# Oregon Disagrees



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

I wrote an article Saturday discussing something that's been discussed on this board many times over: Would the Bulls have better off with Roy or Aldridge instead of Tyrus?

My personal belief is that in the long term, Tyrus could be a HUGE star, and that the other guys will be fabulous pros, but don't have the potential for superstardom Tyrus does.

Anyway, every time we have this argument, we get the Chicago perspective, but rarely the Oregonian perspective, which is this:

OregonLive.com: Blazers by Casey Holdahl: Chicago still likes Tyrus Thomas

Justified opinions, methinks, but I still disagree with these peeps regarding the long-term. I like Thomas. I just do 

Thought you guys would enjoy seeing what an idiot they think I am. It certainly gave me a hearty chuckles this morning!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

We took TT with the knowledge and expectation that he wasn't as far along as Aldridge or Roy, so I think it's fair to say the jury is still out. As to who would have helped us more this season, and maybe next? Yeah, either of the other guys would have. Over their entire career arcs? Could go either way. Roy and Aldridge are ahead by quite a bit. That's all we really know.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I think the major stretch of the article is saying that LMA wouldn't help us more than TT this year. That seems pretty obvious.


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

agreed. I think maybe I'd rephrase things now, but I still stand behind my "long-term" argument. Either way, it's not like LaMarcus was a beast tonight against us or anything. This whole rookie class is a bit rubbish, overall. Bleh...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Aldridge is not an athlete on par with Thomas (few in the NBA are), but he would have given the Bulls exactly what we needed. The surprise is that he is ready to contribute so much this year. I didn't think he would be this effective as a scorer and rebounder yet.

But my #1 and #2 choices for the draft were Roy and Aldridge. Thomas was #3 for me. 

As much as I've enjoyed watching some of Thomas's recent games, I've long claimed we needed height and post scoring more than length and athletecism. With Aldridge, we would have had a compete roster.


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

I was really frustrated during the draft because I wanted either Aldridge or Roy at our #2 pick. And Rodney Carney at #16.

And then we drafted Aldridge and Carney like I had hoped...and then traded them away.

Since then Thomas has grown on me, but I still think Aldridge would have been a much better fit. After watching Aldridge tonight, I am almost certain he would have been getting playing time on this team and maybe even starting.

The draft ended up turning out great for Portland though, they have a excellent core to build around now. I think they need to get rid of Zach Randolph to take the next step, much like the Bulls had to get rid of Jalen Rose.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I've long claimed we needed *height *and post scoring more than *length *and athletecism. With Aldridge, we would have had a compete roster.


Not to be a jerk, but could you explain your thinking on this? :eek8:


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

As much as I like Lamarcus Aldridge, I'm glad the Pax chose Tyrus Thomas in the end. Aldridge is a boring player and we already have bunch of those. Thomas is an energizer bunny who can fire up the whole team and get the crowd loud. He possess great intangible values no one on our team has.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> As much as I like Lamarcus Aldridge, I'm glad the Pax chose Tyrus Thomas in the end. Aldridge is a boring player and we already have bunch of those. Thomas is an energizer bunny who can fire up the whole team and get the crowd loud. He possess great intangible values no one on our team has.



See, this is the kind of thinking that frustrates me:

Paxson like guys with Jib, Other like guys with athleticism and potential...

Aldridge should've been the guy as he addressed our biggest need and was generally considered a top 4 player along with Bargnani, Roy and TT. 

BTW, we had an energizer bunny who was 7 ft and couldn't score or dribble either - Tyson. So, when Paxson figures out that the non-jibbish TT isn't gonna work out, we'll see if he can find another IT to trade with.

If we had Aldridge, we would've been tremendously better off as teams would've had to guard him on offense and he does defend.

Again this season we are playing 3 on 5 every night ont he offensive side.

PJ, TT, Sweets, Wallace - None of them can throw it in Lake Michigan )except the guy as big as lake michigan)from the end of a pier.

Wallace brings enough to warrant his time (though not his rediculous contract). The rest are wastes of space and make me yearn for Nocioni to recover in time for the playoffs.

I can't wait to see how everyone reacts when we pick another "boring, unspectacular guy" like Hawes, McRoberts (he's a dukie so Pax will yearn for him), Hibbert (who has showed alot the second half of the season) or splitter.

The real problem is that none of these guys (sans McRoberts) can man the PF until Walalce is done, then move over to replace Wallace at the C spot. So, the choice of TT and signing Big Ben really created two holes for us unless TT can really be a full time player at the PF spot.

Please don't tell me about the TT has the skillz for SF spot anymore. He is like watching Shaq dribble...not pretty.

So, who's the guy in the draft that will help solve our pathetic frontcourt problem????????? (and i'm not counting on a top 7 pick).


Oh yeah, and the let's trade crowd still has yet to come up with any real value pieces to add to the pick to get something. Duhon - Only valueable to us and Cleveland. Nocioni - Why give up anything when you can sign him outright? He's not worth moving fdown int he draft for (especially with injury concerns). So, I just don't the trade up thing working.

I do, however hope that we trade our two second for one of Phoenix's 1sts and grab a Marc Gasol or even Splitter if he tumbles.

Load up on big men, cause this may be our best last chance.

Go Bulls!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Not to be a jerk, but could you explain your thinking on this? :eek8:


The term length usually refers to arm length, and it often refers to a ratio between arm length and a player's height. Tyrus has long arms for his height, so he is considered to have great length. 

Aldridge has long arms as well, but he's also one size taller than Thomas. He has true 4/5 height, and that's something we still lack on this team.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> The term length usually refers to arm length, and it often refers to a ratio between arm length and a player's height. Tyrus has long arms for his height, so he is considered to have great length.
> 
> Aldridge has long arms as well, but he's also one size taller than Thomas. He has true 4/5 height, and that's something we still lack on this team.


Aldridge is taller and longer than Tyrus. That's an indisputible advantage. However, say he was taller but had a shorter reach (like Paul Davis, for instance) , why would that be better for the Bulls?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Aldridge is taller and longer than Tyrus. That's an indisputible advantage. However, say he was taller but had a shorter reach (like Paul Davis, for instance) , why would that be better for the Bulls?


Because with more height, it's possible to have more bulk without being fat. Even with Wallace this year, we've been outmuscled by several bigger seven footers, and we haven't had anyone who has the combination of true center bulk, brute force, and relatively quick feet to keep them from getting position in the post. 

Wallace has been able to defend players considerably bigger than him over the years. While he still has a lot of defensive ability, he's not what he once was, and he's on the downward slope. So not only do we have a fading, undersized defensive presence at center, but we don't have anyone on our roster who has any chance of replacing him either soon or later. Thus, the roster is incomplete. 

Aldridge is thin now, but he has a frame that may put on more weight over the years. He could end up a solidly built center, and his man defense looks pretty decent to begin with. 

If we can somehow draft a center with some offensive upside like Hawes or Hibbert in this draft, those players would have the potential to complete our roster down the line if they develop as many expect they will. Horford is rumored to have grown an inch to 6' 10", and with his solid build, I think he can play center in the league. Let's hope we can get someone this time around with some height and ability to score in the post, because Pax has had two chances, and he's refused to pull the trigger (Aldridge, Gasol).


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Because with more height, it's possible to have more bulk without being fat. Even with Wallace this year, we've been outmuscled by several bigger seven footers, and we haven't had anyone who has the combination of true center bulk, brute force, and relatively quick feet to keep them from getting position in the post.
> 
> Wallace has been able to defend players considerably bigger than him over the years. While he still has a lot of defensive ability, he's not what he once was, and he's on the downward slope. So not only do we have a fading, undersized defensive presence at center, but we don't have anyone on our roster who has any chance of replacing him either soon or later. Thus, the roster is incomplete.
> 
> ...


He's already put on 20lbs of muscle since the season started. Blazers strength and conditioning coach thinks he will fill out like Jermaine O'Neal only quicker because he works so much harder than Jermaine did in the weight room.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I don't think anyone is taking into consideration how Skiles is horrible with young big men. Usually end up on the bench for every little mistake, punished if your not perfect in practice, not given enough court time to develop consistent play and grow quickly. Don't need to say how other bigs have developed since they left us...

In my opinion, if we had Aldridge instead of Thomas you would see Aldridge averaging 10-15 minutes a game and about 4 pts and 3 rbs, Skiles yanking him for Malik Allen and PJ Brown, and many hear thinking we should have taken Tyrus. Why? Because Thomas would probably be averaging 10 pts, 7 rebs, and in the top 5 in the league in blocked shots and Sportscenter dunks because the Blazers would be playing him 25 minutes a game. 

Skiles is very poor at developing young bigs. Mark my words, if Thomas is traded in the offseason we will regret it and end up starting threads on how he never should have been traded...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I still think Roy was the wrong pick on draft day. I'll never second guess that one.

But Aldridge was my 1A to Thomas's 1B. I like Tyrus and believe that he does have superstar potential. Don't know if he'll realize it, but I think its there. Probably the right time for Paxson to take a little bit of a chance. 

But any argument that Thomas is better for the Bulls short term than Aldridge is, in my opinion, basically impossible to support. We'd be better right now with Aldridge.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Because with more height, it's possible to have more bulk without being fat. Even with Wallace this year, we've been outmuscled by several bigger seven footers, and we haven't had anyone who has the combination of true center bulk, brute force, and relatively quick feet to keep them from getting position in the post.
> 
> Wallace has been able to defend players considerably bigger than him over the years. While he still has a lot of defensive ability, he's not what he once was, and he's on the downward slope. So not only do we have a fading, undersized defensive presence at center, but we don't have anyone on our roster who has any chance of replacing him either soon or later. Thus, the roster is incomplete.
> 
> ...


But less weight is more functional on a shorter player because of the lower center of gravity. It would be interesting to hear from a biomechanic how much more bulk a 6'11" guy would have to have over a 6'9" guy in order to be as fuctionally strong.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I still think Roy was the wrong pick on draft day. I'll never second guess that one.
> 
> But Aldridge was my 1A to Thomas's 1B. I like Tyrus and believe that he does have superstar potential. Don't know if he'll realize it, but I think its there. Probably the right time for Paxson to take a little bit of a chance.
> 
> But any argument that Thomas is better for the Bulls short term than Aldridge is, in my opinion, basically impossible to support. We'd be better *right now* with Aldridge.


i second this sentiment.......particularly the bolded part.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

chifaninca said:


> See, this is the kind of thinking that frustrates me:
> 
> Paxson like guys with Jib, Other like guys with athleticism and potential...
> 
> Aldridge should've been the guy as he addressed our biggest need and was generally considered a top 4 player along with Bargnani, Roy and TT.


So you think Paxson should continue with what you perceive is a flaw with him as a GM? The TT pick was in direct contravention of the notion that Pax will choose jib over talent. Now, the argument seems to have shifted to the idea that Pax should have chosen a less gifted, but more ready to contribute, jibby player. It doesn't seem to wash to me.



chifaninca said:


> BTW, we had an energizer bunny who was 7 ft and couldn't score or dribble either - Tyson. So, when Paxson figures out that the non-jibbish TT isn't gonna work out, we'll see if he can find another IT to trade with.


I think the Tyson trade was a mistake. You don't? And we didn't trade him to IT.

Given that Pax has yet to ship out his boos (draft picks), it seems illogical to me to think that TT not working out is an inevitability.



chifaninca said:


> If we had Aldridge, we would've been tremendously better off as teams would've had to guard him on offense and he does defend.
> 
> Again this season we are playing 3 on 5 every night ont he offensive side.


And scoring 98 points a game.



chifaninca said:


> PJ, TT, Sweets, Wallace - None of them can throw it in Lake Michigan )except the guy as big as lake michigan)from the end of a pier.
> 
> Wallace brings enough to warrant his time (though not his rediculous contract). The rest are wastes of space and make me yearn for Nocioni to recover in time for the playoffs.


Sweets is a fine offensive player, but sucks for other reasons. I too am looking forward to Nocioni's return as our bench scoring is weak without him. Wallace's somewhat improved offensive play has been a nice bonus, but I don't know that you can count on it in the long-term.



chifaninca said:


> I can't wait to see how everyone reacts when we pick another "boring, unspectacular guy" like Hawes, McRoberts (he's a dukie so Pax will yearn for him), Hibbert (who has showed alot the second half of the season) or splitter.


Wait, weren't you earlier arguing that we should pick a guy like that (Aldridge)? Or, did you think Aldridge is not a boring/unspectacular player?



chifaninca said:


> The real problem is that none of these guys (sans McRoberts) can man the PF until Walalce is done, then move over to replace Wallace at the C spot. So, the choice of TT and signing Big Ben really created two holes for us unless TT can really be a full time player at the PF spot.


Do you think TT can't man the PF spot next season? I think he's up to the task. I can't imagine he'll be worse next season than PJ was this season (a true disappointment). Foul trouble may still be an issue, but we shall see.



chifaninca said:


> Please don't tell me about the TT has the skillz for SF spot anymore. He is like watching Shaq dribble...not pretty.


I won't. He's a raw offensive player at the moment and makes his impact based on energy rather than refined skill. It's clear though he has better hands/ballhandling/shooting form than some bigs, but he has a long, long way to go.

Still, whether TT has SF skills seems entirely irrelevant? We have Deng and Nocioni. I'm not looking for TT to contribute as a 3. I'm looking for him to contribute as a 4. It seems to me he is increasingly capable of doing so.



chifaninca said:


> So, who's the guy in the draft that will help solve our pathetic frontcourt problem????????? (and i'm not counting on a top 7 pick).


I don't agree that we have a "pathetic frontcourt problem" that needs to be solved in the draft. I do believe we have a "post scoring problem." I am hoping, through draft or free agency, that a post scorer can be added.



chifaninca said:


> Oh yeah, and the let's trade crowd still has yet to come up with any real value pieces to add to the pick to get something. Duhon - Only valueable to us and Cleveland. Nocioni - Why give up anything when you can sign him outright? He's not worth moving fdown int he draft for (especially with injury concerns). So, I just don't the trade up thing working.


What makes you think that other teams will successfully sign Nocioni outright? I have no idea right now which teams will have cap room for Nocioni. I hope our weak bench scoring of late has demonstrated his value to management.



chifaninca said:


> I do, however hope that we trade our two second for one of Phoenix's 1sts and grab a Marc Gasol or even Splitter if he tumbles.


I'd be good with that as well.



chifaninca said:


> Load up on big men, cause this may be our best last chance.


Agreed.



chifaninca said:


> Go Bulls!


Indeed!


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Aldridge looked very confident...very smooth. Nice spin-fadeaway. Clearly a more accomplished offensive game than TT. 

One question Aldridge is going to have to answer is whether he can be the kind of post player who can turn double-teams into baskets for his teammates. His 0.4 assists/game suggests that this is something he has to work on. So, while I think that the Bulls would be better this season with Aldridge, he may not be "just what the doctor ordered."

The ability to both score and pass out of the post isn't all that common. However, with the Bulls outside shooters, it's dang near a prerequisite.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> So you think Paxson should continue with what you perceive is a flaw with him as a GM? The TT pick was in direct contravention of the notion that Pax will choose jib over talent. Now, the argument seems to have shifted to the idea that Pax should have chosen a less gifted, but more ready to contribute, jibby player. It doesn't seem to wash to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



JNJ,

I agree on much of your posts and here's a few responses to your responses/questions...

The Chandler trade was a huge mistake. I mentioned IT not cause he traded for Chandler, but we atleast got something for Curry. For Chandler we got crap space. That was such a lopsided trade it will haunt us for years with what ifs and bad threads about how good would we be if we still had Chandler.

98 points a game fromt he outside is fine, but come playoff time or crunch time we NEED a post player we can count on to score. We need someone to feed down low and get fouled when the other team is making a run or we need to run down the clock. The free throw line is as foreign to this team as a Skiles compliment. It happens occassionaly, but when it does, it's always a surprise.

On the offensive side, our frountcourt is pathetic. Can't convince me otherwise. When you yearn to see Sweets in the game, you've got a problem. Playoff hoops is much more half court and tightly played.

I agree that atleast part of our big man problem has to be attributed to Skiles and the organization. The Bulls haven't developed anything in terms of a big man and I fear that may continue.

I, too, hope that Noc's abscence has made the organization see how truly important it is to resign Nocioni. As for him being signed outright, if he wants to start, he's gotta go elsewhere.

Finally, on Pax's Jib preference, I don't mind it, I just think that when you are writing eltters to the fans acknowledging you need a big man who can score in the post, you should'd better address when you have the chance. So far, Pax has not accomplished that and I do believe he's had more than a few chances (Curry, CHandler, Aldridge, TT, Trade this year, Big man in upcoming draft).

Whateverh e does, he needs to open the wallet and PAY FOR A BIG MAN COACH.........not will perdue, but a real big man coach.

If it meant Skiles had to go cuase of conflicts....See ya. Ben, Loul and Kirk don't need to be ridden, our big men, need help.

Go Bulls!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> We took TT with the knowledge and expectation that he wasn't as far along as Aldridge or Roy, so I think it's fair to say the jury is still out.


Well put. I find it pretty sickening to see those Blazers fans accuse Briggs of backpeddling and trying to justify a clearly bad move. If we took Tyrus over Aldridge on draft day when virtually everyone - the Bulls included - expected Aldridge to be the better rookie then how have we suddenly "lost the trade" now that it's actually happened?



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Aldridge has long arms as well, but he's also one size taller than Thomas. He has true 4/5 height, and that's something we still lack on this team.


Yeah, we always supposedly needed a tall shooting guard too and now we have one and we've done just fine without even using him for the most part. I'll hark back to what I said at the beginning of the season, if we signed a guy who's a multiple DPOY winner at center, he should be able to hold down that position regardless of his height. The two losses to Orlando are the only games I can think of where our lack of height has really hurt us this season.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Well put. I find it pretty sickening to see those Blazers fans accuse Briggs of backpeddling and trying to justify a clearly bad move. If we took Tyrus over Aldridge on draft day when virtually everyone - the Bulls included - expected Aldridge to be the better rookie then how have we suddenly "lost the trade" now that it's actually happened?


Those "tool" and "idiot" as arguments certainly made me see the light.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

chifaninca said:


> JNJ,
> 
> I agree on much of your posts and here's a few responses to your responses/questions...
> 
> ...


I agree with most all of this. I find the lack of a big man coach to be just downright mystifying. Is it cheapness? Do they think they don't need it? What's the freaking deal? If you're going to be a club with young bigs, considering their slow development and the uniqueness of their games, when combined with the fact that the coach was a PG, it seems obvious to me that you'd add a big man coach. 

By the way, this line:



> When you yearn to see Sweets in the game, you've got a problem.


:lol:

Agreed.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Does the efficient market hypothesis apply to basketball players?

I think the thing here is that while we expected Aldridge to be ahead, I, at least, expected Thomas to be behind but coming along pretty quickly. He's coming along fine, but a little bit behind where my (admittedly optimistic) prediction of him was. At the same time, Aldridge is a bit head of where my prediction of him was.

So I guess I expected the gap to be closing quickly and instead it's holding steady or perhaps even widened a bit.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

I am happy with TT. Even if he doesn't know what he is doing yet, he is already an intimidator out there. The only area where I've been disappointed is his lack of a jump shot and of touch around the basket. I thought he was more skilled overall, based on what we saw in summer league. Perhaps it's the nerves.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Does the efficient market hypothesis apply to basketball players?
> 
> I think the thing here is that while we expected Aldridge to be ahead, I, at least, expected Thomas to be behind but coming along pretty quickly. He's coming along fine, but a little bit behind where my (admittedly optimistic) prediction of him was. At the same time, Aldridge is a bit head of where my prediction of him was.
> 
> So I guess I expected the gap to be closing quickly and instead it's holding steady or perhaps even widened a bit.


The efficient market hypothesis only applies in a utopian environment. If markets were truly efficient, we would have very little volatility, and never experience such phenomenon as the internet bubble or the inverse bubble we are seeing now.

Tyrus has improved since the beginning of the season, and Aldridge has improved as well. Rate of improvement would be extremely difficult to calculate. We have perceptions because of increases in stats, but Portland has more reason to give Aldridge both shots and minutes than do the Bulls with Tyrus.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The EMH doesn't preclude volatility at all. It suggests only that market prices reflect the beliefs of agents within the system. It would take those agents having perfect information to render prices invariant. 

I'm a pretty strong believer in the weak form EMH. In practice, the results are very much right on the money and the practical lessons for investors are incredibly valuable. People in general would be a hell of a lot better off using passive investing strategies than they are wasting a lot of time and money trying to be the .0001% of folks consistently beat the market. Largely, I say why try... the market will give you very nice results itself.

