Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10
eierluke wrote:Looking for the draft pick is one thing, OK.
But looking for what is best for Matas: we should keep Vuc. Vuc ain't Jokic but still is a "team1st" bigman role model for learning how to pass the ball.
dougthonus wrote:DASMACKDOWN wrote:Man if Matas can keep shooting his 3s at 37-38% its going to be tremendous for the team.
The thing that is an advantage is that he is a big target. Its like easy to find him for the 3 or the break. And he played it to perfection last night.
I do like what Billy has done with Matas in the absence of PWill.
But I still worry when PWill returns. No one wants to ice Matas and lose all the momentum he has in favor of more PWill.
AKME has to help Billy help himself. A move needs to be made with Vooch and Zach or whomever.
This team is bad, there's no reason you need to move anyone to play Matas. Every minute Philips plays could go to Matas instead. I'm certainly not opposed to trading a single player on this roster, but you should make the best trades at the best times vs worrying about how the existence of a better player on the roster may impact Matas.
As an example, if we could move Vuc for a single 2nd rounder now, but could get a late 1st for him in 2 months, I'd rather wait the 2 months even if this impacted Matas's playing time for two months. Obviously, it is unknowable how trade value will change over time, but I wouldn't rush a bad trade to open up minutes that's all, and good trades usually happen closer to the deadline when there is time pressure.
Stratmaster wrote:Meh. The team isn't bad. Unless you consider over half the teams in the league to be bad. One high quality (not even all star) big probably makes this a 50 win team. As is, they are a .500 team.
I agree that they could give Phillips minutes to Matas. I would rather they give Williams minutes to Matas, Phillips and Terry. I am all for the Bulls trading Williams at the first opportunity, if such an opportunity ever presents itself.
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Meh. The team isn't bad. Unless you consider over half the teams in the league to be bad. One high quality (not even all star) big probably makes this a 50 win team. As is, they are a .500 team.
I agree that they could give Phillips minutes to Matas. I would rather they give Williams minutes to Matas, Phillips and Terry. I am all for the Bulls trading Williams at the first opportunity, if such an opportunity ever presents itself.
We're 22nd in net rating and 20th in record. Maybe we're not bad relative to our conference, where yes, more than half the teams are bad.
Maybe we're splitting hairs over what "bad" is, but we aren't a .500 team, we're presently on pace for 33.5 wins while playing the much lighter EC schedule. We're 1-7 against the west. If we were in the west, we'd probably be on pace for 28 wins.
DuckIII wrote:We’re bad. The only reason anyone is talking about us being “good” is because this year’s EC is one of the worst conferences of my lifetime. Not the worst, but it’s up there. And that matters to determining the value of “making the playoffs” if your goal is to actually contend rather than to just hang onto personal favorites on the roster.
Even if we make the playoffs we are just the fastest turtles and still have no path to contention.
Stratmaster wrote:Bulls are .500 when Lavine has played, and played one of the toughest schedules in the league. We have one of the 3 easiest schedules the rest of the season. Where do you get this "light" schedule from?
Net rating after 20 games with the schedule they had? I don't think you believe in that any more than I do. Talk to me about net rating at the 50 game mark.
Stratmaster wrote:dougthonus wrote:DASMACKDOWN wrote:Man if Matas can keep shooting his 3s at 37-38% its going to be tremendous for the team.
The thing that is an advantage is that he is a big target. Its like easy to find him for the 3 or the break. And he played it to perfection last night.
I do like what Billy has done with Matas in the absence of PWill.
But I still worry when PWill returns. No one wants to ice Matas and lose all the momentum he has in favor of more PWill.
AKME has to help Billy help himself. A move needs to be made with Vooch and Zach or whomever.
This team is bad, there's no reason you need to move anyone to play Matas. Every minute Philips plays could go to Matas instead. I'm certainly not opposed to trading a single player on this roster, but you should make the best trades at the best times vs worrying about how the existence of a better player on the roster may impact Matas.
As an example, if we could move Vuc for a single 2nd rounder now, but could get a late 1st for him in 2 months, I'd rather wait the 2 months even if this impacted Matas's playing time for two months. Obviously, it is unknowable how trade value will change over time, but I wouldn't rush a bad trade to open up minutes that's all, and good trades usually happen closer to the deadline when there is time pressure.
Meh. The team isn't bad. Unless you consider over half the teams in the league to be bad. One high quality (not even all star) big probably makes this a 50 win team. As is, they are a .500 team.
I agree that they could give Phillips minutes to Matas. I would rather they give Williams minutes to Matas, Phillips and Terry. I am all for the Bulls trading Williams at the first opportunity, if such an opportunity ever presents itself.
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Bulls are .500 when Lavine has played, and played one of the toughest schedules in the league. We have one of the 3 easiest schedules the rest of the season. Where do you get this "light" schedule from?
What are the records of all other teams if we only count the games they had no injuries? Off the top of my head we played the Grizzlies without Morant twice, the Jazz without Lauri, Pelicans without Zion, the nets recently without almost everyone.Net rating after 20 games with the schedule they had? I don't think you believe in that any more than I do. Talk to me about net rating at the 50 game mark.
Sure, we can see where we are at the 50 game mark. I suspect it will not be at .500, but who knows.
Stratmaster wrote:DuckIII wrote:We’re bad. The only reason anyone is talking about us being “good” is because this year’s EC is one of the worst conferences of my lifetime. Not the worst, but it’s up there. And that matters to determining the value of “making the playoffs” if your goal is to actually contend rather than to just hang onto personal favorites on the roster.
