SB Nation User Blog: T-Boogie

Theme Songs for the Current Bulls

T-Boogie — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:30:24 -0000

Theme Songs for the Current Bulls

The lull period's been a real bitch for blogging, so, to fill some space on my other blog, I came up with theme songs for each of the Bulls on the current roster. Check it out if you're bored and need to kill some time reading mindless filler. The songs I've chosen all have links, too, should you care to hear them.

T-Boogie's 08-09 Award Winners

T-Boogie — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:26:45 -0000

[From the FanPosts: Thanks to T-Boogie for starting us with some picks and rationales. Throw in your opinion, and maybe we can reach some consensus picks.... Consensus on BaB! Hahahahahahahaha. ;-) wjb]

We seem to be low on discussion material as we find ourselves in that awkward time frame in between the end of our season and the NBA draft. Therefore, I decided to share my picks for individual awards for the Bulls this season. I have also posted several other articles on my other Bulls blog, if anyone needs more reading material at work. Without further delay, here are my picks for the best performances from Bulls players this year.

Most Improved: Joakim Noah

Honorable Mention: Tyrus Thomas

Noah's rookie season was full of drama, underwhelming performances, and repeated incidents that brought his maturity into question. Since then, Noah has improved on all fronts by leaps and bounds. Noah struggled a bit early on, but he was one of the most consistent players by the end of the season. Noah's rebound rate went from good to tremendous, he grew as a defender, and he seems to have put his immature past behind him. Noah's progress was outstanding, and we can only hope that he continues to improve at such a fast rate.

Offensive P.O.Y.: Ben Gordon

Honorable Mention: Derrick Rose

Gordon led the team in points per game (20.7) and 3's per game (2.1), adding instant offense on a consistent basis. In clutch situations, the offensive scheme was basically get Gordon the ball and hope he could put points on the board, and he filled that role admirably. The Bulls will really miss Gordon if he leaves, as his play basically guarantees loads of points and clutch shooting. No matter what situation Gordon finds himself in, he manages to score consistently. Easily the most consistent offensive performer of the season, and, in my mind, the undisputed offensive player of the year for the Bulls.

Defensive P.O.Y.: Tyrus Thomas

Honorable Mention: Joakim Noah

Inconsistency has been the buzzword with Tyrus, but his defense was stellar this season. A constant threat for blocking shots, Tyrus was one of the few players that seemed to understand how to play help defense. Tyrus covered small forwards, power forwards, and even centers occasionally, and he played solid defense against all three positions. Tyrus' athleticism makes him an elite shot blocker, and, with some more offensive improvement and some more (dare I say it) consistency, Tyrus could eventually live up to that much-hyped potential.

6th Man Award: Kirk Hinrich & Brad Miller

This was a difficult decision, and I chose the cop-out option of giving both Hinrich and Miller the award. Hinrich missed a sizable portion of the year due to a thumb injury, and Miller didn't come into the Bulls program until the trade deadline, but both provided valuable production off the bench. Hinrich has to be the top backup point guard in the league, and his defense took the Bulls to another level after his return. The addition of Miller (and John Salmons' impressive offensive contributions) helped the Bulls end the season very well, and his physical play helped the Bulls reel in more rebounds. Both Hinrich and Miller helped spread the floor with their exceptional outside shooting, and, even though both players are paid too much to be backups (and, quite frankly,m they're both good enough to start on many teams), they provided the Bulls with some vital assistance off the bench, logging big minutes and making big plays..

Player of the Year:

1st Place: Ben Gordon

2nd Place: Derrick Rose

3rd Place: Joakim Noah

What I've already said above about BG, combined with his improved (although still not above average, with the exception of his stellar job on Allen in the playoffs) defense and consistency makes Gordon my MVP for the Bulls this year. Ben was almost always good for at least 20 points per game, and he was pretty much the only one (Salmons also did an admirable job when called upon, but not with BG's consistency) I trusted with the ball in the dying seconds of close games (that 36.3 points per game and 56.9 eFG% in clutch situations is hard to replace, to say the least). Gordon was pretty much the entire offense with games on the line, and he more or less thrived under that pressure.

Rose did a great job for a rookie, demonstrating phenomenal poise, a good midrange jumper, excellent interior finishing and quickness, superior vision and passing, and respectable rebounding for a young, rookie point guard. His exceptional gifts undoubtedly make him the franchise's most important player, but, when his poor defense and slumps are factored into the decision, he was a step behind Gordon this season.

Noah played his role exceptionally well after a rough start, aggressively crashing the boards and finishing strong near the hoop. Noah has always been a good defender, and he improved his D on the bigger, more physical centers, but his help defense and scoring skills still need work. Nevertheless, Noah completely dodged the vaunted “sophomore slump” and provided the Bulls with solid production down low.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are your picks for the individual accolades of the 08-09 Bulls? I'd like to hear your opinions below, as I'm sure my opinions don't reflect the consensus opinion.