Edit: I say largely because I don't completely take this approach myself. That being said, I mostly do and I have a lot more time and energy on my hands to look at things than the average person.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

laso said:


> I am happy with TT. Even if he doesn't know what he is doing yet, he is already an intimidator out there. The only area where I've been disappointed is his lack of a jump shot and of touch around the basket. I thought he was more skilled overall, based on what we saw in summer league. Perhaps it's the nerves.


It seems that the consensus on this board is that TT's lack of offensive prowess is a result of his being "raw" or being nervous. I never see the most obvious explanation, i.e. he doesn't have the skills to be an effective offensive contributor. 

The worrisome thing is that there have been many great run/jump athletes drafted very high who just never could develop "touch" or shooting skills. One player that comes to mind is Kenny (Sky) Walker of the NY Knicks. Physically more imposing than Thomas, he could jump just as quicky and as high. Overall, a mediocre player over his career. Stromile Swift is another. Do you remember Ronald Dupree of just a few years ago? Not a high draft choice, but an incredible quick leaper and a pretty good defender. However, this did not translate into scoring and he got his union card in the bricklayers local.

Great athletes don't necessarily develop the "touch" necessary to score around the basket. The feeling that appears to be on this board is that someone as physically talented as Thomas will develop these skills over time. Not necessarily so. Although his form looked OK in summer league action, he really missed a lot of shots during those games. His hand/eye coordination may just not allow him to ever become a decent shooter.

The real pity is that Aldridge has always had these offensive skills. He didn't have to develop them. The knock on him was that he was "soft" or didn't have a "higher ceiling." Pax specifically stated that he drafted Thomas and Thabo because he wanted to give the team more athleticism. Well, I thought Aldridge was plenty athletic enough to help this team. I know we need to wait a few years to judge this pick, but IMO Pax made one terrible mistake.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Anyone but me think the "jury is out" bit is a scam to fill the seats without putting a championship caliber team on the floor?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Anyone but me think the "jury is out" bit is a scam to fill the seats without putting a championship caliber team on the floor?


no; just you......


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Anyone but me think the "jury is out" bit is a scam to fill the seats without putting a championship caliber team on the floor?


Nope. You'd have to convince me first that teams never draft players based on upside and potential...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Anyone but me think the "jury is out" bit is a scam to fill the seats without putting a championship caliber team on the floor?


No. 

First, the idea that a 19 or 20 year old rookie may or may not develop into a quality player does not sound like a "scam" to me. Moreover, I don't think I've heard that coming from Bulls management, so I'm not sure how it'd be linked to selling tickets.

A while back, you stated you'd "seen enough" of TT to know, definitively, that he would not pan out as a player. Do you still stand by that position?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> A while back, you stated you'd "seen enough" of TT to know, definitively, that he would not pan out as a player. Do you still stand by that position?


IF such a preposterously outrageous comment like that were made, i'd have to ask what pro ballers (or high school or college) *have* they projected to "pan out"?

fans generally can only see what they see, or pull forth generic sweeping "per" (all BS, imo) stats that help to bolster their claims. i'll be sure to remember those who'll back off or state "i never said that" regarding their claims about thomas when he's on the all star team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> No.
> 
> First, the idea that a 19 or 20 year old rookie may or may not develop into a quality player does not sound like a "scam" to me. Moreover, I don't think I've heard that coming from Bulls management, so I'm not sure how it'd be linked to selling tickets.
> 
> A while back, you stated you'd "seen enough" of TT to know, definitively, that he would not pan out as a player. Do you still stand by that position?


The "jury's out" scam was played on us for the 3 Cs, then the Curry trade, and now Thomas. Fool me once (3 Cs), shame on thee. Fool me twice (Curry trade), shame on me. Fool me three times (Thomas), pass the kool aid. I guess anticipation of one of these "pan out" scenarios for us is enough to keep us interested while cranking up the profits.

Show me a link to any post I made saying Thomas would not pan out. Lotsa luck if you can. I don't think he's very good now, and there's always a chance he might turn out. That's my position and has been all along.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Show me a link to any post I made saying Thomas would not pan out. Lotsa luck if you can. I don't think he's very good now, and there's always a chance he might turn out. That's my position and has been all along.


I'll show you. It's right here.



DaBullz said:


> Fool me three times (Thomas), pass the kool aid.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> DaBullz said:
> 
> 
> > Show me a link to any post I made saying Thomas would not pan out. Lotsa luck if you can. I don't think he's very good now, and there's always a chance he might turn out. That's my position and has been all along.
> ...


That's not saying he won't pan out. It's saying "the jury's out, so we have hopes somewhere down the line of being a champion. Better get your season tickets now before they're absolutely impossible to get."


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Show me a link to any post I made saying Thomas would not pan out. Lotsa luck if you can. I don't think he's very good now, and there's always a chance he might turn out. That's my position and has been all along.


Fair enough. Boy, we could use a search function that doesn't disallow so many words, by the way. Anyway, here you go:




DaBullz said:


> I think he's ERob part deux. He'll work hard to get an awkward kind of jump shot, but he'll never be more than a 10 PPG scorer. People will always marvel at his athleticism and ask "how come he doesn't/didn't do X?"


I'd assume if a #2/4 draft pick is "ERob part deux" and never more than a 10 ppg scorer, your position is that he won't pan out.



DaBullz said:


> Geez. Look at the list of #1 or #2 picks and tell me which ones were as poor as Thomas after 23 games.
> 
> it is my position that when you put a guy on the court like a Jordan or a Kobe or Wade or Chris Paul, you can tell right away the guy's a contributor. You have to struggle to NOT play the guy if you even want to try (like they did with Kobe).
> 
> ...


The substance of this post seems to be that if a #2 pick hasn't shown it by now, he never will. You do hedge some at the end there, but still confirm that he will never have been worth the pick.



DaBullz said:


> So does Tyson Chandler. And he actually gave us meaningful minutes at a position we're weak.
> 
> So does Marty Andrews.
> 
> * There's simply no guarantees that a project will pan out. All you really can do is look at his performance, which is simply not that good.*


By your method of evaluation (looking at performance) you have evaluated that he won't pan out.



DaBullz said:


> Do you know who Jack "Goose" Givens is?
> 
> Read up about him and get back to me on the "how he played in college" indicates how he's going to be a great pro.
> 
> ...


Again, TT will be ERob. Not good.



DaBullz said:


> Wait and see. that's the gist of your argument.
> 
> * How long do you have to wait and see for any of the #2 picks in the history of the NBA?
> 
> ...


Tyrus can't contribute now, and will not be good in the future. Tyrus is a bottom 25% NBA player. You have seen enough to tell he won't pan out. That's the message I'm receiving.

Much of that debate is from this thread:

http://www.basketballforum.com/chic...u-guys-think-pax-will-do-before-deadline.html


(Emphasis throughout mine, not yours)


If I've misunderstood your position, fine, but I don't think I have.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> That's not saying he won't pan out. It's saying "the jury's out, so we have hopes somewhere down the line of being a champion. Better get your season tickets now before they're absolutely impossible to get."


The implication of you being fooled is that Thomas will never develop to his potential level. If he does, how were you fooled?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Oregon is full of aging, dope smoking hippies and clueless, Starbucks slurping yuppies.

They don't know hoops from Shinola.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> The implication of you being fooled is that Thomas will never develop to his potential level. If he does, how were you fooled?


The implication is that the sales pitch for the Bulls organization is "the jury's out." Thomas isn't at his potential *now*, or are you passing out that kool-aid?

We don't look like championship contenders, and we haven't since MJ retired.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> Fair enough. Boy, we could use a search function that doesn't disallow so many words, by the way. Anyway, here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Talk about getting owned.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Owned?

All that's been done here is to quote some of my posts and then respond to them as if I wrote something else entirely.

Case in point:



DaBullz said:


> * Maybe Thomas will be a good player in 5 years. *he'll be 26 then.. Worth the investment of a #2 pick? No.


Doesn't the bolded part suggest he may actually pan out? The question is whether it's worth the wait.

And the post is riddled with stuff like this:



> I assume your position is...


&c


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Doesn't the bolded part suggest he may actually pan out? The question is whether it's worth the wait.


Sure, and the other 99% of what you wrote does not. You assert that either way he will not be worth a #2 pick. It seems to me that means he won't "pan out."



> All that's been done here is to quote some of my posts and then respond to them as if I wrote something else entirely.


I don't think that's the case at all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> You're choosing to focus on a very small minority of your comments on the matter. I don't think that's representative of your overall sentiment.
> 
> You wrote what you wrote, and you'd know best what your own opinion is, but I think to any reasonable reader, the message is "TT sucks now and it appears he will suck in the future."


My opinion is that TT sucks now the vast majority of his minutes. 

There's no guarantee he'll be any better than ERob - I sure hope so. This statement is both factual/realistic and in response to those who say he's awesome based upon per minute stats or some other critera. He just isn't, and there's no guarantees. Rather than that being a "he'll never pan out" statement, it's a response that says "there's no guarantees, you're putting the cart before the horse." But you can spin that however you want, I guess.



jnrjr79 said:


> The substance of this post seems to be that if a #2 pick hasn't shown it by now, he never will.


I was clear in my posts that *I do not believe that using a #2 pick on a project was a good idea*, and that Thomas hasn't been good (YET) and that he may be really good in 5 years, and that taking a project player with the #2 is a risky proposition. That's a far cry from saying "he'll never pan out." My position has been damned consistent - we need the help now because of a short window due to Wallace's age or before our core is up there in age. Hinrich is 26 - if it takes Thomas 5 years to pan out, he'll be 31.

I'll focus on my quotes that you bolded for emphasis:



> * There's simply no guarantees that a project will pan out. All you really can do is look at his performance, which is simply not that good.
> *


*

*True or not? 



> * How long do you have to wait and see for any of the #2 picks in the history of the NBA?
> 
> I've seen enough. he's not even a top 75% of all players in the league kind of player.
> 
> *


*

*He's not a top 75% of all players in the league kind of player. Most #2 picks are immediate impact players, and I showed that by listing them all (they're guys like Okafor for the most part, a top 75% of all players in the league kind of player). 

True or not?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> My opinion is that TT sucks now the vast majority of his minutes.
> 
> There's no guarantee he'll be any better than ERob - I sure hope so. This statement is both factual/realistic and in response to those who say he's awesome based upon per minute stats or some other critera. He just isn't, and there's no guarantees.


Kinda like how people said that Tyson sucked and yet after he was traded I argued that based on his +/- stats, he could average around 12 boards if he just got more minutes. Now, everyone says that Tyson blossomed into a great player after being traded but really he mostly just played more. Tyrus doesn't suck. He's a good bench player right now. The odds are high that next season he will up his minutes and cut down on his fouls and turnovers at which point he'll be a solid starter and I'll resent it if people act like he went through this huge metamorphis when really his game didn't change much.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> [/B]True or not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not to both, frankly.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Not to both, frankly.


What teams in the NBA would Thomas start on? Is he a real candidate for ROY? (Are you confident he'll win it?)

And Yes to both, frankly.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Kinda like how people said that Tyson sucked and yet after he was traded I argued that based on his +/- stats, he could average around 12 boards if he just got more minutes. Now, everyone says that Tyson blossomed into a great player after being traded but really he mostly just played more. Tyrus doesn't suck. He's a good bench player right now. The odds are high that next season he will up his minutes and cut down on his fouls and turnovers at which point he'll be a solid starter and I'll resent it if people act like he went through this huge metamorphis when really his game didn't change much.


We have a player, Kirk Hinrich, who is getting less minutes than before, yet is taking better shots and putting up better per 40 minute numbers. Players simply change the nature of their games. it's possible Thomas develops a 3pt shot out to mid court and makes them with consistency. That'd radically change how is actual numbers turn out vs. what you project them to be. Deng is also taking less 3pt shots and hitting a higher FG%, so his per 40 minute numbers should be skewed.

If you look at Aldridge's last month as a starter, he's averaged (I'm eyeballing this) about 30 minutes per game and nearly doubled his scoring and rebounds - this means he's getting 50% more minutes, but 2x his other stats. Not the one-to-one simple multiplier you make out the per 40 minute stat to be.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What teams in the NBA would Thomas start on? Is he a real candidate for ROY? (Are you confident he'll win it?)
> 
> And Yes to both, frankly.















> There's simply no guarantees that a project will pan out. All you really can do is look at his performance, which is simply not that good.


1. You can look at more than just the performance, though the performance is the most relevant consideration.

2. I disagree with your characterization that the performance is "simply not that good." In fact, I think he looks better and better and is already having a substantial positive impact on the team. 




> How long do you have to wait and see for any of the #2 picks in the history of the NBA?
> 
> I've seen enough. he's not even a top 75% of all players in the league kind of player.


You keep calling him a #2 pick, though he was actually a #4. But I'm the one that's employing "spin." Would the Bulls have picked him at 2 as well? It appears so, but that doesn't make it his draft position.

I'd say you're waaaayyy off in not calling him a top 75% "kind of player." He's aleady cracked the non-scrub rotation on a top team in the East. I fully expect that he'll be the starting PF for the Bulls next year. I remember the popular theory on Thomas before the draft was that he was the guy with the greatest, say it with me, p p p p p potential, but that he was raw and was going to take longer than the others in the draft to develop. 

Having "seen enough" and calling TT not a "top 75%" player does not sem to jive with me with the notion that he is a project that may be the best player in his draft class. While your posting occasionally hints at Thomas's potential, you have to admit that the vast, vast majority of it is dismissive of Thomas as a poor player. Regardless of what you're trying to convey, it reads to me "Tyrus sucks, it was a mistake to pick him, and I've seen enough to know he won't be a very good NBA player." 

Perhaps I just have reading comprehension problems, but I'd imagine others are taking it the same way.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> If you look at Aldridge's last month as a starter, he's averaged (I'm eyeballing this) about 30 minutes per game and nearly doubled his scoring and rebounds - this means he's getting 50% more minutes, but 2x his other stats. Not the one-to-one simple multiplier you make out the per 40 minute stat to be.


I don't know what I said that made you think I believe otherwise. It's not at all uncommon for players to improve in terms of production though it is rather uncommon for them to regress. We can even continue to go with the example I used. A lot of Tyson's improvement statistically this season is that he's playing more minutes but he's also rebounding slightly better than in the past and his offense has improved a lot from last year and even the first half of this season. That doesn't mean that most of his improvement still isn't a result of more minutes. You get similar results if you do a crude analysis of Aldridge's numbers. He averaged around 7 or so points per game and 15.5 per 40 minutes prior to this month. This month he's averaged 16.4 points in 32 minutes (20.5 per 40). Sure he improved his production but way more of his improved numbers looks like the result of increased minutes.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

It seems pretty futile to argue here. This is the same guy who claimed that Kenyon Martin was a 20 and 10 player and insisted on arguing about it in spite of the FACT that that claim was incontrovertibly wrong.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

In fairness to DaBullz, the "I've seen enough" comment that I recall was in the context of Tyrus Thomas and the Curry trade. Paraphrasing: Discussing the Curry trade and Thomas' performance - "I've seen enough. We lost."

Equally preposterous to saying Thomas is likely a bust? Yes. Premature given that the Curry trade may yet yield another top 10 pick and given that TT is a prospect? Yes. 

Just in a slightly different context. 

DaBullz, you've been condemning TT all season in both the short and long term and you know it. Your random "I guess its theoretically possible he might develop in half a decade" statements notwithstanding. 

And for what its worth, I believe your statements result from who drafted Thomas, not Thomas himself. The irrationally premature nature of the commentary speaks to this.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> In fairness to DaBullz, the "I've seen enough" comment that I recall was in the context of Tyrus Thomas and the Curry trade. Paraphrasing: Discussing the Curry trade and Thomas' performance - "I've seen enough. We lost."
> 
> Equally preposterous to saying Thomas is likely a bust? Yes. Premature given that the Curry trade may yet yield another top 10 pick and given that TT is a prospect? Yes.
> 
> ...


I have nothing against Thomas, per se, and I absolutely have rooted hard for Ben Gordon, also drafted by the same guy who drafted Thomas. You might contrast the two - one was 6th man of the year as a rookie. I think it's fair to call a 4.6/3.4 player a 4.6/3.4 player without having to put some spin on it so he's somehow much better than that. 

As for the future... my crystal ball is as good as yours, I suspect. However, if Thomas was a 6th man of the year candidate this year, I think my confidence he's going to step it up from that level to where people are projecting him to be would be much higher.

"Premature" would have been at draft time. Now I have actual experience. 4.6/3.4 and he can't beat out PJ Brown.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> 4.6/3.4 and he can't beat out PJ Brown.


By that logic, Ben Gordon was not a starter calliber player in first half of this season.

Is there any nuance at all in the way you look at basketball? We've been doing this for months now and it's pretty inescapable that there have been plenty of raw players who were unspectacular early in their career and later became very good players. It's equally clear that the Bulls drafted Tyrus with the idea that he wouldn't be a major contributor this season and yet you continually use things going according to plan as some huge indictment of the pick. I agree with RC that your unbelievable stubborness and willingness to slam Thomas suggests you're not being remotely open minded.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> You keep calling him a #2 pick, though he was actually a #4. But I'm the one that's employing "spin." Would the Bulls have picked him at 2 as well? It appears so, but that doesn't make it his draft position.


Err yeah, that's big time spin.

We went into the night with the #2 pick. We came out with Tyrus. And he's obviously the guy the Bulls wanted. It's certainly not an unfair measure to compare him to prior #2 picks. And the comparison isn't very flattering to Thomas. 

What factors, aside from blind faith lead you to expect he's somehow the great exception to the rule?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> By that logic, Ben Gordon was not a starter calliber player in first half of this season.
> 
> Is there any nuance at all in the way you look at basketball? We've been doing this for months now and it's pretty inescapable that there have been plenty of raw players who were unspectacular early in their career and later became very good players. It's equally clear that the Bulls with the idea that he wouldn't be a major contributor this season and yet you continually use things going according to plan as a huge indictment of the pick. I agree with RC that your unbelievable stubborness and willingness to slam Thomas suggests you're not being remotely open minded.


How many votes will Thomas get for 6th man as a rookie? For ROY? Surely everyone who votes on those things sees the same nuances you do.

Fantasy, nothing less.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> How many votes will Thomas get for 6th man as a rookie? For ROY? Surely everyone who votes on those things sees the same nuances you do.


You're still ignoring the pick that Tyrus wasn't drafted with the expectation that he'd be ROY or sixth man of a year (which has happened what, once? twice?). The Bulls drafted Tyrus with the expectation that he'd make some minimal contributions in 10-20 minutes this season, improve as the season went on, and due to his upside turn into a good player in his second or third season. I just don't understand how the fact that this is what has actually happened is evidence that it was a poor decision. 

I'm talking about nuances in player development to be more specific. The fact that you seem to care only about what a player does in one game, month, or season demonstrates that you don't have one iota of understanding about the incredibly wide ranging circumstances under which players become successful in the NBA.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> You're still ignoring the pick that Tyrus wasn't drafted with the expectation that he'd be ROY or sixth man of a year (which has happened what, once? twice?). The Bulls drafted Tyrus with the expectation that he'd make some minimal contributions in 10-20 minutes this season, improve as the season went on, and due to his upside turn into a good player in his second or third season. I just don't understand how the fact that this is what has actually happened is evidence that it was a poor decision.
> 
> I'm talking about nuances in player development to be more specific. The fact that you seem to care only about what a player does in one game, month, or season demonstrates that you don't have one iota of understanding about the incredibly wide ranging circumstances under which players become successful in the NBA.


4.6/3.4

Spin away.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> By that logic, Ben Gordon was not a starter calliber player in first half of this season.


Actually that was expressly not his logic. 



> Is there any nuance at all in the way you look at basketball? We've been doing this for months now and it's pretty inescapable that there have been plenty of raw players who were unspectacular early in their career and later became very good players. It's equally clear that the Bulls drafted Tyrus with the idea that he wouldn't be a major contributor this season and yet you continually use things going according to plan as some huge indictment of the pick. I agree with RC that your unbelievable stubborness and willingness to slam Thomas suggests you're not being remotely open minded.


I realize that's not a very interesting question, as it requires people to address the actual subject of basketball, rather than spend upteen posts defining what you think someone else's position on things is, but could you give me some examples of those raw, unspectacular early players who top draft picks? 

Out of that group, how many became something good, how many became average and how many were simply flops?

Again, we're talking about guys who are at the top of the order here. Comparable to where Thomas was selected.

I'll also point out that it seems the opposite of open-minded that there's a practical headlong rush to assail the positions of someone who simply doesn't agree with you.

