax was taking Rose. 

End of Story.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> The pick was not Rose when they won the lottery. Do you not recall Rose wowing people in pre-draft workouts relating to his offensive game? A lot of scouts/analysts said they Rose did not flash much of his one on one ability at Memphis and played within the team system. If memory serves me correctly, Beasley was the consensus #1 pick on nbadraft.net and draftexpress at the conclusion of the collegiate season until the combine and pre-draft workouts.
> 
> By draft night, I would agree there was very little question that they were going to go with Rose, but certainly not from the moment the Bulls won the lotto.


One of the first things my brother and I said to each other after the shock of winning the lottery was, wow we are going to get Derrick Rose. Every other person I bumped into kept asking, so Derrick Rose right? 

Those mocks fluctuated through out the collegiate year, Rose shot to the top at the end of the season but by time the lottery was over he was #1 I believe, either way Pax was taking Rose. 

End of Story.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Boers and Bernstein Link
> 
> Hoodey - seriously, that's you at the 7:03 mark, right?


Was it the PER guy lol.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The bucks would give up Stephen jackson for Luol Deng in a millisecond.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> No, Rose was definitely a no-brainer. If you love tweener forwards and combo guards then Beasley was probably a guy who you could try to rationalize to fit into your view basketball.
> 
> I remember when there was talk in the CHICAGO media that Paxson was considering Beasley. I was not living in Chicago at the time and the rection where I was living was "really, on what planet??"
> 
> ...


Funny you should bring this up:

http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/404751-one-paragraph-argument-promoting-your-guy-1-pick.html#post5553135

There was more debate than I thought there'd be, but I knew a lot of people who were convinced for Beasley over at realgm as well. That's the extent of my online bulls forum universe (other than sportstwo, which is just this board's spinoff.) 

Can you believe that somebody argued for Mayo number 1? 

But I don't see anybody arguing that you can't have too many forwards. Just that Beasley was a superior talent. 

And, Hoodey, from what I read of my own posts at the time, I stated that we need a second top five player to win it all. That's probably true, and it's debatable that any of Deng, Boozer or Noah are. Nevertheless, I like this team, and I'm sure glad we picked Rose!


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Boers and Bernstein Link
> 
> Hoodey - seriously, that's you at the 7:03 mark, right?


Of course. 

Usually when I call they're ripping on Boozer and Noah and there's agreement, but Bernstein has become more insistent that Deng is worth the money.

It depends on your meaning of worth. If by "worth" you mean that you want to field a competitive basketball team, or that you're fine paying #2 money for #3s or that you are fine not winning in the playoffs, OR that you want to pay money for a good guy who works hard and maximizes his talent, then fine. 

But Bernstein talks constantly about how everything you do needs to be championship focused. I was actually surprised that he was resistent because he's quite ready to trade Deng in a Howard package, re-sign or not.

He wants to throw PER out. I agree there are some knocks on PER. Like:

> Minutes - If Deng plays 38.0 MPG and another guy plays 15.0 MPG, then that guy won't have to do much to have a better PER. 
> It doesn't measure defense. 
> It doesn't measure situational factors.

But it's not completely worthless either. Deng's impact in terms of production is not far off from Jerome Kersey.

In fact, and there are seasons where this guy is not only spot on in terms of PER, but also in terms of many individual statistics, the best comparison I think I can come up with is a really nice Xavier McDaniel. 

Think I'm off my rocker?

Xavier McDaniel 1990-91 (age 27)
17.0 PPG 6.9 RPG 2.3 APG 49.7% FG

X-man's percentage was much higher in terms of FGs, but he was 0-8 in threes, so his TS% is probably right on. 

In fact, Bernstein mocked PER as a measure of the comparison between Kersey and Deng, how about individual stats there. 

Jerome Kersey 1988-89 (age 26)
17.5 PPG 8.3 RPG 3.1 APG 46.9% FG

Now I'll add Luol Deng 2011-12 (age 26)
16.0 PPG 7.3 RPG 2.5 APG 43.9% FG (with a higher TS%)

But yeah, I just let PER influence things too much. OR if you go to the individual stats, both comparisons are almost smack on.

People laugh because their first thought, if they're being honest, is "Xavier McDaniel, that guy was good, but he wasn't really that good."

NEITHER IS DENG


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

narek said:


> The bucks would give up Stephen jackson for Luol Deng in a millisecond.


That wasn't really the point I was making. We hear about how Deng is top 5 at his position, and if you use PER, you're just using a stupid metric and blah, blah, blah. 

Okay, so what happens when you start going to the individual statistics? You find out that he's not doing what he should be doing by all accounts. He's not proving that PER is a stupid metric by "shining where it counts." 

For 13.3 mill next year and the benefit of the doubt he gets in this town, I should be seeing 4.5 APG no problem. 

Just for fun, let's step outside the bubble and see where 2.5 APG put you in the 1992 East.

1992 EASTERN CONFERENCE SF APG leaders 

Scottie Pippen 7.0
Larry Bird 6.8
Chuck Person 4.7
Charles Barkley 4.1
Detlef Schrempf
Craig Ehlo 3.8
Orlando Woolridge 3.2 
Mark Aguirre 3.1
Anthony Bowie 3.1
Kevin Gamble 2.7 
Harvey Grant 2.7
Johnny Newman 2.7
Chris Morris 2.6
Stacey Augmon 2.5

Two things:

> What an incredibly skilled league that was and what a stinky toilet this league can be at times.

> Look at that list. I mean Harvey Grant?? 1.3 behind Craig Ehlo?

Nothing this guy is doing is ground-breaking or that noteworthy if you know how to step back beyond the Bulls in the past few years.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Good Hope said:


> Funny you should bring this up:
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/404751-one-paragraph-argument-promoting-your-guy-1-pick.html#post5553135
> 
> ...


I like this team most of the time too. I certainly think they're a bunch of guys you can be happy for. I mean my god I've suffered through Jalen Rose, who played O-lay defense and never saw a premature pull up jumper he didn't run for. 

It's just that in DERRICK Rose, I don't think we realize what we have sometimes. This isn't 07 where you can say "okay, this team is mediocre, but they didn't get lucky." We got lucky. We have a guy you CAN build a title around. Think of how many times we've been able to say that in my life:

Walter Payton
Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen (let me dream, please)
Jonathan Toews
Jeremy Roenick
Derrick Rose

I mean I'm not a Sox fan so I'm not gonna make myself look like a moron for the ages trying to pick their guy if they had one. 

But the point is, not often. As good as I felt Ryne Sandberg was at the time, was he even good enough? Doubtful. 

There are times to say "okay a bunch of rag-tag guys like Deng and Noah are MORE appropriate for the situation; we have no cap room (or) we just don't have a shot at any building blocks for a couple years."

This just isn't one of those times.

I don't want anyone to think that I don't root for Luol Deng and Joakim Noah. I mean it's not like they're Jay Williams, Jamal Crawford, Jalen Rose, Donyell Marshall, Eddy Curry, Ron Mercer or Charles Oakley part deux on his "teach the kids (how to give me their minutes and shots" tour lol.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

How long where you on wait just to get ripped apart Hoodey?


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

How can you compare Deng to Kersey? Who cares if their numbers are similar? Why is everything numbers with you. Have you ever seen Jerome Kersey play? If you have, their is no way, NO WAY, you would compare the 2 players. You can move Deng off the Bulls and put him on a different team and his numbers would raise...again, you can put him on a different team again and the numbers would lower.
Looking at PER, and PPG, and any other stat isn't the entire story, and that's what you're basing your argument on. It becomes very evident as soon as you compare Deng to Jerome Kersey.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> How long where you on wait just to get ripped apart Hoodey?


Honestly, 5 minutes or so.

The thing about those guys is that most people are going to get into it with Bernstein if they disagree with him. I don't mind because he usually takes it to a good place in his arguments, and over time, if he is wrong, he'll admit it.

Look, if we lose to Miami this summer, and Boozer and Rose are really good, but Deng and Noah are really bad, he'll recognize it and admit it. He'll acknowledge the differences between the regular season and that series.

Just like, if Deng turns into Superman in the ECF this year and we lose, but Boozer and Noah are bad, I won't be blaming Deng, because it's not a vendetta.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> How can you compare Deng to Kersey? Who cares if their numbers are similar? Why is everything numbers with you. Have you ever seen Jerome Kersey play? If you have, their is no way, NO WAY, you would compare the 2 players. You can move Deng off the Bulls and put him on a different team and his numbers would raise...again, you can put him on a different team again and the numbers would lower.
> Looking at PER, and PPG, and any other stat isn't the entire story, and that's what you're basing your argument on. It becomes very evident as soon as you compare Deng to Jerome Kersey.


But here's the thing with people who want you to blow off numbers. 

PER is no good. THEN spot on individual statistics are no good. NOTHING is good enough. Why? Because they want you to supplant numbers with THEIR opinion. 

PER is no good, a stat line that has individual stats in common up and down the stat line with X-man and Jerome Kersey is no good. And what's left after that? You really LIKE Luol Deng and want me to take your like-manifested opinion on the guy.

No. If he was averaging 19.0 PPG, 7.7 RPG and 7.0 APG, he'd have to look completely different in terms of game play to do that.

Yesterday he had a fantastic drive and pass to Joakim Noah. He just dropped a dime on Noah's lap and it was outstanding. He had the vision and he executed. If he did that a LOT more, believe me, he'd be averaging 5.5 APG. He doesn't. 

If you want to say that he is a better slasher than Xavier, fine. Better slasher, better leaper when he has an unfettered lane to the basket. But McDaniel was more intimidating and pretty similar elsewhere. 

Look, if there were comparisons with better players, the numbers would bare that out. Numbers are not perfect, but they're usually much more perfect than some random fan's opinion. 

But I'll offer this to you. Give me a bunch of players, modern and from yesteryear, that you think are more similar to Deng.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Boers and Bernstein Link
> 
> Hoodey - seriously, that's you at the 7:03 mark, right?


LOL...how could it not be, that is eery.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

In Hoodeys defense, I think Bernstein was acting like a total snob when ignoring your PER argument, while I agree that PER is a very flawed metric, I did not like Bernstein just basically ignoring everything you where saying by saying that he doesn't believe in basketball metrics. This coming from the guy who gets into it with everyone who doesn't buy into every damn Baseball metric he tosses out his ass.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> In Hoodeys defense, I think Bernstein was acting like a total snob when ignoring your PER argument, while I agree that PER is a very flawed metric, I did not like Bernstein just basically ignoring everything you where saying by saying that he doesn't believe in basketball metrics. This coming from the guy who gets into it with everyone who doesn't buy into every damn Baseball metric he tosses out his ass.


