Stacey Interviews Arturas Karnisovas

[League Circles]

You're probably right, which is scary for our status, but I would expect a few guys to improve notably despite not being young, just like I expected it with Vuc this year and was right. Ball and Patrick in particular I think are likely to have a more positive impact. Possibly Ayo too. Though I agree we're not likely to see much more from Coby, Giddey, and not many more guys matter.

If Lonzo plays a lot of minutes his impact might improve considerably, because the main thing stopping his impact is simply minutes. I don't know there is much reason to think that about Pat or Ayo. Pat's been pretty stable all 5 year in the league when he plays. Ayo has bounced around a lot on shooting efficiency but seems stable otherwise.

Well both Lonzo and Patrick shot terribly this year, especially Patrick, so I think it's likely that both will improve there. Just like it was with Vuc, who did. And Jevon Carter, who also did.

[Red8911]

My theory is that the contract status will lead to very few changes over the summer and that this team will improve, once this random group gets accustomed to each other. There have furtehr been made some decissions that might lead to an improvement:
The team keys have been handled over to Giddey and I'm optimistic that this has been a good decision. The team further has send a signal that they trust Buzelis and PWill has to earn minutes from here on. This might increase the overall motivation of all players.
I expect (at least I hope so) Huerter to overcome his crisis and to produce.
This team isn't overly athletic but most of the players are good passers and not mixing around everything and becoming accustomed to each other is a special advantage to passing teams, more than to athletic teams (in my theory).

(I further like that they are tryingto figure out what they do have in Jones: starter or journeyman. Not that this will leave to a better record).

FWIW, since the LaVine trade, we are 2-7. Which is an 18 win pace. Granted, we have a lot of injuries here too, so it's probably better than that, but let's assume our real rate without injuries is 32 wins, you think internal improvement and continuity buys us 9 more wins? That would be pretty shocking to me.

Outside of Matas every other young guy on the team that you expect to be a quality rotation player has a lot of time in the league already and those guys aren't likely to make more than small iterative gains. I would say we have considerably less obvious talent on the roster than the last 3 years as well as less guys you could hope make big leaps going forward.

We were losing with Zach and now without him too. Sure they are losing a bit more now but what’s the difference losing is losing.

[dougthonus]

Well both Lonzo and Patrick shot terribly this year, especially Patrick, so I think it's likely that both will improve there. Just like it was with Vuc, who did. And Jevon Carter, who also did.

Pat's shooting is down likely at least partially due to him trying to increase his volume by 50%, but if we start with the following assumptions:
1: Pat can play 82 games
2: Pat can keep his current volume of 4.5 pre game
3: Pat can increase his percentage back to 40% when it was lower

He would score 27 more points per season more than if he stayed at his existing percentage.

I think that is pretty nominal, but more than that, I'm not sure any of those three things are likely, and much like Vuc, they don't outweigh his other flaws unless he fixes those too.

Lonzo's expected shooting percentage is probably like 37.5% or so. Him shooting better would also make a relatively low impact, and his impact is already hugely positive. Changing the shooting probably won't matter much, but changing minutes would help a lot.

[dougthonus]

We were losing with Zach and now without him too. Sure they are losing a bit more now but what’s the difference losing is losing.

I'm not upset we traded Zach, but we are a lower talented team now, and so I think the odds of us being .500 next year are much less.

[League Circles]

Well both Lonzo and Patrick shot terribly this year, especially Patrick, so I think it's likely that both will improve there. Just like it was with Vuc, who did. And Jevon Carter, who also did.

Pat's shooting is down likely at least partially due to him trying to increase his volume by 50%, but if we start with the following assumptions:
1: Pat can play 82 games
2: Pat can keep his current volume of 4.5 pre game
3: Pat can increase his percentage back to 40% when it was lower

He would score 27 more points per season more than if he stayed at his existing percentage.

I think that is pretty nominal, but more than that, I'm not sure any of those three things are likely, and much like Vuc, they don't outweigh his other flaws unless he fixes those too.

