One of the most common axioms you’ll hear in sports is, of course, "Defense wins championships." But what wins first round matchups? With eight terrific opening series in the books, I’d like to take a look at another cliché often bandied about in the NBA, "The team with the best player wins." So which of these purported truisms proved accurate in this electric first round?

Continue reading this post »

            I’ve always associated Andre Iguodala with Luol Deng, mostly because they were both available to the Bulls with the 7th pick in the 2004 draft. They went with Deng, obviously, and the Sixers picked up Iggy with the 9th pick. (Sandwiched between them, by the way, was Rafael Araujo to the Raptors. Yikes.)

While Deng, along with Ben Gordon, joined the nucleus that would become the Baby Bulls, Iguodala went to a Sixer team in the midst of collapse. Allen Iverson was still on the team at that point, but would only be there another two and a half years, and Iggy has only nibbled at the playoffs in his first seven years, losing three times in the first round and looking like he’ll go out quietly this year.

The year after Deng and Iguodala joined the league, the Pacers drafted Danny Granger with the 17th pick. Granger had fallen for reasons that aren’t quite clear, but once he rounded into form he made the teams that passed on him regret it, winning the NBA’s Most Improved Player award in 2009 and making his first All-Star appearance. But like Iguodala, his team met with minimal success: this is only his second playoff appearance in six years.   

So which of these Eastern Conference swingmen is best? As always, let’s define terms: for this exercise, I want to figure out who you’d want on your team right now and for the next few years.

Basics first:

Luol Deng:                  6’9”     220      26 years old

Andre Iguodala:          6’6”     207      27 years old

Danny Granger:          6’8”     228      28 years old

            Granger, despite having the least experience in the League, is the oldest player. Also, both Granger and Iggy have sturdier builds than the taller Deng.

            Let’s move on to the standard advanced statistics:

                        PER                 Adj. +/-           Estimated Wins Added

Deng:              15.58               +2.36               8.1

Iguodala:         17.30               -2.14                10.2

Granger:          17.89               +.46                 8.3

            It’s important to note here that although he trails in PER and EWA, Deng has a sizeable advantage in Adjusted Plus/Minus. As we’ll see, we have a bit of a Goldilocks problem here, and Deng seems to be just right.

            Now we’ll break it down a bit and look at some more specific stats. I’ve included Defensive Rating and Offensive Rating for a more holistic approach at both ends:

                        P/36     TO%    TS%    Ast%   Reb%  USG      ORtg            DRtg            Net Rtg          

Deng:              16.0     9.24     54.9     11.9     8.6       23.4     105.98          97.64            8.33

Iguodala:         13.8     9.51     53.0     26.1     9.0       21.3     104.17         100.80          3.37

Granger:          21.1     10.99   55.4     12.8     8.5       29.7     102.96         103.82         -.86

Clearly there’s a lot going on here. Granger is obviously the big scorer, followed by Deng and then Iguodala. Granger’s turnover rate is significantly higher than the other two, but that goes along with the big bump he has in Usage. The biggest place in which one clearly out-paces the other two, however, is in Iguodala’s Assist Ratio. This makes sense, given that Iggy often plays the point for Doug Collins’ squad, but it does seem to give a clear advantage to Iggy in our little contest

            It’s important, though, to look at the defensive side of the ball. While I don’t trust defensive rating completely, or even a significant amount, the numbers here seem to back up my perception that Granger, for all of his offensive prowess, tends to give up as many as he puts in. Deng and Iguodala, meanwhile, have gained many admirers around the league for their defense. I’d attribute the large gap between their defensive ratings to the overall strength of the Bulls D.

            Finally, let’s check in on durability:

                        GP (2010-11)       MPG (2010-11)         Games/Season             MPG (career)

Deng:              82                          39.1                             69.3                                  35.0    

Iguodala:         67                         36.9                             79                                     38

Granger:          79                         35.0                             74.7                                  33.2

            Obviously, until this year Iguodala has been a tank, while Deng seems to have reinforced his brittle bones. The time Granger has missed is a little bit troublesome, but he bounced back this year.

            So what to make of all of this? Well, I tend to think of them as three different versions of a similar player. We have Danny Granger as the Offensive Model: a rangy 3 who uses his height and athleticism to get shots off from all over the floor, but a weak defender. At the other end we have the Defensive Model in Iguodala: smaller and stronger, he can play either 2 or 3 and always matches up against the best opposing wing. Of course, what breaks the mold is Iggy’s playmaking abilities. Deng seemed to be the Overall model, able to both lock down explosive wing players and create some offense in the right system.

            That bit about the right system is my other takeaway from this exercise. I firmly believe that any one of these players could thrive in the role that Deng is playing right now, as a third option on a good team. Certainly, Granger would struggle with the defensive responsibilities, and Iguodala would need to work on his range. But Granger would provide more pop offensively, making Rose even more dangerous, and Iggy would be able to share some of the ball-handling duties, allowing Rose to work off the ball more.

            Instead of a situation like Chicago, however, both Granger and Iguodala found themselves in situations where they were asked to be The Man, and have not proven equal to the task. I’m glad we were spared the spectacle of Deng similarly failing, but it certainly could have happened had the draft turned out differently.

            In final estimation, I’d put Iguodala at the top of the list: his playmaking and defense cancel out his lack of range. Then we have Deng, as our happy medium, and finally Granger. I already had misgivings about his defense and turnovers, and seeing some of his Hero Mode moments this series have solidified him as the low man on this particular totem pole.