See, when I think of someone being open-minded, I think of people actually accepting the fact that other folks might disagree. At least accepting it without resorting to questioning their motivations or calling them stubborn for not drinking your particular favorite form of artificially sweetened and flavored beverage.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Err yeah, that's big time spin.
> 
> We went into the night with the #2 pick. We came out with Tyrus. And he's obviously the guy the Bulls wanted. It's certainly not an unfair measure to compare him to prior #2 picks. And the comparison isn't very flattering to Thomas. Saying that Thomas was the #4 pick is anything but spin.
> 
> What factors, aside from blind faith lead you to expect he's somehow the great exception to the rule?



Err, with Thomas and Khryapa, but yes, as I clearly acknowledged in my post, I fully expect the Bulls would have taken him at the 2. However, such things happen all the time. It's just the way it goes. I'm not saying it's unfair to compare him to #2 picks, but often he is outright referred to as the #2 pick, and he wasn't. Could he easily have been? Yes. Does that change the actual facts? No.


To address your second paragraph, I dispute that any "rule" exists whatsoever, so there is no need to call Thomas a "great exception." 

My opinion is this:'

The draft was viewed as mediocre to weak, from a talent perspective. While our even team-building approach is doing reasonably well, generally in the NBA transcendant stars win championships. Having none, it was a better idea to roll the dice and go for a guy who could be a phenomenal player rather than pick a guy who would merely be "solid." Could this blow up in our faces? Sure. But it absolutely rankles me that many of those who criticize Paxson eight days a week for being too conservative are now the very same people who are ripping him for taking a chance on a less jibby guy with oodles of raw ability but who is not a four year college player, outstanding citizen, and "solid" contributor. 

Frankly, from watching Tyrus this season, I'm encouraged. I expected Skiles to bury him on the bench. The fact that he has been coming on of late, being part of the regular rotation, been managing to make positive contributions to the team (to the point of winning games for us), shows me that this guy has a real shot to be something special.

What my biggest fear is that the Bulls' reluctance to get TT a proper big man coach could hinder his development.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> How many votes will Thomas get for 6th man as a rookie? For ROY? Surely everyone who votes on those things sees the same nuances you do.
> 
> Fantasy, nothing less.



When did 6th man become involved in this? Considering that has happened exactly once in history, by my recollection, I don't understand the relevance.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> Aldridge is taller and longer than Tyrus. That's an indisputible advantage. However, say he was taller but had a shorter reach (like Paul Davis, for instance) , why would that be better for the Bulls?


Try again buddy. Here's a "true height index", which shows Tyrus as having much longer arms than Aldridge, and that he plays an inch taller than Aldridge as a result. Being shorter with more length allows you to be more athletic, so considering he's our PF instead of C, that's exactly what I'd want. The only advantage to being taller but with the same true height index is vision...both your own, and blocking your opponent's. If he was our C, I'd maybe prefer a guy with more height and maybe bulk, but at the 4 I prefer super-athletic guys.

Lewin: True Height Index for NBA players | 82games.com

For the record, my rankings in last year's draft were:

Bargnani
Gay
Tyrus

Bargnani was the guy I really wanted, and Gay and Thomas were basically tied for 2nd, but Gay might've had a slight edge. Given our team's needs though, Tyrus was a better pick than Gay, but he wasn't better than Bargs.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Try again buddy. Here's a "true height index", which shows Tyrus as having much longer arms than Aldridge, and that he plays an inch taller than Aldridge as a result. Being shorter with more length allows you to be more athletic, so considering he's our PF instead of C, that's exactly what I'd want. The only advantage to being taller but with the same true height index is vision...both your own, and blocking your opponent's. If he was our C, I'd maybe prefer a guy with more height and maybe bulk, but at the 4 I prefer super-athletic guys.
> 
> Lewin: True Height Index for NBA players | 82games.com
> 
> ...


That index includes jumping ability which is not a component of either height or length.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Actually that was expressly not his logic.


His argument is that Tyrus is not better than P.J. because he's not starting ahead of P.J. By the same logic the fact that Duhon was starting earlier in the season and was not was an indictment of Ben Gordon. I'm not picking up the distinction. It's pretty difficult for me to understand your point when you just throw out one sentence to contradict something I've said without explaining your position.



MikeDC said:


> MikeDC said:
> 
> 
> > I realize that's not a very interesting question, as it requires people to address the actual subject of basketball, rather than spend upteen posts defining what you think someone else's position on things is,
> ...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> That index includes jumping ability which is not a component of either height or length.


True enough. I was thinking that it was standing reach, wing-span and height combined. I hadn't read the criteria since draft-time, so like 9 months ago. Regardless though, Tyrus has a 7'5" wingspan, so I'm willing to bet that his playing height would still be very comparable to Aldridge's. If you happen to know of a site that lists their wingspan, standing reach, and all that link it plz.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> True enough. I was thinking that it was standing reach, wing-span and height combined. I hadn't read the criteria since draft-time, so like 9 months ago. Regardless though, Tyrus has a 7'5" wingspan, so I'm willing to bet that his playing height would still be very comparable to Aldridge's. If you happen to know of a site that lists their wingspan, standing reach, and all that link it plz.


hi dababybullz, haven't been following the latest on this thread, but found this:
NBADraft.net | 2006 Official NBA Draft Measurements

Aldridge, LaMarcus 
6' 10''(hieght) 6' 11.25''(in shoes) 234.0(wieght) 7' 4.75''(wingspan) 9' 2''(reach) 8.7(bodyfat) 

and of course TT
6' 7.25''(hieght) 6' 8.25''(in shoes) 217.0(wieght) 7' 3''(wingspan) 9' 0''(reach) 5.6(bodyfat)


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> In any event if a moderate volume of posting and engaging others positions is detracting from the board let me know and I'll regretably try to seek out some place else


Please don't. :cheers:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I realize that's not a very interesting question, as it requires people to address the actual subject of basketball, rather than spend upteen posts defining what you think someone else's position on things is, but could you give me some examples of those raw, unspectacular early players who top draft picks?
> 
> Out of that group, how many became something good, how many became average and how many were simply flops?
> 
> Again, we're talking about guys who are at the top of the order here. Comparable to where Thomas was selected.


I thought about doing this, but I don't see how it would be useful. Yes, on average top 5 draft picks tend to pan out immediately. But every player and every situation is so unique that I doubt any study would have much predictive value outside the obvious conclusion: Tyrus is less likely to be a succesful NBA player because he had a poor rookie season.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

RoRo said:


> hi dababybullz, haven't been following the latest on this thread, but found this:
> NBADraft.net | 2006 Official NBA Draft Measurements
> 
> Aldridge, LaMarcus
> ...


Thanks RoRo. One other thing to keep in mind when comparing the size of those 2, is that Tyrus was only 19 at the time, and most likely still growing...in fact I think he looks bigger (taller) now than he did closer to draft time. Aldridge was born July 19th, 1985, so most likely done growing at nearly 21 years of age. Tyrus was born August 17, 1986, so over a year younger and at 19 probably still growing.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Generally, I think Tyrus' detractors have made some strong points. I've done quite a bit of research using basketball-reference.com and I've had a lot of trouble finding successful players who drastically improved their turnover rate (Tyrus' turnover ratio is *21.1*) or fouling rate (Tyrus fouls at a rate of *7.3 per 40*). Those numbers are just incredibly rare and hard to find on the resumes of successful players. 

There are a few examples... like Shawn Kemp had a similarly high foul rate (7.3) and turnover ratio (17.1) during his rookie season, but he had 2 inches and 25 pounds that Tyrus will likely never have. Al Jefferson had a high foul rate his rookie season but they don't have similar games, otherwise. That I can't find more examples is pretty depressing. Amare Stoudemire, Kenyon Martin, Antonio McDyess, Josh Smith, Darius Miles, and Chris Bosh have never approached Tyrus' fouling rate or turnover ratio, for example. 

I've also had trouble thinking of PFs who were successful at Tyrus' height and build. Dennis Rodman? 

At the same time, I don't think Tyrus has any uncorrectable flaws besides his height/build. Because of his sharp instincts and generally good basketball IQ, I'm more confident that Tyrus will solve his turnover problems than I was that Gordon or Curry would. Because he has good form, I think he has a much better chance at developing a jump shot than I thought Darius Miles or Tyson Chandler did. 

I think the fouls and his lack of bulk will continue to be an issue.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I can think of two pined-for former Chicago Bulls that took a little while to pan out.

I don't understand why we are discussing whether or not raw, inexperience, athletically elite players can improve and realize their potential. It has happened many, many times at many, many draft positions.

And to add: I think Mike should lay off Jeremy, who is an excellent poster and most definitely has been addressing basketball in the context of past and current discussion on this board. This forum is for discussing and debating basketball and opinions related thereto. Part of that includes discussing the positions previously and currently taken by the posters themselves. If that isn't what we are doing, lets just recite boxscores and PER numbers.

This is part of the reason people leave, in my opinion. Public scoldings from certain admins appear to go one way only and often constitute overreaching, like we see in this thread.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Err, with Thomas and Khryapa, but yes, as I clearly acknowledged in my post, I fully expect the Bulls would have taken him at the 2. However, such things happen all the time. It's just the way it goes. I'm not saying it's unfair to compare him to #2 picks


Well, your prior posts seem to be spin then. They're clearly a misdirection of the point away from something we fundamentally agree on. 



> To address your second paragraph, I dispute that any "rule" exists whatsoever, so there is no need to call Thomas a "great exception."


You dispute that as a rule #2 picks that pan out seem to be pretty good pretty quickly?

Again, I'd like to see some support for this assertion. I think there's very little. I think rwj is right on the money when he says:



> I thought about doing this, but I don't see how it would be useful. Yes, on average top 5 draft picks tend to pan out immediately. But every player and every situation is so unique that *I doubt any study would have much predictive value outside the obvious conclusion: Tyrus is less likely to be a succesful NBA player because he had a poor rookie season.*


Maybe I'm putting words in his mouth, but I think his point is that the evidence isn't worth gathering because the results is so obvious. That is, Tyson will need to be the exception to the rule. The rule itself is so obvious it's not worth taking the time to prove water runs downhill one more time.



> The draft was viewed as mediocre to weak, from a talent perspective. While our even team-building approach is doing reasonably well, generally in the NBA transcendant stars win championships. Having none, it was a better idea to roll the dice and go for a guy who could be a phenomenal player rather than pick a guy who would merely be "solid."


That's perfectly reasonable, but the thing that's bothering me is that on one hand you're being accusatory of the other side in the argument for spin and misdirection, but at the same time I find your posts in this thread to be quite misdirective. The #2 vs. #4 issue above is a good example. I have little doubt we basically agree and think it's a fair point of comparison. So if that's the case, why are you talking around it?

I'd rather avoid that sort of jockeying for rhetorical position, which is really a non-issue, and simply discuss basketball from that point forward since we've established a framework which we both agree is a fair one to use for comparison.

Instead, I'm reading a bunch of talk about how the other side, since they don't agree with you, must have some negative motivation. 

But the real issue is that it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the view you're taking. So if it's reasonable to disagree, then it's unreasonable to be going down that other road.

You know... it's possible to agree with all of that and still simply conclude the wrong choice was made on the particular player. That is, it's possible, of course, that the general wisdom (which I think just mimics Pax's) about Tyrus' upside and Aldridge's upside were just plain wrong.

And it's also perfectly reasonable to suggest that within the context of the other changes the Bulls were making and looking at (as they'd already planned, it appears, on dumping Tyson) that getting a solid guy who could be of more immediate help started to make more sense. If the Bulls were going or win-later, perhaps swinging for the fences made sense. If they're going for win-now, perhaps taking the guy who could help now made better sense.



> Could this blow up in our faces? Sure. But it absolutely rankles me that many of those who criticize Paxson


See... the thing is it's perfectly reasonable and consistent to hold those views...



> eight days a week for being too conservative are now the very same people who are ripping him for taking a chance on a less jibby guy with oodles of raw ability but who is not a four year college player, outstanding citizen, and "solid" contributor.


... even when the circumstances change. It's perfectly reasonable to say, for example, let's take a chance on a guy when it appears our best years are ahead of us, and then criticize that move when you switch boats in the middle of the pond and acquire older players.

I don't see any reason to be "rankled" by that. You might disagree with that view, but it's certainly a reasonable, consistent view to take.

It's also a reasonable, consistent view to say that maybe the Bulls need to take a chance on a guy, but to look at Tyrus and say he's the wrong guy to take a chance on. From what I can tell, Dabullz, who I can only assume you're talking about in large measure, was advocating against Tyrus before the draft. 

I was a big advocate for him, and still am, but Dabullz view is perfectly reasonable. I'm galled to say at this point I'm slightly disappointed in TT and he might be right. But I don't see any reason to go after him because at this point he looks more right and I look less.

If you disagree, that's fine, but the whole point seems to be arguing the basketball side of it without managing to get personally offended, rankled, or whatever (to the extent you start diatribing against that other person) because other people don't see it your way.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> And to add: I think Mike should lay off Jeremy, who is an excellent poster and most definitely has been addressing basketball in the context of past and current discussion on this board. This forum is for discussing and debating basketball and opinions related thereto. Part of that includes discussing the positions previously and currently taken by the posters themselves. If that isn't what we are doing, lets just recite boxscores and PER numbers.


I agree that Jeremy is an excellent poster and I don't want him to leave.

But there's a lot more to discuss than box scores without going down the whole "Poster X is a mean old hypocrite" line. As I tried to point out in the post above, the opposing sides both have perfectly reasonable views here. Within that context, all the digression about posters is pretty well distracting to that fact and a perfectly reasonable debate on the issues.

Which, you know, is the actual fun part of things... talking about basketball with smart people who disagree.



> This is part of the reason people leave, in my opinion. Public scoldings from certain admins appear to go one way only and often constitute overreaching, like we see in this thread.


And public scolding from certain other admins, mods and posters appear to go the other and are clearly a reason people leave. Haven't seen K4E around here in weeks. What we're trying to do here is have fun and talk about basketball. When people lose site of the fact that the whole point is that we need smart people on the other side of the debate to have a good debate (which is what happens when it degenerates into this nonsensical - because we're all bulls fans - discussion about people and their motivations), people need to get back on track. Simple as that.

Enough, I'm going to the dentist.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Thanks RoRo. One other thing to keep in mind when comparing the size of those 2, is that Tyrus was only 19 at the time, and most likely still growing...in fact I think he looks bigger (taller) now than he did closer to draft time. Aldridge was born July 19th, 1985, so most likely done growing at nearly 21 years of age. Tyrus was born August 17, 1986, so over a year younger and at 19 probably still growing.




The Blazers strength and conitioning coach said in some story that Aldridge had grown an inch since joining the team and is close to 7'. He has also put on 20lbs of muscle. and now weighs a ligit 250. Probably more now because this was earlier in the year


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> I agree that Jeremy is an excellent poster and I don't want him to leave.
> 
> But there's a lot more to discuss than box scores without going down the whole "Poster X is a mean old hypocrite" line. As I tried to point out in the post above, the opposing sides both have perfectly reasonable views here. Within that context, all the digression about posters is pretty well distracting to that fact and a perfectly reasonable debate on the issues.
> 
> ...


Tsk, tsk. You can't completely segregate the poster from the post in all circumsances. The folks who participate here aren't robots. 

We should avoid bait and offensive personal insults. "Tsk tsk" isn't bait? Please be mindful of it yourself. Thanks. Calling someone on their own expressed opinions, and the weaknesses and inconsistencies of those opinions, is a large component of debate regardless of the topic of discussion. 

And, for the record since you mentioned someone by name, several posters have an established pattern of disappearing when the team is winning.

I've yet to see you even-handedly scold posters, publicly, with your self-righteous diatribes. I suggest you either give that a try, or show more reluctance with your trigger finger. Because Jeremy did not go over the line in this thread. And if you did think there was a subtle problem, perhaps you could have contacted him via PM instead of what you did here.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I can think of two pined-for former Chicago Bulls that took a little while to pan out.


Curry and Chandler never had a season during which they turned the ball over as often as Tyrus has, or fouled at a rate comparable to Tyrus' rate. I don't have anything definitive, but there is basically only one other PF in NBA history that was similarly bad in those areas in his rookie season - Shawn Kemp - that became a good/great player. 



> I don't understand why we are discussing whether or not raw, inexperience, athletically elite players can improve and realize their potential. It has happened many, many times at many, many draft positions.


I had previously assumed that Tyrus' turnover and foul issues were rookie mistakes and nothing more. That guys like Curry, Chandler, Kwame Brown, Josh Smith, Kirilenko and other eventually successful players were never as bad in those categories in their first 3 seasons gives me pause. 

Samuel Dalembert, Andres Biedrins, and Robert Swift were very foul prone and improved, though they were still not as turnover-prone as Tyrus. Still, Tyrus' fouling and turnover rates are more typical of guys like Jerome Moiso -- guys who were out of the league after 5 years. 

Statistical history predicts that Tyrus will never become a great PF. I think Bulls fans might need to lower their expectations and hope he can become as good as Josh Smith.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Well, your prior posts seem to be spin then. They're clearly a misdirection of the point away from something we fundamentally agree on.


It's not misdirection to point out that someone picked in the #4 slot is the #4 pick when he is repeatedly referred to as the #2 pick. The fact that he easily could have been the #2 pick is certainly relevant, but it doesn't make him _the actual #2 pick_. Sheesh. The idea that stating a plain fact is spin is mystifying to me.



MikeDC said:


> You dispute that as a rule #2 picks that pan out seem to be pretty good pretty quickly?


No, I disagree that there's a rule that if you pick a guy at #2 and he doesn't have a stellar rookie season that he can't turn into a very good basketball player.




MikeDC said:


> That's perfectly reasonable, but the thing that's bothering me is that on one hand you're being accusatory of the other side in the argument for spin and misdirection, but at the same time I find your posts in this thread to be quite misdirective. The #2 vs. #4 issue above is a good example. I have little doubt we basically agree and think it's a fair point of comparison. So if that's the case, why are you talking around it?


I'm talking about it merely to correct something that is repeatedly asserted as fact that is, actually, untrue. I certainly might be guilty of nit-picking in this regard.



MikeDC said:


> I'd rather avoid that sort of jockeying for rhetorical position, which is really a non-issue, and simply discuss basketball from that point forward since we've established a framework which we both agree is a fair one to use for comparison.


I think that's what I, and others, are trying to do. Why we ended up being called out for it, I don't fully understand.



MikeDC said:


> Instead, I'm reading a bunch of talk about how the other side, since they don't agree with you, must have some negative motivation.


You're not reading that from me. Ron did say that, but please don't attribute those comments to me. I do think that it shows bias, but most of around here probably have a bias one way or the other that is consistent with our Bulls' philosophy.



MikeDC said:


> But the real issue is that it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the view you're taking. So if it's reasonable to disagree, then it's unreasonable to be going down that other road.


Of course it's reasonable to disagree. But that's not happening here. This whole debacle started when I said to DB "You once said you'd seen enough to know TT wouldn't pan out. Do you still agree with that statement?" Instead of saying "Yes, I do" or "No, I don't" or "Maybe," etc., he said "I didn't say that and I encourage you to find a post where I did." So, being that I seemed to remember him taking this position, I looked for the posts. I believe I found them, too. I was encouraged to go on that fishing expedition and it seemed the only way to get to the point where we could talk about TT's developmental future.



MikeDC said:


> You know... it's possible to agree with all of that and still simply conclude the wrong choice was made on the particular player. That is, it's possible, of course, that the general wisdom (which I think just mimics Pax's) about Tyrus' upside and Aldridge's upside were just plain wrong.


Of course. Agreed entirely.



MikeDC said:


> And it's also perfectly reasonable to suggest that within the context of the other changes the Bulls were making and looking at (as they'd already planned, it appears, on dumping Tyson) that getting a solid guy who could be of more immediate help started to make more sense. If the Bulls were going or win-later, perhaps swinging for the fences made sense. If they're going for win-now, perhaps taking the guy who could help now made better sense.


I agree, though I don't always agree with the win-now/win-later dichotomy that gets set up, as you and I have discussed previously.




MikeDC said:


> See... the thing is it's perfectly reasonable and consistent to hold those views...
> 
> ... even when the circumstances change. It's perfectly reasonable to say, for example, let's take a chance on a guy when it appears our best years are ahead of us, and then criticize that move when you switch boats in the middle of the pond and acquire older players.


I agree. Is that what's happened here?



MikeDC said:


> I don't see any reason to be "rankled" by that. You might disagree with that view, but it's certainly a reasonable, consistent view to take.


I think I can be ranked by whatever I like. This is a debate I can't engage in without context, however. I agree that in some situations such a position could be reasonable and consistent and in others it would not be.



MikeDC said:


> It's also a reasonable, consistent view to say that maybe the Bulls need to take a chance on a guy, but to look at Tyrus and say he's the wrong guy to take a chance on. From what I can tell, Dabullz, who I can only assume you're talking about in large measure, was advocating against Tyrus before the draft.