Lonzo's expected shooting percentage is probably like 37.5% or so. Him shooting better would also make a relatively low impact, and his impact is already hugely positive. Changing the shooting probably won't matter much, but changing minutes would help a lot.

Patrick's shot attempts and usage are virtually identical from last year and not much off his career numbers. Not sure where you're getting a 50% volume increase. Even his 3PA/100 are only up 27% from last year. But it's from inside the arc where he has struggled most.

Looks like for some reason you're only looking at 3 point attempts, but Patrick is way, way below his career average TS%. Ball is also shooting poorer than he has since his third year in the league, though I agree much of his expected improvement should come from more minutes.

[dougthonus]

Patrick's shot attempts and usage are virtually identical from last year and not much off his career numbers. Not sure where you're getting a 50% volume increase. Even his 3PA/100 are only up 27% from last year. But it's from inside the arc where he has struggled most.

Per 36 minutes, his attempts were up 55% over his career average (37% vs last year)
Per 100 possessions his attempts were up 48% over his career average. (27% vs last year)

So maybe not quite 50% vs last year but still a big increase vs last year.

Looks like for some reason you're only looking at 3 point attempts, but Patrick is way, way below his career average TS%. Ball is also shooting poorer than he has since his third year in the league, though I agree much of his expected improvement should come from more minutes.

Like I said though with Pat, even if I assume everything works out how you said and he plays in all the games, it is 27 more points on the entire year. Not probably a huge impact. The scoring efficiency is good, but Pat's got a ton of other problems to get better and make a positive impact. It also assumes the volume makes no difference and that Pat stays healthy. I don't think either of those things will be true. If you go back to lower volume and typical games played, you're looking at probably 10 points on the season.

Lonzo's total points would likely be even less, though if he could play 30 minutes a game and stay healthy, the impact would be huge.

[League Circles]

Patrick's shot attempts and usage are virtually identical from last year and not much off his career numbers. Not sure where you're getting a 50% volume increase. Even his 3PA/100 are only up 27% from last year. But it's from inside the arc where he has struggled most.

Per 36 minutes, his attempts were up 55% over his career average (37% vs last year)
Per 100 possessions his attempts were up 48% over his career average. (27% vs last year)

So maybe not quite 50% vs last year but still a big increase vs last year.

Looks like for some reason you're only looking at 3 point attempts, but Patrick is way, way below his career average TS%. Ball is also shooting poorer than he has since his third year in the league, though I agree much of his expected improvement should come from more minutes.

Like I said though with Pat, even if I assume everything works out how you said and he plays in all the games, it is 27 more points on the entire year. Not probably a huge impact. The scoring efficiency is good, but Pat's got a ton of other problems to get better and make a positive impact. It also assumes the volume makes no difference and that Pat stays healthy. I don't think either of those things will be true. If you go back to lower volume and typical games played, you're looking at probably 10 points on the season.

Lonzo's total points would likely be even less, though if he could play 30 minutes a game and stay healthy, the impact would be huge.

Fwiw, at the rate he shot the ball in his only full season, the difference between this year's TS% and his career average is about 90 points on the season. Again, not sure why you're only looking at 3PA. Also worth noting that due to the huge change in pace of play / scheme for this team in recent years, per 100 should basically be used for everything instead of per 36.

The reason your projection about volume being so closely linked to % isn't something to focus much on is that he's at his lowest career rate by far on 2PA, yet also at his lowest % of those attempts by far. His shot profile has changed somewhat due to scheme this year, but his overall usage and attempts really haven't, yet he's shooting remarkably worse. Most likely that's due to factors other than aggressiveness.

[eierluke]

PWill playing without heart and head is contagious. My guess is that not playing PWill alone would give us 5+ extra wins next year.

