Predict our Pace Rank

[Rerisen]

The reason I didn't officially answer before isn't cause I didn't want to, but because I don't think the answer has any meaning.

So you don't think pace mattered at all to the Warriors or Cavs in the Finals?

I would disagree 100%, it was pretty obvious when the games were being played at a slow pace, the Warriors were struggling, outside their normal comfort zone. Once they figured out the lineups and style they needed to return to playing up-tempo, they took control of the series. I think pace matters quite a bit - *not* as a indicator of how good your offense is, but as a stylistic description of how your team wants to play the game.

Pace isn't just some random factor that waffles up and down. The Suns Dragic's teams I mentioned, when you could control the pace of the game (either with your own slow offense, or to whatever extent your defense could limit their breaks) they played a lot worse.

Pace is interesting because there is an amorphous quality to the speed games are played at. It's not even necessarily defense related, but often if one team starts hoisting up quick shots and rushing down, it has an infectious quality on the overall game and the other team can get lured to playing the same way even if it is directly opposite their intention. Basically it can throw them off track. And the reverse is also true, if one team is just methodically using up the shot clock, often the other team will find themselves mirroring that same pace of play, sometimes to their detriment.

I think this is what really happened with our team under Thibs a lot, we sort of got control of the pace simply due to how we ran our system offense, not necessarily that Thibs knew the secrets of how to make teams take 20 seconds every time. And it worked to our advantage, because teams weren't always conscious that a half court battle would benefit us over them on both ends, or that the game had settled into being that.

[johnnyvann840]

The reason I didn't officially answer before isn't cause I didn't want to, but because I don't think the answer has any meaning.

So you don't think pace mattered at all to the Warriors or Cavs in the Finals?

I would disagree 100%, it was pretty obvious when the games were being played at a slow pace, the Warriors were struggling, outside their normal comfort zone. Once they figured out the lineups and style they needed to return to playing up-tempo, they took control of the series. I think pace matters quite a bit - *not* as a indicator of how good your offense, but as a stylistic description of how your team wants to play the game.

This is true, but the game still really slowed down in the Finals. The Warriors played at a 90.7 pace as opposed to 98.3 in the reg season for them. 90.7 is a slower pace than the 2014-15 Chicago Bulls played all season and in the playoffs! They scored nearly 10 less PPG also than reg season. They won with stifling defense holding the Cavs to 93.5 PPG and low efficiency. They actually turned the ball over more than the Cavs too.

[League Circles]

The reason I didn't officially answer before isn't cause I didn't want to, but because I don't think the answer has any meaning.

So you don't think pace mattered at all to the Warriors or Cavs in the Finals?

I would disagree 100%, it was pretty obvious when the games were being played at a slow pace, the Warriors were struggling, outside their normal comfort zone. Once they figured out the lineups and style they needed to return to playing up-tempo, they took control of the series. I think pace matters quite a bit - *not* as a indicator of how good your offense is, but as a stylistic description of how your team wants to play the game.

Pace isn't just some random factor that waffles up and down. The Suns Dragic's teams I mentioned, when you could control the pace of the game (either with your own slow offense, or to whatever extent your defense could limit their breaks) they played a lot worse.

Pace is interesting because there is an amorphous quality to the speed games are played at. It's not even necessarily defense related, but often if one team starts hoisting up quick shots and rushing down, it has an infectious quality on the overall game and the other team can get lured to playing the same way even if it is directly opposite their intention. Basically it can throw them off track. And the reverse is also true, if one team is just methodically using up the shot clock, often the other team will find themselves mirroring that same pace of play, sometimes to their detriment.

I think this is what really happened with our team under Thibs a lot, we sort of got control of the pace simply due to how we ran our system offense, not necessarily that Thibs knew the secrets of how to make teams take 20 seconds every time. And it worked to our advantage, because teams weren't always conscious that a half court battle would benefit us over them on both ends, or that the game had settled into being that.