 I think his point on the advanced metrics is a decent one though... baseball is an individual sport for the most part... as a result it lends itself more easily to being reduced to statistics in some meaningful fashion... basketball is a fluid team sport with far too many contingencies and variables based on what your teammates are doing to take the same sort of meaningful statistical snapshots. D-Rating is an excellent example... comparing a starting 2 guard to another starting 2 guard without regard to who is actually covering who (see: Ben Gordon having decent D-Ratings a few years because Kirk Hinrich was actually covering his guy and our team defense was generally stout...) I mean shit, Drew Gooden and Corey Brewer both have higher PERs than all-stars Deng, Igoudala, Joe Johnson and Rajon Rondo do this year. And apparently CJ Watson is better than Monta Ellis and Al Horford, so at least we have that going for us.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> It doesn't change that Dallas got a deal.
> 
> 
> Dallas made a judgment call that he wasn't that guy anymore, and yet used what happened there to get a deal favorable to them.


thanks for agreeing with my point and tossing the whole Marion comparative salary argument out the window - yes they did get a bargain for all the reasons I previously enumerated


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> I think his point on the advanced metrics is a decent one though... baseball is an individual sport for the most part... as a result it lends itself more easily to being reduced to statistics in some meaningful fashion... basketball is a fluid team sport with far too many contingencies and variables based on what your teammates are doing to take the same sort of meaningful statistical snapshots. D-Rating is an excellent example... comparing a starting 2 guard to another starting 2 guard without regard to who is actually covering who (see: Ben Gordon having decent D-Ratings a few years because Kirk Hinrich was actually covering his guy and our team defense was generally stout...) I mean shit, Drew Gooden and Corey Brewer both have higher PERs than all-stars Deng, Igoudala, Joe Johnson and Rajon Rondo do this year. And apparently CJ Watson is better than Monta Ellis and Al Horford, so at least we have that going for us.


Every time PER comes up, there are decent points against it. Like "how could you discount Bruce Bowen based on PER when he's one of the better perimeter defenders of all time."

Then there is the same stale argument to write PER off. "Oh, come on, X player (who barely plays or plays bench minutes) has a better PER than Monta Ellis." 

It's a PER MINUTE METRIC! Of course a guy who plays low minutes is going to have a high PER! Why would you even throw a disingenuous sentence like "And apparently CJ Watson is better than Monta Ellis.." out there? 

Again, legitimate knocks on PER:

1) You can almost throw it out the window when comparing a guy who plays high minutes to another guy who plays low minutes because it's a PER MINUTE METRIC!
2) Doesn't measure defense - So Bruce Bowen's PER is almost irrelevant. He was in there to D up and hit open shots
3) Doesn't measure situational "clutch" play - Wouldn't give credit to Robert Horry or penalize garbage time stat grabbers like former Chicago Bull Elton Brand

But the still illegitimate knock is various versions of this:

"PER is worthless, throw it out and just trust ME on how good everyone is. Basically, take my opinion as gospel."

Yeah, not really. 

*To your point about a team game presenting far too many variables and contingencies* -

It's not an accident that Luol Deng only averages 2.5 APG and Scottie Pippen and Larry Bird averaged almost triple that. Not double, triple.

Now, if you had stats and you were saying to yourself, "okay, almost anyone would admit that Luol Deng is not even close to Larry Bird, and yet, it is LUOL DENG averaging 7.0 APG and Larry Bird averaging 2.5 APG, then you'd say "okay, maybe this stat is no good as a basis of comparison."

People knock PER, and yet, look at the top all time performers:

Michael Jordan
Lebron James
Shaquille O'neal
David Robinson
Wilt Chamberlain
Dwyane Wade
Bob Pettit
Chris Paul
Tim Duncan
Neil Johnston
Charles Barkley
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Karl Malone
Dirk Nowitzki
Hakeem Olajuwon
Julius Erving
Kobe Bryant
Larry Bird
Kevin Garnett
Oscar Robertson
Yao Ming
Jerry West
Elgin Baylor
Dwight Howard

Now I ask you? Where are the 25 guys who are REALLY better than these guys if you throw the stats out? Where is the guy who was really better than Oscar Robertson if you just don't let stats mess you up?

Notes:

> Neil Johnston was a hall of famer who had a short career where he did a lot in a short period of time. He was gone by age 29 and still made the hall of fame, since the first thing I anticipate in a top 25 PER discussion is "Neil Johnston!?"

> Yao Ming had a career that only included his prime and he just didn't have a lot of teammates around to gobble up stats. He was like a 7'5" Elton Brand in terms of getting the stats. 

> You'll notice that Magic and Bird are lower on this list. They were guys who had a bunch of really good players on their team and chose to facilitate. MJ might have made the same choice if he had Worthy, Kareem and Scott. Similarly, if Magic had Scottie and Horace instead of Kareem freaking Abdul-Jabbar, he might have gone the more statistical/scoring route. 

> Look at the young players on this list. Dwyane Wade 6th all time!? Chris Paul 8th?! Obviously they're still in their statistical prime or near the end of that prime in Wade's case. If Wade plays till he's 35, expect him to drop down to the teens. Paul will probably finish in the 15-30 range. 

> To me anything that sums stats up is a compelling thing, but it is only A thing. Just to complete the individual side of one's game, you have to look at defense, minutes per game (Scottie Pippen's PER is lower because he played a LOT of minutes), and clutch play (I don't care what McGrady or Anthony's PER is, they're not winners and never will be). Equally important to the entire individual picture (PER, MPG, defense, clutch play) would be how this all factored in to various degrees of winning. Individual achievements only matter to the extent that you're winning. That's why Dominique Wilkins isn't a top 50 player (on the 96 list).

So I'd say that PER accounts for a legit 25% of a players worth. The question you ask is "where does everything else take you?" If a guy has a low PER, and then you find out he's not a great defender, not some guy who wills his team to victory, and not on teams that excel as the playoffs get tougher, then you say "okay, nothing has really been presented to reverse the PER thing." Conversely, take Larry Bird. Very good defender (not first team, but made some all-NBA second team), winner, clutch as all hell and a guy who played a lot of minutes. Now there's an argument that as a total player, he will be better than a lot of guys above him in terms of PER.

So that's the whole thing here. Deng's PER could be cast aside with ease if he was hitting game winning jumpers on the way to Bulls titles and if he was on all-NBA first teams and on and on.

To me, other than pretty good defense, there is nothing to counteract that metric there. 

A great example is Bill Russell, whose PER is like 100th all time. Bill Russell did enough things outside of PER that his might as well be #2-5. 

Deng just isn't doing those things. IF HE DOES, I'll be the first one to make note of it. 

Deng mostly has a large following because we have a lot of fans who will forever be burned by the perverse mentality of some of those Krause teams, so they're overly inclined to latch on to a guy who is the opposite of that.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

e-monk said:


> thanks for agreeing with my point and tossing the whole Marion comparative salary argument out the window - yes they did get a bargain for all the reasons I previously enumerated


No lol. My original point was that teams that win titles simply aren't paying what we are for small forwards, and if they are, they're getting a much better player.

Whether they get a bargain or not, that is still true in this case. 

Your point is more about what the league as a WHOLE is paying for SFs. "Well, someone would have paid him 15 million if he was playing at that level at age 26."

Yes! SOMEONE would have. Just not a champion. Because champions (listen up) NEVER DO. 

Now lean in so you get this -

*The league as a whole, and particularly bad teams and teams who will fail to be as good in the playoffs as they are in the regular season OVERPAY SMALL FORWARDS AND TRUE POWER FORWARDS*

So your point that "look, this is what guys like this make if they're 26 and weren't injured." Yes, they make that from teams that fall short. Teams who don't fall short pay guys like Bruce Bowen 3.5 mill or Tayshaun Prince a million.

I think you're trying to imply that DALLAS would have paid him more. The facts (that title teams simply aren't paying guys like that a ton of money) show that they probably would have low balled him and said "here is our offer, if you're looking to get overpaid, I suggest you go talk to the Phoenix Suns."

Want proof that Dallas would not have paid a guy like Shawn Marion 13.3 million for the same production if he was young? 

*JOSH HOWARD*

Check this out my man.

2005-06 - 19.3 PER 32.5 MPG 
2006-07 - 20.0 PER 35.0 MPG 22.5

So this production is WELL above Luol Deng. 22.5 is Scottie Pippen territory. BOTH regular season PER were above Deng's career high. 

What did Dallas pay him on his new contract that started in 07-08?

07-08 9 million
08-09 9.9 million
09-10 10.8 million

For a player who was more productive at ages 25 and 26 than Deng ever has been. NOTICEABLY more productive statistically.

And Howard was a guy who people thought had a chance to be a star. I would have tried to get off at 8, but they didn't give him salaries ranging from 11.3-13.3 over the last four years of a SIX year deal.

A lot of people thought Dallas should have won the title in 06, they DID win in 11. And that leads us back to...

Championship teams simply aren't paying what we are paying for starting SFs.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

e-monk said:


> thanks for agreeing with my point and tossing the whole Marion comparative salary argument out the window - yes they did get a bargain for all the reasons I previously enumerated


No lol. My original point was that teams that win titles simply aren't paying what we are for small forwards, and if they are, they're getting a much better player.

Whether they get a bargain or not, that is still true in this case. 

Your point is more about what the league as a WHOLE is paying for SFs. "Well, someone would have paid him 15 million if he was playing at that level at age 26."

Yes! SOMEONE would have. Just not a champion. Because champions (listen up) NEVER DO. 

Now lean in so you get this -

*The league as a whole, and particularly bad teams and teams who will fail to be as good in the playoffs as they are in the regular season OVERPAY SMALL FORWARDS AND TRUE POWER FORWARDS*

So your point that "look, this is what guys like this make if they're 26 and weren't injured." Yes, they make that from teams that fall short. Teams who don't fall short pay guys like Bruce Bowen 3.5 mill or Tayshaun Prince a million.

I think you're trying to imply that DALLAS would have paid him more. The facts (that title teams simply aren't paying guys like that a ton of money) show that they probably would have low balled him and said "here is our offer, if you're looking to get overpaid, I suggest you go talk to the Phoenix Suns."

Want proof that Dallas would not have paid a guy like Shawn Marion 13.3 million for the same production if he was young? 

*JOSH HOWARD*

Check this out my man.

2005-06 - 19.3 PER 32.5 MPG 
2006-07 - 20.0 PER 35.0 MPG 22.5

So this production is WELL above Luol Deng. 22.5 is Scottie Pippen territory. BOTH regular season PER were above Deng's career high. 

What did Dallas pay him on his new contract that started in 07-08?

07-08 9 million
08-09 9.9 million
09-10 10.8 million

For a player who was more productive at ages 25 and 26 than Deng ever has been. NOTICEABLY more productive statistically.

And Howard was a guy who people thought had a chance to be a star. I would have tried to get off at 8, but they didn't give him salaries ranging from 11.3-13.3 over the last four years of a SIX year deal.

A lot of people thought Dallas should have won the title in 06, they DID win in 11. And that leads us back to...

Championship teams simply aren't paying what we are paying for starting SFs.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Anybody that has played high school, college, or semi-pro ball on here knows that STATS lie. Yes, there is some truth to them...but it's more than just Bruce Bowen. When compiling a team, there are certain things you need... Sometimes you NEED to overpay for it... Would the Bulls be as good as they are right now without Deng? No. Would they have a legitimate chance to somewhat contain James without Deng? No. Is there someone out there that can do Deng's job better than him for a cheaper price? Probably.... but was that guy an option for the Bulls? I don't see it... 
You have to as a GM, put together the best possible TEAM, not the 12 guys with the best PER on the absolute best contracts... Basketball doesn't work that way. That's why arguing a point using STATS doesn't hold much weight.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> Anybody that has played high school, college, or semi-pro ball on here knows that STATS lie. Yes, there is some truth to them...but it's more than just Bruce Bowen. When compiling a team, there are certain things you need... Sometimes you NEED to overpay for it...
> 
> The stats don't LIE. Do they paint an imperfect picture? Sure. Like I said, if a guy is a great defensive player or doesn't play any defense, or if everything he does is outside of the offense, you can see that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> Firefight said:
> 
> 
> > T*he argument for Boozer is like saying "if you had 20 million and Carmelo Anthony was the BPA, would you sign him?" My answer, and I hope at least you can respect this, is no.* He, like Boozer, does so many things that make you worse in addition to the things he does that make you better, and he shrinks as the competition gets better.
> ...


