OT- The Last Dance documentary

[HomoSapien]

It still bums me out that we never attempted to get Steve Kerr to be part of this franchise. He was someone I wish we identified as a smart basketball mind. Just such a miss all-around.

[The 6ft Hurdle]

It's a stretch to say "He's a good drafter" then use that argument. I believe I listed all of his good picks. I don't know if you think I missed one, but it's probably like 5-6 picks out of 30+ 1st rounders with one hit in the second round. It's not a great track record.

As I said, his successful picks were super successful and franchise altering, but with so many misses, even those successes just seem like dumb luck given the number of attempts.

How does it compare with other GMs for other franchises? Perhaps the reason someone like a Byron Houston failed was because we already had Scottie and MJ?

[johnnyvann840]

It still bums me out that we never attempted to get Steve Kerr to be part of this franchise. He was someone I wish we identified as a smart basketball mind. Just such a miss all-around.

You can certainly tell he learned a lot playing for PJ and Pop.

[6_Rings]

there's renewed interest with this team nowadays due to this documentary (awesome mind you). I think we should trade half the team next season and get a superstar to capitalize.

[TheStig]

But GM's don't nail every pick. Those were all really hard to peg drafts. Like you said, no one came out with a drastically better player outside of Gasol. And even then Chandler developed into a DPOY championship center. Gasol was better but Chandler was still really good. Just not a scorer.

It's a stretch to say "He's a good drafter" then use that argument. I believe I listed all of his good picks. I don't know if you think I missed one, but it's probably like 5-6 picks out of 30+ 1st rounders with one hit in the second round. It's not a great track record.

As I said, his successful picks were super successful and franchise altering, but with so many misses, even those successes just seem like dumb luck given the number of attempts.

I was really bummed about Curry though. If he had any sort of work ethic, he could have been great. I'm surprised Scott Skiles didn't run him all day in every practice with a big mac on a string in front of him. As you can tell, I'm still not over Eddy Curry's laziness. So it's hard to say Jason Richardson was better. And Richardson was just filled with soooo many empty stats. Curry just had sooooo much talent and touch.

Kind of odd that you'd think Richardson was empty stats and were excited about Curry as not empty stats. Curry really hard no skill outside of ISO post moves, no defense, no rebounding, no passing, no ball handling. He was probably born a decade too late to be an NBA player.

I think the rebuild would have been drastically different if it started a couple years sooner or later. If he had hit his multiple picks years in 96 or 03, I think we'd have had a different opinion about him.

My opinion wouldn't change a whole lot one way or the other. I don't give anyone credit for drafting the best player when it's obvious.

I mean the picks he hit on were very really good. If you want to hold the 4 drafts after the dynasty against him, that's your prerogative but there were very few good players taken. It's not NBA2k. He can't go in and create his own player and draft him. I stand by my statement, if the rebuild started a couple of years earlier or later than it would have been much different. He had a knack for getting extra lotto picks and would have had 2 or more lotto picks in a great draft. I think Jerry was good at extra lotto picks, drafting and taking a risk. I'd rather draft a Scottie Pippen and wiff on the next one than draft 2 role players.

[TheStig]

Just chiming in and adding it's been a lot of fun through the first half or so of the series. It's heavily biased in favor of MJ and Phil and JR but it was always going to be that way.

Don't have much to add that hasn't already been said but:

does anybody else think Kerr still holds a grudge against Michael? I got the feeling that Kerr doesn't like Jordan at all and in fact might consider himself a bit "above" MJ as a basketball mind now that he's a successful coach.

Not that I really care either way what Kerr and Jordan's relationship is like I just found it interesting.

I actually think JR looked bad in the doc. He even went out of his way to mention that people warned him that Krause couldn't get along with others and still hired him and let him get away with all of his antics. He fostered an atmosphere where Krause got to run wild and ruin relationships with Scottie and Phil.

He then took pride in reiterating that he wouldn't redo Pip's deal. A more screwed businessman could have locked him up at a more reasonable rate by banking that good will. It literally almost blew up the dynasty.

