Was The End Of Season Chemistry Real or a Mirage?

[greenwing]

Calling the end of season chemistry a mirage is very pessmistic. It would be one thing if they beat bad teams and lost to good teams like the Bulls that were playing with a healthy Lonzo. That team beat up on bad teams but struggled against tougher opponents. But down the stretch this past season they beat both. Part of that I'm sure is that other teams had not learned how to gameplan against a revamped roster but they could have also just imploded - which they did not.

[drosestruts]

Real until proven otherwise.

The Pacers end of season run proved to be very real throughout the playoffs.

Many here I'd guess will lean towards mirage, feeling like they've been burned before in 2022-23 when we have a strong finish to the season after signing Patrick Beverley.

Which I still maintain was real - we had a decent 3&d point guard who would push the pace. The Beverley, Caruso, LaVine, DeRozan, Vuc lineup was legit (+13 in 266 minutes together)

A healthy Zach scoring 28 ppg with a 65% TS% bolstered by two strong POA defender worked multiple times in the past and worked again during this stretch.

We knew what worked, then went into the start of the next season, starting Coby and Williams in place of Caruso and Beverley (who we did not re-sign), and eventually lost Zach for the season due to an injury.

What happened in 2023-24, doesn't make what happened in 2022-23 less real.


Similarly - we saw some good things to close out this season. Will we double down on those good things? Or will we completley pivot to something else?

[Dan Z]

Like most things I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

It will be telling how the team starts off next season, but i still don't see a playoff team. It'll also depends on off season moves. Will they trade expiring contracts such as Collins, Huerter and Vucevic? If so, those players played a part in the winning streak you're talking about. If they're replaced with a rookie or someone like Kuminga...it's possible that works, but also possible that it goes south.

[meekrab]

I don't think the chemistry was a mirage, but the results were probably more than a bit fake, yes. We finished the season with a negative strength of schedule, which is tough for an under .500 team to do in a league where everybody plays everybody so your SOS is largely just the inverse of your record.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the core going into next year, and if we finagle a Vooch for anything worthwhile trade I'll be even slightly moreso.

[Axl Rose]

I think getting slapped by a team in the play-in that got slapped in the playoffs points to mirage.

[Stratmaster]

I agree with everything you said. Except, the early Vegas odds are meaningless. I just did an analysis of 15 teams over 3 seasons and the Vegas predictions were off by an average of 7 games per team, per season, with a margin of error of somewhere over 9 games per season.

I don't think the Vegas odds are so meaningful, except that you probably can't outpredict the Vegas odds consistently (or if so, you should be making a crap ton of money gambling). Actual outcomes can shift massively based on impossible to predict things like injuries as well as difficult to predict things like growth.

Or coaches, right?

The reason you can't make a crap ton is because the odds change as bets are made. If they see the sharks all moving one direction they change the odds/ bets appropriately. If enough hobby betters go in one direction, they change the odds/bets appropriately. They factor in the popularity of franchises and all kinds of things other than the product itself.

[Stratmaster]

I think the question is too binary.

The Bulls were on a 55 win pace over the stretch you mentioned. Does anyone think they are a 55 win team? Of course not. They were on a 32 win pace prior to that. Does anyone think they're going to only win 32 wins next year? I'd also guess probably not.

So the truth is that likely the very weak scheduled at the end where we picked up tons of wins against teams not trying combined with the uptick in chemistry from the trade speculation and direction all year and putting guys into more formalized, final roles likely did improve things.

I don't know what the early Vegas odds are for the Bulls next year, but it feels likely that we're going to finish in the 35-45 win range, so closer to the first half of the season than the last.

I agree with everything you said. Except, the early Vegas odds are meaningless. I just did an analysis of 15 teams over 3 seasons and the Vegas predictions were off by an average of 7 games per team, per season, with a margin of error of somewhere over 9 games per season.

I don't think an 8.5% margin of error really supports the idea that Vegas odds are "meaningless."

Where did you get that number? If they predict 41 wins and miss by 9 that's a 22% margin of error where I come from.

[Stratmaster]

I'm not sure its all that useful an exercise anyway unless you account for significant unpredictable factors that a pre-season odds-maker can't really consider. Trades, significant unexpected falloff from key players, a massively disruptive cancer, a significant injury to a significant player who is not typically injury prone, significant injuries to an unusually large number of role players, etc. That's the only way to know to what extent Vegas odds-makers were wrong at the end of the day, if you are running a pre-season and post-season analysis.

Interesting discussion though. Had never really thought about it.

I'm too lazy to look, but I guess I had just assumed that Vegas wouldn't even offer you futures on next season until after the draft/free agency, for this reason.

I may be confused. What I'm imagining is the Vegas odds 1 minute before opening night tip-off vs. the end result. The variables I'm referring to impacting success rate would occur between those two points in time.

I think in order to fully analyze the reliability of Vegas predictions, retroactively, you'd have to consider those factors in determining the merit of the opening prediction.

I agree. Bit they are consistently, significantly, off on a majority of the teams. Of course a majority of the teams have all the factors you have mentioned.

But Vegas isn't trying to predict the number of wins accurately. That's not the purpose. They are managing the betting to ensure as close to an even split as possible. They make their money off their take; and the casual uninformed fan bettor.