My 6 Most Intriguing FA's, and Why I Don't Want Any of Them

T-Boogie — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:35:45 -0000

Admittedly, that title makes this sound like a very anti-climactic post. And it is. However, I'm going to try to spark a free agent discussion by trying to prove that this current crop of free agents has nothing to solve our problems, and that we need to look elsewhere for reinforcements. The draft should provide us with a new rotation player, but we still need more than that.

Before I continue on to the 6 free agents (in no particular order) that I think have something to offer the Bulls and then proceed to shoot down any logic for bringing them in, I would like to do some quick, shameful self-promotion and direct anyone who cares to read more of my thoughts about our current crew at this link.

Now, on to the free agents. ESPN, Basketball-Reference, and 82games are my sources for any stats.

Chris Andersen (PF-Denver), 30 yrs old, $797K for 08-09

I really like this guy, but he's not the solution to all of the Bulls' problems. Birdman offers high energy play off the bench, with a good rebound rate (10.9 per 36 minutes) and superb block rate (4.3 per 36 minutes). That 18.1 PER also suggest some very efficient play, but I still have some doubts. For one, he's 30, which suggests that he is probably at his peak. I also don't think he's the guy who will turn this team into a contender, as he basically combines a chunk of Tyrus' athleticism with some of Noah's rebounding without adding anything we don't have already. I expect him to re-sign with the Nuggets since they gave him a second chance to resurrect his career (not to mention that they've had a great season).

Paul Millsap (PF-Utah), 24 yrs old, $797K for 08-09

A solid player with plenty of positive traits, but I expect him to re-sign with Utah. Millsap posted an efficient PER of 18.6 this year while filling in for Boozer, and his 16 and 10 per 36 minutes is nothing to shrug off, but the price tag of luring him away from Utah after such an unexpectedly good season could be high (I predict that he'll want a long-term commitment and at least $6mil per year). He's a very good offensive rebounder, but he commits fouls like crazy, and I think his numbers were inflated by the fact that the Jazz we're depending on him heavily after the loss of Boozer. Playing about 30 minutes per game in February, Millsap averaged 10.6 points and 8.6 boards per game, which are respectable numbers (and the numbers I would expect him to produce for 28-32 minutes per game). However, Noah can post those numbers for a fraction of the price, and we really need more offense from any big man we may bring in, so I'm not sold on Millsap as our savior.

Ron Artest (SF-Houston), 29 yrs old, $7.4 mil for 08-09

Ron-Ron is staying in Houston, so I really shouldn't even bother to continue talking about him, but I'll go through the motions of listing what he has to offer and why we shouldn't sign him if we could. Artest is known for his outstanding D, and his PER vs. his opponents' counterparts' PER averages to a 5.3 advantage in Artest's favor, suggesting that he forces his opponent into inefficiency. Artest can also score fairly well, but he takes a lot of bad shots and doesn't shoot for a high percentage. Bottom line, though, is that we have Deng and Salmons already, Artest costs too much, and he's insane.

Zaza Pachulia (PF/C-Atlanta), 25 yrs old, $4 mil for 08-09

Yet another player I expect to re-sign with his current team. Pachulia plays with some energy, and he's decent on the boards. He plays solid D, and he's a decent backup center for a bargain rate. However, he's definitely not good enough to oust Noah or Thomas from the starting lineup, and he's not an upgrade over Miller, so he's not the answer we're looking for at this point.

Trevor Ariza (SF-LA Lakers), 23 yrs old, $3.1 mil for 08-09

I'm a big Ariza fan, but I see no reason why he wouldn't want to stay with the Lakers, who will continue to contend for at least a couple more years. Ariza has always been known for his defense, but his jumper has also improved greatly (46% from the field this season). However, if we're going for a small forward, that player better be a superstar, which Ariza is not.

Steve Novak (SF-LA Clippers), 25 yrs old, $797K for 08-09

Novak is a very good 3 point shooter (41.9% in his short career) who is tall enough at 6-10 to shoot over most SF's, but that's pretty much all he has to offer. He could be a good bargain shooter off the bench, but he's just not good enough to make a serious impact on this team.

So does anyone see anything about these guys that I missed? Any other free agents worth looking into this summer? Share your thoughts below.

Playoff Thoughts & Observations

T-Boogie — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:28:28 -0000

A few games into the playoffs, and there's already so much to talk about, so I figured I'd put in my two cents and try to jumpstart a discussion. Most of these thoughts are focused on the Bulls, but there've been some great stories all around the league, so I wanted to mention a few of those. Let me know some things I should have mentioned in the comment section.

The Bulls have a chance

Without Garnett, the Celtics just aren't contenders, plain and simple. The Bulls are playing great on fastbreaks, the D hasn't been awful, and the young Bulls have played pretty well. Rose and Rondo are so damn quick and talented that neither one can cover the other, so they're going to continue to have big games throughout this series. Noah and Tyrus need to do a better job keeping Rondo out of the lane, but other than that I've been very impressed with both of them (Noah was outstanding against Perkins in Game 1). Perkins is too damn strong for these Bulls, but Noah has held his own and continues to clean the boards. Double teaming Perkins the second he gets the ball would be a good idea, as it would force him to think fast and would reduce the likelihood of him just backing down Noah until he's at the rim (that's not Noah's fault, the guy's just a load). Allen won't have any more stinkers like Game 1, but I don't think he'll have another Game 2 either. If the guards keep up their play, if we reduce are turnovers and capitalize on Boston's, and if we avoid getting killed on the boards, then I like our chances.