PER courtesy of ESPN.com

Games Played and Minutes Per Game information courtesy of basketball-reference.com

All other statistics courtesy of NBA Statcube

[Note: This was originally written for a different forum- I'm posting it here so that an unabridged copy will exist on the interwebs. So yes, fellow BlogABullers, feel free to rip it apart.]

            Basketball players often come to represent concepts and ideals far beyond anything they signed up for. Support Tim Duncan and you are casting your vote for staid fundamentals and mind-numbing humility. Steve Nash was once the harbinger of a radical, exciting brand of hoops, but since the destruction of Seven Seconds or Less he has come to epitomize the good soldier, a man who keep working away at the Sisyphean task of making the Suns relevant again instead of demanding a golden parachute to the sunnier (if not literally) climes of Florida, LA or Dallas. Die-hard Kobe backers gain the luxury of feeling like a persecuted minority while rooting for the most successful active player in the league.

            Derrick Rose supporters are still in the process of figuring out what that says about us.

            Chicago’s high-flying point guard is a study in contradictions. A man so soft-spoken and self-effacing that he is referred to in some circles as “humble-bot” is also seen as an inveterate chucker. A so-called “shoot-first point guard,” the ultimate backhanded compliment, Rose is universally praised by his teammates as selfless, and frequently urged by his coach to assert himself more. A master of the highlight reel dunk and twisting layup, his favorite shot is a pull up 15-footer from the elbow, the very shot that old-fashioned curmudgeons have been pining for more of since Jordan. And a man who, frankly, doesn’t seem particularly intelligent or articulate becomes a savant with a basketball in his hand.

            Full disclosure: I love Derrick Rose. If I could get a job as the man’s personal sock sniffer, I would. I grew up in Chicago, and Jordan’s six titles spanned my career from preschool to 3rd grade. I only have memories of the last few, but I have a general nostalgia about my dad letting me stay up and play in his room as he shouted and celebrated every May and June. I moved to the suburbs and then to California right as the Bulls took their nosedive into irrelevance, suffered through the frustratingly mediocre Baby Bulls, and nearly got myself committed shouting with joy on an airport shuttle in Tempe, Arizona when my dad texted me the news that the Bulls had won the lottery in 2007. When Rose exploded in that first round series against Boston his rookie year, I wore my Bulls t-shirt to school every day for a week. Derrick Rose has the Bulls back to national prominence. I am not a “liberated fan” in the Free Darko mode- I love my Bulls. So I’m all in on D-Rose.

            At the same time, however, I have become a devotee of the great basketball blogs: TrueHoop, The Point Forward, Off the Dribble, Basketball Prospectus, HoopSpeak, Free Darko, NBA Playbook. All of these and more have widened and deepened my basketball knowledge, introduced me to new and better ways to understand the game.

            About a month ago, I was watching the Bulls play the Bobcats in Charlotte, with the Charlotte announcers. As opposing announcers often do these days, Del Curry and Steve Martin were gushing over Chicago. Curry complimented their control of the boards, saying “They’re an excellent rebounding team, in fact, number two in the league.” Instinctively, I corrected him (out loud, because yes, I talk back to commentators while watching basketball games). We are the best rebounding team in the league by rebound rate; the Timberwolves only get more boards because they play faster. Having that sort of information makes me, in my opinion, a better fan, and better able to understand the game.

            So what am I to do when the very writers who have shaped the way I view the game rise up to attack my favorite player? When John Hollinger tells us that Rose is an Iverson-esque chucker with no conscionable case for MVP, the kid who’s still bouncing happily on the couch as Jordan hits the game-winner in Utah goes ballistic, while the coolly analytical basketball fan, the half of me that the reactionary Bulls fan hates, says that actually, the stats back Hollinger up. When Zach Lowe talks about Rose’s lack of contribution on D, especially compared to the bench, as a knock on Rose’s case, I feel torn again. And I know I’m not alone. The blog I frequent most, BlogABull, has become something of a bastion for anti-advance statistics sentiment. Many derisive and profane insults have been hurled at the “nerdospere.” Is this because Bulls fans in particular are stubborn and phobic about math? I don’t believe so. The Bulls fans who flock to this site are, by definition, savvy and committed. And yet, we are all at war with competing narratives in our fandom. After all, these advanced stats are unfamiliar, and threatening one of our core beliefs as Bulls fans: that Derrick Rose is a god.

            Unfortunately, that dichotomy is rapidly becoming Rose’s persona: Rose fans are the crazy, stat-denying loonies, the Tea Party of the blogosphere. It doesn’t help that the quote-unquote “mainstream media” are also on the Rose bandwagon, making us seem behind the times and painfully un-hip.

            Speaking as a Bulls fan, let me say: I don’t want to be that guy. I want to be an enlighted acolyte of basketball sabermetrics.

            Henry Abbott is the best of the new age bloggers, and I read him religiously. But if he has a foible, it’s his insistence on the ease with which advanced statistics and new narratives can be adopted. In a perfect world, perhaps we could all be some beautiful combination of Bethlehem Shoals, John Hollinger and Beckley Mason, clever, quick and enlightened, embracing our inner stat geek and rejecting all narratives that work against those beautiful numbers. But there’s still a 6-year-old kid in me who bought a Jordan jersey that was so big it was basically a dress, and wore it twice a week anyways. If you can explain Rose’s PER shortfalls to that kid, you’re a better man than I.