[dougthonus]

Or coaches, right?

The reason you can't make a crap ton is because the odds change as bets are made. If they see the sharks all moving one direction they change the odds/ bets appropriately. If enough hobby betters go in one direction, they change the odds/bets appropriately. They factor in the popularity of franchises and all kinds of things other than the product itself.

They still have incredibly sophisticated models to set the initial lines as correctly as possible, otherwise the bad ones would get wiped out by the good ones.

[Stratmaster]

Every night in today's NBA, there's a decent chance that you're playing:

1. A team sitting one or more of their best players.
2. A team that's playing a bunch of games in a short stretch.
3. A team that's tanking.
4. A team that's just not very good no matter what.

It's going to happen for every team at some point in their schedule. It's going to be even worse next year for a draft that people consider to be more than a 1-man lottery prize. Add on that the Eastern Conference looks depleted because of injuries to stars. I don't think going 1-6 in your first 7 games after the LaVine trade and then going 17-8 after is something that can be attributed primarily to a schedule shift.

I think it's also important to remember that despite these things, the Bulls were betting underdogs in the majority of those games to close the season. So, nobody thought highly of this team regardless. In hindsight things look a lot more favorable than they were at the time, but not to a degree that the Bulls should've been expected to steamroll through that stretch.

I think the Bulls stumbled into a group of pieces that fit their team better. They essentially had two pure point guards in Giddey and Jones who improved ball movement and made looks easier for players. Huerter was quietly a solid two-way wing after looking like a shell of himself in Sacramento. Collins was serviceable as a starter and a reserve. Coby played the most efficient basketball of his career. And the defense, though still very flawed, was better.

It was just a very, very different team stylistically.

Do I think they're going to continue a 50-win pace? No. But, I think there's a believable chance they can be more competitive if they carry over 80-90% of the things that were working well for them after the ASB.

I will say, Giddey is a wildcard. If he is who he was the last couple months of the season the Bulls could win several games on his shoulders. I'm still guessing no more than 38 wins if all stays as is (which it won't) roster wise. But he could make me a liar... or not.

[sco]

Every night in today's NBA, there's a decent chance that you're playing:

1. A team sitting one or more of their best players.
2. A team that's playing a bunch of games in a short stretch.
3. A team that's tanking.
4. A team that's just not very good no matter what.

It's going to happen for every team at some point in their schedule. It's going to be even worse next year for a draft that people consider to be more than a 1-man lottery prize. Add on that the Eastern Conference looks depleted because of injuries to stars. I don't think going 1-6 in your first 7 games after the LaVine trade and then going 17-8 after is something that can be attributed primarily to a schedule shift.

I think it's also important to remember that despite these things, the Bulls were betting underdogs in the majority of those games to close the season. So, nobody thought highly of this team regardless. In hindsight things look a lot more favorable than they were at the time, but not to a degree that the Bulls should've been expected to steamroll through that stretch.

I think the Bulls stumbled into a group of pieces that fit their team better. They essentially had two pure point guards in Giddey and Jones who improved ball movement and made looks easier for players. Huerter was quietly a solid two-way wing after looking like a shell of himself in Sacramento. Collins was serviceable as a starter and a reserve. Coby played the most efficient basketball of his career. And the defense, though still very flawed, was better.

It was just a very, very different team stylistically.

Do I think they're going to continue a 50-win pace? No. But, I think there's a believable chance they can be more competitive if they carry over 80-90% of the things that were working well for them after the ASB.

I will say, Giddey is a wildcard. If he is who he was the last couple months of the season the Bulls could win several games on his shoulders. I'm still guessing no more than 38 wins if all stays as is (which it won't) roster wise. But he could make me a liar... or not.

I agree with you. That Giddey uptick was very unusual. To be fair, the first few months in a system are tough for anyone, but especially PG's.

I look at our roster and say that outside of Giddey, Coby, Matas, Ball, Tre (not expected back),Huerter, Collins, Smith, every minute played by anyone else is likely to contribute a likely negative plus/minus next season. I'm not betting on Ayo or Pat regaining their statures of being positive contributors, but if they do, we have a shot at .500. If we can be rid of Vuc, I might add 5 wins to our total.

[Stratmaster]

Or coaches, right?

The reason you can't make a crap ton is because the odds change as bets are made. If they see the sharks all moving one direction they change the odds/ bets appropriately. If enough hobby betters go in one direction, they change the odds/bets appropriately. They factor in the popularity of franchises and all kinds of things other than the product itself.

They still have incredibly sophisticated models to set the initial lines as correctly as possible, otherwise the bad ones would get wiped out by the good ones.

The algorithms take into account everything I mentioned. As correctly as possible is the right term. It's still a shot in the dark.

[DASMACKDOWN]

Even if its real, we should still be very surprising like the Orlando rise 2 years ago or Pistons last year.

Cause at this point, I think the Bulls are bottom 4 team in the East.

I have (if healthy)

Cleveland
Knicks
Sixers
Magic
Hawks
Pistons

Closely followed by

Pacers
Raptors
Boston
Bucks
Miami

That leaves us with the Hornets, Wizards and Nets.