It's not who I'm talking about. I think it was my mistake to bring up that point during a debate with DB, because I am not attributing this particular complaint to him. I know he's been against Tyrus since day 1. This is my fault for mixing up a couple of different points in the course of this discussion.



MikeDC said:


> I was a big advocate for him, and still am, but Dabullz view is perfectly reasonable. I'm galled to say at this point I'm slightly disappointed in TT and he might be right. But I don't see any reason to go after him because at this point he looks more right and I look less.


The way I see it, TT has been making very good strides the last couple of months. My entire point here was to ask DaBullz, since he very early on in the season had essentially said "TT will be ERob," whether he still agreed with that position based on TT's improved play of late. He can be encouraged, discouraged, or none of the above regarding whether the past couple of months of TT's play. However, rather than discussing the question I asked, he disputed my representation of his past position.

Being able to understand another poster's position is essential on this board. The idea that you are calling people out for doing so is puzzling. Each post is not some individual animal written by completely anonymous users. If so, then why have a screenname? People's past posts and past positions are relevant. If I didn't learn people's personalities and understand where they are coming from, then this board would be less enjoyable. It's perfectly fair of me to summarize someone's past position and ask if they still agree with it. If that person says they never took that position in the first place, then I think it opens it up to an examination of whether or not that's true. 



MikeDC said:


> If you disagree, that's fine, but the whole point seems to be arguing the basketball side of it without managing to get personally offended, rankled, or whatever (to the extent you start diatribing against that other person) because other people don't see it your way.


This is off-base entirely. First, I think people are entitled to whatever their personal reactions are. What matters is how they post. But the idea that I'm "diatribing" against someone because they disagree with me is just patently false. I disagree with the representation that my posts constitute a "diatribe" and I disagree with the representation that they are motivated because DaBullz disagrees with me on the prospects of TT. That was the debate I was _trying_ to have, but instead, I got accusations of lying, spinning, etc. That I attempted to defend my position after that shouldn't be of any great surprise.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

K4E posted just a couple of days ago.

I think his general absence of late is attributable to:

1. There is nothing going on in the topics being discussed that generates interest in the fairly narrow band of topics he likes to post about

and

2. As Ron points out, there are posters who tend to disappear when things are going well. He tends to be one of those -- its happened in the past.

I hope he'll be back when he's ready. I'm pretty sure he will. Nothing was going on when he disappeared that would lead me to believe he left in a huff. I've double checked that.

On the other hand, we have had recent instances of posters complaining and/or announcing their departure because they felt that the "negative" posters bludgeoned to death any post that hinted at positive thinking and belittled any poster who dared say something nice about the team, making "positive" posters feel like they must be suckers.

Mike, I hope your dentist appointment went well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

We had a discussion in the moderator forum about how misrepresenting other posters' positions is a form of bait. Keep that in mind, Jnrjr97.

We went into the draft with the #2 pick. We didn't trade down in a way we'd pass on the guy we want in exchange for future considerations as part of a deal for a guy (or guys) who are of real help to the team. As I see it, we used the #2 pick to get Thomas and we'd have used the #2 pick on Thomas even if Portland wasn't willing to move up to get Aldridge. 

The use of the #2 pick on Thomas was a bad idea. That is my position in a nutshell. It is absolutely consistent with my recent and past posts. 4 of the top 5 picks were better players (and I'd argue Thomas is 9th best among the top 9 picks) and more importantly, those 4 filled our position of need.

There's DC's point about bringing in Wallace (and PJ Brown), two older guys, to help us win now. This relates to my primary point: we wasted the #2 pick on Thomas. And he was a fan of the Thomas pick.

You want to know if I still think Thomas is ERob part deux? Yep.

For every sportscenter highlight of Thomas making a block, there was one of ERob passing to himself off the backboard on a fast break for a spectacular dunk. That's what athleticism gives both players. In spite of what you perceive as Thomas' good play lately (like 1-8 shooting against Portland, I suppose), Thomas is still not as good as ERob was.

That's the REALITY of the situation. The now of it. 

A secondary issue is whether Thomas may somehow develop into Shawn Kemp part deux. This is the crystal ball part, the future of it. Nobody knows for sure, but...

I did the exercise of looking at the #2 picks in history in the very thread you linked to, as has rwj333 and we both came to the same conclusion: History is not on our side. 

Then there's the nuance thing (which supposedly I don't see - insult or bait?). I saw Kobe as a rookie and had zero doubt he was going to be a stellar player. I saw Deng as a skilled rookie player at 19 and said he would be to the SF position for us what Brand was at the PF position. I see Thomas as a rookie and I don't see basketball skills to give me that kind of confidence. Does this mean that Thomas won't be Kemp part deux? No, and I've said that repeatedly, but you call that a hedge or something. 

Cey really made my point on this aspect - it took Curry and Chandler a while to develop. OK, so be it. Say it takes Thomas a while, too - that's a Reasonable expectation because we have history and experience to draw from. Forget that it took the "change of scenery" bit for them to really come into their own. So how long? That's the key question. If it takes Thomas as long as it took those 2 Cs, Hinrich will be 31 years old, Gordon 30, Wallace retired, etc. I've been consistent in saying that, too. Then there's that 3rd C, who was about the same age and experience level as Thomas when we drafted him. How'd he turn out? How long did that take?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> We had a discussion in the moderator forum about how misrepresenting other posters' positions is a form of bait. Keep that in mind, Jnrjr97.


_Intentionally_ misrepresenting someone else's position is bait. The fact of the matter is that I remembered you saying something months ago and asked if you still agreed with the position. Considering I was posting from memory, and considering how consistent the posts I cited were with my assertion, I don't think this particular warning has merit. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but rather just have a discussion on TT.




DaBullz said:


> For every sportscenter highlight of Thomas making a block, there was one of ERob passing to himself off the backboard on a fast break for a spectacular dunk. That's what athleticism gives both players. In spite of what you perceive as Thomas' good play lately (like 1-8 shooting against Portland, I suppose), Thomas is still not as good as ERob was.
> 
> That's the REALITY of the situation. The now of it.


Nice zing about the 1-8 shooting night. Yep, that's what I was talking about. Wasn't that awesome?!? Do you really "suppose" that's what I was referring to? I don't think you do. In fact, that is the kind of intentional misrepresentation you just warned me about.

I think the differences between Thomas and ERob are easily perceptible. ERob was perceived as a lazy, practice-hating guy who was able to float by based purely on athletic ability. Tyrus seems to work hard. He's got a fire in him that is immediately visible that ERob was clearly lacking. I think that this desire to play hard and improve is what ultimately will set Tyrus apart from a guy who, in my opinion, merely coasted once he got a nice contract. Oh, and I've never seen Tyrus in a Cosby sweater. :biggrin:



DaBullz said:


> A secondary issue is whether Thomas may somehow develop into Shawn Kemp part deux. This is the crystal ball part, the future of it. Nobody knows for sure, but...
> 
> I did the exercise of looking at the #2 picks in history in the very thread you linked to, as has rwj333 and we both came to the same conclusion: History is not on our side.


This is the point I wanted to discuss more in substance. I don't think that past analysis will prove that applicable in this case. First, I don't feel his draft position is highly relevant. What would TT be in this draft? His #4/#2 position last year was largely attributable to the weakness of the draft. Nevertheless, the analysts on draft telecast were adamant about TT having the best chance at being a star. Clearly, Paxson wasn't the only person making this assessment. 

The fact of the matter is that TT was raw. Perhaps you feel he should have transcended this rawness more quickly than he has. Maybe that's true. In sum, I understand your criticism of the pick because you believe it wasn't a "win now" move. I just disagree with the idea that it's going to take TT 5 years to become an effective player or that he won't ultimately become one at all. From what I see, assuming no major roster changes, he's our starting 4 next year. I'd frankly be comfortable with starting him over PJ right now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Maybe TT should start. That speaks to the weakness of our frontcourt depth as much as the weak draft argument does for picking Thomas at #2.

Aside from the "win now" aspect of use of the #2 pick, there's also the notions that we might not get a #2 pick again for a long time. There's also a difference between being less conservative and betting your house on a risky proposition.

The 1-8 comment is entirely indicitive of how Thomas isn't somehow playing better recently. He's terribly inconsistent to the point of being flaky.

Though I do agree with you that Thomas at least has the kind of fire that Chandler had (beat his chest after a putback dunk kind of thing) where ERob at some point became content to collect his paycheck.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

:sigh:


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We had a discussion in the moderator forum about how misrepresenting other posters' positions is a form of bait. Keep that in mind, Jnrjr97.
> 
> We went into the draft with the #2 pick. We didn't trade down in a way we'd pass on the guy we want in exchange for future considerations as part of a deal for a guy (or guys) who are of real help to the team. As I see it, we used the #2 pick to get Thomas and we'd have used the #2 pick on Thomas even if Portland wasn't willing to move up to get Aldridge.
> 
> ...


Congratulations. Correct on all points. Clearly, the use of the #2 pick on Thomas was a bad idea. 

The irony of the situation is that the Bulls spent megabucks to bring in a veteran (Wallace) to help them win right now. They then dumped Chandler for peanuts because his obvious run/jump skills were not translating into smart play (i.e. turnovers, fouls) and presumably wins now. Then they spend a precious #2 pick on a run/jump athlete who is the 2006 draft's poster boy for turnovers and fouls.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not perfect but I try hard to be civil on this board and *I think I succeed almost all of the time* so I'm pretty perplexed that I'm suddenly being treated as some sort of instigator.


Yeah, you "stay within the lines" very well. I'll add my vote to those who consider you an excellent poster.

I'm surprised this post has gotten this much run, particularly when there's another similar thread running. Then again, I've been surprised before.

Aldridge is the better player right now. Brandon Roy ("My Guy!") is better still. 

Whether or not you're disappointed in Thomas depends on what you expected. I didn't like the pick much and expected very little from Thomas this season. I think he's coming along very well and is beginning to exceed my rookie season expectations. I've become a fan.

As for drawing conclusions about the success or failure of draft picks based on their rookie season performance, that's just silly.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't understand what this is all about.

The Bulls went in to this with eyes wide open. TT was not my preference --I'd have rather had either one of Roy or Aldridge, but that is beside the point. All three have their plusses and minuses. Ther is no doubt that Roy and Aldridge are both players who would have been more ready to contribute right away.

However, with TT the selling point was his eventual development. EVERYONE knew coming in that he was raw and unskilled. An amazing athlete who had a lot to learn about playing basketball.

It should not be a surprise to anyone that he has not been a huge contributer to date in his rookie season.

The Bulls bet on "down the road" with this one and it remans to be seen whether that was wise or not. He has a TON to learn and the Bulls bet big that he can and will learn. 

I remain hopeful that they were correct. He does show glimpses of greatness. God willing, that will turn into the norm of things as he develops and learns. God willing.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Clearly, the use of the #2 pick on Thomas was a bad idea.
> 
> The irony of the situation is that the Bulls spent megabucks to bring in a veteran (Wallace) to help them win right now. They then dumped Chandler for peanuts because his obvious run/jump skills were not translating into smart play (i.e. turnovers, fouls) and presumably wins now. Then they spend a precious #2 pick on a run/jump athlete who is the 2006 draft's poster boy for turnovers and fouls.


this is obviously an opinion that the bull as an organization *doesn't* share. i'm not going to get into another chandler discussion because i was a huge supporter up until last season when his golden opportunity to be "the man" was there and he pissed it away, lamenting his relationship with skiles as a contributing factor to his ineffectiveness.

and like it or not, wallace's acquisition was a move forward, not a win at all costs move, or "win now" as is so constantly repeated on this forum, semantics aside. thomas learning under wallace is a good thing, i can't say the same had chandler still been on board.

further, the current regime didn't assess chandler's makeup as a precursor for future success and as such (using the track record of current players as a barometer); had they done so, brand likely would still be a bull. however, pax and co. evaluated thomas as having the potential (physically and mentally) to be not only a "good" player, but a star. 

i'm willing to give thomas a year or so beyond this rookie season (in which he's already shown an inherent aggressiveness, good instincts, and playmaking ability, things that, in general, the team lacked) aside from his erratic rookie play, i'm confident he's going to evolve into a fine pro, akin to kenyon martin on the low end and amare stoudamire on the high.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> As for drawing conclusions about the success or failure of draft picks based on their rookie season performance, that's just silly.


What do you think of the Duhon pick? 2nd rounder, and a quite decent rookie season. Shouldn't those things count for something?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> From what I see, assuming no major roster changes, he's our starting 4 next year. I'd frankly be comfortable with starting him over PJ right now.


The problem is that if you start Tyrus, probably 50% of the time (at least) he is going to be on the bench with two extremely quick fouls. NBA teams are pretty ruthless about scouting matchups, and there will be lots of ridiculously hard one-on-one matchups for Tyrus at the 4.

I see him coming off the bench again next season. And maybe even longer than that if Skiles is still the coach. 

I am happy the Bulls have Thomas instead of Aldridge, fwiw. But I think this is a vitally important off-season for Thomas's development -- not physical stuff, learning-the-game stuff. Coming off the bench or not, if he doesn't hit the ground really quickly next year, I think you have to lower his ceiling accordingly.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I don't understand what this is all about.
> 
> The Bulls went in to this with eyes wide open. TT was not my preference --I'd have rather had either one of Roy or Aldridge, but that is beside the point. All three have their plusses and minuses. Ther is no doubt that Roy and Aldridge are both players who would have been more ready to contribute right away.
> 
> ...


The key is that even by the "raw and unskilled" rookie season standards set by Kwame, Curry, and Chandler, Thomas has been much worse. All four players had nice per 40 minute stats, but Thomas' turnover ratio is 21.1 -- he turns the ball over once every 5 times he touches it. He fouls at a rate of 7.5 times per 40 minutes. I'm repeating myself, I know. 

Those numbers are basically unprecedented in that I haven't found a current successful PF who was as bad as Tyrus is. Especially one with Tyrus' height and build. However, there have been plenty of busts with statlines identical to Thomas'.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> What do you think of the Duhon pick? 2nd rounder, and a quite decent rookie season. Shouldn't those things count for something?


if i'm understanding this post correctly, i'd say duhon is an obvious exception; and probably one the team wasn't expecting, either. 2nd round successes are fewer and farther between. however, there'd have been ZERO backlash had duhon flopped.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> if i'm understanding this post correctly, i'd say duhon is an obvious exception; and probably one the team wasn't expecting, either. 2nd round successes are fewer and farther between. however, there'd have been ZERO backlash had duhon flopped.


How about Gordon at #3, Deng at #7, Hinrich at #7?

That's 3 lotto picks.

You got the post correctly. When you consider Duhon as a 2nd rounder and his performance, it was a downright awesome pick. The Gordon/Deng/Hinrich question might bring the backlash question into play.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> The key is that even by the "raw and unskilled" rookie season standards set by Kwame, Curry, and Chandler, Thomas has been much worse. All four players had nice per 40 minute stats, but Thomas' turnover ratio is 21.1 -- he turns the ball over once every 5 times he touches it. He fouls at a rate of 7.5 times per 40 minutes. I'm repeating myself, I know.
> 
> Those numbers are basically unprecedented in that I haven't found a current successful PF who was as bad as Tyrus is. Especially one with Tyrus' height and build. However, there have been plenty of busts with statlines identical to Thomas'.


Excellent post, rwj. I'm willing to give TT a little more time to have an "a-ha" moment and put it together, but imo, if it doesn't happen real soon, it isn't going to happen and the comparisons need to be more along the lines of "a more athletic Bo Outlaw" than "a 6-8 Amare Stoudemire".


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> but imo, if it doesn't happen real soon, it isn't going to happen and the comparisons need to be more along the lines of "a more athletic Bo Outlaw" than "a 6-8 Amare Stoudemire".


real soon? like the eddy curry/tyson chandler "real soon"? :biggrin:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

The public argument in this thread is unfortunate, but I think everyone who's participated has a perfectly reasonable argument.

DaBullz has been perfectly consistent on these types of matters since I've been posting here. When 90% of BullsNation was euphoric over the Bulls' encouraging finish to the 02-03 season and predicting greatness for next season, DaBullz looked at the 3Cs and saw that they didn't actually have particularly good seasons on the whole and still had a ways to go. He came closest to predicting the disaster that happened the next season. It's been his general MO that he sees players as they are today and not what they might be some day. I'm not saying that's right or wrong or anything, but that's how he tends to view things (DB, please feel free to correct me if you disagree with my characterization).

I'm of the mind that the Bulls' thought process on draft day was this: "Tyrus is raw and we'll have to be patient with him, but we think it'll pay off and he'll be special. Aldridge is less raw and probably more ready to step in and play, but will he ever be a difference maker? They probably didn't think so. Roy is fantastic and if we needed a guard as badly as we need frontcourt help, we'd take him in a heartbeat...but we're in pretty good shape there with Kirk/Ben/Du, and we think we can get a tall guard with the next pick."

So yeah, Aldridge was more of a win-now pick and I think the Bulls management would have admitted as much. But I don't think they saw Aldridge as being good enough, now or ever, to make us a contender. I think they saw that chance with Tyrus and went for it. As of right now, it looks to me like they underestimated Aldridge. But that's about all I think they got wrong. Tyrus was as raw as advertised, but I think he's coming along. Aldridge is surely benefitting from the fact that Portland has nothing to lose by playing him, but he's stepping up and playing really really well. And Roy is just an all-around good player like everyone thought.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> real soon? like the eddy curry/tyson chandler "real soon"? :biggrin:


You should probably re-read rwj's posts before busting out this old chestnut.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> The problem is that if you start Tyrus, probably 50% of the time (at least) he is going to be on the bench with two extremely quick fouls. NBA teams are pretty ruthless about scouting matchups, and there will be lots of ridiculously hard one-on-one matchups for Tyrus at the 4.
> 
> I see him coming off the bench again next season. And maybe even longer than that if Skiles is still the coach.


I'm with you here. I think quick foul trouble may well be the biggest concern. I just don't see anyone on our roster, presently constructed, who should be starting in front of him right now, assuming PJ is a goner (or even if he isn't, really). I suppose they could have Nocioni starting at the 4, but then that brings up the bench scoring problems that have presented themselves in the past. I'd prefer to see Nocioni be the 3/4 supersub who can come off the bench for either Deng or Tyrus, depending who needs to grab some pine at that given moment, and depending on defensive matchups.

Do you think someone currently on the roster will start in front of him? I know Skiles certainly wouldn't be shy to do it, but I just don't know who it would be? Or, do you think there's a decent chance that a free agent, draft pick, or player acquired by trade will be the starter?


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Excellent post, rwj. I'm willing to give TT a little more time to have an "a-ha" moment and put it together, but imo, if it doesn't happen real soon, it isn't going to happen and the comparisons need to be more along the lines of "a more athletic Bo Outlaw" than "a 6-8 Amare Stoudemire".


yep, i think tyrus needs to establish some sort of track record.
to me it's good to know things like points/rebs/fg%/fta/ft% are trending upwards.

but indeed, one or two more years of constant fouling and turnovers would be a bad sign.
So is time to start hitting the panic button? not really, consider Luol.

Deng's numbers actually get worse over the course of his rookie year.
He started november at 14.9 ppg and finished the year at 6.5.
His rebounding decreased, fg% and ft% dropped. not very encouraging signs.
I can imagine some people arguing that he has peaked already and it's time to try out another sf.

Top it off with the wrist injury and the whole "injury plagued" label.
A skinny guy like that is lucky he didn't get broken in two. 

Crazy how a much a guy can improve in two years.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm with you here. I think quick foul trouble may well be the biggest concern. I just don't see anyone on our roster, presently constructed, who should be starting in front of him right now, assuming PJ is a goner (or even if he isn't, really). I suppose they could have Nocioni starting at the 4, but then that brings up the bench scoring problems that have presented themselves in the past. I'd prefer to see Nocioni be the 3/4 supersub who can come off the bench for either Deng or Tyrus, depending who needs to grab some pine at that given moment, and depending on defensive matchups.
> 
> Do you think someone currently on the roster will start in front of him? I know Skiles certainly wouldn't be shy to do it, but I just don't know who it would be? Or, do you think there's a decent chance that a free agent, draft pick, or player acquired by trade will be the starter?


I know you didn't ask me specifically, but... Skiles does play 3 guards a lot. So, Du/Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Wallace still gives you Thabo and Noc on the bench. Not saying this is what I'd do, but it's an option to consider.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

RoRo said:


> yep, i think tyrus needs to establish some sort of track record.
> to me it's good to know things like points/rebs/fg%/fta/ft% are trending upwards.
> 
> but indeed, one or two more years of constant fouling and turnovers would be a bad sign.
> ...



That's an interesting counterpoint.