I don't think pace matters in a vacuum. In individual games or even with individual units for teams and their opponents that night, it's very important for a coach to be mindful of and to use to his team's benefit. It's especially good if you have a team that can thrive playing fast OR slow and switch it up as needed depending on situation.

I just think the ranking stat called "pace" is garbage at telling me how a team might be playing, and I don't think an overall view of how fast or slow a team plays on average tells me anything about whether or not that tempo is helping them or hurting them.

I think what tempo a team is playing with and what tempo they should be playing with are best determined by watching the games.

[Rerisen]

I just think the ranking stat called "pace" is garbage at telling me how a team might be playing, and I don't think an overall view of how fast or slow a team plays on average tells me anything about whether or not that tempo is helping them or hurting them.

I think what tempo a team is playing with and what tempo they should be playing with are best determined by watching the games.

Watching the game is valuable context for any stat I think, without invalidating the usefulness of it.

Be interesting if you could provide some stronger evidence that pace doesn't tell you how a team is playing. Everything I've looked and listed in this thread indicates pace is strongly tied to offensive tempo and defense is actually the thing that doesn't really impact it much team to team regardless if you are a great defense, bad defense, forcing turnovers, not forcing turnovers.

If you shoot early in the clock and have that philosophy you will have a fast pace. If you drag it out you will have a slow pace. The other stuff matters but it looks very inconsequential. If you are on the poles and meet a team directly your opposite, now you have a tug of war that seems to be able to impact the game strongly in cases.

This reminds me of the TS% debates, I don't remember if it was with you or someone else that got hung up on the .44 multiplier and couldn't accept the stat because it might end up a measly 1 or 2% off measuring true efficiency, based on guesstimating the amount of times someone got to the line other than for 2 foul shots. But as in this case, just seemed very insignificant nitpicking.

Of course fast or slow pace doesn't tell you if the team is good at it or not, but that wasn't the question. I think it would still be an interesting dynamic change to watch for our team if our new coach ends up preaching and/or getting the team to play much faster.

Seems odd that if we were bottom 10 in pace for 5 years under Thibs and went to top 10 pace under Fred, anyone would think that wasn't worthy of note, or not somehow intentional with the idea that it would purposely be done to try to improve the offense.

Though whether we will play faster, and whether it will actually improve the offense, are different questions. Obviously the 2nd follows from the 1st and by not making that clear, maybe some misunderstood the point of asking.

[Rerisen]

and because we may try to get more turnovers on D as opposed to grinding them out a la Thibbs.

This seems to be related to your dislike of pace.

But how does a team try to get more turnovers? Jimmy Butler already gets a ton of steals and gambles for them. Taj and Noah already try to get blocks. It's not like Thibs tried to shut down their aggressiveness. The rest of our guys are not good at generating turnovers.

You can do it from scheme - like the Heat with LeBron doubling and trapping everyone - but I don't see our team as a candidate to go to that defense.

I've seen this angle from a few people and I just don't buy at all that Thibs defensive system was any better than other elite defenses at making teams take longer to shoot.

Now other teams like the Warriors generated more turnovers, but imo, that's obviously because they are a more athletic versatile defensive team.

Personnel drives this at least 80/20 I suspect. And we are going to have the same personnel.

A defense that relies on stop percentages vs more turnovers, is by default going to have a couple possessions per game that are longer, but a drop in the bucket statistically vs 100 possessions. I.e. The Warriors on average got *less than 1 steal* per game more than us. Compare the impact of one more offensive possession from a steal on pace vs say 50 possessions where you shoot 3 or 4 seconds faster. The latter will be far more impactful.

[transplant]

In general, statistics don't suck, but what people try to do with statistics sometimes sucks. We know how pace is calculated...what it's meant to measure. It is a completely relative stat, that is, there's no "good pace" or "bad pace."