            I live on the Peninsula, and I was here from the beginning of the Balco case to the end (if there ever is an end). One of the most curious parts of that situation was the bunker mentality adopted by Giants fans. Every one, to a man, believed that Bonds was innocent, and was willing to grab onto the most absurd rationalizations about the cream, the clear, and the inexplicably ballooning of his cranium. As a non-Giants fan, I would crack steroids jokes that were greeted by dead silence and stone faces.

            It was clear that this guy cheated, but they refused to turn their backs on him. And when I asked why, and these fans were willing to examine their motives, they all came down to one word: loyalty. They felt they owed him. They told personal stories, about watching games with their families and friends. They said that when Bonds rocketed a ball into the bay, he gave them a reason to be proud of their city and a way to connect to the strangers who surrounded them. He had done so much for them, they said. How could they abandon him now?

            There are probably those who say that they were misguided. There’s a strong argument to be found in that direction, just as there’s a strong argument to be found in dismissing the MVP chances of Derrick Rose. But when I talked to those Giants fans, I sensed a nobility of purpose in their defense of their hero. Bonds broke the law and demeaned the game he played: all Rose does is take ill-advised three-pointers and turn the ball over more than you’d like. How can we abandon him, after all he has given us?

            Maybe one day the transition will be over, the best guys in PER, Win Shares, and adjusted plus-minus will be the only MVP contenders, and the NBA landscape will be a better place for it. If I had an MVP vote, and a responsibility to the league and to the judgment of history, I would vote for Dwight Howard.  But this year, Derrick Rose is going to win the MVP trophy, and there’s going to be a 6-year-old kid in Chicago dancing on the couch with his dad as Number 1 hoists that trophy in the air. And at the risk of becoming one of the Philistines who get shouted down on ABPR-Metrics message boards: that’s alright with me. 

[Thanks to Chalkwhite for today's game preview. Latest from KC has Boozer out tonight, and Deng a gametime decision (he got a thigh bruise in Wednesday's game but stayed in). It'll be interesting to see how Thibs balances his starting lineup potency with his desire to keep 'bench unit!' intact.  Make sure to check out Peachtree Hoops and Hoopinion, especially the latter's take on the Hawks jumpshooting-reliant offense. Game is at 7 on CSNChicago (and nationally on NBATV) -ed.]

Again we meet the Hawks who, as I'm sure you've heard, are one of only two teams that we have yet to beat this season. This time we'll be in Chicago, which is a plus, but probably without Boozer, which... isn't.

There seems to be a strangely bipolar reaction to Boozer's injury around these parts. On the one hand, it's crushingly unfortunate that we won't have a full head of stream going into the playoffs, if Booz is out a week and then we need another to get re-acclimated. On the other, we've already seen how well we can play without him, and we (or at least, I) have been getting sick of how bad he is defensively. Taj isn't half the offensive player Booz is, but at least he doesn't make you feel ill as wingmen blow by his slowly-rotating carcass.

At any rate, I don't think that if he's really out only a week or so, we'll lost that much momentum and/or prep time for the playoffs. It'll just give us time to get used to the reality of the next five years: an injury prone PF who will forever have trouble staying on the court. Boozer's absence may, however, put a dent in our chances for the 1 seed. The Clips beat the Celtics Wednesday in Boston, and the C's come to Philly tonight to play a surprisingly tough Sixers team (I'm in Philly now, and will actually be courtside for the game- it's the first game I've ever had courtside seats for, and while I wish it were the Bulls, I'm still worried I'm going to pass out from excitement once I actually get to the arena.)

I'm not particularly worried about this game- if we were really three points worse than the Hawks at their place, we're more than three points better at home.

Matchups:

Kirk Hinrich vs. Derrick Rose: Enough has been said about the good Captain. Suffice to say, when both of these men were on the Bulls, no one was suggesting that Rose should be the one to move to the 2 guard to accommodate Kirk. Advantage: Rose

Joe Johnson vs. Keith Bogans: As many posters around her pointed out after the Atlanta breakdown, Bogans actually played pretty good defense against Johnson in his two stints- although I have to say, it was pretty bizarre to come on here after the game and hear people yelling, "Play Bogans more!" Obviously, though, Joe is still more talented, and could double as the best player on the All-Overpaid All-Stars. Advantage: Johnson

Marvin Williams vs. Luol Deng: I've always been lukewarm about Williams, and this season I'm pretty much lukecold. He just doesn't do anything well, and given that he's the fifth offensive option on this team, being a jack of all trades but master of none doesn't really help them out. Although I still see that three he hit from the corner when I close my eyes at night. Advantage: Deng

Josh Smith vs. Taj Gibson: While I am generally a huge Taj supporter, certainly more than most around here, he doesn't match up very well against jump-out-of-the-gym athleticism, which Smith obviously has in spades. I actually think a crossmatch would work well here; Taj can body up on the undersized Horford, while Noah hops around with J-Smoove. Advantage: Smith

Al Horford vs. Joakim Noah: What do we do about this one? The died-in-the-wool Bulls fan in me says always go with the Bull in the event of a tie, and yet I can't shake those memories of Horford absolutely taking Noah to school last week. Hopefully, Noah's got his mind set on revenge and drops a 20-20 tonight. Still, I can't go higher than Advantage: Push

I'll be scoreboard watching from the Sixers game: root hard, root smart, and Go Bulls.