I think it's safe to say that there's no algorithm for determining how players will develop relative to their draft position, etc. But it's still fun to speculate and discuss.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> What do you think of the Duhon pick? 2nd rounder, and a quite decent rookie season. Shouldn't those things count for something?


You've got me on that one...whenever a second round pick is still on your team for year 2, it's either a great pick or you're a very bad team.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

RoRo said:


> yep, i think tyrus needs to establish some sort of track record.
> to me it's good to know things like points/rebs/fg%/fta/ft% are trending upwards.
> 
> but indeed, one or two more years of constant fouling and turnovers would be a bad sign.
> ...


I'm not sure Deng is a good analog, though. He didn't struggle anywhere even close to the extent that Thomas has.

He came in right away, was a starter and a pretty key guy on a playoff-caliber team. His minute-adjusted numbers were very similar his rookie year to what they are now (the fg% being a big exception). Yes, he's taken a leap, but did you ever doubt his ability to play 40 mpg? I didn't.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I know you didn't ask me specifically, but... Skiles does play 3 guards a lot. So, Du/Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Wallace still gives you Thabo and Noc on the bench. Not saying this is what I'd do, but it's an option to consider.


The floor is definitely open to all.

I agree that Skiles does run a lot of 3 guard lineups, with varying degrees of effectiveness. Have we seen him start a 3 guard lineup yet (in a non-covering for injury context)? I honestly can't remember. 

If TT hasn't gotten to the point where he can start next year and no other adequate 4 has been acquired who can, that would be highly upsetting. I see the 3 guard lineup as something you want to use sparingly depending on situation/matchups, rather than having it be your starting 5.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm with you here. I think quick foul trouble may well be the biggest concern. I just don't see anyone on our roster, presently constructed, who should be starting in front of him right now, assuming PJ is a goner (or even if he isn't, really). I suppose they could have Nocioni starting at the 4, but then that brings up the bench scoring problems that have presented themselves in the past. I'd prefer to see Nocioni be the 3/4 supersub who can come off the bench for either Deng or Tyrus, depending who needs to grab some pine at that given moment, and depending on defensive matchups.
> 
> Do you think someone currently on the roster will start in front of him? I know Skiles certainly wouldn't be shy to do it, but I just don't know who it would be? Or, do you think there's a decent chance that a free agent, draft pick, or player acquired by trade will be the starter?


It'll either be a new vet, Noce, or maybe even Malik Allen. I'm not suggesting the Bulls start one of the Matadors ahead of Thomas, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them cast pretty far down the NBA food chain, either. Just a guy who can hold down the fort for the first 3-4 minutes while the refs clean out the spit from their whistles and the game gets flowing. Anything to avoid that dreaded first possession where the opposition sets up an iso play for their 4.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> The key is that even by the "raw and unskilled" rookie season standards set by Kwame, Curry, and Chandler, Thomas has been much worse. All four players had nice per 40 minute stats, but Thomas' turnover ratio is 21.1 -- he turns the ball over once every 5 times he touches it. He fouls at a rate of 7.5 times per 40 minutes. I'm repeating myself, I know.
> 
> Those numbers are basically unprecedented in that I haven't found a current successful PF who was as bad as Tyrus is. Especially one with Tyrus' height and build. However, there have been plenty of busts with statlines identical to Thomas'.


Other than not working hard, having a bad attitude, or being physically violent, there isn't a single flaw (or flaws) that a rookie can display that I don't think can be significantly improved on over time if the rookie has talent. 

The rookie we are talking about has talent. 

Regardless, assuming his fouling and turnovers in the short term is something to be concerned about in the long term (which I dispute based on the sample size) - has he been trending one way or another as the season progressed?

I frankly don't know the answer and don't know how to easily check. Because perhaps his turnover and foul rates have been improving as the season has progressed? That would be somewhat encouraging. Or perhaps its gotten worse? Which would be somewhat discouraging.

Does anyone know the answer?


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

transplant said:


> You've got me on that one...whenever a second round pick is still on your team for year 2, it's either a great pick or you're a very bad team.


if we're talking 2nd round steals, i'm still hurting when i think Hassell over Arenas. Good thing we got the taller guard!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> It'll either be a new vet, Noce, or maybe even Malik Allen. I'm not suggesting the Bulls start one of the Matadors ahead of Thomas, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them cast pretty far down the NBA food chain, either. Just a guy who can hold down the fort for the first 3-4 minutes while the refs clean out the spit from their whistles and the game gets flowing. Anything to avoid that dreaded first possession where the opposition sets up an iso play for their 4.


You could well be right. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm rooting for Tyrus to play well enough that he becomes the starter next year within at least the first third of the season or so. I feel as though if he continues on at the rate he has for the rest of the season and works hard at learning the game during the off-season, he should do it. If he can't become a starter next season with our roster as presently constituted, I'd have developmental concerns, unless he a very excellent sixth man type.

Again, I'll reiterate my concern that the lack of a big man coach for him to work with could stunt his development in this regard. I just don't see why you don't hire a guy for this role when you're placing so much on the shoulders of this 19 year-old kid with such a raw skill set.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The rookie we are talking about has talent.


Physical talent? Out the wazoo. Enough for ten NBA players.

Basketball talent? . . . 

These are the dog days for me. I don't think the Bulls' playoff positioning matters one iota, and I'm still depressed over the failure to turn PJ Brown's contract into a player who could help us. All I really watch when I watch games is Tyrus Thomas. He is an uber-athlete who gives 100% all the time. I don't see much of a basketball player at all. What's worse is that he seems to be a classic 3-4 tweener -- not enough of a floor game to play outside, and probably too short/slight to be a full-time 4 in the NBA. 

I'm not saying he's a lost cause, by any means. But when I go with what my eyes are telling me and then see how poorly Tyrus's stats match up historically, it's time to downgrade expectations.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Other than not working hard, having a bad attitude, or being physically violent, there isn't a single flaw (or flaws) that a rookie can display that I don't think can be significantly improved on over time if the rookie has talent.
> 
> The rookie we are talking about has talent.
> 
> ...


Tyrus Thomas - Chicago Bulls - Split Statistics - NBA - Yahoo! Sports



everything seems to increase when the minutes go up, good and bad. The bad stuff (pf/to) are a legit concern, but something like that has to observed over a longer period of time i think.

some of the pf/to can be chalked up to trying to do too much. over penetrating for an offensive foul. 
trying to go coast to coast and getting stripped. 
trying to get drive by a guy, shuffle feet for a traveling.
forgetting you can't put an arm on a player on the perimeter.

these seem like easily correctable mental errors.
but that doesn't ease my concerns, because chandler has done this kind of stuff and has he really overcome some of his mental mistakes? but still he's found a way to be a top rebounder/shotblocker, so who knows really.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not sure Deng is a good analog, though. He didn't struggle anywhere even close to the extent that Thomas has.
> 
> He came in right away, was a starter and a pretty key guy on a playoff-caliber team. His minute-adjusted numbers were very similar his rookie year to what they are now (the fg% being a big exception). Yes, he's taken a leap, but did you ever doubt his ability to play 40 mpg? I didn't.


but i think his game is vastly different from his rookie year.
that alone means you can't take a rookie year as THE definitive indicator.

coming into the season the coaching staff wanted an increased role for Deng this year. They wanted him to increase his offensive production, but i think fans who haven't seen him working out belived he would still have to fall behind Gordan/Kirk/Noc in terms of contribution.

The majority came into this year expecting the main guys to be Gordon (to be a full time starter, and see what he can do in that role). or Kirk (to build upon his team USA honors). or even Noc (who put up ridiculous numbers vs Miami).

Even just last year Deng was more of 3pt shooter and poor finisher in the paint. I honestly had doubts about him being a scorer in the paint, whenever he went up for a dunk or layup he seemed to get blocked...badly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Again, I'll reiterate my concern that the lack of a big man coach for him to work with could stunt his development in this regard. I just don't see why you don't hire a guy for this role when you're placing so much on the shoulders of this 19 year-old kid with such a raw skill set.


I voiced the same concern re Curry and Chandler, and I was told over and over again that it was up to the player. 

I share your concern, though, and it seems to me that the Bulls should have at least taken that away from the Curry and Chandler experiment.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Rookie year statistics of notable PFs (with some other guys thrown in for fun). 


```
Pts/40   Rebs/40  TOs/40  TO-R/40  BLKS/40   PER      PFs/40   Mins/G
Tyrus Thomas          14.8     11.0     [B]4.3[/B]     [B]21.1[/B]      [B]3.5[/B]      [B]12.95[/B]    [B]7.3[/B]      [B]12.4[/B]
Eddy Curry            16.8      9.5     2.4     12.7      1.8      14.4     6.0      16.0      
Tyson Chandler        12.6      9.9     1.4     17.8      2.7      13.0     5.2      19.6
Kwame Brown           12.6      9.7     2.1     11.5      1.3      11.2     5.1      14.4
Shawn Kemp            18.8     12.4     3.8     17.1      2.5      15.9     7.3      13.8
Kevin Garnett         14.6      8.7     1.9     10.4      2.3      15.8     3.3      28.7
Dwight Howard         14.7     12.3     2.5     15.0      2.0      17.2     3.5      32.6
Antonio McDyess       17.9     10.0     2.7     12.7      2.0      15.6     4.4      30.0
Amare Stoudemire      17.2     11.2     2.9     14.4      1.4      16.2     4.2      31.3    
Stromile Swift        11.9      8.7     2.0     13.0      2.5      13.1     4.9      16.4
Josh Smith            14.0      8.9     2.6     13.9      2.8      15.4     3.1      27.7
Kenyon Martin         14.3      8.8     2.4     12.2      2.0      13.4     4.9      33.4
Luol Deng             17.1      7.7     2.8     12.2      0.6      14.2     2.4      27.3
```
So is Tyrus comparable to these guys production wise? Kinda- his points and rebounds and blocks and steals per 40 minutes (I forgot to include TS% and steals/40, sorry) look great on paper. But he's substantially behind in turnover rate, PFs/40 minutes, mins/g, and PER. I've posted before that his TO-rate and PFs/40 are ridiculously bad, so hopefully this post puts it in perspective.

Will he improve? Of course, but he has a lot of ground to make up if he wants to become a good/great player... his numbers so far are a lot closer to Josh Smith and Kenyon Martin than Shawn Kemp in my opinion.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

RoRo said:


> but i think his game is vastly different from his rookie year.
> that alone means you can't take a rookie year as THE definitive indicator.
> 
> coming into the season the coaching staff wanted an increased role for Deng this year. They wanted him to increase his offensive production, but i think fans who haven't seen him working out belived he would still have to fall behind Gordan/Kirk/Noc in terms of contribution.
> ...


I don't have time to transcribe them here, but you should visit 82games.com and look at Deng's "player stats" from the last three seasons. You will be astonished by how similar his profile is from season to season. 

imo Deng is the same guy he's always been, just better -- he just doesn't take three pointers anymore and he's refined the mid-range jumper. Still not a great playmaker, still an outstanding one-on-one defender. 

Thomas becoming "a 6-8 Amare Stoudemire" would require a pretty significant transformation, as rwj has pointed out. Not incremental.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, sorry, this is going to be a long, off-topic post about the general state of things, so if that just bores the hell out of you, keep scrolling. I'll get back to basketball in a minute....



JeremyB0001 said:


> His argument is that Tyrus is not better than P.J. because he's not starting ahead of P.J. By the same logic the fact that Duhon was starting earlier in the season and was not was an indictment of Ben Gordon. I'm not picking up the distinction. It's pretty difficult for me to understand your point when you just throw out one sentence to contradict something I've said without explaining your position.


I simply don't agree with you that that's what his point reduced to. I think, respectfully, you're straining a bit to put it into a simplistic framework that's easy to knock down (PJ vs. Tyrus/Ben vs. Chris) rather than making a real attempt to understand what he's getting at.  

To some extent everyone is guilty of doing things like this. And to some extent, it's a good thing to probe and try to figure out someone's underlying logic. But I'm just pointing out in this case i think things are getting carried rather far.



> I don't really understand what this is in reference to. I don't really know how to debate an issue with someone without engaging their position on things. I don't understand how to refute an argument without referring to the argument itself. If I'm not discussing basketball, I'm not sure what I've been discussing. In any event if a moderate volume of posting and engaging others positions is detracting from the board let me know and I'll regretably try to seek out some place else like so many other people apparently have.


Jeremy, I think you're a great poster and I think the board is a better place for having you here. But that being said, I want you to look at the progression of this thread and in particular your back and forth with Dabullz. 



> RC's post, I'm not really sure why you decided to take it up with me because I merely seconded what he said. It is extremely frustrating engage someone else's arguments and spend time discussing them to have them respond only by writing "spin" and completely refusing to address what you're saying.


I understand, but I want to point a couple things out. First, I thought it was in some way more accurate to address you because you had actually been going back and forth in the thread, whereas RC appeared mainly just to be popping in to take a shot at Dabullz. I think it's fair to engage you on that opinion because you adopted it yourself. If you adopt a position... to the extent that you go out of the way to affirmingly cite it, I think it's fair to address you on it.

Now, to the main point. I understand exactly why you'd be frustrated when someone dismisses your comment with a "spin" position. Gray area or not, it's not very productive or interesting to read.

But ok... here's where the sequence of communication is important. When did he make that comment to you?

When I look through this thread, what I see you first say:
"your unbelievable stubborness and willingness to slam Thomas suggests you're not being remotely open minded."

He makes a "fantasy" comment that was non-constructive.

Then I see you say:
"you don't have one iota of understanding about the incredibly wide ranging circumstances under which players become successful in the NBA."

Then I see the spin comment from Dabullz.

Do you see the point I'm getting at here?



> I'm not perfect but I try hard to be civil on this board and I think I succeed almost all of the time so I'm pretty perplexed that I'm suddenly being treated as some sort of instigator.


I agree that you're a very civil poster, but I hope you see, after looking a bit, from the comments above that in this case you probably did initiate a big chunk of the nastiness in the argument.

Perhaps you didn't like Dabullz' views leading up to it, but I think it's fair to say he wasn't directing any insults toward you. He appeared to me to be responding to the points you brought up, as well, though perhaps not to your satisfaction.

But we need to be civil. The purpose here isn't to drag you, Jeremy, out and "scold" you as an instigator. I don't think you are one. I think the course of this thread, and your responses, however, touched on an issue that needs to be discussed however. 

It's one thing for an argument to occur, but when it appears to be a whole series of posts and posters laying into another guy, that's different.

It's quite a bit more difficult for me to make these points now, as an admin, than it was years ago when I was a CM or a mod. Now these things come off as lectures, and I realize that can end up being counterproductive. I'm sorry for that, but I also think most of this stuff is worth throwing out there.

But I think it needs to be pointed out. Over the last couple years, I do see a negative change in the way people are addressed. It's a subtle thing, but it's a board-wide thing that should be discussed on a board-wide basis. I also think there's significant disagreement and that needs to be addressed publically.

I don't think even we admins agree over it and it's been a real source of friction. Look at TB#1's post above. I don't think he's beeing dishonest when he says he sees an environment where positive posters are allowed to be attacked and belittled if they have a positive outlook. But I see it pretty much the opposite, and I think this thread is a good example. There's a whole series of insults and misdirections of his argument directed at dabullz for bucking the orthodoxy and the popular view of things.

The truth, I think, isn't that only "positive" or "negative" commentary being targeted, but that people on both sides are simultaneously more thin-skinned and more willing to resort to "attack the poster" responses than in times past. Obviously there have always been heated arguments and people crossing the line and getting personal. No, we're not robots. But fundamentally there needs to be some recognition that we're all on the same side, we all like the same team, and in the end, "the latest outrage" of what "you know who" said really isn't the end of the world or just "too much to take" or whatever. 

Some perspective is in order. So who's got that perspective? Well, one example is Dabullz, who takes a huge amount of guff and is downright mild in giving it back. Especially as someone who runs the site. It's to his credit that he lets all of that stuff slide and really doesn't seem to care all that much. My supsicion is he's not all that happy that I'm pointing it out and making any issue of it because to him it's not a huge issue.

But I think it's important to point out because it's pretty hard to justify some of these arguments of bias when you see an admin allowing people to insult him at will... basically for the opinion he holds. Having been on many other boards, I know for a fact that this is not how things work in other places.

In other places, people in charge are pretty often motivated (whether they admit to it or not) to ban and run off people who they simply disagree with. Say what you want about us, but if anything we're excessively tolerant of people with different points of view, even when they often treat us like dog****.

Maybe there are some downsides to that, but I think on the whole it makes for a interesting, informative, free-ranging debate. It's part of what makes things tick around here. 

But to make that work I also think posters here need to be a little more tolerant here than they do at other places, because they're likely to be exposed to people with more radical disagreements and much more diferent points of view. I realize some people won't "get it", but in my experience people who are willing to relax and have a good time, and who see talking about the Bulls and basketball as fun usually do, and usually enjoy things.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I voiced the same concern re Curry and Chandler, and I was told over and over again that it was up to the player.
> 
> I share your concern, though, and it seems to me that the Bulls should have at least taken that away from the Curry and Chandler experiment.


Agreed. It's one thing to make that mistake the first time around. It only compounds the absurdity to not learn from the mistake.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Physical talent? Out the wazoo. Enough for ten NBA players.
> 
> Basketball talent? . . .


Yes, I think he has basketball talent. I don't think he'll ever have a complete array of skills like a Luol Deng. But I do think he'll be skilled enough to excell with his athleticism.

If you do a "basketball talent" line highlighting a few random players from that perspective from least to most, mine would go something like this.

Bo Outlaw. Tyson Chandler. Kenyon Martin. Tyrus Thomas. Shawn Marion. Luol Deng. LeBron James.

Bo Outlaw has no "basketball talent." Tyson Chandler has very little. Luol Deng has a lot. And LeBron James is off the charts. The middle three are variations on the same level of basketball talent, even though their individual talents might not match perfectly (Marion can shoot, but can't block shots like Martin or Thomas, for example).



> These are the dog days for me. I don't think the Bulls' playoff positioning matters one iota, and I'm still depressed over the failure to turn PJ Brown's contract into a player who could help us.


I don't think playoff positioning matters a lot, because the Bulls are the type of team that could literally win the East or be sent packing in round 1, but it matters some. 

Agreed about PJ. That whole thing went to ****. At least he appears to be playing better as the season goes on. 



> All I really watch when I watch games is Tyrus Thomas. He is an uber-athlete who gives 100% all the time. I don't see much of a basketball player at all. What's worse is that he seems to be a classic 3-4 tweener -- not enough of a floor game to play outside, and probably too short/slight to be a full-time 4 in the NBA.


See above. I don't really agree. He appears to have a good handle (why he is criticized by some - not necessarily you - for having no ball handling skills boggles my mind), very good defensive instincts (not just shot blocking), and decent court vision. And at LSU and in summer league, his shot looked more fluid than it does right now. I don't know whats up with that, but I think he'll gradually develop a semi-reliable jumper out to 16 feet. It isn't uncommon at all for big men to increase their range. 



> I'm not saying he's a lost cause, by any means. But when I go with what my eyes are telling me and then see how poorly Tyrus's stats match up historically, it's time to downgrade expectations.


I guess it depends on what the expectation is. I don't think I've ever likened him to Amare in the sense that he'll ever actually be that good. I do think he can, and will, develop into a better version of Kenyon Martin.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> See above. I don't really agree. He appears to have a good handle (why he is criticized by some - not necessarily you - for having no ball handling skills boggles my mind), very good defensive instincts (not just shot blocking), and decent court vision. And at LSU and in summer league, his shot looked more fluid than it does right now. I don't know whats up with that, but I think he'll gradually develop a semi-reliable jumper out to 16 feet. It isn't uncommon at all for big men to increase their range.


I think Tyrus has a solid handle for a 4, but a bad handle for a 3, and in either case, his handle is probably the least consequential part of his game.

But speaking of mind-boggling, I think it's pretty mind-boggling to project a .185 eFG% jump shooter (that is not a typo) to develop a semi-reliable jump shot!



> I guess it depends on what the expectation is. I don't think I've ever likened him to Amare in the sense that he'll ever actually be that good. I do think he can, and will, develop into a better version of Kenyon Martin.


That's a reasonable bar to set. Then the meaningful question becomes, does he manage to reach that level before Ben Wallace rides off into the sunset?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> But speaking of mind-boggling, I think it's pretty mind-boggling to project a .185 eFG% jump shooter (that is not a typo) to develop a semi-reliable jump shot!


Well, I certainly don't think he's going to develop it in time for the Cavs game on Saturday. :biggrin: 

But I think he has the tools to get it done. By semi-reliable, I mean that he'll be able to hit a 15 footer with his feet set if a defense sags off and gives him that shot. 



> That's a reasonable bar to set. Then the meaningful question becomes, does he manage to reach that level before Ben Wallace rides off into the sunset?