IMHO JR looks bad. I don't know how it ends but I'm sure he didn't go out of his way to keep the dynasty together. And with the money he was banking, a good solution to Krause would have been a promotion like Pax got and bringing in a GM below him to do the day to day.

Nothing I've seen other than the purchase of the Bulls and his profit has convinced me that he's a good owner.

[prolific passer]

It's a stretch to say "He's a good drafter" then use that argument. I believe I listed all of his good picks. I don't know if you think I missed one, but it's probably like 5-6 picks out of 30+ 1st rounders with one hit in the second round. It's not a great track record.

As I said, his successful picks were super successful and franchise altering, but with so many misses, even those successes just seem like dumb luck given the number of attempts.

How does it compare with other GMs for other franchises? Perhaps the reason someone like a Byron Houston failed was because we already had Scottie and MJ?

Houston was a 6'5" power forward. Probably Krause's attempt to try to create his own Barkley/Johnson type but didn't work out. Drafted 2 picks ahead of P.J. Brown who made a few all defense teams and one of the best free throw shooting bigs in the history of the game.

[dougthonus]

How does it compare with other GMs for other franchises? Perhaps the reason someone like a Byron Houston failed was because we already had Scottie and MJ?

Hard to say. The only people that I know of whom have even remotely as many selections had much better draft records, but that's a small list of people that have even half as many selections that I'm also aware of their draft records.

[dougthonus]

I mean the picks he hit on were very really good. If you want to hold the 4 drafts after the dynasty against him, that's your prerogative but there were very few good players taken.

He hit on 2 really great picks in what 25 years with probably 30+ 1st rounders and probably 10+ in the lottery. Pippen and Kukoc. That's about it in terms of his great picks.

I stand by my statement, if the rebuild started a couple of years earlier or later than it would have been much different.

Maybe, but it wouldn't be because he was brilliant.

He had a knack for getting extra lotto picks and would have had 2 or more lotto picks in a great draft. I think Jerry was good at extra lotto picks, drafting and taking a risk.

Really kind of hard to say that. Part of the reason he was able to get those extra picks was precisely because people didn't think it was a great draft.

I'd rather draft a Scottie Pippen and wiff on the next one than draft 2 role players.

If Krause got a Scottie Pippen with every other high pick he had then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but sure, I'd rather draft a Scottie Pippen and wiff in the next draft than have 2 role players too.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Doug, it doesn't change your overall point, but you are missing BJ in your good pick category.

[Jcool0]

Doug, it doesn't change your overall point, but you are missing BJ in your good pick category.

In a draft he could of taken Mookie Blaylock or Tim Hardaway.

[Big Pippen]

Doug, it doesn't change your overall point, but you are missing BJ in your good pick category.

I personally don’t think BJ Armstrong was anything special.. a walk it up, below the rim, no defense point guard who could hit open 3’s. Hell I would take Duhon over him.

The crazy thing about BJ is in these recent interviews, he still looks about 24 years old. Do we have a black Benjamin Button situation here?

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Doug, it doesn't change your overall point, but you are missing BJ in your good pick category.

I personally don’t think BJ Armstrong was anything special.. a walk it up, below the rim, no defense point guard who could hit open 3’s. Hell I would take Duhon over him.

Duhon was a career 0.363 3pt shooter. BJ a career 0.425 including leading the league with 0.453 in 92/93 in which he started 74 games for the NBA Champs.

[MrSparkle]

It still bums me out that we never attempted to get Steve Kerr to be part of this franchise. He was someone I wish we identified as a smart basketball mind. Just such a miss all-around.

Kerr's job trajectory was very bizarre and unorthodox though. Went from TNT to partially owning and GM'ing the Suns, to resigning and eventually coaching (doesn't coaching come before managing?). His GM record in PHX was poor. I hated the Marion/Shaq trade. Felt like that was the official "end" of the Nash Suns. I think Kerr admitted it was a big mistake.