Thibodeau preferred a slower pace. Hoiberg prefers a faster pace. Given Hoiberg's preferred style of play, it's a fair bet to say that the Bulls will go from a slow pace to an above average pace. These incredibly simple thoughts are as far as I've taken it, and frankly, as far as it needs to be taken.

[fleet]

No way to make a great prediction. I imagine if the pace increases too much some guys like Noah and Gasol are possibly not going to lbe happy with their minutes going forward.

What happened with the pace when Bogut was in games for the Dubs? Little more conventional?

[Rerisen]

What happened with the pace when Bogut was in games for the Dubs? Little more conventional?

Bogut On: 96.5 Pace

Bogut Off: 99.2 Pace

With him on they still would have tied for 1st in pace, but only because they were so much faster than everyone to begin with.

If the Warriors were farther down, such a difference between the on/off would amount to a drop of about 7-13 ranks in pace.

For comparison, Derrick Rose was worth +3.7 possessions to our pace on floor. This is the difference between being tied for 10th and 27th!

Which brings up an interesting suggestion. That it was really our turtle bench units or weak backup PGs that was putting the brakes on our tempo, not Thibs dictate.

[transplant]

Derrick Rose was worth +3.7 possessions to our pace on floor. This is the difference between being tied for 10th and 27th!

This would matter greatly if the difference between being 10th or 27th in pace mattered greatly. Does it?

[Rerisen]

Derrick Rose was worth +3.7 possessions to our pace on floor. This is the difference between being tied for 10th and 27th!

This would matter greatly if the difference between being 10th or 27th in pace mattered greatly. Does it?

That all depends on your team's capability to succeed at either end of the spectrum. If you have a versatile roster that can play fast or slow and do well, then it probably doesn't matter. If you are used to running system offense (we have been) and get in a fast pace game where you start going away from it, and thus taking shots your team isn't skilled at, it can hurt you. And its easy to lose such discipline, especially vs teams out West that like to play that helter skelter style, and often both acquiesce to it.

Judging by comments in this forum since the hiring of Fred, it seems many think it matters a great deal, and that part of the key to improving our offense is speeding up our tempo so we get more looks against defenses that are not entirely set up yet, or that are sitting on very predictable plays that we run over and over.

In terms of the Rose stat I gave, last year there was not a strong correlation with our pace and our Offensive production - but that is because Derrick Rose was mostly bad! If he was back near MVP level, I think we would see that his faster capable pace play indicated us being able to find shots easier, while the slower pace of the backups (Brooks and Kirk) were not because they loved playing slow, but rather they were leading dysfunctional offense that was struggling for good looks.

If we go back to 2011, I think we would see this connection. Rose in - faster/better offense. Rose out - turtle ball 2nd unit that stunk at offense and labored the shot clock.

If we are looking for great offenses that play at a slow pace, usually are going to find dominant post players taking their time to run inside/out offense, or methodical super talents like LeBron, or Jordan, precision scalping a defense at some point before the shot clock runs out.

But for us the gain of the slow offense was not really effectiveness, but more to help set the game into a grind it out back and forth where both teams got in the flow of setting up their half court defense against each other, where we had the advantage, due to our team makeup and former coach's superior defense.

So how could this end up mattering. Well lets say we start playing much faster pace with the idea of it leading to better offense - but that it doesn't. Then we've just sped up for no gain, and what does that do to our defense? Does it tire out our older players more, make them more sloppy in their rotations? The Warriors are a young athletic team for example, they can run up on offense, and still get back on defense and play it well at the same fast pace, switching all over the floor if necessary. Can we do that? I would say probably not so well.

So if we speed up, there darn well better be a positive payoff.

[art_barbie]

Historically I will predict that the 96-98 chicago bulls might have been the best ever in scoring after misses and scoring after a turnover...both in volume, efficiency, and just ripping hearts out in general. This is how we won basketball games in the 90's Turnovers, fast breaks, and finishing on those breaks, Rodman rebounding almost by himself with long outlets, with scottie and micheal releasing early-the entire team could finish on the break.