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> Hoodey said:
> 
> 
> > This is kind of my point... As good as Carmelo is, and as good as his numbers are, you're not going to win a title with him...but anyone that wants him is going to have to pay for him. With Deng, he's like the anti-Carmelo. He IS the guy you can win a title with, even if his numbers don't suggest it.
> ...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Its wierd watching players get glorified and demonized based on supposed characteristics that are very unquantifiable. 

for instance if the bulls had melo instead of deng i would find it much more believeable that the bulls would have beaten the heat last spring....inflections based upon how you feel about what a certain player represents will never help that player hit a 3 ...so to me player with whom a team would be worse could hardly be called a winner and the player whom the team would be better a loser.

the premise of this thread is overpaying role players at the 3 kills title aspirations .

which is true based on easily proved history.

The funny thing to me is how easily Pax/Gar get a pass in this , since they are the ones who overpaid Deng in the 1st place ....not that they drafted a player 7th and 4 years later gave him a contract worthy of a #2 but that they drafted a guy who wasn't worthy of the money ....not just there but also at the 3rd spot overall as well.

its not a coincidence that when the bulls needed scoring the most deng was at his most maligned ...but when they need it less he tends to be most appreciated , its not really about him , I think most basketball fans are and were pretty agreeable to him being the player he is role notwithstanding.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> As good as Carmelo is, and as good as his numbers are, you're not going to win a title with him...but anyone that wants him is going to have to pay for him. With Deng, he's like the anti-Carmelo. He IS the guy you can win a title with


I'm sorry but this is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

17-65 was the Nuggets Record before Anthony

*9 winning seasons* after drafting Anthony, in* THE WEST*! 

Luol Deng is not even close to being as good as Anthony and he never will. Anthony is a scorer, thats his job, hes played in up tempo offenses for Karl and D'Antoni and people want to blast him for that? 

You put Rose and Melo together you better believe that team is better than a Rose and Deng team, everyone knows that. People argue about Melo's defense, yeah hes not as good as Deng but hes not garbage, even Thibs said Melo is a better defender than people think.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Luol Deng plays almost entirely off the ball... his ability to move without the ball may be his greatest offensive strength... getting on him for not having assists seems a little odd... he's not a plus passer, but he's also never asked to play the role of distributor.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Luol Deng plays almost entirely off the ball... his ability to move without the ball may be his greatest offensive strength... getting on him for not having assists seems a little odd... he's not a plus passer, but he's also never asked to play the role of distributor.


not entirely true , he plays off the ball because he cant facilitate well enough to justify him having that role more often...he plays off the ball because he isn't that good at initiating his own offense.

if he were lets say Larry bird he would be put in a ball handling role more often, but his skills limit his usage in that area.

so he plays off the ball.

he is taken to task for not handling the ball more because of his pay grade....because those that are paid at his level are generally given more duties in the offense not just as a finisher but also given responsibilities to initiate offense and create for others as the offense tends to run through them at least at times.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> not entirely true , he plays off the ball because he cant facilitate well enough to justify him having that role more often...he plays off the ball because he isn't that good at initiating his own offense.
> 
> if he were lets say Larry bird he would be put in a ball handling role more often, but his skills limit his usage in that area.
> 
> ...


I guess what I'm saying is that the appropriate criticism then is that he's not a great ball handler, which I think most people would agree with... bitching about his assist numbers is kind of missing the point. I don't think of him as a guy that can't pass. I also think our lack of ball handling everywhere else on the floor (with the exception of Noah and Rose everyone on our team is basically a below average ball handler for their position) exacerbates that problem.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> No lol. My original point was that teams that win titles simply aren't paying what we are for small forwards,


so are you saying that you'd rather be like the Lakers and be paying 7m for Metta World Peace and 6m for Luke Walton? I've said it before and I'll say it again - let's do that deal - please

just kidding

here's the real deal, you're totally framing the question wrong by focusing on the small forward position

you know what winning teams totally do? they pay a shit ton more for their top 3 or 4 players than your bulls do

last year the Mavs paid 50m for thier top 4 players (including 10m for Caron Butler who totally didnt play due to injury - why arent you mentioning him btw? he was intended to be the Mavs starting small forward - did you forget about him or is he just that awkward for your argument?)

the title winning Lakers paid 60m for their top 4 players x2

the Celtics paid 55m for their top *3 players*

the Heat are paying 48m for their top *3 players*

you guys are paying 41m for your top 4 players (yes Rose is on rookie contract but even if you maxed him out your economics are in line)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Hoodey - seriously, that's you at the 7:03 mark, right?


"Did you ever see Jerome Kersey play? He's probably looking at similarity scores."

Funny stuff.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

> last year the Mavs paid 50m for thier top 4 players (including 10m for Caron Butler who totally didnt play due to injury - why arent you mentioning him btw? he was intended to be the Mavs starting small forward - did you forget about him or is he just that awkward for your argument?)


I did mention Butler. They obviously overpaid him, but (a) they found a better starter on a better deal and (b) I've said ad naseum that it's not about Deng's deal in a vacuum. If Paxson was only overpaying Deng, but instead of Noah and Boozer, he was getting much better players on those deals, especially Boozer, it would be fine. But he's overpaying Deng and Noah and letting Boozer rob this city blind.

Butler was overpaid. But Marion being paid appropriately and being the starter cancelled that out and then when you look at what they got out of Kidd and Chandler for the money, they were home free. 






e-monk said:


> here's the real deal, you're totally framing the question wrong by focusing on the small forward position
> 
> you know what winning teams totally do? they pay a shit ton more for their top 3 or 4 players than your bulls do
> 
> ...


The problem with this is Rose is on a rookie contract. Let's take a look at next year when Rose makes 16.8.

Bulls top 4:

Rose 16.8
Boozer 15
Deng 13.3
Noah 11
Total: 56.1

And only Rose is worth it. Noah is the least overpaid, then Deng and then Boozer, who honestly is worth about 7 for his complete lack of defense (notice how he has a high PER and I'm able to consider other factors like his utter lack of defense and his inconsistency/only playing well against crap opponents).

I'd much rather be playing that remaining 39 million for one really good #2 making 20 million and two role players. That's kinda my point. Give me Rose at 16.8 (and I believe because of his lack of seniority in the NBA, that's all he can make, right?) a Pau Gasol type at 18 (ideally it would be 09 Gasol, but I'd take it now) and then give me role players and we'd be legit. 

Or give me Deng if he has the balls to swing a deal for Demarcus Cousins on the cheap. My prediction is that that kid will always have issues a la Rodman and Wallace, but he'll still play reasonably well. And reasonably well at 280 lbs. with explosiveness is a killer in the NBA.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Luol Deng plays almost entirely off the ball... his ability to move without the ball may be his greatest offensive strength... getting on him for not having assists seems a little odd... he's not a plus passer, but he's also never asked to play the role of distributor.


It's not so much getting on him. Luol is a fine basketball player and I've never once said otherwise. 

I blame Paxson for paying that kind of money to a guy who doesn't really do anything to justify the view of Paxson and a lot of fans. He's a pretty good defender and a pretty good spot up shooter. He slashes well/moves without the ball. 

He's not a point forward who can command an offense with the ball in his hands distributing the basketball. He's incapable of taking the ball and driving to the basket. He's not a good finisher when he's obstructed at the hole.

My question was, what does he do to justify #2 money? His movement without the ball is something I applaud, but yet again one of many things that just isn't enough to justify the money.

ESPECIALLY when Deng's money is then used to justify signing Boozer, which is the BIGGEST JOKE in all of this.

"Well, Paxson had to sign Boozer (NO HE DIDNT, BOOZER SUCKS), because the cap space was gonna go away if he didn't sign somebody." 

The only reason the cap space was gonna go away was because he overpaid Noah and Deng! 

So it's not just one thing here. It's the lack of a plan!


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> Its wierd watching players get glorified and demonized based on supposed characteristics that are very unquantifiable.
> 
> for instance if the bulls had melo instead of deng i would find it much more believeable that the bulls would have beaten the heat last spring....inflections based upon how you feel about what a certain player represents will never help that player hit a 3 ...so to me player with whom a team would be worse could hardly be called a winner and the player whom the team would be better a loser.
> 
> ...


Anthony's game doesn't lend itself to winning as a #1. His FG% is ridiculously low. He epitomizes the term "volume scorer." The more he scores, the more he takes the FG% of any good team DOWN. You don't want your top scorer to be a guy who pulls your team FG% down with every bucket he scores. 

Carmelo Anthony is shooting 39.9% this year. For a supposed star, that's the worst I can EVER remember seeing. Allen Iverson, who is the smallest player ever to lead a team even TO the finals only ever had seasons of like 40% right? Too lazy to look it up, but when you're shooting 39.9% at 6'8", that's just terrible. So it's absolutely something I can quantify. 

The Knicks team FG% is 43% and Carmelo is at 39.9? The worst


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I think his point on the advanced metrics is a decent one though... baseball is an individual sport for the most part... as a result it lends itself more easily to being reduced to statistics in some meaningful fashion... basketball is a fluid team sport with far too many contingencies and variables based on what your teammates are doing to take the same sort of meaningful statistical snapshots. D-Rating is an excellent example... comparing a starting 2 guard to another starting 2 guard without regard to who is actually covering who (see: Ben Gordon having decent D-Ratings a few years because Kirk Hinrich was actually covering his guy and our team defense was generally stout...) I mean shit, Drew Gooden and Corey Brewer both have higher PERs than all-stars Deng, Igoudala, Joe Johnson and Rajon Rondo do this year. And apparently CJ Watson is better than Monta Ellis and Al Horford, so at least we have that going for us.