No. But I think he'll trend pretty close to that level by year 3 and will be consistently effective in year 2.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, I certainly don't think he's going to develop it in time for the Cavs game on Saturday. :biggrin:
> 
> But I think he has the tools to get it done. By semi-reliable, I mean that he'll be able to hit a 15 footer with his feet set if a defense sags off and gives him that shot.


From what I've seen, Thomas just flat-out chokes on his jumper. I can almost _hear_ him thinking about it when he goes up. Now thinking is often a good thing, but never when you're in your backswing in golf or taking a shot in basketball.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> From what I've seen, Thomas just flat-out chokes on his jumper. I can almost _hear_ him thinking about it when he goes up. Now thinking is often a good thing, but never when you're in your backswing in golf or taking a shot in basketball.


It's because it's what you love, Tyrus. It is who you were born to be. And here you sit. Thinking. Well, Tyrus Thomas is not a thinker. Tyrus Thomas is a player. He is a doer, and that's what you need to do. You don't need to think. You need to play. You need to shoot. You need to go out there, and you need to shoot that shot. You need to fire it up. 

You need to grab ahold of that line between the sweet J and chaos, and you need to wrestle it to the ground like a demon cobra. And then, when the fear rises up in your belly, you use it. And you know that fear is powerful, because it has been there for billions of years. And it is good. And you use it. And you ride it; you ride it like a skeleton horse through the gates of hell, and then you win, Tyrus. You WIN! And you don't win for anybody else. You win for you, you know why? Because a man takes what he wants. He takes it all. And you're a man, aren't you? Aren't you?


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't have time to transcribe them here, but you should visit 82games.com and look at Deng's "player stats" from the last three seasons. You will be astonished by how similar his profile is from season to season.
> 
> imo Deng is the same guy he's always been, just better -- he just doesn't take three pointers anymore and he's refined the mid-range jumper. Still not a great playmaker, still an outstanding one-on-one defender.
> 
> Thomas becoming "a 6-8 Amare Stoudemire" would require a pretty significant transformation, as rwj has pointed out. Not incremental.


yes from season to season, my point is everyone's hyperanalyzing stats and observations of what is an incomplete season for Tyrus. 

i'm just trying to do the same with Deng. if you put his rookie season under the microscope you will see that he gets worse as the months goes on. his point production drops in 1/2. it's not a good trend, start strong, fizzle to the finsih line. and it would've been a mistake to define his career by that trend. that's all i'm saying


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> It's because it's what you love, Tyrus. It is who you were born to be. And here you sit. Thinking. Well, Tyrus Thomas is not a thinker. Tyrus Thomas is a player. He is a doer, and that's what you need to do. You don't need to think. You need to play. You need to shoot. You need to go out there, and you need to shoot that shot. You need to fire it up.
> 
> You need to grab ahold of that line between the sweet J and chaos, and you need to wrestle it to the ground like a demon cobra. And then, when the fear rises up in your belly, you use it. And you know that fear is powerful, because it has been there for billions of years. And it is good. And you use it. And you ride it; you ride it like a skeleton horse through the gates of hell, and then you win, Tyrus. You WIN! And you don't win for anybody else. You win for you, you know why? Because a man takes what he wants. He takes it all. And you're a man, aren't you? Aren't you?


I've never heard you talk like that. Are we about to get it on? Because I'm as hard as a diamond in an ice storm right now.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I've never heard you talk like that. Are we about to get it on? Because I'm as hard as a diamond in an ice storm right now.


I think this might come under the TMI tag. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I've never heard you talk like that. Are we about to get it on? Because I'm as hard as a diamond in an ice storm right now.


First your invitation to give Showtyme a massage, and now this. Somewhere in America, Tim Hardaway is hating you.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Originally Posted by Ron Cey


> It's because it's what you love, Tyrus. It is who you were born to be. And here you sit. Thinking. Well, Tyrus Thomas is not a thinker. Tyrus Thomas is a player. He is a doer, and that's what you need to do. You don't need to think. You need to play. You need to shoot. You need to go out there, and you need to shoot that shot. You need to fire it up.
> 
> You need to grab ahold of that line between the sweet J and chaos, and you need to wrestle it to the ground like a demon cobra. And then, when the fear rises up in your belly, you use it. And you know that fear is powerful, because it has been there for billions of years. And it is good. And you use it. And you ride it; you ride it like a skeleton horse through the gates of hell, and then you win, Tyrus. You WIN! And you don't win for anybody else. You win for you, you know why? Because a man takes what he wants. He takes it all. And you're a man, aren't you? Aren't you?


Originally Posted by Tom Boerwinkle#1


> I've never heard you talk like that. Are we about to get it on? Because I'm as hard as a diamond in an ice storm right now.


Posts like these are reason enough to visit this board. Simply brilliant...and funny as hell. Thanks.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Yes, he's taken a leap, but did you ever doubt his ability to play 40 mpg? I didn't.


Well, yes, and I still do, but for different reasons than Tyrus. Deng just doesn't seem to have, or have ever had, the stamina to do this for a full season. Quite often he looks visibly cooked in the fourth quarter of a game.

Then again, he hasn't had a full year yet. But that excuse will wear thin soon.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Rookie year statistics of notable PFs (with some other guys thrown in for fun).
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


Nice post, but I disagree with your final point. Looking at the really bad stats - mpg, TOs and PFs, he matches up more closely with Kemp than the other guys. Kemp had a real quantum leap his second year, so perhaps that's an encouraging sign.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> his numbers so far are a lot closer to Josh Smith and Kenyon Martin than Shawn Kemp in my opinion.


Just something to keep in context regarding Kenyon's numbers as a rookie. He played in a great deal of pain in the early part of that season and was much better after the All Star break. In the month of March, prior to the freak accident that knocked him out for the rest of that season, he averaged 18.2 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 3.1 APG in 36 MPG. Granted that was only 10 games, but it was part of a continued progress.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> I wrote an article Saturday discussing something that's been discussed on this board many times over: Would the Bulls have better off with Roy or Aldridge instead of Tyrus?
> 
> My personal belief is that in the long term, Tyrus could be a HUGE star, and that the other guys will be fabulous pros, but don't have the potential for superstardom Tyrus does.
> 
> ...


No offense, but that was a pretty poorly written article. Have you seen LMA or Roy play?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> No offense, but that was a pretty poorly written article. Have you seen LMA or Roy play?


I do this with respect to ExtremeBrigs, and tongue in cheek.

OregonLive.com: Blazers by Casey Holdahl: Chicago still likes Tyrus Thomas

*Comments*

*RumorMan says...*

This idiot smacks of someone who has never actually seen LaMarcus or Brandon play. Tool.
RumorMan
Posted on 03/26/07 at 1:44PM

*RumorMan says...*

This guy's reasoning is akin to a Blazers fan trying to justify Portland passing on Chris Paul to draft Martell Webster because Webster is so athletic and has such upside. Whatever. Tool.
RumorMan
Posted on 03/26/07 at 1:51PM

*guest says...*

The idiots are out in full force today.........
Posted on 03/26/07 at 1:58PM

*timr1088 says...*

It's called justifying their pick. When you have to explain why you picked someone you most likely made a mistake (ala Webster over Paul). 
Posted on 03/26/07 at 2:04PM

*RoyLMASerg says...*

Yeah, there is only one reason they are explaining themselves and it's because they are trying to ignore the obvious; that Roy and Aldridge would fit better than Thomas for now AND for the future.
I think it will be a couple of years before Chicago fans start admitting it was a mistake, if things continue the way they are. 
Posted on 03/26/07 at 2:12PM

*guest says...*

It's always hard for supporters to admit their respective GMs made huge mistakes. It took years for Blazer faithful to admit that Jack + Martell -is less than- CP3. But they're starting to come around.
I expect the same of Bulls Nation.
Posted on 03/26/07 at 2:44PM

*JimGM says...*

Hilarious to see that Bulls supporters are reeling, trying to justify that Thomas was a better pick than Aldridge and better than Roy. Each of those players are and will be better than Thomas, and we got em both. Remember on draft day when the Bulls were giggling that we gave up a little extra for a player we could have gotten anyway? Who's got and will get the last laugh in the years to come. Pritchard got the 2 best players in the entire draft. Not bad.
Posted on 03/26/07 at 3:59PM

*spotchester says...*

That's really a poor article. I don't mind justifying your pick, but some of those statements pertaining to Alrdridge are laughable and not at all based on fact. As a basketball writer, the least you should be able to do is put forth educated information. Anyone can make up stuff.
Posted on 03/27/07 at 2:09PM

*ccoualum says...*

What a fool! He'd do better to shut his mouth. Does he actually think anybody is going to buy that line? How bout this: The Blazers should set up a 2 on 2 game. LA and Roy vs Thomas and Morrison. Which team would you bet on? 
Posted on 03/27/07 at 3:32PM

*zbobrekoutyr says...*

Aldridge is a younger version of P.J. Brown??? Where the hell did he get that from?
Posted on 03/27/07 at 10:07PM

*david1978pdx says...*

These Chicagoans are still licking their wounds from the Super Bowl. Be nice, guys. Let them feel good about something, okay? LOL!
Posted on 03/27/07 at 10:54PM


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Yea, I have no problem with dude thinking Tyrus will pan out (I personally think of him as Travis Outlaw minus a jumper), but to say Aldridge will be a PJ brown type player is obscure, and just because Roy is having a great rookie year doesn't mean his ceiling is low. Did people think Paul's ceiling was low because he came out and dominated last year? Last time I checked, if you do good your rookie year, more times than not, they'll end up even better.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> Yea, I have no problem with dude thinking Tyrus will pan out (I personally think of him as Travis Outlaw minus a jumper), but to say Aldridge will be a PJ brown type player is obscure, and just because Roy is having a great rookie year doesn't mean his ceiling is low. Did people think Paul's ceiling was low because he came out and dominated last year? Last time I checked, if you do good your rookie year, more times than not, they'll end up even better.


It has nothing to do with him having a good rookie season. It has more to do with him being seasoned and a senior already. There is much more room for growth if you enter the NBA as a freshman in college or soph, than there is for seniors. And the number of GREAT players who left school as freshman and sophomores, as opposed to seniors bear that rule out.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> It has nothing to do with him having a good rookie season. It has more to do with him being seasoned and a senior already. There is much more room for growth if you enter the NBA as a freshman in college or soph, than there is for seniors. And the number of GREAT players who left school as freshman and sophomores, as opposed to seniors bear that rule out.




OK, how many of the 50 greatest players in the history of the NBA did NOT enter the NBA after their junior or senior year? Seems to me that staying in school helped those guys out a lot. I realize it was a different time and all, but players like Ewing, Jordan, Bird, Pippen, Drexler, Robinson, Duncan etal turned out ok. I don't really think there is a big difference in entering the league at 19 or 20 as opposed to 21 or 22. Exceot that the players entering after a few years in college are usually more mature.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> OK, how many of the 50 greatest players in the history of the NBA did NOT enter the NBA after their junior or senior year? Seems to me that staying in school helped those guys out a lot. I realize it was a different time and all, but players like Ewing, Jordan, Bird, Pippen, Drexler, Robinson, Duncan etal turned out ok. I don't really think there is a big difference in entering the league at 19 or 20 as opposed to 21 or 22. Exceot that the players entering after a few years in college are usually more mature.



It is true that the players you mentioned stayed in school and ended up being stars, but I think if you look at their production as rookies you'll see the point that was being made... with the exception of Scottie and Clyde (who didn't see very many minutes as rookies) each of those guys produced right away. Statistically there wasn't a huge jump after their first couple of years... guys that come out after one year and are considered "projects" may not surface as quality players until later down the road. So it is more realistic, for example, for Thomas to drastically improve his scoring output than it is for Roy... Roy is just that much closer to a finished product having spent the time in college.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Dornado said:


> It is true that the players you mentioned stayed in school and ended up being stars, but I think if you look at their production as rookies you'll see the point that was being made... with the exception of Scottie and Clyde (who didn't see very many minutes as rookies) each of those guys produced right away. Statistically there wasn't a huge jump after their first couple of years... guys that come out after one year and are considered "projects" may not surface as quality players until later down the road. So it is more realistic, for example, for Thomas to drastically improve his scoring output than it is for Roy... Roy is just that much closer to a finished product having spent the time in college.




I agree. It's also just as likely that he will never come close to matching that of Roy's isn't it?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

D. Wade was drafted after his Junior year. His 1st year statistics are very similiar to B. Roy's. In his 2nd year he went from 16ppg to 24ppg,doubled his blocks, 50% increase in his apg, a small increase in his rebounding - and he continued to improve since.

Personally, I think that players like Wade and Roy are exceptional because they seem to have a very good head on their shoulders and high Basketball IQ - leading them to make smart decisions in real time. So unless injuries happen I will not be surprised to see Roy smashing through that theoretical limited upside that people seem to apply to him - and while it is true that players with less fundamentals will have a bigger percentage improvement - a 200% improvement on someone that starts with an output of 1 is still less than a 100% improvement of someone that starts with an output of 2. Time will tell, as usual - but when I see TT now I am thinking Travis Outlaw with maybe a bit more potential. Hope for him it will be more than that...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

andalusian said:


> *D. Wade was drafted after his Junior year. His 1st year statistics are very similiar to B. Roy's. In his 2nd year he went from 16ppg to 24ppg,doubled his blocks, 50% increase in his apg, a small increase in his rebounding - and he continued to improve since.
> *
> Personally, I think that players like Wade and Roy are exceptional because they seem to have a very good head on their shoulders and high Basketball IQ - leading them to make smart decisions in real time. So unless injuries happen I will not be surprised to see Roy smashing through that theoretical limited upside that people seem to apply to him - and while it is true that players with less fundamentals will have a bigger percentage improvement - a 200% improvement on someone that starts with an output of 1 is still less than a 100% improvement of someone that starts with an output of 2. Time will tell, as usual - but when I see TT now I am thinking Travis Outlaw with maybe a bit more potential. Hope for him it will be more than that...


Well, something else important happened for Wade after his rookie year... a guy named Shaquille O'Neal came to town... I think that has to be factored in to Wade's statistical improvement, and kind of wrecks that example...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Dornado said:


> Well, something else important happened for Wade after his rookie year... a guy named Shaquille O'Neal came to town... I think that has to be factored in to Wade's statistical improvement, and kind of wrecks that example...




Are you forgetting about Joel Przybilla? :lol:


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> I thought about doing this, but I don't see how it would be useful. Yes, on average top 5 draft picks tend to pan out immediately. But every player and every situation is so unique that I doubt any study would have much predictive value outside the obvious conclusion: Tyrus is less likely to be a succesful NBA player because he had a poor rookie season.


That's undeniably true. You have to use all the data you have and the fact that Tyrus has been a bit below average makes him less likely to be a good player than if he'd had an above average or great season. However, I think there are a lot of factors that must be considere, most importantly that the scenario in which Tyrus is a successful draft pick never included him having a good rookie season, at least not in the eyes of the team who drafted him.



rwj333 said:


> Generally, I think Tyrus' detractors have made some strong points. I've done quite a bit of research using basketball-reference.com and I've had a lot of trouble finding successful players who drastically improved their turnover rate (Tyrus' turnover ratio is *21.1*) or fouling rate (Tyrus fouls at a rate of *7.3 per 40*). Those numbers are just incredibly rare and hard to find on the resumes of successful players.
> 
> There are a few examples... like Shawn Kemp had a similarly high foul rate (7.3) and turnover ratio (17.1) during his rookie season, but he had 2 inches and 25 pounds that Tyrus will likely never have. Al Jefferson had a high foul rate his rookie season but they don't have similar games, otherwise. That I can't find more examples is pretty depressing. Amare Stoudemire, Kenyon Martin, Antonio McDyess, Josh Smith, Darius Miles, and Chris Bosh have never approached Tyrus' fouling rate or turnover ratio, for example.
> 
> ...


Did you mention the players with foul and turnover rates similar to Tyrus who turned out to be busts? If so I missed it and I think that's as or more important than identifying successful players without bad turnover and foul rates who suceeded. I'd be curious to see if the any of the players had similar reputations as athletically gifted, raw players and how their R/40, P/40, and Block/40 stats match up with Tyrus. My impression is that Tyrus' profile is not merely rare among successful players, it's rare period. That can make it difficult to find players who act as good comparisons and even more difficult to find a meaningful sample size of similar players.



MikeDC said:


> Maybe I'm putting words in his mouth, but I think his point is that the evidence isn't worth gathering because the results is so obvious. That is, Tyson will need to be the exception to the rule. The rule itself is so obvious it's not worth taking the time to prove water runs downhill one more time.


I'm not sure RWJ's stance would be but I take issue with the phrase exception to the rule because I think that implies that an overwhelming majority of players with rookie seasons similar to Tyrus don't become successful players when in reality it's a majority but not necessarily a huge majority.



DaBullz said:


> You want to know if I still think Thomas is ERob part deux? Yep.
> 
> For every sportscenter highlight of Thomas making a block, there was one of ERob passing to himself off the backboard on a fast break for a spectacular dunk. That's what athleticism gives both players. In spite of what you perceive as Thomas' good play lately (like 1-8 shooting against Portland, I suppose), Thomas is still not as good as ERob was.
> 
> That's the REALITY of the situation. The now of it.


I touched on this elsewhere with regards to Stromile Swift but I think there are certain players who tend to incite strong negative emotions that impair peoples' ability to use them as comparisons. Yes, Tyrus is not as good as ERob was with Charlotte when he posted PERs of as a 23 and 24 year old. However, if Tyrus performed that well in the next two seasons, we should be very happy because there's no real reason to suggest his production would drop off dramatically - perhaps due to laziness as RC suggested. If you're referring more to ERob's three seasons with the Bulls where he posted PERs of 12.5, 11.5, and 11.0 while playing terrible defense and causing problems in the locker room then I think Tyrus has been demonstrably better than that this season as a 20 year old rookie.



DaBullz said:


> A secondary issue is whether Thomas may somehow develop into Shawn Kemp part deux. This is the crystal ball part, the future of it. Nobody knows for sure, but...
> 
> I did the exercise of looking at the #2 picks in history in the very thread you linked to, as has rwj333 and we both came to the same conclusion: History is not on our side.
> 
> So how long? That's the key question. If it takes Thomas as long as it took those 2 Cs, Hinrich will be 31 years old, Gordon 30, Wallace retired, etc. I've been consistent in saying that, too. Then there's that 3rd C, who was about the same age and experience level as Thomas when we drafted him. How'd he turn out? How long did that take?


I note this often and someone else already has in this thread but I think limiting player comparisons to other #2 draft picks or even say top 5 picks is counter productive. It filters out a lot of useful comparisons and disregards the fact that the strength of drafts and evaluations of GMs vary. Tyrus would probably be something like a number 8 pick in this draft.



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The Bulls bet on "down the road" with this one and it remans to be seen whether that was wise or not. He has a TON to learn and the Bulls bet big that he can and will learn.


Great point. It's unfathomable to use the fact that Tyrus hasn't been more valuable as a rookie to critisize the Bulls actions which were based on the belief that Tyrus would not be vary valuable early in his career but had a solid chance of becoming a very good player later on.



MikeDC said:


> I simply don't agree with you that that's what his point reduced to. I think, respectfully, you're straining a bit to put it into a simplistic framework that's easy to knock down (PJ vs. Tyrus/Ben vs. Chris) rather than making a real attempt to understand what he's getting at.
> 
> To some extent everyone is guilty of doing things like this. And to some extent, it's a good thing to probe and try to figure out someone's underlying logic. But I'm just pointing out in this case i think things are getting carried rather far.


I think that by definition analogies involve a little bit of straining. No one has yet attempted to explain what his logic is and how it was clearly different.




MikeDC said:


> Jeremy, I think you're a great poster and I think the board is a better place for having you here.


Thanks Mike. That means a lot coming from someone whose posting I respect a great deal.




MikeDC said:


> But that being said, I want you to look at the progression of this thread and in particular your back and forth with Dabullz.
> 
> I understand, but I want to point a couple things out. First, I thought it was in some way more accurate to address you because you had actually been going back and forth in the thread, whereas RC appeared mainly just to be popping in to take a shot at Dabullz.
> 
> I think it's fair to engage you on that opinion because you adopted it yourself. If you adopt a position... to the extent that you go out of the way to affirmingly cite it, I think it's fair to address you on it.


I think it's perfectly fair to engage me in terms of anything I post. While I did say that I agreed with RC, I considered it a somewhat more watered down version since RC suggested DB had an agenda and I merely said I didn't think he was being open minded. Regardless, I was particularly bewildered by the fact that you engaged _only_ me and that a lot of your comments weren't limited to that comment specifically but seemingly my posting in general.