That's what Rerisen said, in a different way. Fast break is mostly about personnel. You can run with MJ, Scottie, and Rodman at the #2, #3, and #4 positions. When you have Jimmy, MDJ, and Jo/Pau/Boozer there instead, it ain't happening.

yes you can run if you have the personnel for sure. And the 90's Bulls did. Often. yet they played at a slower pace overall. And thats my point. Those 90's bull defense's created a lot of late shots, even 24 second violations. Which slowed down the pace. we also barely turned the ball over even though we got a lot of turnovers ourselves. We also shot a very high FG% so teams could not run against us. Rodman was an offensive rebounding machine...which made th eteam pretty good at extrending our possessions.

So ive never seen a team in the entire NBA score more often on a break than our 90's Bulls teams save the showtime lakers. And with all of those steals, or tunrovers, which led to all of those fast breaks we still palyed at an overall pace in the late teens to upper 20's. We were slow overall.

And it not because we didn't get out and run. We did. Its because of all these other factors that garpax, myself, and dantown are bringing.

These are all factors to affect pace.

1. Turnovers...if you turn it over or create turnovers, it is the number one thing to create a break and a shot early in the shot clock. The more you shoot early-the more possessions in a game.

2. Rebounding...great offensive rebounding teams extend possessions which equals a slower pace. If you give up a lot of offensive rebounds like the bulls did last year it also looks like you are playing at a slower pace.

3. Actually playing(shooting) at a fast pace...shooting early in the clock.

4. FG%...if you shoot a high FG% and therefore have more makes per 100 shots the opposing team will have less break. and vice versa. Same if you allow a high FG%. as you take the ball out and genrally do not break.

5. 3 pt shooting on volume...misses of 3 pt shots often leads to long rebound...and jump shooting teams in general will hav elonger rbebounds and more "break" opportunities to shoot early going the other way. Conversely, a post playing team like Mempis that also shoots a high FG% will give up significantly less break opportunites the other way for multiple reasons. They shoot from closer to the basket. The rebound well on offense. They rebound well on defense. So regardless of their steals/turnovers or break opportunities...their style in general is a slower pace...post game offense with not much fast breaking.

6. Great shooting teams like GS can shoot early. Klay and Curry have grean lights on 3's no matter how early in th eclaock and this is really really smart basketball. because the 3 being worth 1.5 points more...and they were the best 3 pt shoting team by far...it is very smart for them to attempt to create shootouts with as many shots going up as possible...simple math dictates that with Klay and Curry around 45% they can basically out shoot anyone no matter the volume or possessions.

So all these things and others determine pace. Not just how quick you play on offense.

If you want to strictly know how quickly you shoot on offense then you have to do what i said on page 3. Those 3 TRuP(TM) values. But overall pace could have very little to do with this.

It was brought up that Derrick Rose was worth +3.7 in possession per 100...there you go...he dribbles up th ecourt and shot jacked early in the clock often last year. It wasn't good offense because he made something like 20% of those early shots off the dribble. But it def picked up our "pace." But thats not what "hoiball" is going to be about imo. We dont have the personnel for that...wish we did have Curry or Prime Steve Nash. But we dont. Hoiball is going to be about physically player faster...everyone moving more...attempting to break more because more guys will be on th efloor that can shoot, catch, score, etc. The goal of hoiball is to keep the ball out of the hand of Noah for 6-8 seconds per possession where he does nothing with it...draws no defenders, creates no mismatches.

"Pace" as defined is not necessarily the same thing as playing fast or uptempo. Pace is affect by SOOOOOOO much other things as I descrbed above. Playing fast or uptempo is a style, a philosophy of offense which i think we will do...but we not necessarily play at a faster "pace."

[art_barbie]

The reason I didn't officially answer before isn't cause I didn't want to, but because I don't think the answer has any meaning.