Defensive Rating 
1. Marcus Camby-POR 90.2 
*2. Omer Asik-CHI 90.7*
3. Dwight Howard-ORL 92.2 
4. Elton Brand-PHI 92.8 
5. Josh Smith-ATL 93.8 
*6. Carlos Boozer-CHI 94.1*
7. Andre Iguodala-PHI 94.1 
8. Kevin Garnett-BOS 94.4 
*9. Joakim Noah-CHI 94.5*
10. Evan Turner-PHI 95.4 
11. Andrew Bynum-LAL 95.8 
12. Thaddeus Young-PHI 95.8 
13. Marc Gasol-MEM 96.1 
14. Tim Duncan-SAS 96.7 
15. Brendan Haywood-DAL 97.0 
*16. Luol Deng-CHI 97.1 *
17. Gerald Wallace-POR 97.4 
18. Samuel Dalembert-HOU 97.4 
19. LeBron James-MIA 97.5 
20. Delonte West-DAL 97.5 

Boozer. NBA All-Defensive 1st Team?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Anthony's game doesn't lend itself to winning as a #1. His FG% is ridiculously low. He epitomizes the term "volume scorer." The more he scores, the more he takes the FG% of any good team DOWN. You don't want your top scorer to be a guy who pulls your team FG% down with every bucket he scores.
> 
> Carmelo Anthony is shooting 39.9% this year. For a supposed star, that's the worst I can EVER remember seeing. Allen Iverson, who is the smallest player ever to lead a team even TO the finals only ever had seasons of like 40% right? Too lazy to look it up, but when you're shooting 39.9% at 6'8", that's just terrible. So it's absolutely something I can quantify.
> 
> The Knicks team FG% is 43% and Carmelo is at 39.9? The worst


in general Melo's% are not ideal, but they are similar to kobe's who no one has problems calling a winner...this season he has been playing through ankle and wrist injuries , currently out with a groin pull. which i'm sure has more to do with his lowered shooting % than any winning vs. losing mindset.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

its also worth noting even with Anthony's poor shooting the knicks still shoot better with him on the court than him off of it.

because as such a scorer he takes attention off of other players making their scoring easier and more efficient.

http://www.82games.com/1112/11NYK9.HTM#onoff


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> in general Melo's% are not ideal, but they are similar to kobe's who no one has problems calling a winner...this season he has been playing through ankle and wrist injuries , currently out with a groin pull. which i'm sure has more to do with his lowered shooting % than any winning vs. losing mindset.


From 05-06 to 07-08 Angelo had a stretch where he shot between 47.6% and 49.2% and his career percentage of 45.7% has really lived off of that.

Since 07-08, here are his percentages:

Carmelo Anthony FG%
08-09 44.3%
09-10 45.8%
10-11 45.5%
11-12 39.9%

Carmelo Anthony eFG%
08-09 46.9%
09-10 47.8%
10-11 48.7%
11-12 43.1%

Now Kobe Bryant championship FG%

99-00 46.8%
00-01 46.4%
01-02 46.9%
08-09 46.7%
09-10 45.6%

Kobe Bryant championship eFG%
99-00 48.8%
00-01 48.4%
01-02 47.9%
08-09 50.2%
09-10 48.8%

For one, you have to remember that Carmelo Anthony is a position bigger, and thus the par FG% for his position is going to be higher. If both players are performing the same, Anthony's FG% should be higher because of their relative position and size.

Secondly, it appears that Bryant's low points as a champion are just slightly lower than Anthony's high points over the last four seasons. 

Next, I don't know if you can justify something by saying, "well so and so had this stat and they're called a winner, therefore.." Bryant won. That's the point. It's not the stat that made him a winner. It was donkey konging the Magic that made him an uncontested leader of a champion for the first time in his career. 

If Anthony wins a championship, fine. It will set a new low mark in terms of what's acceptable for at least one winner. But he hasn't shown that he's on his way to doing that any time soon.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

The problem with Anthony isn't his shooting %... although it could be better. The problem is when you get into a half-court set with him, the ball stops in his hands until he shoots. There has always been problems getting a good "flow" to a system with scorers/players like Carmelo... and it is not fair at all to compare Kobe to Anthony. Kobe can run an offense and direct players and make things happen... If Melo is directing traffic in the offense, it's not to get his teammates in a better position for the offense, it's to get them out of his damn way so he can throw up another shot.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> its also worth noting even with Anthony's poor shooting the knicks still shoot better with him on the court than him off of it.
> 
> because as such a scorer he takes attention off of other players making their scoring easier and more efficient.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/1112/11NYK9.HTM#onoff


It is worth noting. If everyone else on the team shot better with him on the floor AND he hit more of his own shots than he does now, wouldn't their FG% still be higher than it is now?


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> I did mention Butler. They obviously overpaid him, but (a) they found a better starter on a better deal and (b) I've said ad naseum that it's not about Deng's deal in a vacuum. If Paxson was only overpaying Deng, but instead of Noah and Boozer, he was getting much better players on those deals, especially Boozer, it would be fine. But he's overpaying Deng and Noah and letting Boozer rob this city blind.
> 
> *Butler was overpaid. But Marion being paid appropriately and being the starter cancelled that out and then when you look at what they got out of Kidd and Chandler for the money, they were home free.
> *
> ...


With this logic, if Boozer gets hurt and has to sit the season, Paxson is cool because he has a replacement in Taj who is paid appropriately? They paid that money to Butler expecting him to be the starting 3... It just happened that Marion filled in as starter after he got hurt...


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> The problem with Anthony isn't his shooting %... although it could be better. The problem is when you get into a half-court set with him, the ball stops in his hands until he shoots. There has always been problems getting a good "flow" to a system with scorers/players like Carmelo... and it is not fair at all to compare Kobe to Anthony. Kobe can run an offense and direct players and make things happen... If Melo is directing traffic in the offense, it's not to get his teammates in a better position for the offense, it's to get them out of his damn way so he can throw up another shot.


That's absolutely the problem. Although I do agree that he's a black hole, if he was HITTING his shots it wouldn't really be an issue.

The problem is that as the game has "evolved" from the Jordan era, players like Anthony and yes even Bryant don't take it to the hole as much. Deng too.

Michael had the ball stop with him a lot, but he would give his defender the one-two and take it straight to the hoop to dunk over contact. Anthony and Bryant don't have that kind of quickness relative to their leaping ability like MJ did. 

If Carmelo was shooting 53.9% would their still be a problem? No way. You want a guy who shoots 53.9% to shoot all night. 

The problem is, all of these guys like Melo want to be like Mike, but they never realize that that means going to the basket, taking contact and finishing. 

Here watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1FsD9Y7NfY

It's not an ability as much as it is a choice. I mean you need quickness, so I don't think Carmelo could drive to that degree, but he certainly could get to the cup more if he made the choice to.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> With this logic, if Boozer gets hurt and has to sit the season, Paxson is cool because he has a replacement in Taj who is paid appropriately? They paid that money to Butler expecting him to be the starting 3... It just happened that Marion filled in as starter after he got hurt...


Again, you Paxson apologists have tried every line of exposed logic there is. Now you're even admitting Deng was overpaid, but that you have to overpay people to build a team.

Dallas overpaid Butler. I haven't contested that. But they won a championship with the guy they got at a good rate starting. 

Did we win a championship with Gibson? Are you suggesting that if Boozer gets hurt and Gibson starts, we'll win a CHAMPIONSHIP? Because then your logic makes sense. As it stands, you're just looking like a Paxson apologist who is going to apologize for everything the man does.

Here's the chart:

Chandler - NOT overpaid
Butler - Overpaid
Marion - NOT overpaid
Kidd - NOT overpaid

Boozer - Ridiculously overpaid
Deng - Overpaid (Because Paxson "had to" LOL - funny he also "had to" sign Boozer because he signed Deng)
Noah - Overpaid

So if Deng was the only guy, but if Boozer was taking names for a guy making 15M, we'd be in much better shape. I've said ad nauseum, it's not any one thing in and of itself. It's the plan, and the moves in conjunction, that are bad.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> With this logic, if Boozer gets hurt and has to sit the season, Paxson is cool because he has a replacement in Taj who is paid appropriately, *and Taj is good enough for them to win a championship*? They paid that money to Butler expecting him to be the starting 3... It just happened that Marion filled in as starter after he got hurt...


Fixed. That's my logic, and that looks much better


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> From 05-06 to 07-08 Angelo had a stretch where he shot between 47.6% and 49.2% and his career percentage of 45.7% has really lived off of that.
> 
> Since 07-08, here are his percentages:
> 
> ...


Kobe's % are up in his title winning years because he has title winning help when his help was less so was his own efficiency 

the same goes for Melo and virtually any other top tier scorer , on years they have to carry more of the burden than ideal their efficiency tends to go down...thats why you make the distinction between the years kobe wins and and not.

on a team where the glare isn't so much on Melo his efficiency will go up just like Kobe's

it just so happens his efficiency went down when he was paired with billups in Karl's system who is a slow down point guard on the downside of his effectiveness (while still good not like he was in detroit) but in ny last season he shot an efg% of .510 which trumps any efg% you have listed from kobe or melo. but in D'antoni's system predicated on getting anthony more open looks from 3 so his efg% went up as a result.

i strongly suspect when melo comes back with Lin running the offense and his injuries healed (most notably to his wrist) his % will go up significantly.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> It is worth noting. If everyone else on the team shot better with him on the floor AND he hit more of his own shots than he does now, wouldn't their FG% still be higher than it is now?


of course it would be , but his presence on the court is a significant factor in opening things up for others , to the point where it easliy outweighs the bad (which is his own lowered %'s)...but like I said most of his issues are because of injuries,

its silly to try to rake him over the coals for gutting things out as long as he could.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> Kobe's % are up in his title winning years because he has title winning help when his help was less so was his own efficiency.


Meh, when I think of a #1 superstar who is ready to win rings, I think of a guy who doesn't need good open shooters pulling the defense off of him to get his own game going. #1s who are legit make the defense come to them to get their teammates open.

This would be why MJ's FG% were:

88 53.5
89 53.9
90 52.6

And during the first three title years (which I would still consider his prime unlike 96-98)

91 53.9
92 51.9
93 49.5

Now, in the second three year stretch, Pippen and Grant are in their prime, where as in 88 it was arguable that Charles Oakley was the second best player on the team. 

I know Jordan is a lofty comparison point, but I don't think that Carmelo can't hit higher FG%s because he doesn't have better players. I think he just doesn't decide to take it to the cup. 

Like our man Pax said, "well you know, Michael just kept attacking the basket and attacking the basket, and good things happened." 

I've never gotten that feeling watching Carmelo whether he was playing with Nene and Billups or Amare or whoever. 



> the same goes for Melo and virtually any other top tier scorer , on years they have to carry more of the burden than ideal their efficiency tends to go down...thats why you make the distinction between the years kobe wins and and not.


Actually, Kobe's FG% in the years without Shaq and Gasol was 44.9%, a mere 0.5% below his career average. Two of those seasons are in his top 3 ever in FGA. One of those seasons was #1. 



> on a team where the glare isn't so much on Melo his efficiency will go up just like Kobe's


But we were talking as far back as three years ago. Was his team that bad in 09? 



> it just so happens his efficiency went down when he was paired with billups in Karl's system who is a slow down point guard on the downside of his effectiveness (while still good not like he was in detroit) but in ny last season he shot an efg% of .510 which trumps any efg% you have listed from kobe or melo. but in D'antoni's system predicated on getting anthony more open looks from 3 so his efg% went up as a result.
> 
> i strongly suspect when melo comes back with Lin running the offense and his injuries healed (most notably to his wrist) his % will go up significantly.


Look for Lin to be less effecitive and the Knicks to lose more as Anthony turns into the black hole he's always been. As with the Bulls and Firefight I guess we'll have to see.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> of course it would be , but his presence on the court is a significant factor in opening things up for others , to the point where it easliy outweighs the bad (which is his own lowered %'s)...but like I said most of his issues are because of injuries,
> 
> its silly to try to rake him over the coals for gutting things out as long as he could.