MikeDC said:


> Now, to the main point. I understand exactly why you'd be frustrated when someone dismisses your comment with a "spin" position. Gray area or not, it's not very productive or interesting to read.
> 
> But ok... here's where the sequence of communication is important. When did he make that comment to you?
> 
> ...


If you're claiming that DB only posts non-responsive answers in response to hostility, I have to respectful disagree. What frustrated me (more than it should have) was that for far from the first time, DB responded to posts arguging that Tyrus is raw right now but may become a good player at a later date by emphasizing the fact that Tyrus is raw right now. I think that look at this thread only probably doesn't provide enough context because I've been going back and forth with DB on this argument for months. He certainly realizes that myself and others believe that Tyrus' struggles this season don't preclude his ability to become a good player and that his per game numbers this season do not represent his ability ahd productivity yet he writes "4.6/3.4" three times in that post and in a manner that I thought suggested it's _definitive evidence_ that Tyrus will not succeed in the future. In retrospect I may have misread the post some, he's responding to RC's comment that it was premature to say that TT would likely be a bust and therefore not necessarily saying that it was not premature to say that Tyrus _is_ a bust. However, I still think the repition of the statline does not serve a purpose and is somewhat inciteful. Those numbers aren't being used to support a point the way that PER or per 40 minute stats might be in a situation where those numbers are unknown and support a more nuanced argument, they're being used for rhetorical force.

What I regret is the way the comments were phrased. I should have said that DB's posts were not open minded and not directed my comments at the poster himself. Still, I do feel the context makes it relatively clear that I meant DB was not open minded in his arguments about TT's development as opposed to in general. Would it have been less inflamatory if I'd just said he consistently refuses to acknowledge the different ways to players develop? Probably, yes. 



MikeDC said:


> I agree that you're a very civil poster, but I hope you see, after looking a bit, from the comments above that in this case you probably did initiate a big chunk of the nastiness in the argument.
> 
> Perhaps you didn't like Dabullz' views leading up to it, but I think it's fair to say he wasn't directing any insults toward you. He appeared to me to be responding to the points you brought up, as well, though perhaps not to your satisfaction.


I think it was pretty clear from the post that whether or not I succeeded my intention was to characterize DB's arguments about TT and not insult him as a person. I don't disagree that I was perhaps the primary instigator but I don't really see a back and forth between DB and I the way that you seem to. He's made dismissive posts such as "spin" numerous times in the past when I said nothing that was remotely inflammatory. Certainly, I apologize if I offended him but I didn't perceive any type of nasty dispute until you made it clear that you were upset with my post(s).



MikeDC said:


> But we need to be civil. The purpose here isn't to drag you, Jeremy, out and "scold" you as an instigator. I don't think you are one. I think the course of this thread, and your responses, however, touched on an issue that needs to be discussed however.


I never thought that was your intention but a gentler PM and a general announcement to the board that didn't name posters probably could've gotten your point across just as well. 



MikeDC said:


> It's one thing for an argument to occur, but when it appears to be a whole series of posts and posters laying into another guy, that's different.
> 
> It's quite a bit more difficult for me to make these points now, as an admin, than it was years ago when I was a CM or a mod. Now these things come off as lectures, and I realize that can end up being counterproductive. I'm sorry for that, but I also think most of this stuff is worth throwing out there.
> 
> ...


I sympathize with the position you're in as an admin. Hopefully, everyone recognizes the good work you guys do and that it's not an easy job. You agreed I'm a civil poster (which I appreciate) and while I go back and forth with DB a lot, my perception is that I'm cordial if frustrated when doing so (if not I'd hope someone would alert me) so I think I'm an odd choice for someone to use to discuss a problem with insults and more specifically insults directed at DB.



mediocre man said:


> OK, how many of the 50 greatest players in the history of the NBA did NOT enter the NBA after their junior or senior year? Seems to me that staying in school helped those guys out a lot. I realize it was a different time and all, but players like Ewing, Jordan, Bird, Pippen, Drexler, Robinson, Duncan etal turned out ok. I don't really think there is a big difference in entering the league at 19 or 20 as opposed to 21 or 22. Exceot that the players entering after a few years in college are usually more mature.


The trend of drafting young, raw players who are not immediately read to contribute is a development that occured within the last 15 years or so, so you won't find many players who entered the NBA at a young age among the 50 greatest players. However, if you look at the top 10 players in PER you get: Wade (entered the NBA at 22), Dirk (20), Kobe (18), Duncan (22), Yao (22), KG (18), LeBron (18), Boozer (21), Manu (25), and Arenas (20). So half those guys entered the league as high upside players who were younger than a junior or senior.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

You switch back and forth between nuance and PER (see comments about ERob above). I post his actual stats, which is really what it all boils down to. The comparison of those stats with other players drafted #2 and his lack of production immediately as a #2 pick do make him a bust in the sense he hasn't produced anywhere near the level that you'd want in a #2 pick.

I feel that people are having a tough time accepting my position for what it is and project something different and argue against that. My only response is to repeat my position with the hope that parsing the english over and over will finally get through.

As for spin, it is not dismissive, it is a statement of "fact" about how I perceive the arguments being made. And that's fair game. Spin is defined by Miriam-Webster: "to present (as information) with a particular spin" (not perfect because it defines spin using "spin" in the definition). However, it is absolutely fair for me to say 4.0/3.4 and to see replies that begin with "but" to be spin.

As VF pointed out, I'm basically a Missouri guy - that'd be "show me." Show me says 4.0/3.4. In my typical manner, I've talked about projecting 4.0/3.4 into anything that's not been actually done, not even for a small stretch of games, as calling him "the next Wilt." May as well say he's going to be as good as Wilt - it's as much "spin" as anything else presented.

I do find it fun from time to time to compare a player with another player. You say "Thomas is the next Wilt" (ok, that's my spin, you compare him to Shawn Kemp, right?) and I say "Thomas is the next ERob" - we're entitled to our views of the guy. Instead, I'm wrong.

I do respect you and both enjoy and do not get offended in our discussions.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> you compare him to Shawn Kemp, right?


That may have been me and I've backed off that comparison. 



JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not sure RWJ's stance would be but I take issue with the phrase exception to the rule because I think that implies that an overwhelming majority of players with rookie seasons similar to Tyrus don't become successful players when in reality it's a majority but not necessarily a huge majority.


I told MikeDC that I didn't think his proposed study would be meaningful because every player and situation is unique. I don't agree with your stance, either, for basically the same reasons. 

When I think of players who had poor rookie seasons and later became good or great, the majority of players I think of are similar to Chauncey Billups, Steve Nash, Joe Johnson, Kevin Martin, Monta Ellis, etc. Those guys are highly skilled perimeter players and I don't think Tyrus' skills are comparable to theirs. 

Defensively, Tyrus seems fairly similar to Wallace, Rodman, and Chandler, in that all 4 had poor rookie seasons. I am hopeful that Tyrus will be a DPOY candidate and a good/great defensive player like them. Still, those 3 never had the foul issues that Tyrus has and are either taller or bulkier so he'll have to be the exception among exceptions (since great post defenders are generally that from day 1 and I can't think of anyone else like these 4). 

Offensively, his rookie year is looking pretty similar to Kenyon Martin's rookie year, and not even close to Stoudemire, or McDyess or whoever. I guess that's a reasonable expectation in hindsight though as cpawfan noted, Martin had a stretch of terrific games near the end of his rookie year (18 points, 8.5 rebounds, 2.6 TOs in 36 mpg over 10 games). Thomas has not had that stretch yet and at game 70 it's looking pretty unlikely he's going to have it. Stoudemire, McDyess and Martin didn't turn the ball over like Tyrus either. 



> Did you mention the players with foul and turnover rates similar to Tyrus who turned out to be busts? If so I missed it and I think that's as or more important than identifying successful players without bad turnover and foul rates who suceeded. I'd be curious to see if the any of the players had similar reputations as athletically gifted, raw players and how their R/40, P/40, and Block/40 stats match up with Tyrus.


I don't have enough time to do this.. comparing and thinking of players and researching their statlines was time consuming enough since I don't have a database or some kind of supercomputer like the one MikeDC probably has in his basement. The TO-rate specifically is an area where Tyrus is unique. Here are some rookie power forwards from this year who appear to have similar per-40 stats, anyway. 


```
Pts/40   Rebs/40  TOs/40  TO-R/40  BLKS/40   PER      PFs/40   Mins/G
Tyrus Thomas          14.8     11.0     4.3     21.1      3.5      12.95    7.3      12.4
Alexander Johnson     14.4     10.4     2.4     15.5      2.0      14.90    7.0      13.9
Josh Boone            14.7     11.4     1.8     12.1      1.1      14.85    5.9       9.5
Ronny Turiaf          13.6      9.3     1.9     11.8      2.7      15.05    7.4      14.0 
Paul Millsap          15.3     11.5     2.5     14.5      2.3      18.11    6.5      17.8
```
Alexander Johnson is a pretty close comparison in particular-- I read in Draftexpress that some scouts called him the next best athlete at PF after Tyrus. I don't think anyone on the Memphis board is going crazy over him. Boone, Johnson, and Turiaf seem unlikely to stay in the league for too long.

To be fair, a lot of these guys are older than Tyrus, and Tyrus clearly has special shot-blocking and defensive ability. I absolutely think he's going to be significantly better than these guys. 



> My impression is that Tyrus' profile is not merely rare among successful players, it's rare period. That can make it difficult to find players who act as good comparisons and even more difficult to find a meaningful sample size of similar players.


This is probably correct to a degree, but I still think the comparisons to guys like Kemp, McDyess, and Martin or Wallace, Chandler, and Rodman are valid since we expect Tyrus to be near those players in some fashion. Currently he's behind in a few very significant areas - PFs and TOs.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You switch back and forth between nuance and PER (see comments about ERob above). I post his actual stats, which is really what it all boils down to. The comparison of those stats with other players drafted #2 and his lack of production immediately as a #2 pick do make him a bust in the sense he hasn't produced anywhere near the level that you'd want in a #2 pick.


For the reasons I outlined above I think it's counterproductive to place too much emphasis on the exact slot where TT was drafted. Which ERob season are you referring to when you make the comparison? He had some good seasons and some awful seasons.



DaBullz said:


> I feel that people are having a tough time accepting my position for what it is and project something different and argue against that. My only response is to repeat my position with the hope that parsing the english over and over will finally get through.


Perhaps it's effective with other people but I can say that personally - since we've gone back and forth on this so many times - I have a pretty good idea what your position is even if you don't post it once. Our difference of opinion probably has less to do with TT and more to do with stats that measure production on a per minute basis. I feel very strongly that citing the per game numbers of a player who plays limited minutes is impliedly comparing that player to starters who average 35 MPG and is therefore comparing apples to oranges. Also, I think you're making your point in a round about way. I know you don't expect Tyrus to average 12 and 7 in only 12 MPG, so really your argument is less about Tyrus' per game scoring and rebound averages and more about the number of minutes he plays. As I've said before I find this argument to be somewhat contradictory with your opinion of Skiles because it assumes he's a rational actor who always has a valid reason for doling out minutes the way that he does. 



DaBullz said:


> As for spin, it is not dismissive, it is a statement of "fact" about how I perceive the arguments being made. And that's fair game. Spin is defined by Miriam-Webster: "to present (as information) with a particular spin" (not perfect because it defines spin using "spin" in the definition). However, it is absolutely fair for me to say 4.0/3.4 and to see replies that begin with "but" to be spin.


I never meant to suggest that the comment was disingenuous or that you were hoping to get a rise out of people. Honestly, I don't really have much of a problem with characterizing peoples posts in a certain way. It's just that when someone writes a post that states "I believe X for reasons A, B, and C supported by the following data..." and then receives a one word response in reply, I get the impression that the one word post is not actually taking the time to consider and rebut the arguments made by the first poster.



DaBullz said:


> I do respect you and both enjoy and do not get offended in our discussions.


Thanks. Right back at you.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> I told MikeDC that I didn't think his proposed study would be meaningful because every player and situation is unique. I don't agree with your stance, either, for basically the same reasons.


Fair enough. I think that fits with my contention that there's no principle that's conclusive enough to be considered a rule in this situation. 



rwj333 said:


> When I think of players who had poor rookie seasons and later became good or great, the majority of players I think of are similar to Chauncey Billups, Steve Nash, Joe Johnson, Kevin Martin, Monta Ellis, etc. Those guys are highly skilled perimeter players and I don't think Tyrus' skills are comparable to theirs.
> 
> Defensively, Tyrus seems fairly similar to Wallace, Rodman, and Chandler, in that all 4 had poor rookie seasons. I am hopeful that Tyrus will be a DPOY candidate and a good/great defensive player like them.


That's a good list of perimeter players but isn't there an axiom that big men take longer to develop? Do you disagree? I feel like there are plenty of other front court players who started slowly and took some time to come around (Curry, JO, Dirk, Okur, Biedrins, Gooden, Wilcox). 



rwj333 said:


> Still, those 3 never had the foul issues that Tyrus has and are either taller or bulkier so he'll have to be the exception among exceptions (since great post defenders are generally that from day 1 and I can't think of anyone else like these 4).


I don't really see size as a major factor as far as foul trouble or turnovers. What's the theory there? That Tyrus commits more fouls because he struggles to hold position against bigger players? That doesn't really line up with my perception of his foul problems from watching games. 



rwj333 said:


> Offensively, his rookie year is looking pretty similar to Kenyon Martin's rookie year, and not even close to Stoudemire, or McDyess or whoever. I guess that's a reasonable expectation in hindsight though as cpawfan noted, Martin had a stretch of terrific games near the end of his rookie year (18 points, 8.5 rebounds, 2.6 TOs in 36 mpg over 10 games). Thomas has not had that stretch yet and at game 70 it's looking pretty unlikely he's going to have it. Stoudemire, McDyess and Martin didn't turn the ball over like Tyrus either.
> 
> I don't have enough time to do this.. comparing and thinking of players and researching their statlines was time consuming enough since I don't have a database or some kind of supercomputer like the one MikeDC probably has in his basement. The TO-rate specifically is an area where Tyrus is unique. Here are some rookie power forwards from this year who appear to have similar per-40 stats, anyway.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the difficulty of producing a lot of data. There are a lot of things I'd love to study except I lack the time, resources, and perhaps know-how. I just thought you might remember players off the top of your head. The data from the current rookies is far more fascinating than I expected. The problem is that because we don't yet know how they'll progress throughout their career, there's no predictive value to their production this season. 

I must admit, I'm quite surprised by the fact that those players have been so efficient on a per minute basis. The one thing that differentiates Tyrus from them is that while I don't doubt that Johnson is the second most athletic front court player in the draft, I imagine it's a very distant second. That'd be the case for most players since the list of players with Tyrus' athleticism in the league is a pretty short list. As you mentioned, age is also an important factor.

Millsap's presence on the list doesn't disturb me because I think he's been properly hailed as the sleeper of this draft class who should've received more respect around draft time. As someone who strongly advocates the use of per minute stats, I'm a little bit troubled by the impressive PER ratings of purportedly unspectacular players such as Johnson, Turiaf, and Boone.  I can only come up with two explanaitons: either the sample size is not large enough to produce particularly useful results for players in the 10-20 MPG range or there was an unusually large number of sleeper big men in the last draft (or two drafts since Turiaff was drafted two years ago). I did notice a lot of players who had a strong PER for their first two or three seasons and then dropped off dramatically on basketball-reference. That could be an indictment of using PER for players with relatively few MPG but at the same time there are plenty of players like Joe Smith who played plenty of MPG and still had a dramatic decline in PER after a few seasons. I suppose the fact that these players will all be solid pros is not implausible either: Boone was projected as a top pick at one point in his collegiate career, Johnson apparently has athleticism, and Turiaf would technically be a bit time sleeper from a different draft than the other three.



rwj333 said:


> This is probably correct to a degree, but I still think the comparisons to guys like Kemp, McDyess, and Martin or Wallace, Chandler, and Rodman are valid since we expect Tyrus to be near those players in some fashion. Currently he's behind in a few very significant areas - PFs and TOs.


I feel pretty strongly that merely the absence of players with TO and PF rates similar to Tyrus is not predictive in any way. If there's no data point that we have to suggest that players with TO/PF rates similar to Tyrus progress a certain way then I think we simply don't know how he'll develop. It makes intuitive sense that it will be harder for a player with catastrophic PF/TO rates such as Tyrus, to improve than someone with merely poor rates. However, I think a good argument can be made that it is easier for someone who makes so many stupid mistakes and such an incredibly large volume of mistakes to improve becasue it's so hard for someone who makes so many bad mistakes to stay that bad.

The evidence that would severely limit my optimism regarding Tyrus - and I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist because he's such a rare player - is evidence of quite a few lottery picks with great athleticism who had severe foul and turnover problems in their first season and failed to substantially improve those rates in subsequent seasons.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Stats are great....but just watching games like last night, I don't see any reason TT can't control both the fouls and turnovers in future seasons.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I don't have enough time to do this.. comparing and thinking of players and researching their statlines was time consuming enough since I don't have a database or some kind of supercomputer like the one MikeDC probably has in his basement. The TO-rate specifically is an area where Tyrus is unique. Here are some rookie power forwards from this year who appear to have similar per-40 stats, anyway.


No, but I do have one of these down there:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pfffffft.

A Commodore?

Trash-80's are where its at, my man.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> For the reasons I outlined above I think it's counterproductive to place too much emphasis on the exact slot where TT was drafted. Which ERob season are you referring to when you make the comparison? He had some good seasons and some awful seasons.


For the reason that the bulls went into the draft with the #2 pick, I think it's entirely fair to have high expectations. It's highly relevent on many levels. If Thomas were picked as a 2nd rounder, I wouldn't have a gripe. I don't gripe about Thabo, who'd have been a major bust at the #2 pick too, because we didn't use a #2 pick on him. What did we trade Curry for? #2 pick. &c Understand my fixation on it being the #2 pick?




> Perhaps it's effective with other people but I can say that personally - since we've gone back and forth on this so many times - *I have a pretty good idea what your position is even if you don't post it once. * Our difference of opinion probably has less to do with TT and more to do with stats that measure production on a per minute basis. I feel very strongly that citing the per game numbers of a player who plays limited minutes is impliedly comparing that player to starters who average 35 MPG and is therefore comparing apples to oranges. Also, I think you're making your point in a round about way. I know you don't expect Tyrus to average 12 and 7 in only 12 MPG, so really your argument is less about Tyrus' per game scoring and rebound averages and more about the number of minutes he plays. As I've said before I find this argument to be somewhat contradictory with your opinion of Skiles because it assumes he's a rational actor who always has a valid reason for doling out minutes the way that he does.


I have a pretty good idea that what I wrote in my last post is true. The bolded part says it all. You preconceive what my position is even if I don't post it, and set that up as some straw man and argue against it. 

I'd expect a #2 pick to play a lot of minutes. Deservedly so.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Stats are great....but just watching games like last night, I don't see any reason TT can't control both the fouls and turnovers in future seasons.


Yup.

And I will repeat my assertion that Tyrus is a big-stage player, and he'll be a significant reason the Bulls advance to the ECF [this year].

He has weaknesses, but he has some strengths that are going to really come in handy down the stretch and into the playoffs.

Go Bulls! and go TT!


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> For the reason that the bulls went into the draft with the #2 pick, I think it's entirely fair to have high expectations. It's highly relevent on many levels. If Thomas were picked as a 2nd rounder, I wouldn't have a gripe. I don't gripe about Thabo, who'd have been a major bust at the #2 pick too, because we didn't use a #2 pick on him. What did we trade Curry for? #2 pick. &c Understand my fixation on it being the #2 pick?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One problem with comparing him to other #2 picks is that #2 picks usually play on bad teams where they are given more of a chance to develop and play through their mistakes. During the first half of the season, Tyrus wasn't really given this opportunity. During the second half of the season, when Skiles presumably decided that letting Tyrus play through his mistakes was a better alternative to playing PJ Brown starter minutes and giving significant minutes to Malik Allen, Tyrus has shown significant improvement.

I think that should at least be taken into consideration when looking at his raw ppg and rpg stats.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> Stats are great....but just watching games like last night, I don't see any reason TT can't control both the fouls and turnovers in future seasons.


I realize it isn't very trendy to discount stats in the midst of a new age of statistical analysis in basketball (which is grossly overrated for many purposes for which it is used, in my opinion, but very interesting to read about nonetheless), but you've nailed how I look at it.

I watch TT play - last night, any night, whatever - and just don't see a guy whose turnovers and foul troubles concern me for the long term. Why? Because despite the fact that he's raw, I see a smart basketball player with good instincts. Not to mention that he has sick talent to boot. 