2. Powe's injury makes me smile

Admittedly that's a twisted statement, but Mikki Moore sucks donkeyballs, and Glen Davis' Game 2 was a fluke, so Perkins is going to have to clean the boards by himself for the most part. If Noah or Miller box him out, that frees up Tyrus (or Noah if Miller's at center) to collect boards, provided they keep Rondo from sneaking in and cleaning up (which he has done too much so far). When Noah and Miller are in there together, expect us to have a lot more second chances on offense. On a similar note, Tyruse needs to play in the 4th. He was great in Game 1, and his blocking was good in the first half, so why not let him swat shots in the 4th when the Celtics are tired and more vulnerable to Tyrus' block parties? Miller gets tired, and a rested Tyrus plays much better than an exhausted Miller. That's just comon sense.

3. Where are the SF's?

So far, Pierce has been OK and Salmons was decent yesterday, but neither has been close to their usual levels of performance. Salmons is clearly not himself, and I wouldn't mind seeing the 3 guard lineup. Using Tyrus at the 3 would also be another idea, which would further help the rebounding cause and frustrate Perkins. Salmons still needs to play, but he can't play over 30 minutes in his condition and still be expected to contribute at his highest level. I think Pierce is going to kick it up a notch, so whoever is playing the 3 will have to step it up.

4. There've been some outstanding solo efforts around the league

Chauncey Billups was immaculate the other night. 8-9 from 3 point range? Holy crap. Eight assists and 0 turnovers? Incredible. Billups is a born winner, and I can't recall many performances that have impressed me more this season. Tony Parker's 38 points on 22 shots in Game 2 with Dallas, Yao's manhandling of Portland (9-9 shooting, 6-6 from the line, with 9 boards, just one turnover, and 12 crushed souls), and LeBron's flalwless display of 38 points (on 20 shots and 11-14 shooting from the line), 8 boards, 7 dimes, and 0 turnovers were some of the standout performances of this very young playoff season.

Now, back to the Bulls. Rose in Game 1 was unstoppable. Rondo's a quick little bugger, but he had no chance. Then Rondo comes back the next game (after a helluva Game 1, mind you) and erupts for a triple double. I will say that Rondo outhustled us in Game 2 and should not have gotten some of those boards and buckets, but he did, so hats off to him.

The Gordon/Allen duel in Game 2 was a display of pure shooting perfection. Hands in their faces, twisting and turning from all angles, finding space in impossible situations, these two simply would not be stopped. Both guard matchups have been a real pleasure to watch.

5. The title looks like a two-horse race

Boston sure as hell doesn't look like a contender any more, and, as Kelly Dwyer mentioned after the Game 1 loss to Philly, Orlando has really been overachieving since Nelson's injury (and like he says, that's not a swipe at Orlando). Nobody in the West will seriously challenge the Lakers, so I'd be shocked if we don't see a Cavs-Lakers championship series. And the mouthwatering idea of Kobe vs. LeBron for a best-of-7... well, it , um, makes my mouth water.

6. When Marbury/Moore are in, we need to make Boston pay

Marbury cannot cover any of our guards, so whoever he covers needs to go to town on his shoddy defense. He's also been pretty awful running Boston's offense, so I would like to see Hinrich in there whenever Marbury's in so we can force turnovers and get some easy buckets. Marbury is absolute garbage out there, and exploiting his inadequacy will pay all sorts of dividends for this Bulls team.

The same really goes for Moore. He works hard, but Noah's longer, more athletic, stronger, and more talented. That pretty much covers everything, but I'll just say Noah should have the ball in his hands whenever Moore's covering him, just so my point is crystal clear. Tyrus can do some real damage on Moore as well, but I would like to see Moore being forced to cover Noah whenever he steps on the court. Or he can try his luck on Miller if he wants, but Miller's going to feast on the glass if that's the case, and he'll just back Moore down until he gets to the rim on the other end (like Perkins does). I can't stress point #6 enough: when Marbury or Moore are on the court, the Bulls need to exploit their worthlessness.

I apologize for this article's complete lack of coherence, but, like I said, they're just a few observations to spark a general playoff discussion. Let me know what you've noticed, as well as your ideas for how the Bulls can take this series with Boston.

Wishlist for Next Season

T-Boogie — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:39:10 -0000

This season's not yet over, but I'm not exactly confident that the Bulls are going places in the playoffs (aside from a quick trip to Boston). I think I speak for most Bulls fans when I say we have potential, but the puzzle is not exactly complete. Therefore, I came up with a few ideas for Pax and the front office that I think would improve this club, as well as what I believe are the chances of making those things happen. These are just a few ideas to jumpstart a discussion, so scroll down to the comment section after reading and drop some knowledge on the collective BaB ass.