So you don't think pace mattered at all to the Warriors or Cavs in the Finals?

I would disagree 100%, it was pretty obvious when the games were being played at a slow pace, the Warriors were struggling, outside their normal comfort zone. Once they figured out the lineups and style they needed to return to playing up-tempo, they took control of the series. I think pace matters quite a bit - *not* as a indicator of how good your offense, but as a stylistic description of how your team wants to play the game.

This is true, but the game still really slowed down in the Finals. The Warriors played at a 90.7 pace as opposed to 98.3 in the reg season for them. 90.7 is a slower pace than the 2014-15 Chicago Bulls played all season and in the playoffs!

Precisely why pace is not solely dictated by how fast you play on offense. This slow pace was dictated by Lebron. and by offensive rebounding extending possessions.

The cavs went to lebron late in the shot clock. This led to long possession for the cavs. Lebron had some costly turnovers against Iggy but other than that neither team turned it over that much so no quick shots. This greatly affected slowing the game down and had nothing to do with how the warriors played. Both team offensively rebounded well which extended possessions.

And there you go...the mightly fast warrior offense played slower than the bulls. even though their offense had very little to do with it.

Rerisen, the Pace stat does not tell you all that you think it does.

[art_barbie]

Derrick Rose was worth +3.7 possessions to our pace on floor. This is the difference between being tied for 10th and 27th!

This would matter greatly if the difference between being 10th or 27th in pace mattered greatly. Does it?

Judging by comments in this forum since the hiring of Fred, it seems many think it matters a great deal, and that part of the key to improving our offense is speeding up our tempo so we get more looks against defenses that are not entirely set up yet, or that are sitting on very predictable plays that we run over and over.


So if we speed up, there darn well better be a positive payoff.

I want our team to play faster and more uptempo in that I want the ball to be peppered around more...i want more player movement off the ball. I want to see the ball skipped to the weakside more often. I want the ball moved around faster.

I would like more fast beaks as well.

To accomplish this you dont just pass the ball around faster. Or just say "break" more. doesn't work that way. I wish it was that easy. its not. its about personnel. We need personel on th ecourt at all ositions at all times that can actually shoot the ball well, can score form anywhere, can dribble and attack an open lane to the rim.

We cant continue to have 1-2 guys on the court that can dribble, score. Because defense can take those lanes away and leave the lane open for taj and noah. Thats the problem...you skip pass to either and they cant do anything with the opening they have...so they hold the ball, and look for another opportunity for derrick or jimmy.

This is why it is sooooo important to get 5 guys on the court that can score in all kinds of variety of ways...can catch and shoot quickly from anywhere. To get there...to get "faster" you have to have everyone on th ecourt that can dribble, rebound and start a break, finish on th ebreak, trail and shoot on a break...and then score in all kinds of ways in the half court. those 5 guys are Pau, Niko, Snell or Doug, Jimmy, and Rose.

Then our bench plays a slow methodical, defense and rebounding oriented game with taj and Noah.

[Rerisen]

its about personnel. We need personel on th ecourt at all ositions at all times that can actually shoot the ball well, can score form anywhere, can dribble and attack an open lane to the rim.

We cant continue to have 1-2 guys on the court that can dribble, score. Because defense can take those lanes away and leave the lane open for taj and noah. Thats the problem...you skip pass to either and they cant do anything with the opening they have...so they hold the ball, and look for another opportunity for derrick or jimmy.

This is why it is sooooo important to get 5 guys on the court that can score in all kinds of variety of ways...can catch and shoot quickly from anywhere. To get there...to get "faster" you have to have everyone on th ecourt that can dribble, rebound and start a break, finish on th ebreak, trail and shoot on a break...and then score in all kinds of ways in the half court. those 5 guys are Pau, Niko, Snell or Doug, Jimmy, and Rose.