But I do wish Kerr was involved here instead of Pax. I wonder if the two got along, seeing as Kerr was the better version of him.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Doug, it doesn't change your overall point, but you are missing BJ in your good pick category.

In a draft he could of taken Mookie Blaylock or Tim Hardaway.

Both those guys went before BJ at 18 (Blaylock 12, Hardaway 14).
https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_1989.html

Lots of good players from that draft. And a couple Krause legit could have had like Divac at 26 or Cliff Robinson at 36. But his WS and WS/48 were both top 10 in that draft. I'd call that a good pick, and for the team's needs in the first 3-peat a better fit.

Career WS of 45. Average at 18 from 1980-2016(per this analysis) is 23.61. You're in top 5 pick territory until you reach an average career WS of 45 or greater (except for pick 9 which is a bit of an outlier)

[TheStig]

I mean the picks he hit on were very really good. If you want to hold the 4 drafts after the dynasty against him, that's your prerogative but there were very few good players taken.

He hit on 2 really great picks in what 25 years with probably 30+ 1st rounders and probably 10+ in the lottery. Pippen and Kukoc. That's about it in terms of his great picks.

I stand by my statement, if the rebuild started a couple of years earlier or later than it would have been much different.

Maybe, but it wouldn't be because he was brilliant.

He had a knack for getting extra lotto picks and would have had 2 or more lotto picks in a great draft. I think Jerry was good at extra lotto picks, drafting and taking a risk.

Really kind of hard to say that. Part of the reason he was able to get those extra picks was precisely because people didn't think it was a great draft.

I'd rather draft a Scottie Pippen and wiff on the next one than draft 2 role players.

If Krause got a Scottie Pippen with every other high pick he had then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but sure, I'd rather draft a Scottie Pippen and wiff in the next draft than have 2 role players too.

I'd put his record much higher than 2 for 30. You can't eliminate pics like brand and then hold it against him that he didn't pull Scottie Pippen out of his @ss and that he had 30.

How many brilliant picks are made in the typically draft? Less than 1 on average? They all can't be brilliant. Part of it is luck that the guys that make you look brillant are in the draft. If Scottie comes out a year later, we're in no position to draft him. If we had the 2001 picks in 2003, Krause is drafting a pair of Melo, Bosh and Wade and the rebuild is completely different.

I mean he had multiple picks in multiple drafts. He was good at getting extra picks.

[prolific passer]

Doug, it doesn't change your overall point, but you are missing BJ in your good pick category.

In a draft he could of taken Mookie Blaylock or Tim Hardaway.

Both those guys went before BJ at 18 (Blaylock 12, Hardaway 14).
https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_1989.html

Lots of good players from that draft. And a couple Krause legit could have had like Divac at 26 or Cliff Robinson at 36. But his WS and WS/48 were both top 10 in that draft. I'd call that a good pick, and for the team's needs in the first 3-peat a better fit.

Career WS of 45. Average at 18 from 1980-2016(per this analysis) is 23.61. You're in top 5 pick territory until you reach an average career WS of 45 or greater (except for pick 9 which is a bit of an outlier)

Bulls could have drafted Hardaway at 6 and Divac and Cliff Robinson with their other 2 first round picks. I remember Cliff in the early 90s always getting techs for the blazers. He was the Sheed of his day.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

In a draft he could of taken Mookie Blaylock or Tim Hardaway.

Both those guys went before BJ at 18 (Blaylock 12, Hardaway 14).
https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_1989.html

Lots of good players from that draft. And a couple Krause legit could have had like Divac at 26 or Cliff Robinson at 36. But his WS and WS/48 were both top 10 in that draft. I'd call that a good pick, and for the team's needs in the first 3-peat a better fit.

Career WS of 45. Average at 18 from 1980-2016(per this analysis) is 23.61. You're in top 5 pick territory until you reach an average career WS of 45 or greater (except for pick 9 which is a bit of an outlier)

Bulls could have drafted Hardaway at 6 and Divac and Cliff Robinson with their other 2 first round picks. I remember Cliff in the early 90s always getting techs for the blazers. He was the Sheed of his day.

