SB Nation User Blog: California Al

Rotations

California Al — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:12:05 -0000

Haven't been able to catch this debacle of disappointment, so I'm wondering if:

A: VDN has shown any recognition of what I'm proposing, and

B: What everyone here thinks about it.

It seems to me that we a very nice symmetry of talents here, and balancing the strengths of the younger and veteran talent would provide instant offsets for the "deficiencies" of each. This is strictly generalized, of course, but not too offbase.

Weaker o, stronger d: Kirk, Lu, Joakim, Tyrus.

Weaker d, stronger o: Ben, Derrick, Brad, Tim

I'm thinking in stereotypical NBA rythm of starting more conservatively, and using the veteran rotation of Kirk, Salmons, Lu, Brad and one of the Thomas's (Tim for the sake of what I want the second unit to look like). Then bring in the energy unit of Rose, Gordon, Salmons, Noah and Ty.

The first unit would bring better perimeter d and be a little softer in the frontcourt, but would also provide more post play and ball movement on offense. It would help Kirk and Lu use the talents they do have, slow the tempo a little and hopefully prevent the opponents from a quick breakout. Then, depending on performance, start rotating in the second unit in pairs, one backcourt and one frontcourt to keep the balance. The hot hands stay on the floor an extra couple of minutes; if the starters are playing well, give them up to 10 minutes and if not, start the rotations at the 6 minute mark. Salmons would be the first out, as I have him playing with both units, and Tim right with him for Gordon and Ty. Rose and Noah come in with Salmons at the 3. Then let this unit run no less than 8 minutes, and up to all the way through the second quarter, depending on gameflow.

Gordon and Rose are and should be high usage players and only benefit from playing with Noah and Ty. They get the help d they need, etc.

The main benefit I see is giving the players consistent roles, and hopefully take the emotion out of the current choices Vinnie is making. It seems like every substitution seems to imply "you sucked, I want you out of there!" Secondary, or maybe primary, is playing combinations together enough to develop some synergy. If we're going to rotate nine players, two platoons makes more sense to me than a random number generator making the choices.

Fire away.

Walter Payton and Amare Stoudemire

California Al — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:51:52 -0000

I finally figured out why I'm so lukewarm on the subject of Amare, and also why I'm not on the same page with so many here re a lot player transactions, Paxson, and various other subjects. Don't get me wrong, I love the company of so many passionate fans and wish I could be in agreement more often. And Walter Payton crystallizes my "problem".

I consider Walter the greatest team sport athlete in history. Not necessarily the best runner, but for sure the best running back. And it comes down to what he did on the plays that he didn't carry the ball. You see, the threat of what he might do could be as potent a weapon as the actual carries, and Walter put as much effort into those plays as he did his head-first goal line vaults over the entire line of scrimmage. When he decoyed, he took the inevitable pounding that came from really selling the fake. When he blocked, he was ferocious. I saw him go up for an overthrown pass into a sandwich and leave both defenders on the ground semi-conscious. He was never less than 100% supportive for any teammate, even those who through their lack of effort were stifling his achievements; same for coaches, mgt, owners, etc.

And I believe that this is the model for a winner. There are at least a dozen running backs I can think of who might be a better pick for any particular play that involves them carrying the ball. But I can't think of one superstar I'd choose over him for an entire game, let alone career. I was disgusted when the end was near and fans were murmuring for him to step aside and let Neal Anderson take over; didn't they realize that Walter was still doing more than Neal would ever be capable of? The truth is, they didn't. They just saw the occasional breakaway that Payton just wan't capable of any longer. The consistent 3-7 yard gains that resulted from really knowing the game weren't good enough.

Contrast that with the mythical scorer who underachieves at all other aspects of the game, and it's easy to see where I'm going with this. I HATE the super-talented but uncaring players who garner the huge NBA money because they are so easy to promote; the majority of fans are pretty simple in their understanding of the game. I wonder what percentage of fans would understand that Duncan is one of the best ever if he didn't have the rings.

So, my tastes run for those who are trying to play Walter's game. MJ was. So was John Paxson. So was Scottie. Iverson wasn't. Shaq usually wasn't. And Amare isn't. I think that what the Bulls have been trying to do for the past five years is put together a team that gets it. I think the 49 win team symbolized the success that's available to any team that just plays the game right. So does Jerry Sloan's consistent success. And Popo's. If you can add just one unstoppable force to that mix, you can win titles. That's the gold ring that so many teams consistently overpay for, and fail to recognize that the crap they put out when not trying destroys the winning attitude bit by bit. Occasionally teams have put so much talent out there they can get all the way to the title game, but come up short when playing a less talented team that plays 48 minutes of good basketball.