[Thanks to chalkwhite for today's preview. I'm bracing for a letdown in this one in terms of it being a titanic clash, given that it's also a day before vacation. Though I actually worry more that it'll be the Spurs that won't bring their top game, which would be fine. Game is at 7 on TNT, and go check out PtR for their brand of hijinks. -ed.]

So here we are, last game before the All-Star break, 2.5 games back of the lead in the East. If we're using the All-Star break as a chance for reflection, I'd say that there's a lot to be happy about: An MVP candidate, a Coach of the Year candidate, and most importantly, great results without great health.

In terms of this game, I'm with Rose: Tonight is absolutely a measuring stick. The Spurs are one of the weirdest teams in recent memory. They're are without a doubt the best team in the league at this point, and yet are getting almost no play as title contenders, probably because most media members don't want to give up on the common conception that the Lakers-Heat-Celtics triumvirate are the only legitimate threats.

Of course, the way the Spurs are winning is weird as well. Duncan is only playing 28 minutes a night, and averaging 13 and 9. Tony Parker is their minutes leader, but he's only averaging 32 (you can almost hear Luol Deng's envy.) They've had no injuries of consequence, and while there was a lot of noise made at the beginning of the year about how fast they were playing, they've fallen back towards the middle of the pack. It's still faster than they used to play, but they aren't the Golden State Warriors (probably a good thing, since we all know how that turned out).

Matchups:

Derrick Rose vs. Tony "I really fucked up that Eva Longoria thing, didn't I" Parker: At this point, you know what you're getting with Parker- 20 points and 6 assists a night, lots of forays to the hoop (he's a devout practitioner of the Hinrich Maneuver, running underneath the basket with the ball without actually doing anything with it), and a middling defender. He's shooting much better this year than his career average, so we know he'll make Rose work on D. Still, Rose is bigger and stronger, plus, you know, the MVP of the league so far. Advantage: Rose

Keith Bogans vs. Manu Ginobili: As always, this will actually come down to whether the bench 2s, specifically Brewer, can shut down Manu. He's been getting a lot of play as the face of the Spurs, since we're all familiar with him, but he's not having that great a season, shooting only 43% and averaging 18 points a game. Of anybody on the team, he's probably most likely to have a season-derailing injury. Maybe Bogans can sweep the leg. Advantage: Ginobili.

Luol Deng vs. Richard Jefferson: Jefferson's another interesting case, because he's reinvented himself from his time with Carter and Kidd in Jersey, and is now mainly a spot-up 3 point shooter and designated defender. He's the Spurs 4th option in their starting lineup, while Deng is our 3rd. Deng's a better defender and can hurt you in more ways on offense: I really hope to see him be aggressive tonight getting to the hoop. Advantage: Deng

Carlos Boozer vs. Dejuan Blair: Ah, Blair, the man I love. As my father can attest, I BADLY wanted to Bulls to draft him, and still wish they had (what do you think the Spurs would say to our offer of JJ straight up for Blair?) C'est la vie. He's still not nearly as good as Boozer, and I hope Booz will go right at him to get him in some quick foul trouble. Advantage: Boozer

Kurt Thomas vs. Tim Duncan: What more can be said about Tim Duncan? He's the superstar I most hope Rose learns from: be loyal, be patient, understand when you need to take over and when you need to facilitate, understand which games matter and which games don't. They seem to have similar personalities, too: more comfortable leading by example than vocally, out-working people, not saying things that get them into trouble. As much as we all love Big Sexy, the answer here is obvious. Advantage: Duncan

Honestly? I don't think we win this game. The Spurs are an excellent, excellent team with the best road record in the NBA. I hope I'm wrong, but I think we keep it close early but lose it in the beginning of the fourth.

Go talk shit about Tony Parker's love life at 48 Minutes of Hell.

I just got home from Oracle Arena, I'm bitter, and I need to vent. Like I said in my preview today, I went to the game. Not a happy man am I.

I'm not sure how clear it was on television, but Rose looked positively lost in the first half. To begin with, he literally couldn't hold onto the ball- it's like his palms were sweaty or something. Multiple times he would just be dribbling and lose the ball. His drives to the basket were easily cut off by shitty perimeter defenders, and he was not at all aggressive. In the second half he seemed to get his handle back, but for the first time this year I saw him completely lose his confidence. There was one possession in the fourth quarter where Boozer passed out of a double team (one of the few times he did, but I'll get to that) and Rose had the ball at the 3-point line with 4 feet to spare between him and his defender, and didn't shoot or drive. Instead, he passed it along the line, leading to a contested mid-range jumper.I honestly haven't ever seen him play so tentatively.

When I saw the box score I was shocked at how good a game it looked like Boozer had. From where I was sitting, he was the main reason for our stagnant offense. He wasn't getting anything out of the post- instead he would pound and pound the ball, looking for the post move or the jumper even against a double team. Even when it worked it iced the rest of the team out of the offense.

Deng was, as always, quiet. I thought from watching it that he had done better from 3 than 3-8, but he put up his normal numbers in his normal way. It was at the top and bottom that the team fell apart, not at the middle.

Which brings me to CJ Watson, who for me is absolutely the bottom of the Bulls at this point. Maybe it's because I missed the Denver game, but I have never seen this guy do anything that helps the Bulls. The Rose-Watson backcourt at the end of the game was hideous, with Watson thinking it was his job to singlehandedly get back thedeficit. Unfortunately, his attempt was driven by long jumpers and contested runners, neither of which I've ever seen him actually complete. Honestly? I'd rather have had Bogans out there.