But there are a class of players, players I believe ESPN tries to portray Anthony to belong with, that not only open things up for others, but also hit a high percentage of their own shots. These would include, but not necessarily be exclusive to:

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan
Wilt Chamberlain
Shaquille O'neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Lebron James
Pau Gasol
Bill Walton (especially pre-injury)
David Robinson
Dwyane Wade
Oscar Robertson
Kevin McHale
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Moses Malone
Walt Frazier
Charles Barkley
Adrian Dantley
Maurice Cheeks
Kevin Johnson
James Worthy
Bernard King
John Stockton
George Gervin
Chris Mullin
Alex English
David Thompson
Sydney Moncrief
Jerry Lucas
Tony Parker
Paul Pressey


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Meh, when I think of a #1 superstar who is ready to win rings, I think of a guy who doesn't need good open shooters pulling the defense off of him to get his own game going. #1s who are legit make the defense come to them to get their teammates open.
> 
> This would be why MJ's FG% were:
> 
> ...


comparing 80's and early 90's stats to today is somewhat dishonest if you are trying to compare efficiency , teams and the players on them shot much higher %'s than they do today.the nba of today with its improved focus on defense , scouting and the drafting and cultivation of more defensive players, its much harder to post MJ level #s



> I've never gotten that feeling watching Carmelo whether he was playing with Nene and Billups or Amare or whoever.


all you have to do is look at the stats since Melo was gone , nene's efficiency has gone down since the melo trade as well as afflalo ...and billups before he got hurt was shooting .364 from the field, I dont make him out to be Magic but for the most part playing with melo helps players play efficient. the stats back that up pretty strongly. so perhaps you need to reevaluate what you are watching






> Actually, Kobe's FG% in the years without Shaq and Gasol was 44.9%, a mere 0.5% below his career average. Two of those seasons are in his top 3 ever in FGA. One of those seasons was #1.


it just so happens those 3 seasons he was without shaq or gasol was when he was age 26-28 his prime the lakers went 121-125...is that winning basketball?

so in conclusion the years in which he was at his very best he wasn't as efficient as he was with help and his team lost alot more.

basically if there was a time when he could buck that trend it was then and it didn't happen.







> Look for Lin to be less effecitive and the Knicks to lose more as Anthony turns into the black hole he's always been. As with the Bulls and Firefight I guess we'll have to see.


its funny in a year in which he is avg. a career high in assists he is dubbed a black hole , but he is not now nor has he ever been a facilitator , he is a scorer , thats what he does , I of course assume the knicks will lose more if only because they are 5-0 in the Lin dynasty , and nothing lasts forever I expect them to make the playoffs as a lower seed ,In D'antoni's system the pg is all powerful so i kind of doubt Anthony will have nearly as much power over the offense as he has previously in the season. Melo is a guy who at his best is set up for scores by a point guard who knows how to deliver the ball where and when he wants it, like most scorers , and Lin will come down to earth somewhat because there are major holes to his game that advanced scouting can exploit(he is turnover prone when pressured, not a good long distance shooter, not a great defender either) , but he is the best pg on the knicks roster for now at least(he apparently has been killing Baron in practice) so I expect Lin to be the guy Anthony plays with. I also expect this little run to give the knicks coach the ability to hold players more accountable , so the knicks when healthy will have alot of depth to play around with.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> comparing 80's and early 90's stats to today is somewhat dishonest if you are trying to compare efficiency , teams and the players on them shot much higher %'s than they do today.the nba of today with its improved focus on defense , scouting and the drafting and cultivation of more defensive players, its much harder to post MJ level #s


Improved focus on defense? The game is spaced so that the key is wide open and the relative frauds of today still can't get to the hole.

People want you to believe that FG%s were higher because their must have been a corresponding lack of defense. No there wasn't. Guys were more skilled back then. I'm sorry, I love the idea of a guy being able to leave college early or not go at all to help get his Mom out of a bad situation or whatever - I know I would have gone early if I was a college star. But you can't deny what 3-4 years of drills with excellent coaches would do for an Adrian Dantley, Michael Jordan or Larry Bird. Michael Jordan didn't shoot 53.9% because there was some kind of defensive deficiency. He shot 53.9% because he had insane ball control at the speeds he was running at relative to his size. He might shoot 55% today.

Defensive players today aren't doing anything special. In fact, when MJ was posting those #s, you had guys like Dennis Rodman, David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing in their physical prime posting 4.0 BPG. Defensive players today don't cut a dribble off like Dennis Johnson or Joe Dumars did. 



> all you have to do is look at the stats since Melo was gone , nene's efficiency has gone down since the melo trade as well as afflalo ...and billups before he got hurt was shooting .364 from the field, I dont make him out to be Magic but for the most part playing with melo helps players play efficient. the stats back that up pretty strongly. so perhaps you need to reevaluate what you are watching


Yes. I understand what you're saying. I'm not denying that. I'm saying there are a lot of guys past and present, guys who ESPN tries to cast Anthony with, who not only help other players play efficiently, but who also are much more efficient THEMSELVES.

I'm not denying that Anthony takes heat off others by mere virtue of his talents. But the elite offensive players over history do that and then make a higher percentage themselves. 



> it just so happens those 3 seasons he was without shaq or gasol was when he was age 26-28 his prime the lakers went 121-125...is that winning basketball?


You weren't talking about winning basketball. You said that the load being more heavily on Bryant would lower his FG%. That clearly was not the case.



> so in conclusion the years in which he was at his very best he wasn't as efficient as he was with help and his team lost alot more.
> 
> basically if there was a time when he could buck that trend it was then and it didn't happen.


His team losing a lot more is a function of those players not being there. But without those players his FG% was only down 0.5% and that's what you were talking about. 



> its funny in a year in which he is avg. a career high in assists he is dubbed a black hole , but he is not now nor has he ever been a facilitator , he is a scorer , thats what he does , I of course assume the knicks will lose more if only because they are 5-0 in the Lin dynasty , and nothing lasts forever I expect them to make the playoffs as a lower seed ,In D'antoni's system the pg is all powerful so i kind of doubt Anthony will have nearly as much power over the offense as he has previously in the season. Melo is a guy who at his best is set up for scores by a point guard who knows how to deliver the ball where and when he wants it, like most scorers , and Lin will come down to earth somewhat because there are major holes to his game that advanced scouting can exploit(he is turnover prone when pressured, not a good long distance shooter, not a great defender either) , but he is the best pg on the knicks roster for now at least(he apparently has been killing Baron in practice) so I expect Lin to be the guy Anthony plays with. I also expect this little run to give the knicks coach the ability to hold players more accountable , so the knicks when healthy will have alot of depth to play around with.


If all he is is a scorer, he doesn't have much value. His FG%s are pedestrian at the SF position. Yes, he does vacuum some defense his way, so I suppose he'd be better than an Xavier McDaniel that way, but Pippen sucked the defense in too and shot better percentages. 49.1% in 93-94 with no Jordan.

And before you talk about what Pippen would or wouldn't do today, I can promise you he'd eat Carmelo Anthony alive.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Improved focus on defense? The game is spaced so that the key is wide open and the relative frauds of today still can't get to the hole.
> 
> People want you to believe that FG%s were higher because their must have been a corresponding lack of defense. No there wasn't. Guys were more skilled back then. I'm sorry, I love the idea of a guy being able to leave college early or not go at all to help get his Mom out of a bad situation or whatever - I know I would have gone early if I was a college star. But you can't deny what 3-4 years of drills with excellent coaches would do for an Adrian Dantley, Michael Jordan or Larry Bird. Michael Jordan didn't shoot 53.9% because there was some kind of defensive deficiency. He shot 53.9% because he had insane ball control at the speeds he was running at relative to his size. He might shoot 55% today.
> 
> Defensive players today aren't doing anything special. In fact, when MJ was posting those #s, you had guys like Dennis Rodman, David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing in their physical prime posting 4.0 BPG. Defensive players today don't cut a dribble off like Dennis Johnson or Joe Dumars did.


the league way more defensively oriented now as opposed to then that you cant see it means either you are too young to know better or you aren't paying attention.

a guy like adrian dantley couldn't cut it in today's nba not the way he played, no one is drafting a 6-5 post up 3 6th overall in today's nba , in fact he'd be lucky if he was even a 1st rounder, and the whole drill stuff for 20 year olds is pure crap college coaches are only allowed to coach their players 20 hours a week, any player would get 2-3 times that as a pro either here or abroad, so in reality staying in school hurts them as far as practice goes.

your reasoning makes no sense , player shoot better then , but they had better defensive players?

the simple truth is most defensive gurus today would prey upon the skills of the 80's because they would rather teams take 20 ft. jumpers compared to anything else(3's and close in baskets)





> Yes. I understand what you're saying. I'm not denying that. I'm saying there are a lot of guys past and present, guys who ESPN tries to cast Anthony with, who not only help other players play efficiently, but who also are much more efficient THEMSELVES.
> 
> I'm not denying that Anthony takes heat off others by mere virtue of his talents. But the elite offensive players over history do that and then make a higher percentage themselves.


you say and then pull out Kobe who clearly is an elite offensive player but whose fg% is lower than Melo's




> You weren't talking about winning basketball. You said that the load being more heavily on Bryant would lower his FG%. That clearly was not the case.


 but it did 44.9 is lower than his career mark 




> His team losing a lot more is a function of those players not being there. But without those players his FG% was only down 0.5% and that's what you were talking about.


kobe is not owed a top 10 player in the league to play next to , there are guys in the league who have to make due with far less , that his efficiency went down is still the case .





> If all he is is a scorer, he doesn't have much value. His FG%s are pedestrian at the SF position. Yes, he does vacuum some defense his way, so I suppose he'd be better than an Xavier McDaniel that way, but Pippen sucked the defense in too and shot better percentages. 49.1% in 93-94 with no Jordan.
> 
> And before you talk about what Pippen would or wouldn't do today, I can promise you he'd eat Carmelo Anthony alive.



Carmelo does other things well (rebound, he can pass well at times , play defense when the spirit moves him) but at his core he is a scorer , and as long as games are decided by which teams scores the most scoring will always have value.

and once again comparing stats by what good forwards shot 20 years ago is dishonest , Mcdaniel was a good scorer but nothing too special, Pippen however is a top 5 small forward of all time outside of Lebron I dont see anyone playing the 2 or 3 nowadays that a prime Pippen wouldn't dominate. but if he played today he would shoot a much lower fg% and its obvious.

top small forwards shoot much lower % now as opposed to then...i'll just run the #s of the top guys in the eastern conf.

paul pierce .418
iggy .448
deng .430
james .538
granger .386

in today's nba its much harder to find an undersized , unathletic player to beat up on to score your points at the small forward spot.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Improved focus on defense? The game is spaced so that the key is wide open and the relative frauds of today still can't get to the hole.
> 
> People want you to believe that FG%s were higher because their must have been a corresponding lack of defense. No there wasn't. Guys were more skilled back then. I'm sorry, I love the idea of a guy being able to leave college early or not go at all to help get his Mom out of a bad situation or whatever - I know I would have gone early if I was a college star. But you can't deny what 3-4 years of drills with excellent coaches would do for an Adrian Dantley, Michael Jordan or Larry Bird. Michael Jordan didn't shoot 53.9% because there was some kind of defensive deficiency. He shot 53.9% because he had insane ball control at the speeds he was running at relative to his size. He might shoot 55% today.