Yeah, I'll agree, Dream Team one isn't going to lose to anyone, ever. So much talent, they can beat you playing one on one every time down the court. It's just not the model I'd choose for building a team.

Walter, wherever you are, thanks for epitimizing everything I ever thought was good about sports. I could go on for hours on this topic, but I have to go to work. To all my friends at Blogabull (yes, I really like all of you, even you, Exult), have at it. Hope to have a lively blogalogue with you later!

Give the Bulls coaching staff credit. Starting Derrick Rose, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Thomas and Noah...

California Al — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:40:34 -0000

Give the Bulls coaching staff credit. Starting Derrick Rose, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Thomas and Noah means that the Bulls are starting their five best players, at appropriate positions. For those who have been complaining about this for years, it is a wonderful thing to behold.

But you know the coaching staff doesn't want you to behold a damn thing, wonderful or otherwise. It can't wait for Drew Gooden to come back. Andres Nocioni is going to play the fourth quarter at any one of three frontcourt positions he's ill-suited to play. And Kirk Hinrich is probably days away from starting...
This coaching staff is just dying to put the pasty plucky ones (Nocioni, Hinrich, Aaron Gray) in your spots, and you can't let that happen.

Minnesota trade idea (Hinrich-Thomas for Miller-Love and first rounder)

California Al — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:30:51 -0000

Besides this specific trade, I'm just as curious as to BaBullers ideas of what type of players are needed: A) for the Rose era, and B) for the SSOL offense w or w/o Vinnie. Here's the trade

First, why I don't like it: trading TT. I'd rather trade Noah, but that leaves us w/o a backup for Aaron. (I can't believe I just typed that sentence. FU, Vinnie!) But you have to give up something to get any working parts back.

Why I think it does work for us in the context of what we're hopefully trying to do here:

A: 2010. We need Kirk off the payroll.

B: I still like Kevin Love, even with his limits. He sets very strong picks when and where they're needed. He and Rose can run a real NBA pick and roll game, maybe even a great one. He is posting a 16 PER already because he knows how to play basketball. Even being a fan and seeing every game at UCLA, I was impressed with how well he played in the tourney. He won't surpass the best PF's in the league, but he will be better than average and a very reliable performer.

C: The offense is screaming for another 40% three-baller. Miller is a first rate shooter. And at 6'8", he's an easy target and MUST be a good defender, right? If he doesn't work, he expires in 2010, but he think he'd work, AND...

D: Miller fills both Nocioni and Hughes' roles! Keep working, Johny.

E: Clears up the contract problems this summer that are caused by TT's RFA and re-signing Ben.

F; A first rounder for trade fodder or a backup PG w Kirk leaving

Why Minnie likes it? They need a starting PG badly to allow Foye to stay at the 2. Also allows them to sorta undo the very unpopular Love-Mayo trade. I mean, if they'd rather have Aaron so that they can move AJ to the 4, YIPPEE! That works too.

As stated at the top, I'm not married to this trade, but it indicates the types of players that are realistic and seem like they fit better with accomodating both Rose's and VDN's needs. If Miller works out, Deng also becomes marginalized for a deal next year. The Noah-TT combo is flawed, and Kevin plays heavy in the paint. He seals off well, boxes, etc. He can shoot some off the pick and pop, and I think adds something that's missing in, ahem, awareness when we're rotating Noah, TT and Gooden.

Fire away.

Lame search for positives

California Al — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 13:48:46 -0000

This seems like the low point of the year, and there's enough hating going on, so let's start with the fact that I internalized my rant, and am not happy with the recent week and a half of crappy play. Now consider the following:

Look at the following schedule, and put any of the non-top-6 teams to this test, and let's see the outcome. Oh yeah, take out three rotation players w injuries: @ Bos, Utah, @ Det, @ Mia, @ Atl, @ NJ, Orl, @ Cle. 2-6 isn't so bad. I don't see one game in there that I would have bet Chgo.

Next, let's be realistic, where did you think this team would be after 33 games? They're 0-9 against the elite teams of Bos, LA, Cle, Orl, and SA. They're 4-9 against the rest of the league in road games. This is abysmal, but probably predictable for a team in flux with a complete makeover. That's 4-18.