I don't want to make it seem like we just shot ourselves in the foot- the Warriors had a great game plan. They packed the paint with bodies and dared us to beat them with jumpers. On the other side, we laid out a red carpet to the paint- even when they weren't scoring, Ellis, Curry, Wright and Lee were absolutely living in the paint.

Obviously the two farcical plays were Brewer missing the dunk (he didn't do anything out there either) and Korver and Boozer running into each other to cause a turnover. The Korver/Boozer thing was just embarrassing, but the Brewer dunk was especially humiliating to me because I leapt out of my seat and yelled "RONNIE!" as he was running down the court, only to be drowned out violently by all of the Warriors fans cheering a missed dunk.

At the end, I honestly thought we had a chance to come back, if Rose could show up like he usually does. He just never did.

I was sitting right in front of media row, and Ric Bucher was right behind me. At the end, I turned and asked, "Mr. Bucher, what the hell happened to our offense?"

He said, "Booz doesn't play well against length, and he was ball-stopping. He looked like he was trying to prove a point."

I agree with him, for the most part. The last thing I said to him was, "We should've had this one."

This one stings. This one stings a lot.

We finish up the cupcake portion of our West Coast road trip with a visit to the Warriors (before moving on to the Greek Tragedy portion when we go to Portland). The Warriors are a bad-but-not-terrible team who- stop me if you’ve heard this one before- have a high-octane offense but play no defense whatsoever. It’s gotten a little bit better since Don Nelson went back to Hawaii to drink White Russians and go to luaus, but not much.

In our previous meeting we blew them out in the first quarter and finished with a 120-90 victory, although they were playing without David Lee (of course, we were playing without Boozer). I’ll be at the game tonight, since I’m a Chicagoan-in-exile in the Bay Area, so I’m hoping for either a better game than that, or an ungodly performance from Rose.

Continue reading this post »

[Thanks to Chalkwhite for today's game preview. Game's at 7 on CSNChicago. I'll be in attendance, so there likely will be tweeting. Make sure to check out one of my favorite blogs out there, BrewHoop -ed.]

Well, here's the game we've been waiting for. Rounding into the second half of the season, we get another chance to judge ourselves against the best team in the Central Division, and see whether we'll have any shot at a top 4 seed or if we should just- wait, what's that? The Bucks suck this year? We've opened up a truly absurd 12 and a half game lead on them and the Pacers in the Central? Boy, that's a load off my mind.

Seriously, I think there should be some sort of punishment for all of the sportswriters who predicted the Bucks would win the division. I feel like cooking and eating their columns is a little bit cliche. Can we force them to spend an afternoon listening to Neil Funk do play-by-play on a Little League Baseball game? Or make them stick their noses in Noah's armpits right after he's done some cardio? Something needs to be done.

On to the game...

This Bucks team strongly reminds me of the Bulls team in 07-08. Both were coached by Skiles, obviously, but it goes deeper than that. The year before, both teams had breakout years, on the backs of young players that subsequently got overrated (Bogut and Jennings for them, Gordon, Hinrich and Deng for us). We went on to sweep the Heat and lose a terrible series to the Pistons, while the Bucks last year hung tough with the Hawks despite losing Bogut. Both teams came into the season with massive amounts of hype, only to disappoint right out of the gate. We'll see whether they can turn their shitty season into something as wonderful as Derrick Rose (or, for that matter, as comically rewarding as the Jim Boylan era).

Only one team, however, is classy enough to fire their coach on Christmas Eve.

Jennings will be out for awhile now, and Salmons is listed as questionable.

In his place they've been starting Keyon Dooling, who's been shitty everywhere he's gone in the NBA and continues to be shitty in Milwaukee. Bogut has been rounding back into form and been getting a lot of buzz for his defense, but he is literally the only above-average player this team has right now, so it shouldn't be too much of a struggle. With the Bucks offense listed as the 28th worst in the league, we shouldn't have too much trouble shutting down their attack. I'm sure that defense, as always, will be Thibs' point of emphasis.

Which leads to the $64,000 question, especially considering the comparison between these Bucks and the Baby Bulls: who is a better coach, Skiles or Thibs? They're both obviously defense-first and more interested in effort than talent (of course, most successful coaches share these characteristics). Skiles played, and Thibs didn't, which I think comes through in the way that they each talk about the game. Skiles still has the inferiority complex of a short, unathletic white guy who made it in the league because he was a. smart and b. working his ass off every single day. For him, everything is about hustle and grit (or grime, if you will). Thibs seemed to be much more rooted in his scheme, and more generally in the X's and O's, than the sorts of abstractions that interest Skiles.

At this point, despite his infuriating Bogans-fetish and a handful of other questionable qualities, I'd go with Thibs. Everywhere Skiles has been, and even now in Milwaukee, he's eventually worn his teams out with his intensity and, by all accounts, abrasiveness. I can imagine Thibs lasting much longer, because he seems to have not only the pedigree (in the form of a championship ring) but also the strategic knowledge to back up his words, and make players put up with his demands. Skiles probably won't last more than another year or two with the Bucks: I can easily see (knock on wood) Thibs as the coach of the Bulls for the long haul. Although three years in, it's unclear whether he will have any semblance of a voice.

Go talk some shit at Bucksketball.

[Thanks to Chalkwhite for today's game preview. No update on either Rose or Noah possibly not playing. Raptors played last night, losing in Charlotte. Early start at 6, on CSNChicago -ed.]