NOTE: This is just my speculation, not some profound wisdom backed up by glowing statistical analysis. The purpose here is to start a discussion.

1. New coach

Outlook: bleak (like Cold War Siberia bleak)

General consensus says that VDN's not the guy to solve this aforementioned puzzle, and I'll jump on that bandwagon. The guy wasn't a great player, and I never saw anything about him that made me stop and marvel at his basketball IQ. However, this team went from lottery team to playoff team during his reign, and that will probably be enough to earn him another year. The team really won in spite of his efforts, rather than because of his efforts, but he exceeded the low expectations set for him, and Paxson has said that they expect him to fumble around and learn as he goes, so I'm thinking next year we'll be seeing The Pompadoured One: Season 2. If we do get to make a change though, I'd like to see someone who can get the offense to move the ball better, increase the offensive tempo, and defend with some pride. A special coach for the bigs would be nice, too (like Ewing for Howard in Orlando or Abdul-Jabbar for Bynum in LA).

2. New home for Kirk

Outlook: good

Kirk has had a strong finish to this season, and the team has improved since his return. However, I think that the progress should be credited to adding Salmons and Miller more than Hinrich's return, and I feel like both he and the Bulls would be better off with a split. That strong finish and a good reputation could make him an appealing option for Portland, Indiana, Detroit, Houston, Minnesota, Charlotte, Dallas, Sacramento, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Memphis, and Milwaukee. Some of those teams have interesting pieces, and none are current contenders, so a deal shoudn't be unreasonably difficult (although his contract might be something that makes a few teams hesitate).

3. Low-post scoring threat

Outlook: not good

The league is short on talent at the 4 and 5 spots right now, so teams will probably be reluctant to move their good bigs if they have any. This also looks to be a pretty poor summer for free agency, and the weak draft class probably won't have much to offer once the Bulls get their picks, so my guess is we'll have the same PF's and C's we had this season at the start of next season. One ray of hope, however, is that some teams will want to clear cap space for the 2010 free agent sweepstakes, so we might be able to capitalize on that line of thinking.

4. Wing depth

Outlook: very good

We could actually solve this problem with the pieces we have now. We just need everyone to be healthy at the same time, and we'll need Deng to get back some semblance of the game he had two seasons ago. But if Gordon leaves (and I expect him to) and Deng continues his mediocre, injury-riddled play (which is unfortunately all too likely), we'll be in trouble without reinforcements. Luckily, the league is absolutely stacked at the 2 and 3 spots, so those reinforcements wouldn't necessarily be too hard to bring in if we dangled the right pieces in front of the right teams.

5. Backup PG if Hinrich is gone

Outlook: unsure

If Hinrich stays, this is a moot point. If he goes, the Bulls will need a serviceable PG with a good basketball IQ that could run the floor decently and teach Rose on the defensive end. This hypothetical PG could be similar to Hunter, who I think will retire after this season. One player I like is Jarrett Jack, who has a very good basketball IQ and a solid work ethic. Obviously, Jack isn't the kind of player that makes dreams come true and mediocre teams turn into contenders, but a guy like him would be a decent backup and mentor for Rose. Again though, if Hinrich stays, the need for Rose's backup vanishes.

6. Cap space for 2010

Outlook: need more time

If the team turns into a contender in the next year, then cap space is a nonissue. I don't see that happening, though, so clearing some space and going for Wade or Bosh wouldn't be a bad idea. I honestly think the team needs a superstar to contend, and Rose alone won't be enough. However, a guy like Wade might see Noah and Tyrus making big strides this year with the addition of Rose, and he might like the idea of joining this young, talented team. To lure those superstars, though, we'll need to offer big bucks, and, with every team salivating over summer of 2010, teams might be reluctant to take some of our contracts (especially Deng's). We'll have to see how the Bulls look next season to continue this part of the discussion.

So there are 6 things I think the Bulls would be wise to look into for next season. As always, fire away in the comment section below and tell me what the Bulls need to succeed.

The Kirk Hinrich "Great" Debate

T-Boogie — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:07:56 -0000

As promised, I have re-evaluated Captain Kirk's grade from my report card. The new grade is still going to be a point of contention, but I don't expect for anyone to agree with me. Instead, I think this will be a decent starting point for a discussion on El Capitan, and I really want to see what others have to say on the topic.

First, I should probably clarify how I graded in Part 1 and Part 2 of my report cards. Bitterly, that's how. But the grades are harsh for one key reason: this team is underperforming. I could give Rose an A, BG a B+, and lower Timmy's grade to something much closer to his actual production, but the posts have done their part of opening discussions and I'll leave them as they are for that purpose.

The grades I gave were based on several factors. Comparison with other players in the league at similar positions is a given, as is performance based on minutes played. I also factored in expectations at the beginning of the season, performance vs. contract, and overall value to the team (which is why missing games hurts grades).

Kirk's parents (i.e. the BaB community) have convinced me to raise his grade to a C, just above that C- level. Now, on to my rationale.