I don't have 33 fingers and toes to do the math, but I think that makes us 10-1 playing at home against other than the roylaty of the league. The worst of the schedule is behind us now. Looking ahead.

They have 15 games in January. Only 5 on the road. Only 2 against the cream. I thought that they'd have a rough first half, so what's the difference if we found out they're not competitive with the better teams or not even close to competitive? I've always felt that sometimes it's better to bring a crisis to a boil and confront it instead of living in denial and letting it fester. Right now is realistically the beginning of the season for this team.

Now, do we want a playoff birth or a lotto pick? Preseason, I'd hoped for a second half that would produce 23-25 wins and predicted we'd be closer to 50 wins than 30. But that would only have meaning if the team established its identity, so that future changes could be clearly seen. I'd prefer to see us finish in the playoffs, regardless of the whumping we'd likely receive. The year that MJ torched Ehlo for all eternity, they weren't supposed to win one game in the playoffs.

Statistics indicate that some stereotypes aren't really all that accurate. I've been hearing repeatedly that our backcourt is world-class and the frontourt sucks. But look at the advanced stats here, which are sortable: Bulls stats @ BR.com BG and Rose have the 3rd and 7th ORT, which is good. But they are 12th and 13th out of 13 in DRT. Our top 4 in DRT? TT, Noah, Gooden and Thabo; surprising, eh? Tops in ORT are Noah and Gray. PER has Gordon, Noah and Rose on top. Surprisingly stinky are Deng and TT. So stat-wise, Noah is ranked first, second and second, but in minutes played? Eighth, with not even half of Rose's or Gordon's! Something wrong with this picture.

At this point, VDN looks like a horrible choice, possibly he-that shall-not-be-named-deux. Noc is rated 12th, 8th and 11th in PER, ORT, and DRT, but 4th in minutes. I like Noc, and would love to see him land somewhere that he can contribute, but I don't want to see him much this year. What I'm afraid of is that VDN's vision doesn't fit what talent we do have in the frontcourt, and he's trying to fit round pegs into square holes, and judging them harshly for doing what they were expected to do when they were selected. Deng is floundering. Van Lier is calling for dumping TT and Noah. Geez, so stormin Norman thinks that our two top rated defenders are the problem with this team? How about the genius that sent out a lineup of Hunter, Hughes, Noah, Noc and Thabo to turn a 6 point deficit into a 16 point first quarter route?

If he's trying to install SSOL, then yes, we need an entirely different set of pieces up front. Good luck, and we should all change channels until the roster is remade. And that's the shame of it all to me. The handling of the personnel seems no better than last year. The rotations are just as confusing, and I suppose demoralizing.

So, it looks like Pax has to choose between his coach and his roster, and I emphasize HAS TO. If he's going to give VDN a run, he'd better dump those that don't fit in exchange for whatever's available that does. Or, cut his losses and look at the available coaches. Or, the third alternative is to sit Vinnie down and straighten him out. Nobody gives a hoot if Gooden, Noc and Hughes can play .500 ball; if this team is going to arrive, it will be because Noah and Thomas arrived, and Deng got his mojo back. If the staff fails that test, they failed, period. This team can win 10 of the next 15 if they try. I'll reserve judgment until the end of January.

In defense of John Paxson

California Al — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:34:42 -0000

This is mostly repeating a reply I made to post that disappeared earlier.

Careful what you wish for. Before screaming hysterically that Pax sucks, let's think through this for a minute or two. I'm not positive he's a very good GM, or even a good one. But I'm also not positive that he isn't the best in the game. He's not his own man. JR runs the show. Period. Always has. A GM on this team is a gopher. You put together your best plan, and bring it to Jerry. That's where the decisions are made, or else D'Antoni is our coach this year.

So to believe that firing Pax is going to improve the team, you have to believe two things: Jerry is willing to pay off his contract AND he's ready, willing and able to acquire a first rate GM. This would involve surrendering a lot of money and control. Do you see that as likely? I don't.