The banged-up Bulls face off against the Raptors tonight in Toronto, and while Rose has vowed to play, he is (as of this writing) a game-time decision. I’m torn on whether or not to rest him: on the one hand, it’s the Raptors, who we should absolutely crush. On the other hand, we’ve seen games get tight that shouldn’t have gotten tight, only to have Rose get his “I’m sick of this shit” face on and drive us home. We’ll see what happens.

Whoever ends up playing, they’ll be going up against a team that’s part of the vast, unkempt masses in the slums of the Eastern Conference. The Raptors have been more respectable than, say, the Wizards, and were briefly in line for the 8 seed, but they don’t have a realistic shot at anything other than the first pick, and they don’t have much of a chance at that- there are way too many bad teams this year.

(more after the jump...)

Continue reading this post »

With our exceedingly encouraging circus trip (although I'm still smarting about the Denver game) and encouraging news about Carlos Boozer's return, I'm gearing up for a great season. Unfortunately, we're in the middle of a rough section of the schedule- Orlando Wednesday, at Celtics Friday, followed by the Thunder and the Lakers as two of our next four games (fortunately, both of those are at home.) While I'm not counting us out of any of those games, I'm calling right now that after that game, we will go on a 14-game win streak. Look at this schedule:

 

Sat, Dec 11	vs. Minnesota
Mon, Dec 13	vs Indiana
Wed, Dec 15	@ Toronto
Sat, Dec 18	vs Los Angeles
Tue, Dec 21	vs Philadelphia
Wed, Dec 22	@ Washington
Sat, Dec 25	@ NY Knicks
Sun, Dec 26	@ Detroit
Tue, Dec 28	vs Milwaukee
Fri, Dec 31	vs New Jersey
JANUARY	OPPONENT
Sat, Jan 1	vs Cleveland
Tue, Jan 4	vs Toronto
Wed, Jan 5	@ New Jersey
Fri, Jan 7	@ Philadelphia

 

 

The only teams that are even vaguely threatening in that 14-game run are the Pacers and the Bucks, and we get both of those teams at home. Even after this run, we still have mostly crappy teams sprinkled with the harder teams. Given that we've played the league's toughest schedule thus far, we're definitely due. With Boozer coming back and Rose as hot as he is, we will absolutely sweep these crappy teams and become the talk of the league going into the new year.

Bank on it.

PS. After I posted this, I read the comments on Matt's thread about Saturday night's victory, and saw that JockstrapNoah posted about this same stretch of the schedule. Just want to give credit where credit is due, and say that I did not see that line series of comments before writing this piece.

So as we all know, Taj has been beasting it this year, at least until the egg he laid last night. I'm confident that that game was a fluke- obviously, we'll see.

As with all things NBA at this point in the season, it's very early to be drawing any conclusions. But assuming that Gibson makes a successful transition to the bench in early December when Boozer returns and gives a spark to a 2nd unit that is woefully in need of a centerpiece, does he have a chance to win the Sixth Man award?

The only requirement for the award is that you come off of the bench in more games than you start, so assuming Boozer stays healthy and in the starting line-up, Gibson's brief starting stint this season will not be a problem. The bigger concern for Gibson's candidacy would seem to be his position.

The 76ers' Bobby Jones won the first-ever Sixth Man of the Year award in 1983, but the Celtics of the mid-1980's were the pioneers of using a great player off of the bench against their opponents' second string, leading to three straight awards for Kevin McHale (twice) and Bill Walton. More recently, however, the trend has been towards high-scoring swimgmen. You have to go back to Cliff Robinson's selection in 92-93 to find an honest-to-god center win the award. And since Antawn Jamison's selection as a member of the Mavericks in 2003-04, none of the winners (other than Mike Miller on a rebounding-starved Grizzlies team) have averaged more than 5 rebounds or assists, winning the award solely on their hot scoring off the bench.

The 6 winners of the award since Jamison have averaged 18 PPG, a number Gibson has no hope of reaching once he goes to the bench and his minutes and touches are reduced. That swingmen have dominated the award is hardly surprising: PPG is, for better or for worse (and usually for worse), the launching point of every conversation about a player's value. Last season's voting was a perfect example: Jamal Crawford, an explosive shooting guard who doesn't add much value other than his scoring, beat out Anderson Varejao, who is regarded as one of the best defenders in the league. Though both Varejao and Crawford usually finished out games for their teams (taking over for Shaquille O'Neil and Marvin Williams, respectively), we saw a whole lot more end-game highlights from Crawford than from Varejao, which certainly helps shape the award debate.

Going around the league, you see that there's not necessarily a great benefit to having a swingman as your sixth man. Last year's Finals team, the Lakers and the Celtics, featured Lamar Odom and Rasheed Walace as their first men off the bench. Overall, 14 of the 30 teams had a big man as their leader in bench minutes, including half of the 16 playoff teams, which would seem to indicate that having a swingman as a 6th man doesn't boost your playoff chances

What might all this mean for Taj? It seems that no matter how valuable he is, he may have something of a glass ceiling to break through (or bend under, as the case may be). One advantage he'll have is how dreadful our bench has been this season: Kyle Korver is our best bench scorer, and he's much better suited to being a spot-up shooter and 4th option than having a 2nd unit revolve around him. Boozer's addition might end up having a bigger impact on the Bulls' bench than their starting line-up, given Gibson's excellent Boozer impersonation so far this season.