Agree 100% with this. Also, with the hand check rules on the perimeter, it should be much easier for guards to shoot a higher percentage. It just isn't happening. The physicality of defense in today's league pales in comparison to the 1980s and 1990s, which makes the efficiency of those star guards all the more impressive in retrospect.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> the league way more defensively oriented now as opposed to then that you cant see it means either you are too young to know better or you aren't paying attention.
> 
> a guy like adrian dantley couldn't cut it in today's nba not the way he played, no one is drafting a 6-5 post up 3 6th overall in today's nba , in fact he'd be lucky if he was even a 1st rounder, and the whole drill stuff for 20 year olds is pure crap college coaches are only allowed to coach their players 20 hours a week, any player would get 2-3 times that as a pro either here or abroad, so in reality staying in school hurts them as far as practice goes.
> 
> ...


No it's not. Have you ever watched the NBA back in 1990? Defenses like the Knicks, Pistons, Celtics and Bulls. Centers like Hakeem, Ewing and Robinson averaging 3.9 BPG. The league was way better defensively back then. Guys today can't cut the dribble off. 

There is this myth that defense must have suffered because scores were so high back then. First, the league has expanded. Early in MJ's career I believe there were like 23 teams. So that's the lowest 84 players cut right out of the league (if the league was 30 like today). Second, the skill level was just so much higher. You can't go back and see Magic Johnson hitting running hook shots over good defense to win Finals games or Larry Bird making the play he made v. Detroit in 1987 and on and on and tell me that today's league is nearly as skilled. Go back and watch "the shot." Jordan, running toward his left, jumps, squares himself to the basket in mid air, and hits a jumper. Nobody is doing that today man.

As for today's athlete, yeah, today's NBA has better track and field athletes. But this is basketball, not track and field. Your most athletic centers and some of your biggest centers have almost no back to the basket post game. Luol Deng is considered as good as he is because nobody can hit a mid range jumper.
Is Dwight Howard better than Hakeem? He's a better athlete. But Hakeem had about 1000 moves that Dwight will never dream of developing. 

Ben Gordon is much bigger than Vinnie Johnson. Has he converted that extra muscle into ANY surplus basketball skill?

My dad used to tell me that there were 100 guys as athletic as Michael Jordan playing on courts in Halsted. He said that if there were more teams, you'd start seeing these guys in the NBA and it wouldn't be pretty. Eddie Robinson was a phenomenal track and field athlete. He never would have played ONE MINUTE in 1991 man. Bruce Bowen and Doug Christie were considered "defensive stoppers" as older players in the mid 00s. They were young and athletic in 1997 and neither of them were relevant to anyone.

Have you ever watched Magic Johnson. NOBODY is doing the things he did today man. 



> Carmelo does other things well (rebound, he can pass well at times , play defense when the spirit moves him) but at his core he is a scorer , and as long as games are decided by which teams scores the most scoring will always have value.
> 
> and once again comparing stats by what good forwards shot 20 years ago is dishonest , Mcdaniel was a good scorer but nothing too special, Pippen however is a top 5 small forward of all time outside of Lebron I dont see anyone playing the 2 or 3 nowadays that a prime Pippen wouldn't dominate. but if he played today he would shoot a much lower fg% and its obvious.
> 
> ...


Danny Granger would be beyond irrelevant in 1991 my man. Andre Iguodala would not have the skill to play. Luol Deng wouldn't have the talent. Part of being taller is it's not as easy to put the ball on the floor. This is why some of MJ's hardest matchups would come when teams would put smaller guards on him to pick his dribble.

The only guys I see on that list who would do ANYTHING in 1991 are Pierce and James. 

If it's so hard to shoot a higher percentage today, how does Dwyane Wade shoot 50% last year? Explain that to me.

And if James can shoot 50%, are you honestly saying that MJ couldn't shoot 51.9%?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The NBA was a better pool of talent from 1980 to 1993 than this current version. I don't see anyone debating that. But pretending like players who excel today wouldn't do the exact same thing twenty years ago is ignorant. 

Oh, and Kobe doesn't take it to the hole any more because Kobe has been doing this for 16 years. You can't name a 16 year vet in NBA history that broke down defenses and attacked the hole on a more consistent basis than he does.

Carmelo isn't a superstar and never really was. It's not fair to compare him to players like Kobe and especially Jordan, because he was never on that level and his play never indicated that he would ever be on that level.

Edit: Just saw this - Wade shot 50% last year because he was a second option to the best player in the world.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> No it's not. Have you ever watched the NBA back in 1990? Defenses like the Knicks, Pistons, Celtics and Bulls. Centers like Hakeem, Ewing and Robinson averaging 3.9 BPG. The league was way better defensively back then. Guys today can't cut the dribble off.
> 
> There is this myth that defense must have suffered because scores were so high back then. First, the league has expanded. Early in MJ's career I believe there were like 23 teams. So that's the lowest 84 players cut right out of the league (if the league was 30 like today). Second, the skill level was just so much higher. You can't go back and see Magic Johnson hitting running hook shots over good defense to win Finals games or Larry Bird making the play he made v. Detroit in 1987 and on and on and tell me that today's league is nearly as skilled. Go back and watch "the shot." Jordan, running toward his left, jumps, squares himself to the basket in mid air, and hits a jumper. Nobody is doing that today man.
> 
> ...


ok 1st of all the celts were no longer that good defensive by 1990 DJ was like 35, parish even older , bird could hardly move on defense because of his back...2nd I think you are overenthusiastic with that era , they pulled tall guys with no real skill outside of being tall who blocked as many shots as ewing robinson and olajuwon(by names of bol and eaton.) which is not to say players weren't good but its not what you are making out to be.

today's game draws players from a much larger pool than in the 80's it is a worldwide game , filled with euro's who can hit mid range jumpshots in their sleep(they drill like crazy if your spouting were true they would rule today's nba but they dont )...hitting 20 fters isn't enough. if it was there would be more of them drawing nba paychecks, but the simple fact is only the best athletes who have game from europe can make it here , the slow footed ones cannot keep up and they are sent back on the 1st thing smoking to wherever they came from.

i could ask the same type of silly questions , if that era is so much better than today how could so many players play well high off their ass?

you dont see any roy tarpleys or michael ray richardsons winning awards in today's nba , if they were such skilled shooters how come they couldn't hit a 3 to save their lives? (in no season in the 80's did a team ever hit 1/3 of their attempts from that range (the league shot .358 last season and has hovered between .347 and .367 the past 10 seasons)

you want to compare eras like it means something , but the truth is you run there because you have nothing better to say.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> The NBA was a better pool of talent from 1980 to 1993 than this current version. I don't see anyone debating that. But pretending like players who excel today wouldn't do the exact same thing twenty years ago is ignorant.


Some would do the same. Guys with the skill of Bryant, Ray Allen, Rip Hamilton and Paul Pierce would do the same. Pretending that guys who are missing basic things in their game would do the same is just silly. Shaq was way more physically dominant than Howard and without a post game, Hakeem used to make him look silly early on. The line on Shaq was "make him a shooter and you've got him." That's how the Bulls stifled him in 96.



> Oh, and Kobe doesn't take it to the hole any more because Kobe has been doing this for 16 years. You can't name a 16 year vet in NBA history that broke down defenses and attacked the hole on a more consistent basis than he does.


I'm not of the thinking that Kobe wouldn't still be great in 1991. When did I specifically name him?



> Carmelo isn't a superstar and never really was. It's not fair to compare him to players like Kobe and especially Jordan, because he was never on that level and his play never indicated that he would ever be on that level.


That's not what ESPN thinks. ESPN treats, and has treated Carmelo like a superstar. 

I never compared Kobe and Jordan anywhere in this thread, nor did I say anyone else did.



> Edit: Just saw this - Wade shot 50% last year because he was a second option to the best player in the world.


What about 2007 when Wade shot 49.1%? Was Lebron on the team then?

That's what's so crazy. It's supposedly so much harder to shoot a higher percentage now than it was in 1991, and yet Wade shot 49.1% in 07, and has a career FG% of 48.5%, only 1.2% lower than Jordan's. If it's so hard, and would be so hard for Jordan to shoot 51.9%, then why is it that Wade shoots 49.1-50.0% regularly? Is Wade better or as good as Jordan was?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> ok 1st of all the celts were no longer that good defensive by 1990 DJ was like 35, parish even older , bird could hardly move on defense because of his back...2nd I think you are overenthusiastic with that era , they pulled tall guys with no real skill outside of being tall who blocked as many shots as ewing robinson and olajuwon(by names of bol and eaton.) which is not to say players weren't good but its not what you are making out to be.


Okay, so please tell me what players nowadays are going to stop MJ or Pippen from penetrating better than Ewing, Hakeem and David Robinson. 



> today's game draws players from a much larger pool than in the 80's it is a worldwide game , filled with euro's who can hit mid range jumpshots in their sleep(they drill like crazy if your spouting were true they would rule today's nba but they dont )...hitting 20 fters isn't enough. if it was there would be more of them drawing nba paychecks, but the simple fact is only the best athletes who have game from europe can make it here , the slow footed ones cannot keep up and they are sent back on the 1st thing smoking to wherever they came from.


I don't understand. So you're saying that because a euro can hit a jumper and doesn't make it here, then that automatically means that Joe Dumars, Chuck Person and James Worthy wouldn't be what they were in today's game?

That's very confusing logic. 

I'll cite Larry Bird as an example that your logic is faulty. He was a non-athlete in any era. The guy could barely get up. He just wasn't what you would have even called a "really good" athlete back in 1981. How was he so good? Skill. So if Bird could use skill to be ridiculous and at least the second best player from 80-86 or 87, then you're telling me that Adrian Dantley couldn't succeed today? 



> i could ask the same type of silly questions , if that era is so much better than today how could so many players play well high off their ass?
> 
> you dont see any roy tarpleys or michael ray richardsons winning awards in today's nba , if they were such skilled shooters how come they couldn't hit a 3 to save their lives? (in no season in the 80's did a team ever hit 1/3 of their attempts from that range (the league shot .358 last season and has hovered between .347 and .367 the past 10 seasons)
> 
> you want to compare eras like it means something , but the truth is you run there because you have nothing better to say.


Teams back then didn't focus on the three as it was relatively new. They got to the basket first and shot jumpers off of that action. 

I run where because I have nothing better to say? You're the guy sitting here arguing that that chump Carmelo is something with his 39.9% FG%. I'd love to see him back in 1988 trying to score on Michael Cooper or Dennis Rodman. 

Look, your whole "athletes are better" schtick is beyond old and tired. Their are bigger players and their are more athletic players, but if you don't bring the same skill with your surplus athleticism, it just doesn't mean anything. 

If you're going to jock Carmelo so hard, don't the Knicks have a board for that? Just saying. It was a nice side bar discussion, but it really wasn't what I was trying to discuss for pages. 

And you're giving a lot of tired BS opinions that you've ripped off of Colin Cowherd, with little to back it up but more of what you think.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I wouldn't say that the Bulls "stifled" Shaq in '96... he did average 27 and 10 against us. I realize that's buried somewhere in the novels above, but I thought I'd point that out.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Okay, so please tell me what players nowadays are going to stop MJ or Pippen from penetrating better than Ewing, Hakeem and David Robinson.


those are centers buddy and if you watched basketball back then no one really stopped pip and MJ from getting to the hole , but in todasy's nba teams can pseudo zone and that does inhibit individual talent somewhat , also the pace of games today is slower than in MJ's statistical heyday





> I don't understand. So you're saying that because a euro can hit a jumper and doesn't make it here, then that automatically means that Joe Dumars, Chuck Person and James Worthy wouldn't be what they were in today's game?
> 
> That's very confusing logic.


no i didn't say that at all , you are just making things up now. I did say shot percentages would be lower in today's nba because of the differences in the games between then and now.