So wait. I'm giving Kirk the same grade as Lindsey Hunter? Yes, I am. But that doesn't mean they are equals. That's ridiculous. Kirk has definitely played better than Hunter, but let's look at their roles. Hunter was an emergency pick-up, persuaded out of potential retirement to fill in while Hinrich was out. He was expected to back up Rose and be a mentor, which he has done well. But that's about all he's done, so he gets a C, a decent grade, but nothing special.

For Hinrich, let's go back to the draft, since that inevitably changed his role. With the lucky lotto ball, we got first dibs on drafting young talent, and we had established two key needs: a quality big man, and a point guard who could improve our poor offense. Sure, we can say Rose joining the team automatically means less time and production for Hinrich. But we only drafted Rose in the first place because Kirk was not doing his job well enough. The bigs were doing pretty lousy, but we went with a PG anyway.

So his role changed, and, professional as always, he accepted it without complaint. He played a few games off the bench and starting, putting in some inconsistent performances ranging from great (I think I remember a triple-double this season from him) to mediocre (6 points on 25% shooting with 4 assists, a TO, and a foul in a little over 23 minutes against below-average Indiana is a random example. 1 point on 0-7 shooting with 2 assists and 3 TO's in just shy of 23 minutes against lousy Minnesota is another). Then he got hurt. Being hurt hurts the team, too, whether it's his fault or not. The he came back, and the Bulls' D improved, in part because of his leadership and efforts. Nevertheless, his performances have still been inconsistent, ranging from good (like the game he started with Rose out injured) to forgettable.

What about that leadership, that counts, right? True, he is a leader and will continue to be one wherever he goes. He was pretty good at it a couple years back, but he's led the team to lukewarm play for 2 years straight. Even if the team makes the playoffs, let's not forget their record and the weak Eastern Conference. Can we blame all that on him? No, of course not. But, as a captain and veteran of several years with this franchise they really needed him to step up, what with the coaching changes and all. But he hasn't.

Let's gain some perspective on Kirk. I've taken a look at his role (minutes, playing-time situations, and positional aptitude) and compared it to some other guys. These are just offensive, but I'll get to defense later. I've included ages and current salaries as well. ESPN.com and Yahoo Sports are my sources

HINRICH - Age 28, $10M in '09

M - 26.2; FG ATT - 8.1; FG% - 43.3; 3PT% - 42.0; REB - 2.4; AST - 4.0; TO - 1.8; PF - 2.6; PPG - 9.8

K. DOOLING (NETS) - Turning 29, $3.3M in '09

M - 26.4; FG ATT - 7.6; FG% - 43.4; 3PT% - 43.5; REB - 2.0; AST - 3.4; TO - 1.3; PF - 1.7; PPG - 9.4

DJ AUGUSTIN (BOBCATS) - Age 21, $2.2M in '09

M - 26.0; FG ATT - 8.4; FG% - 43.6; 3PT% - 43.8; REB - 1.8; AST - 3.6; TO - 1.7; PF - 1.9; PPG - 11.6

CJ WATSON (WARRIORS) - Turning 25, $711K in '09

M - 23.2; FG ATT - 6.8; FG% - 45.4; 3PT% - 42.2; REB - 2.3; AST - 2.4; TO - 1.1; PF - 1.5; PPG - 8.6

RAMON SESSIONS (BUCKS) - Turning 23, $723K in '09

M - 27.0; FG ATT - 9.7; FG% - 44.4; 3PT% - 18.2 (on .5 att); REB - 3.3; AST - 5.3; TO- 1.8; PF - 2.0; PPG - 12.2

With the exception of Dooling, Hinrich is the oldest player in this group, and by far the highest paid. Of course that's nothing to hold against him personally, because he's just trying to get his money like everyone else. That still hurts the team though, especially when he's at peak age and is performing offensively with the likes of this group of guys (nothing against them, but they're not exactly big-shots). Others with comparable stats that I might have included are Eddie House, Luke Ridnour, Sebastian Telfair, and Will Bynum (if you double his minutes and multiply the rest of his stats by about 1.5).

Of course, those are just statistics, not a complete comparison. But if Hinrich's D is the difference, then why is this team 17th in D overall? They weren't that great on D last year either, and Hinrich has to shoulder at least a part of that blame. The truth is, last year he wasn't showing the effort. This year, the effort is better than last year, but time off has caused Kirk to be a step slower on D.

Hinrich does have value as a good back-up, or a starter on a select number of teams (most of which are not very good). Portland and maybe Houston (depending on Brooks' progress) are the only 2 playoff teams I could see him starting for, which, in my eyes, makes him seem pretty average, relatively speaking. Could we get something valuable for him in a trade? Absolutely, but Pax needs to find a team that that has the cap space and has interesting pieces (like Portland). That contract makes things tricky, but by no means impossible. The biggest challenge will be that teams are going to be reluctant to make big moves this summer when the next summer is so much more appealing. That's just common sense, but it needs to be kept in mind when determining the likelihood of making a big splash in the summer market.

For all these reasons, I give Opie a C. There's my take, now let's hear yours. Poke holes in my logic, share your own, and reveal your plans for getting more wins.