More broadly than that, however, Taj Gibson winning this award would be good for the NBA. Scoring, especially dunks and three-pointers, will always be sexy, but every postseason we see that height, and particularly height off the bench, wins (just ask Dwight Howard, planted all alone in the paint these last few years). If the Bulls become the break-out team that we want them to be, Gibson will be a huge part of it, figuratively and literally. Maybe the press will be able to see beyond the eye-popping scoring numbers and recognize that contribution.

Amidst all of the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth that has accompanied the recent trade of Tyrus Thomas, and hearkening back to the despair following the departure of Ben Gordon, I thought I would remind us all of a smaller move that caused me much more consternation. Yes, I am one of those heretics that approved of both the Gordon and Thomas moves, and if you think that makes me dumber than un-buttered toast, well, you can tell me about it in the comments of another recent FanPost of mine. The truth is, my favorite Bulls are, in some order, Rose, Hinrich, Deng and Noah; I believe Gibson has proven himself as a solid NBA player and will be a wonderful backup if/when we get an All-Star PF; and I applauded getting rid of players who were valued for the performances they were capable of over the performances they consistently supplied.

But that is not why we are here today. No, today we mourn the short Bulls tenure of the 13th overall pick in the 2006 NBA draft, Thabo Sefolosha. Now here's the point where some may say, Ah-ha! You want to talk about how Gordon and Thomas were "potential over production" and then praise Sefolosha? Well, yes, I do.

Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large- I contain multitudes.

Thabo was with us for two and a half years, and in that time offered around 16 minutes, 5 points, 3 rebounds and a steal per game. Not exactly eye-popping numbers, obviously. He was, in many ways, an extreme version of Hinrich. Outstanding defense (even those who dismiss hustle and the sort of defense that "looks like" good defense will, I believe, concede this point) combined with offense that was atrociously bad and a penchant for dribbling holes in the floor as the shot-clock whiled its way from 17 to 4.

With the tragic passing of the Skiles era, it became clear that this all-defense, no-offense guard had worn out his welcome, and with Rose coming in, and the widespread (if foolish) belief that we would soon have a glut in the backcourt (everyone remember the salad days of JamesOn Curry?), we dealt him to Oklahoma City for the pick that would become Taj.

Why was I upset to lose such a marginal piece? Because, honestly, he seemed like the kind of guy who plays a key role on winning teams. Guys like Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, James Posey, Derek Fisher before he hit his tapioca and bingo phase, all of these players chipped in, knew what they were supposed to do and did it. Teams win with two to three clearly defined Best Guys and a five to seven man support crew. On the Jordan teams, it was obviously Jordan-Pippen-Grant/Rodman and Everybody Else. This is not to disparage the Everybody Else- they were absolutely vital to fill in the gaps, check their egos at the door and work like hell to make sure everything was taken care of. That's why I can't stand guys like Gordon and Thomas: they'll never be a Best Guy and they can't stomach the notion of being a member of Everybody Else.

Sefolosha is now with the Thunder, where he has a definite shot to be a key Everybody Else man to Durant, Green and Westbrook's Best Guys. He has held onto his starting spot despite competition from James Harden, which, given Harden's lottery pedigree and the inevitable pressure to start the guy who makes serious bank over the random Swiss dude, is a pretty big accomplishment. He's been a key (although not large) part of the Thunder's defensive turnaround and was mentioned early on by ESPN as a candidate for Defensive Player of the Year (granted, that's sort of laughable, but still).

I guess what I'm trying to say is this. It's now the 2011 Playoffs. We've signed Wade, and he's gelled beautifully with the team. We're in the Eastern Conference Finals against Cleveland, it's Game 7, and we're all knotted up down the stretch. As LeBron proceeds to dismantle us piece by piece, there will be many bemoaning the loss of Tyrus, yelling "If we still had TT this never would have happened!" And I will agree with them- there's no way we would've made the Conference Finals. I, on the other hand, will be bemoaning the fact that the perfect player to stop LeBron, who was on our roster and was ready to grow up to be a latter-day Michael Cooper, is instead with the Western Conference Champion Thunder, and waiting to accompy Durant and Co. into battle against whoever wins the game we're all fictionally viewing. That, my friends, will be a dark day.

PS. The one positive I take out of all of this is that we got Taj in exchange for him. I've heard all the "lunch pail hard hat" complaints about him, and there are many I agree with, but some part of him still sees him as a charter member of Everybody Else for the 2012-2013 NBA Champion Chicago Bulls.

I swear, some of you guys have gotten so sick of hearing about Deng, Hinrich, Taj and Miller's fundamentals that you've swung completely the other way. "Give me your headcases!" you cry. "Give me your unrealized potential, lanky string beans who can jump out of the gym but cannot dribble! What's this? A staid, marginally athletic big man who shoots 15-footers and defends solidly, but has never dunked on anyone's head or blocked a shot into the thirteenth row and screamed? Away with you!

"And you there, the Duke grad who puts in a quiet 18 points every game, provides smart defense and rarely plays outside himself. Don't you know people only want histrionic babies who scream at the coach? You should be more like that old teammate of yours, who always took that 16th shot whether he was 13-15 or 2-15 and derided his 6th man status. I'm sure he's off winning championships now- wait, what's that? Detroit? Oh dear.