Then our bench plays a slow methodical, defense and rebounding oriented game with taj and Noah.

I agree with what you are saying here, in the bold, and as it regards better offense vs just 'playing faster', which can simply be a synonym for playing reckless.

You have identified 80% of what may be our best offensive lineup(s), however it does not project to nearly be our best defensive lineup.

The team already tried to win on offense for most of last year, overly believing in their own hype of improved offense, and it simply didn't work.

To win a championship, or even win the East, the Bulls are going to have be very good to excellent on both sides of the ball, I don't think marginalizing our best defensive players (sans Jimmy) to the second unit is going to accomplish recovering our defensive identity.

Our best bet is more likely to be balancing our lineups, starters and bench, and trying to hide weaknesses while emphasizing strengths.

I would argue that throwing out our best 5 man offensive lineup to start, or play majority minutes together is actually going to net you diminishing returns on offense, because we still lack an offensive superstar with the diminishment of Rose, yet we simply don't need that many volume scorers on the floor at once. And Gasol is the most obvious candidate whose skills are duplicative in such a lineup, both from Niko's stretch game, and Noah's facilitation.

Now the inclusion of Snell or Doug with the others is curious in talking about multi-skilled players, as of this moment and proven record, Mike Dunleavy is the superior wing to either of those guys as a system offense role player. All we know of Doug and Snell so far, is two guys who mostly flit around the perimeter while being very passive when not being set up for shots. You are merely projecting their hopeful potential to fulfill, but they aren't there yet.

In terms of Noah and Taj playing together, Noah's decline will make this a wretched offensive pairing, especially if they are playing when Derrick Rose is out of the game, with selfish Aaron Brooks, or the corpse of Hinrich. It might not even matter what kind of offense you manage in the first 8-10 minutes of each half if such a terrible backup squad comes in and has scoring droughts for 4-6 minutes where they might not score more than a bucket in the whole time.

The Bulls need some consolidation moves, otherwise we can choose offense lineups or we can choose defense lineups, or we can try the best we can to balance, but either way we end up sacrificing one or the other, or at our best balancing act, merely ending up 'good' on both sides, much like the team's ranks last year (11th Off, 11th Def), but neither end elite enough to be serious contenders.

There is no magical solution to this one-sidedness merely through one lineup choice vs another. The only solution to it as the roster stands would be massive internal improvement.

[art_barbie]

its about personnel. We need personel on th ecourt at all ositions at all times that can actually shoot the ball well, can score form anywhere, can dribble and attack an open lane to the rim.

We cant continue to have 1-2 guys on the court that can dribble, score. Because defense can take those lanes away and leave the lane open for taj and noah. Thats the problem...you skip pass to either and they cant do anything with the opening they have...so they hold the ball, and look for another opportunity for derrick or jimmy.

This is why it is sooooo important to get 5 guys on the court that can score in all kinds of variety of ways...can catch and shoot quickly from anywhere. To get there...to get "faster" you have to have everyone on th ecourt that can dribble, rebound and start a break, finish on th ebreak, trail and shoot on a break...and then score in all kinds of ways in the half court. those 5 guys are Pau, Niko, Snell or Doug, Jimmy, and Rose.

Then our bench plays a slow methodical, defense and rebounding oriented game with taj and Noah.

I agree with what you are saying here, in the bold, and as it regards better offense vs just 'playing faster', which can simply be a synonym for playing reckless.

You have identified 80% of what may be our best offensive lineup(s), however it does not project to nearly be our best defensive lineup.

The team already tried to win on offense for most of last year, overly believing in their own hype of improved offense, and it simply didn't work.

To win a championship, or even win the East, the Bulls are going to have be very good to excellent on both sides of the ball, I don't think marginalizing our best defensive players (sans Jimmy) to the second unit is going to accomplish recovering our defensive identity.

Our best bet is more likely to be balancing our lineups, starters and bench, and trying to hide weaknesses while emphasizing strengths.