Report Cards and Parent-Blogger Conferences: Pt. 2

T-Boogie — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:41:02 -0000

Part 2 of my breakdown of the Bulls' season, combining my observations with a marginally amusing, teacher-oriented twist. Part 1 focused on the "star pupils" (the starters & Vinny), while this focuses on everyone else I can think of from this season. These assessments will be shorter than those in Part 1, mostly because these people don't matter as much (truth's a bitch). I'm combining the good and bad (if both do exist) in one section this time, because I'm tired and it's Monday. Let's do this.

Kirk Hinrich - D

GOOD/BAD:

Kirk is honestly trying, and his defense is still better than Derrick's. He occasionally has big offensive nights, but I would have to say he's regressed in terms of productivity (I don't accept his reserve role as a valid counterargument because a good player should perform regardless of when he plays). Hinrich is not a true point, he's not a natural decision-maker, and he tends to waste shot clock time just dribbling at the top of the arc for about 10 seconds per possession. This forces his comrades to rush the offense, and a lot of said comrades could really use that extra time to create space or find better looks.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Kirk started off doing pretty well, but his attendance has been poor this year. He doesn't seem happy with his role, and he really isn't performing at the level we would like to see. In short, maybe he should transfer to another school where he would be happier, and we could use that space for someone who fits in with our system better."

Brad Miller - C+

GOOD/BAD:

Miller is the best offensive big we have, with a unique mix of passing and shooting skills for a guy with his size. However, his defense (as has been the case throughout his career) ranges from mediocre to rubbish, and so his role should remain the same. At times he rebounds well, but quicker, more agressive bigs (like Bosh and Brook Lopez) tend to outrebound him by a large margin. He also has the occasional Drew Gooden moment, in which he takes a long jumper when several better options are available.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Brad has some pretty good skills, but he has other areas where he shows no signs of improvement since getting enrolled (or drafted). We like having him for the most part, but if he's not considering transferring after this school year, he may not be happy with his future at this school."

Luol Deng - D -

GOOD/BAD:

Two years ago I could not have imagined giving this guy a grade this low, but his good season back in the day seems more and more like a fluke (or an ingenious trick to get paid). His career since earning (with a loose interpretation of "earning") that big contract has been a series of injuries and lousy performances. Deng excelled when he slashed and attacked the rim while occasionally nailing open jumpers. He seems much slower in his slashing now (when he's healthy, of course), and he settles for jumpers too often, which are not his specialty. Quicker SF's (Pierce, Butler, etc.) also rape him on the other end. That contract's not looking like a wise investment at all (insert current economy joke here).

CONFERENCE TIME:

"When your boy came in, we expected great things, but he's proving that we may have expected too much. He's hardly in school, and he hogs all the school's resources. It turns out he's slower than most of his peers (SF's), and he just doesn't seem to work as hard as he did in the past. I'm not sure if he would be welcome in another school, but he better start looking. He may also want to consider dropping out if his attendance problems persist."

Aaron Gray - D

GOOD/BAD:

How he ever started a match is beyond me. Sasquatch has a nice touch for a big fella, and he occasionally rebounds well. Other than that, though, he's extremely mediocre. He's one of the slowest players I've seen in the league, and he doesn't have any athleticism worthy of note. His defense is okay sometimes, but that slowness makes it easy for others to catch him out of position. He, Eddy Curry, and Sean May should have a fat-off (although, in fairness, Gray dropped some pounds this year).

CONFERENCE TIME:

"If we keep our expectations low, Aaron won't disappoint us. And I mean low. Like, if he keeps his shoes tied and tries his very best for 5 minutes every week, he's welcome to keep his seat in class. You may want to pack some salads in his lunchbox, too. I'm just saying..."

Lindsey Hunter - C

GOOD/BAD:

He was brought in for cover after Hinrich got hurt, and he was expected to run the floor without killing the offense. In that, he succeeded. He's also seemed to help Rose out quite a bit in terms of mentoring, but he's really expendable now that Kirk's back.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Lindsey's pretty old to still be in school, but he plays well with others, and he's tutored little Derrick well. He also doesn't cause problems, and we don't have to use much of our resources or pay much attention to him, so he's welcome in my class until a younger student with more potential comes along. Than he needs to graduate or drop out."

Tim Thomas - A+

GOOD/BAD:

That grade is sure to have raised the question "WTF?" Well, TF is that we got this guy in return for Larry Hughes, a guy that clearly had no future. Therefore, we got a fairly versatile guy who can score off the bench, handle the ball well for a big, and won't kill us on D, for free (although we had to take Fatty McFat Jerome James' contract with him). A+ for the trade, not necessarily the player.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Timmy? Great kid! Maybe my expectations are low from the kid he replaced, but your kid's like Jesus f***in Christ in my class!"