But let's put the moves that most frequently get cited as hanging offenses in context. They were made without the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that the Big Ben acquisition was a gigantic detour in the progress of the team under Pax. I also believe JR had a lot to do with that move; at the very least, he did the deal, whether it was his idea or not. At the time, we celebrated both getting a big time presence in the post and weakening our top division rival. Didn't hear a lot of predictions that he would dog it after he got the money, nor that he would disrupt the discipline that Skiles had so carefully crafted to the degree that Skiles had to sneak out the back door,

So with an eye to acquiring BW at center, fortifying PF was the elephant in the room. Most felt pretty much the same way about Tyson that they do about Noah today. The 2006 draft was about Aldridge or Thomas. Go back and review the mocks and the ratings. LA was viewed as more Brad Sellers than Karl Malone. Roy-Foye-Gay were good choices, but we weren't looking for wings. Our core were the darlings of the NBA. By most accounts, TT was the right choice. Fast forward through 2006-7 to the next draft.

I'm pretty confident that the braintrust was already rethinking Wallace, and we spent our first two picks on centers. Coincidental that they traded BW at the first opportunity? I'm guessing not. Again, go back and look at the predraft info. I'm pretty sure if he was still on the board, Pax would have taken Oden. Noah was rated much higher than Hawes; he was the right choice.

If you need someone to blame for last year and the unsure status of this year, I have a target for you: the core. Anyone here think they've gotten better since then? People were tossing around names like Garnett, Gasol, Bryant, etc, as trade targets for the Bulls back then. What do you think they'd fetch today? Ben Wallace?

If there's someone out there who has the ability to predict how young players are going to react to the slings and arrows (not to mention the money, women, etc) of NBA life, there is an extremely lucrative career waiting for them out there. The professional scouts get it wrong, the GMs get it wrong, Michael F'ing Jordan gets it wrong. In my opinion, the jury's still out on Noah and Thomas. Can they be real good frontcourt players? Of course. Will they? Tell you in 4 or 5 years.

But my main point is, judge Pax realistically. He's doing his job in JR's world, not yours and mine. There is an absolute salary cap. There is JR's veto power. There is probably quite a bit we don't know and don't want to know about it. I'm imagining that Phoenix and the Clips may be the only worse jobs out there. This team is not the worst pile of crap in the league, as they're so frequently accused of being. They're near .500 in a year where that's going to be an achievement, with 3 teams looking for 70 wins. Vinnie's doing a very respectable job. I'm sure Pax is looking for a sound deal like every other GM is doing. But I don't want him to make trades just to appease the restless.

We're not going to contend this year. I'm 100% in the play Noah and TT camp. But Vinnie finally came out with what's holding up the program. It ain't a video game, kids. The horses have a lot to say about how the race is going to play out. Tonight, they got a lot of PT, and they both showed flashes of why they were lotto picks. Apparently a few hours in the gym and a little prep time help. Who knew? I'm happy to see the organization setting standards.

Pax has some serious decisions to make this year. He'll err on the side of caution if anything, but so far he's been making pretty sound choices. Let's see our $10 million dollar men step up and earn their pay. If they do, things are not so bad.

Joakim Noah and +/-

California Al — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:15:02 -0000

Looking for some informed opinions on what to make of his performance and how it relates to the team's performance. Like everyone else, I'm disappointed that he didn't take his career seriously enough this summer and showed up in poor shape. But I've still noticed that all in all, the team plays better during his stints than during his benchings. This doesn't surprise me, as I've always thought and still think that his primary focus is on team results, and he does the other things, which I don't consider the "little" things.

There was a play at the end of the half in Utah that symbolizes what I like about him being out there. Okur had taken him out to the three on the weak side. I think Kirilenko had the ball and was killing the clock. When he broke for the basket, Noah abandoned Okur to help in the lane, not sure if he affected the shot at all, but he was able to get the rebound, tried the quick outlet to Rose, pulled it back when it wasn't there and waited for him to come back to the ball. Rose made an unbelievable end to end layup at the buzzer.

He's a low usage facilitator. He seems to have a Rodman-like sense to get to the ball. His know-how in help defense may have a way to go, but his desire is 100%. I think his frame will fill out naturally with maturation. We have a team full of shooters. Rose and Hinrich seem to be the only ones capable of giving up the ball except out of desperation. I don't see a superstar center coming our way, and I doubt that BG, Hughes, Gooden, Noc, etc would pass up a shot for anyone less than Howard, Duncan, etc, and maybe not even then. In the meantime, I've been looking at popcornmachine's game flow the past half-dozen games or so, and his +/- is better than the team's performance just about every time. I translate this as validation of my opinion that he contributes in a lot of ways that don't reach the stat line.