I would argue that throwing out our best 5 man offensive lineup to start, or play majority minutes together is actually going to net you diminishing returns on offense, because we still lack an offensive superstar with the diminishment of Rose, yet we simply don't need that many volume scorers on the floor at once. And Gasol is the most obvious candidate whose skills are duplicative in such a lineup, both from Niko's stretch game, and Noah's facilitation.

Now the inclusion of Snell or Doug with the others is curious in talking about multi-skilled players, as of this moment and proven record, Mike Dunleavy is the superior wing to either of those guys as a system offense role player. All we know of Doug and Snell so far, is two guys who mostly flit around the perimeter while being very passive when not being set up for shots. You are merely projecting their hopeful potential to fulfill, but they aren't there yet.

In terms of Noah and Taj playing together, Noah's decline will make this a wretched offensive pairing, especially if they are playing when Derrick Rose is out of the game, with selfish Aaron Brooks, or the corpse of Hinrich. It might not even matter what kind of offense you manage in the first 8-10 minutes of each half if such a terrible backup squad comes in and has scoring droughts for 4-6 minutes where they might not score more than a bucket in the whole time.

The Bulls need some consolidation moves, otherwise we can choose offense lineups or we can choose defense lineups, or we can try the best we can to balance, but either way we end up sacrificing one or the other, or at our best balancing act, merely ending up 'good' on both sides, much like the team's ranks last year (11th Off, 11th Def), but neither end elite enough to be serious contenders.

There is no magical solution to this one-sidedness merely through one lineup choice vs another. The only solution to it as the roster stands would be massive internal improvement.

I pretty much agree with all of this.

But to me the biggest issue we had last year was chemistry and effort.

Poor chemistry caused a lot of finger pointing and waiting for the next guy to play the defense. Rose was likley the worst defender by far and Ive seen him defend much better than that. I just dont think he was interested in defending because. I dont think he wanted to share the spot light with Jimmy and gasol on offense. Not many poeple were predicting that type of resurgence from Pau. I doubt Rose did. Lots of evidence is out there that rose and his team do want help...but Rose doesn't want to be overshadowed by the help. Rose left pau out to dry in those pick and roll defense. In my mind...Rose preferred Noah be in their to clean up Rose's lazy defense. But Noah just doesn't have th eoffensive game to help this team take the next step. When Hinrich was the PG with gasol our PnR defense was really good. Rose needs to step defensively. This was a major issue...poor chemistry and selfish play led to poor effort.

So the most important thing to get back is good chemistry and play defense with effort again-all 5 defenders tied together. A couple of guys with slow feet dont matter when the whole team defends with passion and effort and chemistry.

Then on offense we need to share the ball and look for the best shot when our strong offensive unit is on the floor. Not 1-2 guys doing all the scoring and everyone(taj and Noah) just passing the ball back to them. When our defensive unit is on the floor...then the scorers can be more selfish and Taj and Noah dont mind not shooting.



Thats why I look at this year as a development year. Elite type development for sure...We need to figure out who is going to play with effort and passion first...play to win. From there figure out who takes a step forward in their development. we are likely a 2-4 seed going into the season and likely the 4th-6th best team in the league...We have some unknowns. Niko, Doug, Snell first and foremost, then Rose and Noah. Lots of question marks.

But we could take off, sky rocket like GS did. its possible if all the unknowns are as good as we think they can be. And I'm not talking outrageous development...just everyone building upon what they did last year and dough looking more like he does in summer league...say 50% of that.

Egs.