Unfortunately, to illustrate what I'm talking about, I'm going to contrast my "sense" in watching him with my "sense" in watching Curry. I *always* thought Curry's turnovers and foul troubles would be a problem for him. In other words, I felt exactly the opposite way about him that I do with Tyrus (great concern vs. practically no concern at all). 

Why? Because Eddy Curry is a stupid basketball player with poor instincts. I always believed he would remain turnover prone (which I'm pretty sure is still true - Ranks #3 in the NBA in Total Turnovers(244.0), Ranks #6 in the NBA in Turnovers Per Game(3.49), Ranks #8 in the NBA in Turnovers Per 48 Minutes(4.78)) and that his only way to avoid foul trouble would be to become a worthless and passive defender (which is exactly what he's done to stay on the court - its difficult to express how bad he is at defending penetration other than to say he's probably the worst starting center in the entire NBA at this particular thing). 

I think Tyrus will be able to reduce his turnovers simply as a matter of experience because they result more from anxiousness than stupidity (and some of his turnovers, mind you, are from goaltends that either weren't even goaltends or were under the type of circumstances that they really didn't adversely effect the game at all). And I think he'll be able to cut down on his fouls without reducing his defensive effectiveness because I think his defensive instincts are incredible. And he WANTS to defend.

I realize, of course, that I have no statistic to verify this perception.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I realize it isn't very trendy to discount stats in the midst of a new age of statistical analysis in basketball (which is grossly overrated for many purposes for which it is used, in my opinion, but very interesting to read about nonetheless), but you've nailed how I look at it.
> 
> I watch TT play - last night, any night, whatever - and just don't see a guy whose turnovers and foul troubles concern me for the long term. Why? Because despite the fact that he's raw, I see a smart basketball player with good instincts. Not to mention that he has sick talent to boot.
> 
> ...


i won't discount the stat lovers analyses either, but the above sentiment gets my wholehearted endosement. thomas' instincts, hunger and fearlessness are what make me believe the sky is the limit for his career, barring injury. i chuckled last night when i heard charles barkley joke that tyrus was so athletic he might kill himself; yes, some of his high flying looks a little risky (since i've never flown that high, i'll never know), but with greater strength gained in the offseason, his beastly nature will become even more dramatic.

point being, i believe *watching* a player's approach to the game (regardless of what pick he was) is a very telling indicator of what type of ceiling he has. while not as skilled basketball-wise as some, when it's said and done, he appears to be a difference maker that, again, barring injury, won't be denied.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I realize it isn't very trendy to discount stats in the midst of a new age of statistical analysis in basketball (which is grossly overrated for many purposes for which it is used, in my opinion, but very interesting to read about nonetheless), but you've nailed how I look at it.
> 
> I watch TT play - last night, any night, whatever - and just don't see a guy whose turnovers and foul troubles concern me for the long term. Why? Because despite the fact that he's raw, I see a smart basketball player with good instincts. Not to mention that he has sick talent to boot.
> 
> ...


Here are some stats relating to your feelings:

NBA Random Stat: Player Turnovers by type from 82games.com

It breaks down some different types of turnovers. Curry is the "star" of the piece. Thomas is also mentioned. It seems that TT's biggest turnover problem is with bad passes (leads the league in bad passes per assist). I'd like to say that bad passing is easy to fix, but Curry (3rd worst) has been in the league 5 years now and hasn't fixed it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> Here are some stats relating to your feelings:
> 
> NBA Random Stat: Player Turnovers by type from 82games.com
> 
> It breaks down some different types of turnovers. Curry is the "star" of the piece. Thomas is also mentioned. It seems that TT's biggest turnover problem is with bad passes (leads the league in bad passes per assist). I'd like to say that bad passing is easy to fix, *but Curry (3rd worst) has been in the league 5 years now and hasn't fixed it.*


Thats because he's stupid and it illustrates the difference, in my opinion, between a player to be concerned about for the long term, and a player who will figure it out. Eddy Curry absolutely reeked of the type of player who would continue to face these problems. I expressed this time and time again when he was with the Bulls. It does not surprise me in the least that in year 6, this is being written about him:



> For his outstanding ability to turn the ball over so frequently in so many ways, we are pleased to award Eddy Curry once again with the King of Turnovers crown. Now if he could just work on his traveling skills...


Not to mention what else would be written if the article were about interior defense.

I always believed such things would be said about Curry even down the line. Contrarily, I have zero concerns that any such thing will be said of Tyrus Thomas years from now.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I realize it isn't very trendy to discount stats in the midst of a new age of statistical analysis in basketball (which is grossly overrated for many purposes for which it is used, in my opinion, but very interesting to read about nonetheless), but you've nailed how I look at it.
> 
> I watch TT play - last night, any night, whatever - and just don't see a guy whose turnovers and foul troubles concern me for the long term. Why? Because despite the fact that he's raw, I see a smart basketball player with good instincts. Not to mention that he has sick talent to boot.
> 
> ...


I'm obviously a stat guru and see the same things you do in Tyrus. My concern with him is on the offensive end. He needs to bulk up a lot to operate in the post, and he isn't very good from the outside. Right now on offense, he's a cutter and putback type guy.

In the pre-draft thread, I thought Tyrus could average something like 13-14ppg 11-12rpg 2.5 bpg, and people were wondering why I wanted Aldridge when I projected him to be a 17-19ppg 9-10rpg 1.5bpg guy instead instead of the All Star numbers I was giving Tyrus. This season was panning out virtually as I expected from Tyrus, although I did not expect as much excitement and FT drawing ability. That sort of is counterbalanced by the higher TOs and pitiful shooting % from the outside. I do expect both to get better, including the foul rate.

Until he adds some strength and mass, I think his rebounding and fouling rate will suffer (although I think both will improve in each subsequent season).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> - its difficult to express how bad he is at defending penetration other than to say he's probably the worst starting center in the entire NBA at this particular thing).


He is so bad at defending penetration that he's illegal in every state except Nevada.


But when he's on the block, he sure do throw the rock down nasty.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> For the reason that the bulls went into the draft with the #2 pick, I think it's entirely fair to have high expectations. It's highly relevent on many levels. If Thomas were picked as a 2nd rounder, I wouldn't have a gripe. I don't gripe about Thabo, who'd have been a major bust at the #2 pick too, because we didn't use a #2 pick on him. What did we trade Curry for? #2 pick. &c Understand my fixation on it being the #2 pick?


Sure. I wasn't saying the number of the pick isn't relevant in any situation. I don't think it's particularly relevant when looking for players similar to Tyrus as a means of projecting his future development. Whether or not the Bulls used the pick properly is a related but nonetheless different questions. Still, I think it's pretty undisputed that Tyrus would be something like the 7th or 8th pick in this draft so I find it odd to say if the Bulls took him at 7th in this draft he'd be a better pick than when they took him at #2 in the last draft. The team doesn't have any control over the strength of the draft or the Knicks' record.



DaBullz said:


> I have a pretty good idea that what I wrote in my last post is true. The bolded part says it all. You preconceive what my position is even if I don't post it, and set that up as some straw man and argue against it.
> 
> I'd expect a #2 pick to play a lot of minutes. Deservedly so.


I don't know your position on issues we haven't discussed before. As far as your general opinion on TT, I don't see how I could not know your stance after exchanging dozens and dozens of posts with you on the subject. There are certainly aspects of his play we probably haven't discussed and I wouldn't presume your thoughts there but we should be realistic.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Until he adds some strength and mass, I think his rebounding and fouling rate will suffer (although I think both will improve in each subsequent season).


I already asked RJW this in another post, but what's the argument that players of sleight build are more foul prone? That they foul more often because they can't successfully body up their man?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I already asked RJW this in another post, but what's the argument that players of sleight build are more foul prone? That they foul more often because they can't successfully body up their man?


Players with sleight build aren't more foul prone. Post players with sleight build are more foul prone. In order to keep their man from getting good position or getting bumped off on screens, they have to be more aggressive to be successful. Tyrus is more aggressive, and that's a good thing. But it will lead the refs to blow the whistle against him more often as well.

I've seen Tyrus trying to block someone out so hard that he was at a 45 degree angle to the floor. The man he was boxing out fought through his arm and Tyrus fell over and got the foul called against him (even though the foul should have been on the other team). These and reaches after his man has commanded position are what cause his foul troubles. Not so much perimeter things.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Post players with "slight build" who can't defend the post without getting thrown around like a raggedy-
andy doll aren't...ummm....post players. They are skinny tall guys. Some of them can jump really high. That doesn't make them post players. It makes them tall, skinny guys who can jump high. Which is useful in and of itself -- but doesn't make a guy a post player.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Post players with "slight build" who can't defend the post without getting thrown around like a raggedy-
> andy doll aren't...ummm....post players. They are skinny tall guys. Some of them can jump really high. That doesn't make them post players. It makes them tall, skinny guys who can jump high. Which is useful in and of itself -- but doesn't make a guy a post player.


Also, I should have prefaced my comments by saying I think Tyrus will be the most successful as a NBA player at PF. Thus, I think he needs to work on his body as such.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Also, I should have prefaced my comments in that I think Tyrus will be the most successful NBA player as a PF. Thus, I think he needs to work on his body as such.


Agree that his game is best suited to PF, though sometimes I think those position distinctions are becoming a little obsolete.

He's listed at 6-9 215. He has very skinny legs and no discernible caboose. I suspect that he can add some to his upper body and MAYBE make 230, though 225 seems more reasonable for next season.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Well, something else important happened for Wade after his rookie year... a guy named Shaquille O'Neal came to town... I think that has to be factored in to Wade's statistical improvement, and kind of wrecks that example...


Fair enough. 

Several issues to remember however:

- D Wade elevated his play at the post season in his first year (without Shaq) over his first year production.
- D Wade proved he can be an elite scorer and all around player without Shaq around - as we have seen before his injury this year
- B Roy plays with a blackhole on the court in Zach Randolph whose style of play will actually hurt the statistics of those around him (For example, if Zach could actually shoot and score quickly from a pass instead of wait 3 seconds before he decides how to attack a lot of the touches he gets would be considered assists for someone like Roy, if he was better at passing out of the double team someone like Roy could easly get an extra 4-8 points per game, etc...)

So the theory still has some legs. All we need to do is wait a couple of seasons and see if Roy is really just an All-Star good player or if he can be a franchise caliber player. Having seen Roy up close this year my money is on option 2.

Now back to your TT programming...


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

transplant said:


> Agree that his game is best suited to PF, though sometimes I think those position distinctions are becoming a little obsolete.
> 
> He's listed at 6-9 215. He has very skinny legs and no discernible caboose. I suspect that he can add some to his upper body and MAYBE make 230, though 225 seems more reasonable for next season.


I also agree. His primary position is the powerforward spot, he shouldn't ever even daydream about being a smallforward ever again. Im sure he can play the smallforward position on defense occasionally.. but his primary position should always be powerforward.

He has skinny legs, but so do many big men besides Shaq. KG, Bosh and even Wallace amoungst others have all relatively skinny legs, but they are definitly more defined. But nothing compared to the legs of Rodman and Oakleys.. man, they were solid tree truck types of legs, thats why they could hold position without ever having to use their jumping or lack of jumping ability.

I don't see why Tyrus can't get his weight up to about 230-40 without losing any of his ability to jump around and still use his athletic ability. Though i think 230 would be the prime weight for him...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> One problem with comparing him to other #2 picks is that #2 picks usually play on bad teams where they are given more of a chance to develop and play through their mistakes. During the first half of the season, Tyrus wasn't really given this opportunity. During the second half of the season, when Skiles presumably decided that letting Tyrus play through his mistakes was a better alternative to playing PJ Brown starter minutes and giving significant minutes to Malik Allen, Tyrus has shown significant improvement.
> 
> I think that should at least be taken into consideration when looking at his raw ppg and rpg stats.


You think Len Bias wouldn't have played a lot on a near championship level Celtics team (yeah they used to actually be good or even great  )

Or if Detroit took Melo instead of Darko that he'd have been on the bench this much? Or if Phoenix didn't trade us their pick, would Deng have been on the pine much? 

#2 picks can be busts. I consider JWill to have been one in more ways than one (motorcycle meet tree). Given all the hype he had coming into the league you'd expect him to have been at least Chris Paul good. Though he was good, he wasn't a #2 pick quality wise.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

andalusian said:


> So the theory still has some legs. All we need to do is wait a couple of seasons and see if Roy is really just an All-Star good player or if he can be a franchise caliber player. Having seen Roy up close this year my money is on option 2.


There aren't too many franchise players in the league. In this draft, Oden and Durant look like franchise players. If you put a gun to my head, I'd say there won't be a franchise player in last year's draft class.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> #2 picks can be busts. I consider JWill to have been one in more ways than one (motorcycle meet tree). Given all the hype he had coming into the league you'd expect him to have been at least Chris Paul good. Though he was good, he wasn't a #2 pick quality wise.


Do you agree that Tyrus would have to show little to no improvement from this point forward to be a bust?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Do you agree that Tyrus would have to show little to no improvement from this point forward to be a bust?


That is a leading question. Look at ScottMay's posts about Thomas. 

I would say he's a first year bust already. If he doesn't get us deep into the playoffs as a key contributor (at the same level of Hinrich or Gordon or Deng) by the time Wallace is washed up, he's an outright bust. I'm repeating what I wrote again... Read the bit about Hinrich being 31.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> That is a leading question.


That was intentional, I wanted to know whether you agreed or disagreed with the statement. If you want I can rephrase the question: How much do you believe Tyrus has to improve in the future to avoid being a bust?



DaBullz said:


> Look at ScottMay's posts about Thomas.
> 
> I would say he's a first year bust already. If he doesn't get us deep into the playoffs as a key contributor (at the same level of Hinrich or Gordon or Deng) by the time Wallace is washed up, he's an outright bust. I'm repeating what I wrote again... Read the bit about Hinrich being 31.


I've never seen the phrase "first year bust" before and I suspect that's because high draft picks are pretty much never drafted with the purpose of getting major contributions from the player as a rookie. Since the player will be with the team for a minimum of four seasons and in todays NBA, many more seasons if that's what the team desires, teams tend to draft based on their assessment of a player's long term success. 

I doubt anyone disagrees that if Tyrus does not improve for the next five seasons he will be a bust. That wasn't really my question. What I was trying to get at is how you think Tyrus needs to develop in the next couple years to be a decent pick and how much you believe he will develop. The reason I ask that I believe that if Tyrus improves only moderately next season - let's say he raises his PER from 13 to 16 and plays 30 MPG - he won't be a bust. I'm curious whether you think that improvement is unrealistic i.e. that he'll basically be the same player next season, or whether you think he could still be a bust despite that sort of improvement.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

He is a bust if he plays 40 minutes a game next season (or for the rest of his career) and puts up stats like PJ Brown (in his prime). PJ Brown was a good player... Using a #2 pick on him (Brown) would have been a waste; that would have made him a bust, too.

Put another way. If you expect him to play like Kemp and he ends up playing like Etan Thomas, then he's a serious disappointment (not a washout from the league). The least you should be able to say is he failed to meet your expectations. The issue is you could get Etan Thomas with something a LOT less than the #2 pick in the draft.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> He is a bust if he plays 40 minutes a game next season (or for the rest of his career) and puts up stats like PJ Brown (in his prime). PJ Brown was a good player... Using a #2 pick on him (Brown) would have been a waste; that would have made him a bust, too.
> 
> Put another way. If you expect him to play like Kemp and he ends up playing like Etan Thomas, then he's a serious disappointment (not a washout from the league). The least you should be able to say is he failed to meet your expectations. The issue is you could get Etan Thomas with something a LOT less than the #2 pick in the draft.


I think most people would be pretty pleased if he put up 13 and 11 next season as P.J. did last season. I guess you could call him a bust but considering that we're talking about a 21 year old in his second season, I think you'd be in a very small minority. Tyrus is about as good as Etan right now, so I'll take that to mean that if he makes meaningful improvement next season then...maybe you'd say he's not bust?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

PJ Brown has never put up 13 and 11. If Tyrus averages 40 minutes a game, (which I highly doubt he will ever do) Tyrus will surpass PJ's prime stats easily because he is a better rebounder, shot-blocker, and gets steals. The issue is whether he can gain enough weight to average 32 minutes a game or whether he'll be a 22 mpg bench/energy player. 

PJ was also 2nd team all-defense 3 times, so he wasn't _that_ bad.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

All I know is he is already making plays that bear the hallmark of greatness

I am not saying he is "great" yet. But based on what he showed in the NCAA run last year and what he has shown more consistently since the All Star break he sure has that chance 

PJ Brown , Etan Thomas , Eddy Curry , Tyson Chandler ... could never have made the type of plays he has - across a multitude of platforms

1. Co-ordination ( Chandler ) 
2. Athleticism ( Brown / Thomas ) 
3. Heart ( Curry ) - yes pun intended 

Brown and to a lesser degree Thomas , overachieved , and got/get the maximum of their abilities 

Curry and Chandler have done better in new locations . Good luck to them. But in his rookie season Thomas has shown a much faster "I've got it" type of improvement than Curry or Chandler did in their initial seasons 

The guy has a much higher basketball IQ, better instincts with a big motor

I wasn't high on Aldridge and thought he was soft.

Good for him that he looks like he'll have a nice pro career. 

I still don't think he has the motor that Thomas has got. Thomas fits the "motor" "desire" requirement that Pax has instilled in this team and is best exemplified by Nocioni, Hinrich , Wallace . Deng and Gordon have it too its just not as palpable as what it is with the other guys which is all fine for balance and chemistry I guess

We've got a real shot at going to the EC finals this year and Thomas is going to be a contributor , where the culture of this team and the structure of it , is really going to allow him to excel


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

FWIW Tyrus has played 17 mpg since the All Star break and has averaged 1.85 turnovers per game

Very roughly per 48 call that 5 per game 

That's too high 

Admittedly there have been games where he's had a bunch and some others games where he has had few. The key is consistency.

He is 7.2 and 4.7 with 1.2 bpg 

Projecting out over 2 seasons I see him playing 34mpg and putting up 16ppg and 12rpg with 3bpg and 2apg and 1.5spg 

I see him as a perennial top 3 shotblocker , top 3 offensive rebounder, top 5 rebounder ( overall ) and top 10 spg and over 3 to 5 seasons continually knocking on the 1st / 2nd All NBA defensive team

He does have a handle and can control the ball and as his decision making and learning curve improves so too will his foul rate and his turnovers.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> FWIW Tyrus has played 17 mpg since the All Star break and has averaged 1.85 turnovers per game
> 
> Very roughly per 48 call that 5 per game
> 
> ...


Those are probably reasonable expectations IF TT ends up playing 34 minutes per game. However, it's not clear that the Bulls can give him that much playing time beside Wallace. After all, he's competing with Nocioni for minutes at the PF spot (assuming that the Bulls resign him), as well as with the big men the Bulls pick up this summer in the draft or free agency. One of those pick-ups will undoubtedly be a 7 footer who can stand in against opponent centers and free up Wallace or Thomas to play weak-side help defense. He's not going to get any minutes at SF with Deng, Nocioni, Khryapa and Sefolosha on the team and his own poor outside shooting.

The more reasonable expectation is that he will play 15-25 spot minutes on the front line next year and the year after that. Hopefully he will improve his game and gradually take more and more minutes from Wallace, who he is in line to replace in three years.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> PJ Brown has never put up 13 and 11.


My mistake. I guess I was unwittingly looking at the per 40 numbers.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Those are probably reasonable expectations IF TT ends up playing 34 minutes per game. However, it's not clear that the Bulls can give him that much playing time beside Wallace. After all, he's competing with Nocioni for minutes at the PF spot (assuming that the Bulls resign him), as well as with the big men the Bulls pick up this summer in the draft or free agency. One of those pick-ups will undoubtedly be a 7 footer who can stand in against opponent centers and free up Wallace or Thomas to play weak-side help defense. He's not going to get any minutes at SF with Deng, Nocioni, Khryapa and Sefolosha on the team and his own poor outside shooting.
> 
> The more reasonable expectation is that he will play 15-25 spot minutes on the front line next year and the year after that. Hopefully he will improve his game and gradually take more and more minutes from Wallace, who he is in line to replace in three years.


I don't know how much Ben will like it but it'd be nice to get his minutes closer to 30 MPG next season now that he's getting a bit older. Noc should get at least 10 MPG backing up Lu at SF and then probably another 20 at PF. That leaves 28 minutes at PF and 18 minutes at C each night. Truthfully, we have no idea whether we'll draft a frontcourt player in the draft, whether he'll be ready to play significant minutes right away, or even whether or not we'll keep the pick. We also don't know how free agency will shake out. I'd say as the team is currently constructed, if everyone returns healthy next season, given Skiles' fondness of small lineups there are enough minutes available for Tyrus to play at least 30 MPG, but everything's up in the air until the offseason is over.


----------