[dougthonus]

Fwiw, at the rate he shot the ball in his only full season, the difference between this year's TS% and his career average is about 90 points on the season. Again, not sure why you're only looking at 3PA. Also worth noting that due to the huge change in pace of play / scheme for this team in recent years, per 100 should basically be used for everything instead of per 36.

The reason your projection about volume being so closely linked to % isn't something to focus much on is that he's at his lowest career rate by far on 2PA, yet also at his lowest % of those attempts by far. His shot profile has changed somewhat due to scheme this year, but his overall usage and attempts really haven't, yet he's shooting remarkably worse. Most likely that's due to factors other than aggressiveness.

Fair point on looking at overall TS% vs just 3point shooting. I would say though that just using per 100 may not be fair, a different style and pace and type of shot in the new scheme may be causal for his drop in productivity (or at least partially causal).

I do expect Pat to rebound, but he's always been a terrible impact player even with higher TS%, so I'm not sure I expect that to change.

Either way, to the larger point, the drop in talent with Caruso, DeMar, and Zach off the team is not something that will be made up by iterative gains from Lonzo, Pat, Coby, Ayo, and Matas (IMO anyway), and we were an under .500 team with those other guys. I think if you expect .500 ball, you are being wildly optimistic.

This team has far less talent than the team of the previous two seasons and less talent than the team starting this year. All 3 of those teams were sub .500 teams.

[League Circles]

Fwiw, at the rate he shot the ball in his only full season, the difference between this year's TS% and his career average is about 90 points on the season. Again, not sure why you're only looking at 3PA. Also worth noting that due to the huge change in pace of play / scheme for this team in recent years, per 100 should basically be used for everything instead of per 36.

The reason your projection about volume being so closely linked to % isn't something to focus much on is that he's at his lowest career rate by far on 2PA, yet also at his lowest % of those attempts by far. His shot profile has changed somewhat due to scheme this year, but his overall usage and attempts really haven't, yet he's shooting remarkably worse. Most likely that's due to factors other than aggressiveness.

Fair point on looking at overall TS% vs just 3point shooting. I would say though that just using per 100 may not be fair, a different style and pace and type of shot in the new scheme may be causal for his drop in productivity (or at least partially causal).

I do expect Pat to rebound, but he's always been a terrible impact player even with higher TS%, so I'm not sure I expect that to change.

Either way, to the larger point, the drop in talent with Caruso, DeMar, and Zach off the team is not something that will be made up by iterative gains from Lonzo, Pat, Coby, Ayo, and Matas (IMO anyway), and we were an under .500 team with those other guys. I think if you expect .500 ball, you are being wildly optimistic.

This team has far less talent than the team of the previous two seasons and less talent than the team starting this year. All 3 of those teams were sub .500 teams.

I don't expect 500 next year but I disagree that are far less talented than the teams the last couple years. The fundamental changes to the rotation are minus Demar, Caruso and Zach, while adding Ball, Matas and Giddey. I don't see the former group as more talented than the latter. However, we're now a newer group again due to the Zach trade, so roughly speaking I'd project us to be something like a 30 win team next year. Way too early to say though. Wouldn't be shocked if we win as few as 20 or as many as 40.

[Jcool0]

Has luck as a strategy ever worked out for a team?

[DuckIII]

Has luck as a strategy ever worked out for a team?

Regularly, yes. Unless you mean 100% luck which is of course no, but would be a silly question anyway since no team becomes a contender based purely on any one thing.

[dougthonus]

I don't expect 500 next year but I disagree that are far less talented than the teams the last couple years. The fundamental changes to the rotation are minus Demar, Caruso and Zach, while adding Ball, Matas and Giddey. I don't see the former group as more talented than the latter. However, we're now a newer group again due to the Zach trade, so roughly speaking I'd project us to be something like a 30 win team next year. Way too early to say though. Wouldn't be shocked if we win as few as 20 or as many as 40.

Your estimate is below (but rounding error away from) my estimate of 32 in response to someone whom expected 41, so I would say despite whatever semantics we are throwing around, that we seem to view things pretty similarly.