Rose-if he gives us 16 and 6 on 54%TS and plays way better defense.
Noah- 20 mpg 8 and 8 with DPOY type defense while back at C.
Gasol-about the same as last but in 28 mpg so more energy for better defense(slightly)
Niko-this is the biggest step-say 15-and 8 in 28 mpg same TS% but higher 3pt%, say 35% and better defense as he knows the schemes better.
Snell-Im good with the same-hopefully better defense
Doug-im looking for marked improvement-10 and 4 on 54%TS 37% 3pt shooting
Jimmy-similar
MDH-similar

If those things happen then the "development year" is fastracked not unlike GS. we should end up competing for the 1 seed in the east and have a shot in the ECF and potentialy finals if we get there. GS was really in an elite development status last year going in.

[Rerisen]

^ You don't mention Taj.

Let's assume with this theory of 'everyone steps up a little', Taj is back to his old self, and *both* Snell and Doug advance a little. With Niko also improving and now being worthy of 25 mpg or so.

At that point I think the team looks more ripe than ever for pursuing a talent increase consolidation trade. Because at that point you would have 4 bigs that definitely can't get the minutes they deserve, and behind Butler, you would have 3 wings that while contributors in the rotation, are probably not strong starters on a title team, and nor would we even have minutes for all of Doug, Mike and Snell, to really play about 20 mpg like they could all warrant.

The team would be incredibly deep, but really too deep, outside of injury protection. Then we need to looking at turning some of the luxury depth into better top end talent at the front of the rotation.

[art_barbie]

^ You don't mention Taj.

Let's assume with this theory of 'everyone steps up a little', Taj is back to his old self, and *both* Snell and Doug advance a little. With Niko also improving and now being worthy of 25 mpg or so.

At that point I think the team looks more ripe than ever for pursuing a talent increase consolidation trade. Because at that point you would have 4 bigs that definitely can't get the minutes they deserve, and behind Butler, you would have 3 wings that while contributors in the rotation, are probably not strong starters on a title team, and nor would we even have minutes for all of Doug, Mike and Snell, to really play about 20 mpg like they could all warrant.

The team would be incredibly deep, but really too deep, outside of injury protection. Then we need to looking at turning some of the luxury depth into better top end talent at the front of the rotation.

yeah thats a possible route. need a team willing to deal a player that is a clear upgrade...I mean if we have Noah back to DPOY and Taj fully healthy and MDJ about the same...and we can trade 1 or 2 or all 3 of them because Snell, Doug, and niko have all stepped up...well then we need to be bringing back a an all star or near all star 2-way player. I dont know if that team and that player is out there. but if he is we should try very hard to make that deal. And Afflalo level player isn't quite good enough...i'm talking more of a we mathews type talent but not him as we have had enough injury prone players to deal with through the years.

Most likley I see the bulls going forward with every we have into the playoffs-like GS did. And trading away a player or 2 before the draft or draft night next summer. If Taj or Noah request a trade front office will likley end up having to trade for draft pick.

But if that player you describe is out there and a deal is ot be made then we should jump on it.

[Mobby]

I voted thinking an 8-10 rank, but after understanding the concept of pace, I'd wager that the defense will still be good enough to hold teams longer into the shot lock, forcing them down a couple slots. Maybe something like 10th-12th?

[Chi]

Pretty decent article about Hoiberg's effect on the Bulls offense vs Thibs'...

This team has a great roster and is one that many people thought would take the NBA Championship last season. Imagine what’s going to happen when they’re running an actual NBA offense! What’s going to happen when the Hoiberg-era offense lets loose the talents of these NBA players and stops trying to restrict them to the system? What’s going to happen when the system is molded to the strengths of the roster and not just a stubborn decision made by a control freak of a coach? What’s going to happen when more movement and energy is injected into this team and the shots these players are receiving are easier and more suited to their talents? What’s going to happen when we see these guys running fast breaks and throwing down dunks in the open court – like, you know, every other NBA team does? Will Bulls fans be able to take it? Will the United Center become the “Madhouse on Madison” again?

[League Circles]

I don't think there is going to be any more fast break dunking but the other sentiments I appreciate. I do think a big change is going to be psychological. Thibbs didn't make these guys feel creative on offense IMO and it hurt the team.