> I'll cite Larry Bird as an example that your logic is faulty. He was a non-athlete in any era. The guy could barely get up. He just wasn't what you would have even called a "really good" athlete back in 1981. How was he so good? Skill. So if Bird could use skill to be ridiculous and at least the second best player from 80-86 or 87, then you're telling me that Adrian Dantley couldn't succeed today?


Bird had excellent range and a quick 1st step , it gives him an advantage in driving to the hoop an in any era , on defense after he hurt his back in in summer of 86 he'd have major trouble keeping up on individually (he did make 2 or 3 all defense 2nd teams before that so its not like he was a bad defender at all before that)...but in today's nba he may have been protected better in the latter half of his career because they play better team defense , it depends on his coaches and how they use him.





> Teams back then didn't focus on the three as it was relatively new. They got to the basket first and shot jumpers off of that action.
> 
> I run where because I have nothing better to say? You're the guy sitting here arguing that that chump Carmelo is something with his 39.9% FG%. I'd love to see him back in 1988 trying to score on Michael Cooper or Dennis Rodman.


if they were as good shooters as you claim they should have expanded their range , that today's player know 3 is more than 2 is hardly something bad. and i used a whole decade at some point you would think the smarter more talented shooters at the onset of the 3 point line could have benefited more than they did , it wasn't a new concept it was around in the 70's and in college. is it really that hard to give today's players and coaches their due for improvements they have made?

and if a guy cant shoot it he can still take mid range shots to his hearts content nobody is stopping them , that the shot has lost its importance is about how players are coached as much as the players.

as i said before he was playing through injury and his stats suffered as a result ....unless you feel his game will continue at this current rate of efficiency even when he comes back its a valid point , I think when he comes back his efficiency will rise up to past levels. he's 27-28 i think Anthony is still in his prime.

you want to see him up against the best of a previous era thats fine .




> Look, your whole "athletes are better" schtick is beyond old and tired. Their are bigger players and their are more athletic players, but if you don't bring the same skill with your surplus athleticism, it just doesn't mean anything.
> 
> If you're going to jock Carmelo so hard, don't the Knicks have a board for that? Just saying. It was a nice side bar discussion, but it really wasn't what I was trying to discuss for pages.
> 
> And you're giving a lot of tired BS opinions that you've ripped off of Colin Cowherd, with little to back it up but more of what you think.


this thread is in black in white you can go back a re-read it anytime i didn't 1st mention anthony , and I only referred to him in the context that posters are inferring qualities on to players that really make no sense , I mentioned anthony because he was previously mentioned and he was at one point on the table for the bulls last season before he was dealt to the knicks(for deng and noah if memorey serves me) . you are actually the one who kept bring Carmelo up to me , I mentioned him in passing in the scope of a topic that is what the thread is about. and in actuality in agreement with you. You are actually the one that keeps bringing him up going in all these other directions to try and make a point that isn't even correct.

I dont blame Luol deng for playing the best he can, and I do believe he is doing the best he can , its not his fault Pax drafted him where he did , or signed him for the amount he did (do you expect Luol to give the money back?), and thus there are now expectations on him that are outside of rational thought , I dont see deng as a bad player , on the contrary he is a pretty good one , but after his 1st 4 seasons everyone knew exactly the type of player he was and had a pretty good idea what that was worth . Deng hasn't built this team, he just plays on it . and no rational person should blame him for the amount he makes , he earns it. and he is worth it just not on a title team as you have proven, because generally those types of teams are filled with bargains players significantly better than what they are paid. from the superstars who lead them but have their salaries capped so they cant be paid what they are worth, to supporting players who either the team management has found players no one thought was worth much and gave them prominent roles outstripping their contracts or are still on rookie deals or are just vets filling a role as a specialist.

Its a system that basically Deng catches alot of heat for though. he is just a good player who had his deal come up for extension at the right time and cashed in on it. i say good for him .


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> those are centers buddy and if you watched basketball back then no one really stopped pip and MJ from getting to the hole , but in todasy's nba teams can pseudo zone and that does inhibit individual talent somewhat , also the pace of games today is slower than in MJ's statistical heyday


If Jordan played the crap teams we have been playing this season he would average 50, I havent seen this much bad in long time. 

Nobody uses the zone all that much anyways, and back then you could hammer a guy who went into the paint and even before that you could actually bully guards on the perimeter. 

Not discounting your opinion but Jordan would have no problems scoring in today's NBA. Heck Jeremy Lin a guy with no real elite talent just passed Shaquille O'Neal's league record for the most points in his first five games as a starter.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> If Jordan played the crap teams we have been playing this season he would average 50, I havent seen this much bad in long time.
> 
> Nobody uses the zone all that much anyways, and back then you could hammer a guy who went into the paint and even before that you could actually bully guards on the perimeter.
> 
> Not discounting your opinion but Jordan would have no problems scoring in today's NBA. Heck Jeremy Lin a guy with no real elite talent just passed Shaquille O'Neal's league record for the most points in his first five games as a starter.


i never said jordan would have trouble in today's nba but that everyone's stats would be affected because its a different time now with teams playing different everything is relative Jordan's fg% would be down ...but so would everyone else's , i'll give an example alex english.

he avg 25 points a game in the 80's and did it shooting over .500 during that period ...that wouldn't happen today , its not to say he would be a good scorer or a good player , but things do change with the times for instance denver in 85-86(the year english set his career high) led the league in pace they avg. 106.7 possessions a game this season denver once again leads the nba in possessions per game but at 95.9.

a team gets 11 more possessions a game they are going to score more points( 114.8 4th in the league that season)
compared to this season( 104.1 which actually leads the league)

3 teams shot over 50% from the field that season, that was not uncommon , but it doesn't happen much anymore and as the game slowed down so did the FG% , teams set up their defense more and shoot more 3's, its really that simple.

i'm not arguing greatness i'm debating common sense as in regard to their #'s and the changes the nba has gone through

as far as jeremy lin goes its not really a fair comparison with shaq , lin was a 4 year college player and is now in his 2nd nba season playing over 40 minutes a game(in his starts) , when comparing guys who start off really well like shaq, jordan or iverson teams already know alot about them and they have been scouted extensively, its from their 1st game period in their rookie season and almost always are still being groomed for their role. Lin was basically thrown in the deep end...add to that Lin is actually pretty talented , he's a 6'4 200lbs pg (i know he is listed at 6'3 but his height is without shoes in today's nba he's 6'4 and change) who is pretty quick and very smart ....untalented is not a word that is accurate for him, he's very talented and playing in a system that is perfect for him and being allowed to play though his mistakes, what he is doing is remarkable ...but its not exactly luck or a fluke , when you see him play he shows he belongs and the pg spot is a spot where intelligence really counts for a lot. you see it alot in guys like nash chris paul and deron williams who get by as much for their smarts as their bodies.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Da Grinch said:


> i never said jordan would have trouble in today's nba but that everyone's stats would be affected because its a different time now with teams playing different everything is relative Jordan's fg% would be down ...but so would everyone else's , i'll give an example alex english.
> 
> he avg 25 points a game in the 80's and did it shooting over .500 during that period ...that wouldn't happen today , its not to say he would be a good scorer or a good player , but things do change with the times for instance denver in 85-86(the year english set his career high) led the league in pace they avg. 106.7 possessions a game this season denver once again leads the nba in possessions per game but at 95.9.
> 
> ...


The NBA can list him at whatever they want... but I will tell you, Jeremy Lin is not 6'4", and he"s not 6'3"... I saw Lin play in person at Dartmouth, and standing on the court, I can tell you Lin is not 6'3". Other than that I agree with what you're saying.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Firefight said:


> The NBA can list him at whatever they want... but I will tell you, Jeremy Lin is not 6'4", and he"s not 6'3"... I saw Lin play in person at Dartmouth, and standing on the court, I can tell you Lin is not 6'3". Other than that I agree with what you're saying.


No, he's 6'3". Measured in at 6'3" barefoot at the predraft camp.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i never said jordan would have trouble in today's nba but that everyone's stats would be affected because its a different time now with teams playing different everything is relative Jordan's fg% would be down ...but so would everyone else's , i'll give an example alex english.


So Lebron James can shoot 55% in this era but not Jordan?



> he avg 25 points a game in the 80's and did it shooting over .500 during that period ...that wouldn't happen today ,


Lebron 28 ppg 54% shooting with no consistent in between game.
Durant 27 ppg 50% shooting

Jordan Averaged 30 ppg on 50% shooting in 96, at age 33! 
Jordan averaged 20 ppg on 45% shooting at the age of 40! 

Its possible very possible. The NBA has a handful of great NBA defensive teams but lets be honest and real, the rest of the league is crap defensively.



> a team gets 11 more possessions a game they are going to score more points( 114.8 4th in the league that season)
> compared to this season( 104.1 which actually leads the league)


I agree that scoring was more prevalent in that era but that should in no way discount Michael's production. He scored in every era he played in, he not only dominated in every era he also dominated GREAT defensive teas, teams that are widely considered some of the greatest defenses in the history of the game. 

I will agree that players as a whole are longer, quicker and more talented today but they aren't smarter or as crafty. Dwight is a physical beast but in no way as good as the lesser athletic guys like Hakeem, Robinson and Ewing, heck people say Tim Duncan is arguably the greatest PF of all time, his game doesn't resemble modern era basketball but he still dominated. 



> 3 teams shot over 50% from the field that season, that was not uncommon , but it doesn't happen much anymore and as the game slowed down so did the FG% , teams set up their defense more and shoot more 3's, its really that simple.


Yet, great players still find ways to score huge amounts of points. Great players will score regardless of era IMO, yes I agree that the scoring averages of most players would drop from the 80's but not MJ's. I was lucky enough to see him score over and dominate the giants of the 90's and we have seen him put up monster numbers in the 80's against entire team defenses focused on only him. I'm not going to make a case for every player form that Era but Jordan would not see a drop off in any major offensive stat in this Era, especially in today's NBA. 




> as far as jeremy lin goes its not really a fair comparison with shaq , lin was a 4 year college player and is now in his 2nd nba season playing over 40 minutes a game(in his starts) , when comparing guys who start off really well like shaq, jordan or iverson teams already know alot about them and they have been scouted extensively, its from their 1st game period in their rookie season and almost always are still being groomed for their role. Lin was basically thrown in the deep end...add to that Lin is actually pretty talented , he's a 6'4 200lbs pg (i know he is listed at 6'3 but his height is without shoes in today's nba he's 6'4 and change) who is pretty quick and very smart ....untalented is not a word that is accurate for him, he's very talented and playing in a system that is perfect for him and being allowed to play though his mistakes, what he is doing is remarkable ...but its not exactly luck or a fluke , when you see him play he shows he belongs and the pg spot is a spot where intelligence really counts for a lot. you see it alot in guys like nash chris paul and deron williams who get by as much for their smarts as their bodies.