Larry Hughes - F

GOOD/BAD:

As a Billiken, I really wanted to see him succeed, and I was happy to get him for Wallace, even if it was just to swap massive contracts. When I saw him play in college, he looked like a born scorer, and he actually played well in Washington. He still occasionally shows that scoring ability, but, more often than not, dude chucks up bricks like a construction worker having a temper tantrum. He's still good on D, but it's just not worth it when he goes 2 for 13 and makes children cry. I honestly wonder if takes so many bad shots just so he can hear the soothing sound of rubber hitting iron.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Get your kid out of my school, and all the bricks he heaved in our school, too!"

Andres Nocioni - F

GOOD/BAD:

Too harsh? Methinks not. This guy can't be taught to sit, let alone play in part of a system. He's out of control the minute he steps on the court, and he shoots without a conscience. He's got scoring ability, and he's got a shooter's touch, but he's a selfish sack of crap, forcing crappy shots and committing stupid fouls day and night. He makes the same mistakes (trying to do too much, biting on head/shot fakes, running with the ball like a chicken with his head cut off) at age 29 that he's made from day 1.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Tu hijo no juega bueno. He hasn't learned a damn thing since he came to this school, he doesn't share, and he doesn't listen. This foreign exchange program isn't working. Wait, Sacramento's school will take him? Dios mio! Gracias!"

Drew Gooden -C

GOOD/BAD:

Gooden had some games where he looked to be a promising low-post scoring threat, and he has double-double potential at all times. That being said, he's a terrible defender, and he settles for long, low percentage jumpers way too often. When he plays intelligently, he can rack up boards and points, but he tends to force it too much on offense, and his passing is abysmal. The chin pubes were amusing. All in all, I have no real regrets, especially considering he came over for Wallace.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Meh, he came to us a C student, and he left a C student. Hooray for consistency."

Thabo Sefolosha - C

GOOD/BAD:

A great defender with size and length, I would have liked to see him stay. However, his shot is still below average, and his offensive skills are pretty limited. He can rebound pretty well for his size, but he can also play over thirty minutes without anyone noticing.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Thabo's a good kid with some potential, but he never really fit in, so his transfer was probably for the best."

Jerome James - F (for "Fat," you see)

GOOD/BAD:

A bad contract for a bad contract. He may never play, and I'm okay with that.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"He can do whatever he wants, but I'm worried he might eat the crayons if I leave them in plain sight."

Linton Johnson, Anthony Roberson, Cedric Simmons, Demetris Nichols - N/A

These guys are really the same person, and they all won the "Viktor Khryapa Warmest Ass Award" at one point or another. Seriously though, these benchwarmers played hard on the rare occasions that they received playing time, and they never complained about their roles, so I can't fail them and still be able to sleep at night.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Who is your kid? Are you sure he's in this class?"

There you have it, that's everyone I can remember. Are these grades accurate, or am I full of crap? Did I forget anyone? What grades would you have given? Questions and comments are always welcome (as long as you raise your hand).

Report Cards and Parent-Blogger Conferences: Pt.1

T-Boogie — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:38:40 -0000

I just finished my first round of parent-teacher conferences, where I was able to provide parents with a clear idea of their children's strengths and weaknesses before coming up with a game plan for the rest of the semester. This got me thinking: if the Bulls were my class, what would grades would I give them, and what would I tell their parents (i.e. Pax and the front office crew)? Admittedly, the report card shtick is overdone, but Vinny's done such a crappy job with this that I would consider giving my first born for a one-on-one. I've included some former players just for the hell of it, and also because there are only seven or eight current Bulls that actually could be considered "players." Now then, let me put on my teacher hat and get us started.

For part one, let's start with the current starters (no crappy pun intended, honestly):

Joakim Noah - B -

THE GOOD:

Admittedly, I was not exactly thrilled back in '07 when the Bulls picked what at the time looked like a 6-11 Bozo the Clown impersonator, and his first season offered little more than drama and frustration. Starting the season behind Aaron Gray in the pecking order didn't exactly put that frustration to rest, but the progress he has made lately has been respectable. Noah's faster than most bigs, and his rebound rate of 7 boards per half game is impressive. He's a good guy to have in the fast break and good for a few tip-ins and alley-oops, and his defense has been pretty decent as well.

THE BAD:

Noah still doesn't have that great of a jumper, and stronger, more physical bigs have destroyed him at times (Kendrick Perkins has had some career nights against Jo). He definitely needs to bulk up, and his help defense is still developing.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Your kid's got some serious ADHD, but he's got potential. When he's not getting into trouble, he's worth having around. Get him to cut the head pubes, pack him another baloney sandwich in his lunchbox to bulk him up, and give him some more minutes."

TYRUS THOMAS - B -

THE GOOD:

I have certainly had my share of "If only we'd taken Aldridge" moments, but my feelings about TT are kind of like those relationships you see on COPS. You know, whn some trailer trash gut with a beer gut and a mullet is being dragged in hand cuffs for jacking some toothless chick in a neon green tube top, only for her to drop the charges at the end while screaming "I know Joe Bob abuses me, but ah love him!" He'll shoot 20% one night and show about as much fight as Snuggle, but when you see him swat shots into the fifth row and execute that perfect alley-oop with Rose, it's love all over again. His jumper has improved a great deal, and he's finally starting to crash the boards with some semblance of regularity. Tyrus has always been a decent defender, and he's gradually shaping into a very good defensive presence. I've had to change my pants after some of his block parties, and he's making lots of players think twice before bringing that weak sauce into his kitchen.