I also agree, there's a reasonably wide range of potential outcomes, and I'm starting with the base assumption that we don't move up in the draft and land a star or make some other major change.

[League Circles]

I don't expect 500 next year but I disagree that are far less talented than the teams the last couple years. The fundamental changes to the rotation are minus Demar, Caruso and Zach, while adding Ball, Matas and Giddey. I don't see the former group as more talented than the latter. However, we're now a newer group again due to the Zach trade, so roughly speaking I'd project us to be something like a 30 win team next year. Way too early to say though. Wouldn't be shocked if we win as few as 20 or as many as 40.

Your estimate is below (but rounding error away from) my estimate of 32 in response to someone whom expected 41, so I would say despite whatever semantics we are throwing around, that we seem to view things pretty similarly.

I also agree, there's a reasonably wide range of potential outcomes, and I'm starting with the base assumption that we don't move up in the draft and land a star or make some other major change.

We view the quality of the current team similarly, but definitely not the talent level. I think we're a pretty talented team at least in terms of players on the roster (and have been for years), but not assembled well nor executing well. However, we may possibly be more well assembled next year than we were the past few years, so I think we will be better than we're playing right now due to better skillset balance, more chemistry together, etc.

[MrSparkle]

Unlike last year, AKME will now have a ton of mid expiring salaries on the books. Nobody except Matas (mostly because he's a rookie) made their case to be untouchable. I could legitimately understand why the last few summers were hard to operate (despite him making bad indecisions IMO). Now there's a lot of trade flexibility. To me, adding salaries to target 2027 instead of 2026, to acquire FRPs and/or rookie salaries sounds a lot more sensical than riding this team out and having to hand out extensions for them while pursuing next year's top dog.

The 26 class is weak. Expiring FAs like Durant will be traded to the team they likely resign with. The best prime guys are likely being secured by the teams that traded picks for them (Mikal, Fox). Lot of proven bench/injury-prone bigs hitting that pool: Porzingis, Ayton, Reid, RW3, Portis (more interesting for contenders).

There's a decent chance Memphis decides they can't pay JJJ his supermax, if eligible. If he wins DPOY, he'll want that $345M deal (yikes). If Memphis doesn't want to give that to him, he might look elsewhere, and of course some team can S&T, but Bulls would have the cap and expirings to make a move. IMO he's the only 26 FA worth pursuing, and I'm sure most of us can find reasons why maxing JJJ and rolling forward without a (perennial) all-star creator is not ideal. He's had a few surgeries (meniscus, fracture). Still, if Bulls draft well in 25 & 26, Matas develops, JJJ would be the best/realistic UFA the Bulls could get, short of a miracle Giannis or Jokic swing in the following year (which would be some shady collusion angle, or brain-failure sabotage ala Nico, if it were to happen).

The truth is that the Bulls don't really have much of a reason to do anything this summer, other than draft an all-star prospect (trade if possible/necessary). I'd dump Vuc for a package of paintballs; more than anything it's more entertaining watching the Bulls lose games without him, than with him. But at this point, he's basically irrelevant. I don't even see a team taking him to let the Bulls move up 1 spot in the draft. He's basically an expiring, so if we want to add salary, that's where the value will be.

Ultimately, we want/need them to get the best player in this draft (short of Flagg being the 1st pick and default, likely best prospect). I know it's hard to nail the draft, but they have totally missed with most their darts. Lot of ways this can go. Can they get the Morant, Curry or Shai of this draft, please? If they take another bench caliber dud with the FRP, there's just so little this organization can do short of a miracle.

[Jcool0]

Has luck as a strategy ever worked out for a team?

Regularly, yes. Unless you mean 100% luck which is of course no, but would be a silly question anyway since no team becomes a contender based purely on any one thing.

Regularly? What examples? And a team tanking for a draft pick is not luck. That is a strategy. I mean the Bulls they aren't trying to tank, they aren't making trades for draft picks and are hoping either the 8th pick becomes an all star or they land a top 4 pick. They aren't moving on from worthless vets because they aren't getting value they are never getting. There entire organization is just hoping to luck into a franchise player.