Even if we make the playoffs we are just the fastest turtles and still have no path to contention.
Making the playoffs with no path to contention is not a bad team. It may not be what you want, but that isn't a bad team by any reasonable definition.
DuckIII wrote:Stratmaster wrote:DuckIII wrote:We’re bad. The only reason anyone is talking about us being “good” is because this year’s EC is one of the worst conferences of my lifetime. Not the worst, but it’s up there. And that matters to determining the value of “making the playoffs” if your goal is to actually contend rather than to just hang onto personal favorites on the roster.
Even if we make the playoffs we are just the fastest turtles and still have no path to contention.
Making the playoffs with no path to contention is not a bad team. It may not be what you want, but that isn't a bad team by any reasonable definition.
There are all sorts of definitions that can make a playoff team a bad team when more than half of the teams in the league make the playoffs. Negative point differentials, sub .500 winning records, and of course only reaching the playoffs because your conference was in a historically weak down period. All of these things have happened and will happen again.
Those are objectively reasonable definitions of being bad.
Stratmaster wrote:I'm basing my opinion on who is on the court now. I didn't even mention Ball being out. The guy who has the highest individual net rating on the team. If you believe in net ratings, which to be clear, I don't put much stock in them.
Every arrow is pointing up for the Bulls right now. 2 previous all stars who are having the best seasons of their careers. Lonzo Ball back and seemingly healthy. Matas looking like he isn't just another guy. The easiest schedule left in the league.
Obviously a significant trade or injury changes that. I don't have a crystal ball...
Guru wrote:Defense is the easiest thing for a team to improve. And the most likely.
Stratmaster wrote:DuckIII wrote:Stratmaster wrote:
Making the playoffs with no path to contention is not a bad team. It may not be what you want, but that isn't a bad team by any reasonable definition.
There are all sorts of definitions that can make a playoff team a bad team when more than half of the teams in the league make the playoffs. Negative point differentials, sub .500 winning records, and of course only reaching the playoffs because your conference was in a historically weak down period. All of these things have happened and will happen again.
Those are objectively reasonable definitions of being bad.
Then half the teams in the best basketball league in the world are bad.
That's not a reasonable definition. Even if comparing in context, it isn't a reasonable definition. It's an emotional reaction.
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:I'm basing my opinion on who is on the court now. I didn't even mention Ball being out. The guy who has the highest individual net rating on the team. If you believe in net ratings, which to be clear, I don't put much stock in them.
You aren't relying on the guy who didn't play for 2.5 years prior to this year and is only cleared to play around 15 minutes a game and can't do back to backs? I mean ok. Was anyone going into this season relying on Ball?Every arrow is pointing up for the Bulls right now. 2 previous all stars who are having the best seasons of their careers. Lonzo Ball back and seemingly healthy. Matas looking like he isn't just another guy. The easiest schedule left in the league.
Obviously a significant trade or injury changes that. I don't have a crystal ball...
Hey, no one has a crystal ball, and every team is one injury away from being a whole different team. That said, their record at the moment is still on pace for a 33.5 win rate in the situation you described everything pointing up.
DuckIII wrote:Stratmaster wrote:DuckIII wrote:
There are all sorts of definitions that can make a playoff team a bad team when more than half of the teams in the league make the playoffs. Negative point differentials, sub .500 winning records, and of course only reaching the playoffs because your conference was in a historically weak down period. All of these things have happened and will happen again.
Those are objectively reasonable definitions of being bad.
Then half the teams in the best basketball league in the world are bad.
Not every year. But bearing in mind that the general quality of the league - “the best basketball league in the world” - is irrelevant. To the extent you were under the impression I was stating the Bulls are bad relative to all other basketball teams on Earth, I was not.
I am referring to relative peer quality.That's not a reasonable definition. Even if comparing in context, it isn't a reasonable definition. It's an emotional reaction.
It’s not at all emotional. Losing more than you win over the course of an entire season is bad. So is finishing the season with a negative point differential illustrating you were clearly worse than your opponents over the course of a full sample size. For example, right now we are 23rd in point differential. That is objectively bad.
I’ll give you that evaluating the strength of your conference is subjective, though not necessarily emotional.
kodo wrote:I hope Patrick returning doesn't cut into Matas minutes, but not sure how that's possible especially with Lonzo back.
Stratmaster wrote:DuckIII wrote:Stratmaster wrote:
Then half the teams in the best basketball league in the world are bad.
Not every year. But bearing in mind that the general quality of the league - “the best basketball league in the world” - is irrelevant. To the extent you were under the impression I was stating the Bulls are bad relative to all other basketball teams on Earth, I was not.
I am referring to relative peer quality.That's not a reasonable definition. Even if comparing in context, it isn't a reasonable definition. It's an emotional reaction.
It’s not at all emotional. Losing more than you win over the course of an entire season is bad. So is finishing the season with a negative point differential illustrating you were clearly worse than your opponents over the course of a full sample size. For example, right now we are 23rd in point differential. That is objectively bad.
I’ll give you that evaluating the strength of your conference is subjective, though not necessarily emotional.
Point diff isn't meaningful at this point of the season unless you qualify it... which is what I am doing by talking about strength of schedule. If the Bulls played their first 10 games of the season against the 3 best teams in the league, and then didn't have to play any of them again, what good would point diff be?