THE BAD:

The man's inconsistent, it's as simple as that. That potential comes and goes too often, and the first half of the season was fairly disappointing for Tyrus. His jumper, although greatly improved, still needs some work, and he settles for the jumper too much when he should try to use that freakish athleticism to take it to the hole. Stronger bigs also tend to pose some problems for Tyrus, so bulking up would be a good idea.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Your kid has potential, but he needs to use it all the time. He's somewhat of a slow learner as well. For example, I tell him to run over to the wastebasket and stuff the trash in, but he throws up garbage from twenty feet and misses. I sometimes wish he could be a bit more like little LaMarcus, but he's got such outstanding potential, and he's starting to show it more often. Get him to hit the books and make sure he eats all his vegetables so he gets big and strong."

John Salmons - B+

THE GOOD:

Salmons has proven to be a great addition, scoring in bunches and taking some pressure off BG. His one-on-one defense is solid, and he offers some versatility for a team that lacks depth. He's excellent at finding ways to score, and he can hurt defenses by slashing or creating his own shot. An excellent pick-up, and he deserves to hold on to that starting spot when (if?) Deng returns.

THE BAD:

Salmons is fairly one-dimensional, even if that dimension is important and he has excelled in it. His help defense is only average, and the man just can't rebound. This is a career year for him, and although I expect him to be a good scoring option for a few more years, the 20 ppg average is going to go down.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Johnny has fit in very well with his classmates, and he gets high scores even on the toughest tests. He deserves to stay in this school, so make sure he comes back next year. And don't let little Luol try to tell him he's going to take Johnny's place, because it's not happening.

Ben Gordon - B

THE GOOD:

Like Salmons, he's one-dimensional, but he's so damn good at that one dimension, and you need to score to win. Not many guys can create their own shot like him, and he gets scary hot at times. He'll be good for at least 20 ppg for years to come, and he shoots for a high percentage. His defense has also developed a bit, and he's been one of the Bulls' most consistent performers this year. He's also got poise in clutch situations, which is an exteremly valuable asset of his.

THE BAD:

This one-trick pony can't do a whole lot else but score. His defense may have improved, but it's still mediocre, and his passing and ball handling are below average for a guy his size. His decision-making skills are questionable, like when he chose to go for isolation for about twelve seconds and assassinated the offensive flow against Bosh in the overtime loss when passing looked the better option.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Ben is very dependable in class, and his high scoring is very consistent. At times, I'd like to see him show some more skills and play better with others, but he's an important member of the class. We'd like to keep him next year, but he seems to think he deserves more than his fair share, and he has to remember that we can't have a good class unless everybody gets a share of the paper."

Derrick Rose - A-

THE GOOD:

What a complete package. This guy has ridiculous poise for his age, and he's great at making decisions. The kid has a pretty decent shot, and his defense is improving. He gets into the lane with ease, and he's a natural finisher. His quickness is just plain sick, and his passes are spot-on. His victory in the All-Star Skills Competition looked effortless, and he's a born leader. He's also an incredibly hard worker, crashing the boards and fighting his way to the basket every night. Rose is a big reason that the offense has improved, as his penetration draws extra defenders and allows him to free up his teammates for good looks. This kid's the future of this franchise.

THE BAD:

He's a rookie, so the occasional off night is to be expected. His outside jumper is good, but he needs it to improve to take his offensive game to the next level. His defense also needs to improve before he can truly be included in the elite ranks with Deron Williams and Chris Paul.

CONFERENCE TIME:

"This kid's gonna make something of himself. He gets high scores, he plays well with others, and he's a real leader. He's a hard worker, always trying to keep the boards clean and helping others to do better. Give him a pat on the head and keep him happy."

Vinny Del Negro - D

THE GOOD:

I believe I speak for most Bulls fans in saying that expectations were not very high going into this year. I personally felt that they would finish anywhere from 7th to 10th, so he has the team right about where I expected them to be

THE BAD:

Those expectations (for me, at least) were low in great part because I thought Derrick Rose would need much more time to settle in and adjust to the NBA game. Rose was ready, and the Bulls actually have gotten some production from their bigs this year. Despite all this, the Bulls are right where they were last year, playing mediocre and inconsistent basketball. When the Bulls were good a few years ago, they specialized in defense, and they could count on that specialization in a pinch. The current group has no dependable specialty other than undpredicatbility, and by definition you can't really depend on that (I think I just blew my own mind typing that, but it almost makes sense).

CONFERENCE TIME:

"Vinny's trying hard, but he's struggling. He's met my minimum expectations, but he's done little else. He has done just enough to stay in school for next year, but he's going to have to show some progress if he wants to stay in school for the full year."

How are my assessments? Are they spot-on, or do I need to do some more studying? What grades would you give this group? Feel free to make comments, and look for part 2 to come shortly.