[Muzbar]

Has luck as a strategy ever worked out for a team?

Regularly, yes. Unless you mean 100% luck which is of course no, but would be a silly question anyway since no team becomes a contender based purely on any one thing.

Regularly? What examples? And a team tanking for a draft pick is not luck. That is a strategy. I mean the Bulls they aren't trying to tank, they aren't making trades for draft picks and are hoping either the 8th pick becomes an all star or they land a top 4 pick. They aren't moving on from worthless vets because they aren't getting value they are never getting. There entire organization is just hoping to luck into a franchise player.

Isn't tanking a strategy that is reliant on luck? Tanking doesn't guarantee you the top pick, you still need luck in order to get number 1.

[Jcool0]

Regularly, yes. Unless you mean 100% luck which is of course no, but would be a silly question anyway since no team becomes a contender based purely on any one thing.

Regularly? What examples? And a team tanking for a draft pick is not luck. That is a strategy. I mean the Bulls they aren't trying to tank, they aren't making trades for draft picks and are hoping either the 8th pick becomes an all star or they land a top 4 pick. They aren't moving on from worthless vets because they aren't getting value they are never getting. There entire organization is just hoping to luck into a franchise player.

Isn't tanking a strategy that is reliant on luck? Tanking doesn't guarantee you the top pick, you still need luck in order to get number 1.

Yes you need the ping pong balls to go your way for it to work. But its better to have more then less of those when trying to get a top pick. So its well worth it (though not like it once was) to lose as much as possible. And you can do it without being stupid about it like Gar/Pax. AK is still trying to get to the play in game despite this team having no upside or future.

[DuckIII]

Regularly, yes. Unless you mean 100% luck which is of course no, but would be a silly question anyway since no team becomes a contender based purely on any one thing.

Regularly? What examples? And a team tanking for a draft pick is not luck. That is a strategy. I mean the Bulls they aren't trying to tank, they aren't making trades for draft picks and are hoping either the 8th pick becomes an all star or they land a top 4 pick. They aren't moving on from worthless vets because they aren't getting value they are never getting. There entire organization is just hoping to luck into a franchise player.

Isn't tanking a strategy that is reliant on luck? Tanking doesn't guarantee you the top pick, you still need luck in order to get number 1.

Yes. It’s literally called The Lottery. But he is right that good teams increase the likelihood that they will be the beneficiary of that luck, 100% no doubt about it. But it is still luck.

And it’s not the only type of luck. The Lakers are lucky Nico Harrison is mush-brained clown. Yes they negotiated and executed a transaction. But the fact that they did so with zero competition from other teams due to Harrison being a fool is also luck.

AK’s whole career was made on a lucky draft pick. Yes you have to pick the guy first and that matters, but they had no idea the guy they were drafting would become an all-time top 20 player (at worst).

Luck has had, and will continue to have, a tremendous impact on all sorts of professional sports organization.

[League Circles]

Has luck as a strategy ever worked out for a team?

Regularly, yes. Unless you mean 100% luck which is of course no, but would be a silly question anyway since no team becomes a contender based purely on any one thing.

Regularly? What examples? And a team tanking for a draft pick is not luck. That is a strategy. I mean the Bulls they aren't trying to tank, they aren't making trades for draft picks and are hoping either the 8th pick becomes an all star or they land a top 4 pick. They aren't moving on from worthless vets because they aren't getting value they are never getting. There entire organization is just hoping to luck into a franchise player.

The Bulls are very, very obviously and unambiguously trying to tank right now. They traded their best player at the height of his prime for nobody they needed.......AND their own pick back. Now a bunch of guys are missing games with "injuries" and we're playing whoever. Not saying that Billy is deliberately throwing games, but trying to improve the value of their draft pick was obviously a primary goal and is the definition of tanking.