I also realize that we see what we want to see in stats, and +/- seems to infuriate some members here that are much more educated in these matters than I ever hope to be. So, I guess I'm asking for help in interpreting the data. Does his value override his weaknesses, or am I guilty of wishful watching? It just seems to me that he's a good ballhawk, a good team defender, and is content to help others do the scoring, and the sum of it all is that the team plays better when he's on the court.

Game Preview #11 - Chicago Bulls at Los Angeles Lakers

California Al — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:32:55 -0000

[Thanks to California Al for tonight's game preview. KC has some pregame notes: Gooden is going to start after tweaking his ankle in practice, and Deng will guard Kobe. My prediction (in general): pain. -ed.]

Here's hoping we can kick off the circus trip with a (gasp) three game win streak. I mentioned in another thread the new Lakers defense Phil's implemented this year, and it's explained well here. What I like about it is the same thing I liked about D'Antoni's or Nellie's offenses: it's real aggressive and engages all five players with the opportunities to make plays, get on ESPN, pad stats, and all of the other fun things that players like to do. Not a hard sell.

Kurt at Lakers Blue and Gold has a much more eloquent preview than I'm capable of, but considering his usually outstanding work, I don't know how he put Gordon in our frontcourt; I'm sure he meant Deng. He also gave major props to Matt (well-deserved, of course), and points out some very revealing stats about the weak defensive performance of our frontcourt. For a good read, go here.

Again, I wouldn't freak out about how BG is going to matchup on Kobe. More than likely, they'll play the triangle and try to exploit the frontcourt matchups early. If we're still in it after three, then we can worry about Kobe.

Change of pace, anyone?

California Al — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:24:34 -0000

It's been a long offseason of bashing each other's opinions about the draft, trade proposals, and the BG's economics. I'd really like to hear some thoughts on how the Bulls can make us smile again.

My hope would be for them to win 23-25 games in the second half and establish a game we'll look forward to next year. Any thoughts on how VDN ought to approach this team? I'm tired of hearing about how to improve with players on other teams. Duh. I like this group and want to know how to make them play their best. Assuming we have everything go right and have to face Boston in the first round, where would you like the Bulls to be, and how would you go about getting there?

My only thoughts are that I hope they've settled TT and Thabo's 2009 and beyond roles by January, and that Noah's been channeled into what direction his NBA career has to go. Maybe BG is the most complementary 2g we have; maybe Thabo out on the break or helping with the d boards is better. Is TT going to learn that Skiles was right about getting up the court faster, or even the necessity of being where he should within the offense?

How would you run this team (from the bench, not the front office)?

Interesting stat encapsulation of the Bulls' weakness

California Al — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:57:23 -0000

Sorry if this is old news for those who spend more time researching the game by the numbers, but I recently surfed my way to 82games.com, This particular ranking of the teams by position seemed to be an accurate predictor of their net result for 2007-2008, and a good expression of what the BaB community expressed in wildly and humorously diverse ways.

We underperformed last year, and should have been one of the marginal playoff teams. We should have been better than 9th worst, but not even close to contending for the title. Look at the teams with the lowest (good) total rankings, and they were the favorites going into the playoffs; finalists, conference, division, etc. In Boston's case, dominant at 3 positions, very good at the other 2. All of the other top 8 teams have a "big three" ranking of 21 or less; Cleveland was the exception, showing that a player being #1 might not indicate just how #1 he really is. Our best "big 3" has a rank of 45.

My takeaway from this was that the Bulls' problems can't be directed simply at your least favorite player, unless you invent a scenario where Pax somehow converts, say, Larry Hughes into LBJ, Kobe, or Howard. They're just not very competitive across the board; look at how far they have to go to get into the ranks of the Denvers and Sixers of the leagues, and those teams still seem to be on the other side of the Grand Canyon from Boston, Detroit, LA and Utah.

No wonder any poster suggestions for how to fix the team gets met with 100 posts why it either won't work or is ludicrously unrealistic. It appears that we're beyond mediocrity at the guards and center, and just ok at the forwards. Hopefully Noah and Rose mature into top 5 rankings at those positions, but that still only makes us marginal. Without citing the particular stats I'd had in mind, I posed this dilemna to HSCS and I liked his response:

Rose is a pretty big upgrade

and the Bulls dropped so far defensively last season that there really isn’t a clear need. Thomas and Noah haven’t played enough, and it will be really hard to upgrade on Deng and Gordon for the amount of time the Bulls could lock them up for.

Well, here's hoping that Rose can "make the players around him better"; a LOT better.