"At any rate, the two slow white guys definitely have to go. That taller one is probably 400 years old by now! Who wants to see a solid passer who draws big men away from the basket when we could be seeing "flashes" from a player 2 times younger, 10 times faster, 20 times more athletic and 50 times dumber with a basketball in his hands? And that short one, ye gods! Certainly there's no merit to having two excellent ball-handlers in the backcourt when we could be pairing our young star up with a heedless chucker who will teach him that the only points will get you glory!

"What's that about defense? No, sir, you are mistaken. I know defense when I see it. Defense is spectacular steals that lead to highlight reel breakaway dunks, not forcing a missed shot. Yes, I remember the good old days, when the tall, skinny one and the short, fat one showed us "flashes" for four years. Remember the championships we won! Wait, one playoff appearance? Didn't make it to the second round? Well, at least the tall one is doing great things in New Orleans- what? Quit interrupting. Charlotte? But he and Paul- oh. And the fat one's still in New York? How's he- really? He's even heavier? That is unfortunate. Well, look on the bright side- at least both of our skinny ones are in the same place!"

I exaggerate, obviously, but seriously, you should listen to yourself sometimes.

I am a fan of Scott Skiles, and I think that he is the best coach this team could ask for. He has brought out their grit, their hustle, their energy, all of those words that Matt absolutely despises. Quantitatively, he has made them into the best defensive team in the land even with some serious defensive question marks in the lineup.

But I worry that he might have Jerry Sloan disease.
Remember Greg Ostertag? He was a center for the Jazz teams with Stockton and Malone, and any burn he got was too much, because he might be the worst player to ever play in the NBA. But, because he sucked, he played really hard, and Sloan likes that. Same for John Amaechi: before he came out, he was known as another slow, unathletic, tall guy that Sloan gave too much PT to.

Obviously, PJ Brown isn't Greg Ostertag. But the predilection Skiles has shown for him (and, to a lesser extent, Noc and Du) over Thabo and Tyrus is troubling. The older guys play smarter, because they've been around more often, and make fewer mistakes. But their potential for doing amazing things is infinitesimal compared to Ty and Thabo's, and they aren't going to take over games.

Sloan never won a title in large part because he refused to play those high-risk, high-reward players.

What do you think? Can Skiles break out of this habit?

Continuing my tradition of random blog posts in the middle of important Bull-related episodes (also my effort to block this series out of my mind):

Does anyone else see a possible correlation between Brown and Duhon?
Both were starting point guards for NCAA Title contenders (Brown for Illinois, Duhon for Duke, where he actually won one).
Both played with more highly-touted, NBA-ready teammates (Deron Williams, Luther Head for Brown; Carlos Boozer, Jay Williams, Luol Deng for Duhon).
Both were thought to be college-only PGs who wouldn't translate to the NBA.
Both fell to the 2nd round, picked up by smart GMs.
Now, Duhon has established himself (cover your eyes, Matt) as a solid backup PG/emergency starter. And with Brown's performance tonight, I would not be surprised if he became a poor man's Leandro Barbosa, with an emphasis on dishing instead of scoring. (Hope he's not hurt too badly, btw. That collision looked nasty.)

I am of the opinion, like most others here, that the Bulls should sell high on Duhon this summer. And as terrible as he sometimes looked, I can think of at least 5 teams in need of a real PG (Atlanta, Cleveland, Lakers, Miami, Orlando) for whom Duhon would be an upgrade.

As a long-time Illinois fan, I pray Brown has a similar career arch. I'll never understand why more teams weren't interested in drafting him.

I know that, as Bulls fans, we love to bitch (legitimately) that no one gives us any love. That's true: every single article is about how the Heat are reeling, as if they're doing it to themselves, but are confident. Thorpe even said "Now win one on the road" (no link). But... we haven't PLAYED one on there road yet.

Anyways, we do have a beef, but it is NOTHING compared to poor Toronto. After the first game, where the Nets won, roughly 90% of the media handed the series to New Jersey, even though they poo-pooed Denver and Golden State winning. As much as I think that conspiracy "East Coast Bias" is silly, there is DEFINITELY a more complicated bias going on here. A combination of a Bigger Market/Bigger Star bias and a dislike (or, maybe, distrust) of up-and-coming teams.
Chicago has no stars and have rather paltry playoff history, but Toronto has it worse, in a small (Canadian) market, with no playoff experience and a second-tier star. And they're going up against a big market, star-laden, experienced team in the Nets.

So in solidarity with our Canadian brothers-in-arms, Go Raptors.

Matt:

I've said this before: watching the Bulls play in New Jersey just plain sucks.

The 10 game losing streak in that building doesn't help. The Nets team is boring, the stadium is usually half-empty and depressing-looking. The fact that it's a road game makes it non-HD picture (not to mention the sound quality) which always makes the viewing experience crap.

But wait, tonight's game is on ESPN? For some reason that makes me feel less nervous. The place should be somewhat energized, the Nets need this game nearly as much as the Bulls to guarantee them a more favorable matchup.

Cavs beat reporter Brian Windhorst relays the idea that this is the most important game of the post-dynasty Bulls. He acknowledges that game 5 in Miami (who are rooting for the Bulls, btw) last season may be a bit more important, but this is definitely a biggie.

Just win.

More on the seeing implications below, from Chalkwhite.

Continue reading this post »

Yay for commercials. I put this in the game thread for the Pistons game, and I got the link from TrueHoop, but everyone should take a look at:
http://bothteamsplayedhard.net/
They've got a list of the best basketball ads. Michael Jordan, as you can imagine, is ubiquitous.

And number one gives me goosebumps every time I watch it.

Enjoy.