[/QUOTE]

Like I said before, players where smarter back then and look at Lin a guy who is very smart and fits a system perfectly and hes having no problems scoring and this is a guy who isn't an elite talent, not even close to being one. 

There is a reason why guys like Grant Hill,Nash, Battier and Duncan are sticking around so late, they have such great basketball IQ that it more than makes up for their lack of talent.

Phil Jackson himself said that MJ had the greatest basketball mind hes ever seen, it should not be out of the question that a guy like that can put up historic numbers in a league today where people only go to college for a year and lack a ton of basketball IQ.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> So Lebron James can shoot 55% in this era but not Jordan?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lebron is not mj , they dont play the same , if MJ came along the same time as lebron he'd be shooting more 3's in today's nba(and shooting them better than he did then if only because its a much bigger part of the game now) that alone would lower his FG% , You may need to take hold of the fact that James is an all time great, and the best player of this era. he is the MJ of this era like MJ was the wilt of his era statistically , its just his time now,



> I agree that scoring was more prevalent in that era but that should in no way discount Michael's production. He scored in every era he played in, he not only dominated in every era he also dominated GREAT defensive teas, teams that are widely considered some of the greatest defenses in the history of the game.
> 
> I will agree that players as a whole are longer, quicker and more talented today but they aren't smarter or as crafty. Dwight is a physical beast but in no way as good as the lesser athletic guys like Hakeem, Robinson and Ewing, heck people say Tim Duncan is arguably the greatest PF of all time, his game doesn't resemble modern era basketball but he still dominated.



i'm not discounting it , its just a different era , just like 50 years ago is different from 25 years ago , there is no one avg. 50.4 or triple doubles like in 61-62 (his team shot .439 from the field and avg 125.4 points a game how many possessions do you think they had a game?) , but that doesn't take away from what jordan did in 86-87, just like what jordan did then doesn't take away from what lebron and company are doing today, its a different time and different rules apply when using statistics from different eras. its dishonest to compare them like its all the same though.




> Yet, great players still find ways to score huge amounts of points. Great players will score regardless of era IMO, yes I agree that the scoring averages of most players would drop from the 80's but not MJ's. I was lucky enough to see him score over and dominate the giants of the 90's and we have seen him put up monster numbers in the 80's against entire team defenses focused on only him. I'm not going to make a case for every player form that Era but Jordan would not see a drop off in any major offensive stat in this Era, especially in today's NBA.


if the bulls get 10-12 less possessions a game i dont see how its rational to say MJ's scoring avg. would be the same, unless you think he'd chuck just to get to a certain #.






> Like I said before, players where smarter back then and look at Lin a guy who is very smart and fits a system perfectly and hes having no problems scoring and this is a guy who isn't an elite talent, not even close to being one.
> 
> There is a reason why guys like Grant Hill,Nash, Battier and Duncan are sticking around so late, they have such great basketball IQ that it more than makes up for their lack of talent.
> 
> Phil Jackson himself said that MJ had the greatest basketball mind hes ever seen, it should not be out of the question that a guy like that can put up historic numbers in a league today where people only go to college for a year and lack a ton of basketball IQ.


i dont think they are any smarter now than then , but nba players had much more freedom then as opposed to now , playbooks were a lot smaller , its still the same game , it just evolves with time. some gifts are just given to certain players do you honestly believe if magic johnson left after 1 year he'd be dumb player ?

some players are just smart its a gift , like height , no amount of coaching can give it to you, you have to want to play smart to be a smart player.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Bogg said:


> No, he's 6'3". Measured in at 6'3" barefoot at the predraft camp.


Then either he grew a few inches from when I saw him or his Uncle was holding the tape measure at the pre-draft camp.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> lebron is not mj , they dont play the same , if MJ came along the same time as lebron he'd be shooting more 3's in today's nba(and shooting them better than he did then if only because its a much bigger part of the game now) that alone would lower his FG% , You may need to take hold of the fact that James is an all time great, and the best player of this era. he is the MJ of this era like MJ was the wilt of his era statistically , its just his time now,


Huh? 

Lebron is taking 1.9 3's a game
Jordan averaged 33.6 ppg and shot 53% while taking 3.0 3's a game in 1990. 

I'm not buying the 3 point argument nor I'm I not disagreeing with Lebron as the best player of this era, but if he and Durant can score 25+ and shoot 50%+ there is no doubt in my mind that the greatest damn player in the history of the game can do the same. 




> i'm not discounting it , its just a different era , just like 50 years ago is different from 25 years ago , there is no one avg. 50.4 or triple doubles like in 61-62 (his team shot .439 from the field and avg 125.4 points a game how many possessions do you think they had a game?) , but that doesn't take away from what jordan did in 86-87, just like what jordan did then doesn't take away from what lebron and company are doing today, its a different time and different rules apply when using statistics from different eras. its dishonest to compare them like its all the same though.


I'm not discounting what anyone is doing today, all I'm saying is Jordan would still dominate in this era. While eras and rule's change we aren't talking about a guy who played in the 60's and 70's, we are talking about a player who dominated in the golden era of basketball the 90's. The game of basketball is at its simplest form a game of putting a round ball through a hoop, Jordan did it then and would easily do it now. 



> if the bulls get 10-12 less possessions a game i dont see how its rational to say MJ's scoring avg. would be the same, unless you think he'd chuck just to get to a certain #.


Kobe Bryant averaged 35 ppg in 05, its very rational to say that Jordan would average the same. 



> i dont think they are any smarter now than then , but nba players had much more freedom then as opposed to now , playbooks were a lot smaller , its still the same game , it just evolves with time. some gifts are just given to certain players do you honestly believe if magic johnson left after 1 year he'd be dumb player ?


Freedom? 

You do know the championship Bulls ran the most complicated offense in the NBA right? 

How many teams in the NBA right now actually run complicated offenses? Washington? Charlotte? NY? Sacramento? Phoenix? Clippers? Cavs? Nets? Toronto... the list goes on. There are only a handful of teams that run complicated stuff, Bulls, Magic maybe, Philly, Lakers maybe and to a lesser extent the Heat who honestly play much better when playing Free as opposed to running a half court offense. 

No I don't think Magic would be a dumber player but I do think that even some uber talented guys would benefit from a year or two of college, Josh Smith comes to mind.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Firefight said:


> Then either he grew a few inches from when I saw him or his Uncle was holding the tape measure at the pre-draft camp.



I mean.......those measurements are like the one accurate measurement you get of NBA players in their careers. It's possible he grew from when you saw him, but now he's 6'3".


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> I wouldn't say that the Bulls "stifled" Shaq in '96... he did average 27 and 10 against us. I realize that's buried somewhere in the novels above, but I thought I'd point that out.


His stats were on par, no doubt. The flow of that offense while he got those stats was terribly disrupted. A lot of times he'd end up without a good shot late in the clock, end up passing out to Nick Anderson or Penny Hardaway and they'd have to rush a bad shot against Scottie Pippen or Ron Harper. 

But I'll recant on any idea that his individual stats were stifled. Worth noting that it was a sweep and they did lose one game by 19 and another by 38.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> those are centers buddy and if you watched basketball back then no one really stopped pip and MJ from getting to the hole , but in todasy's nba teams can pseudo zone and that does inhibit individual talent somewhat , also the pace of games today is slower than in MJ's statistical heyday


Okay, how does you noting that they are centers diminish or change the point? I'm kind of scratching my head here.



> no i didn't say that at all , you are just making things up now. I did say shot percentages would be lower in today's nba because of the differences in the games between then and now.


Okay, so what was your point about euros then? Your approach seems to be throwing things against a wall and seeing if something sticks.



> Bird had excellent range and a quick 1st step , it gives him an advantage in driving to the hoop an in any era , on defense after he hurt his back in in summer of 86 he'd have major trouble keeping up on individually (he did make 2 or 3 all defense 2nd teams before that so its not like he was a bad defender at all before that)...but in today's nba he may have been protected better in the latter half of his career because they play better team defense , it depends on his coaches and how they use him.


Everything about Bird's first step had to do with him being a threat to hit a pass with either hand or pull up for a very accurate shot with a very quick release time. It was skill. You wouldn't have a guy with his first step and average skill be a threat in any era.

As for better team defense nowadays, how?



> if they were as good shooters as you claim they should have expanded their range , that today's player know 3 is more than 2 is hardly something bad. and i used a whole decade at some point you would think the smarter more talented shooters at the onset of the 3 point line could have benefited more than they did , it wasn't a new concept it was around in the 70's and in college. is it really that hard to give today's players and coaches their due for improvements they have made?
> 
> and if a guy cant shoot it he can still take mid range shots to his hearts content nobody is stopping them , that the shot has lost its importance is about how players are coached as much as the players.


You look at Jordan's 3FG% as proof of what I'm saying to you. The first four years of his career he never shot better than 17.3% from three. This same player would shoot 35% or better in five straight seasons. I know guys can improve as shooters when their dribble drive reduces as a threat, but by that amount? It shows you that there just wasn't a premium on shooting threes in the mid 80s. Guys hit mid range jumpers and took it to the hoop. You also had more than 1 or 2 centers who had a back to the basket post game for example. 

Why don't NBA centers today have a back to the basket post game? 

You can't win the argument of diminished skill here. This is a league where Andrew Bynum and Kendrick Perkins start at center for NBA champs. Joakim Noah is skilled? Really? Joakim Noah is Bill Laimbeer with no offense literally. If Bill Laimbeer couldn't shoot or do anything in the post at all, even a little, he'd be Joakim Noah. 



> as i said before he was playing through injury and his stats suffered as a result ....unless you feel his game will continue at this current rate of efficiency even when he comes back its a valid point , I think when he comes back his efficiency will rise up to past levels. he's 27-28 i think Anthony is still in his prime.
> 
> you want to see him up against the best of a previous era thats fine .


He's overhyped and he sucks. He's a volume scorer who lacks defense, toughness and and ability to attack the cup in the same way that Dwyane Wade is able to attack the cup despite supposedly revolutionary zone defense. 

The only reason "Melo" is even as hyped as he is is because of the perceived marketability he brings with him. 



> this thread is in black in white you can go back a re-read it anytime i didn't 1st mention anthony , and I only referred to him in the context that posters are inferring qualities on to players that really make no sense , I mentioned anthony because he was previously mentioned and he was at one point on the table for the bulls last season before he was dealt to the knicks(for deng and noah if memorey serves me) . you are actually the one who kept bring Carmelo up to me , I mentioned him in passing in the scope of a topic that is what the thread is about. and in actuality in agreement with you. You are actually the one that keeps bringing him up going in all these other directions to try and make a point that isn't even correct.
> 
> I dont blame Luol deng for playing the best he can, and I do believe he is doing the best he can , its not his fault Pax drafted him where he did , or signed him for the amount he did (do you expect Luol to give the money back?),


Whoa, I blame Paxson, not Luol. Luol is a good player. It's Paxson who overpaid him. And that only matters because he also WAY overpaid Boozer and therefore you have 39 mill going out to three players next year and none of them is a championship #2. 

I have a policy of never blaming players who aren't dogging it on a moral level. I don't even blame Rob Johnson for taking the money that the Bills paid him in the 90s. So I don't know where you got this idea that I blame Deng.


----------