Oh gotcha. Well that doesn't make the BJ pick a bad one, it makes the Stacey King a bad one, lol.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Thought I'd take a look at Krause's picks within the first 30 picks. This includes trades he acquired, and doesn't include guys traded away on or near draft day. I'm not included his last pick, Jay Williams, for obvious reasons. And I'll compare them against all 1st round picks from 1980-2005 for that slot (roughly aligns with his reign, a little before, a little after).

Using career WS I will compare against the median player instead of the average/mean, except for the top grade, where a player must greatly exceed the mean and median career WS for that slot. Going with the mean should help reduce some of the weird outliers at each pick that throw off the average.
Grades as follows;
>200% of the Median and Mean at that slot = A (Great Pick)
>150% of Median at that slot = B (Good Pick)
75%>150% of Median at that slot = C (Average Pick)
25%>75% of Median at that slot = D (Poor Pick)
<25% of Media at that slot = F (Atrocious Pick)

Obviously the weakness is not all of these guys contributed their full WS with the Bulls. Some were flipped by Krause. Some weren't retained by his predecessor. I'll note those as well as any good "redemption moves"

Also not every draft is the same so its not fair to only look at the draft slot. I'll take a look at some mitigating circumstance of who else would be available in that draft and adjust up or down one slot if he did poor/well for the circumstance, but I'll generally limit that to 5-10 picks within a player's slot

Great Picks (4)
Pippen (87), Grant (87), Kukoc (90), World Peace (99)
World Peace did most his career damage outside Chicago, but a great mid-round pick.

Good Picks (6)
Oakley (85), Armstrong (89), Blount* (93), Brand (99), Crawford (00), Chandler (01)
*Blount is a beneficiary of the 25th pick being a weird outlier here. The 25th and 26th picks have a couple studs and then utter trash. So he measures much more favorably against median than mean. I'm bumping him down for that. A more robust model would probably try to smooth the curve on the pick values. I'm not downgrading him for "could have been's though" Van Excel and Byron Scott were a distant 12 and 20 spots after him as the significant upgrades.
Both Oakley (Malone, 5 slots) and Chandler (Gasol, 1 slot) had HOF picked near after them, but I won't personally downgrade. Yes, Krause had the opportunity to do better, but these were still good picks (despite neither fulfilling their career potential with Chicago). I suspect some will take issue with not downgrading these. But there were lots of really bad picks within the vicinity of Oakley and Chandler too.
You could make an argument to bump up Crawford due to the historical awfulness of the draft class. Its close, but I am going to leave him as a good pick (partially influenced that he really developed much later in his career, well after his short Bulls run)

Average Picks (2)
Purdue (88), Caffey* (95)
Well at least Perdue got flipped for The Worm.
*Caffey downgraded to Poor, with Finley one slot behind him.

Poor Picks (3)
King* (89), Randall** (91), Curry*** (01)
*King, within 8 spots of King - Nick Anderson, Mookie Blaylock, Tim Hardaway - >Downgraded
**Randall, within 5 spots of Randall were Pete Chilcutt and Randy Brown. Not world beaters, but Randall was cut before the end of his rookie year! and put up 1 career WS ->Downgraded
***Curry, Next two picks were Richardson and Battier. Joe Johnson 6 picks away -> Downgraded

Atrocious Picks (8)
Sellers (86), Sanders (89), Simpkins (94), Knight (96), Booth (97) Benjamin (98), Fizer (00), Bagaric (00)
I mean this group. Woof. Half of them have negative WS. One had his rights released before even getting a contract. The only silver lining was Sellers being flipped for a 1st round pick that became BJ.
Sanders could have been Blue Edwards (24.2 WS) the next pick. Divac 6 picks later.
Simpkins could have been Wesley Perkins 2 picks later or Charlie Ward 5 picks later.
Knight could have actually been considered poor or average if they signed him, then again Othella Harrington was the next pick.
Benjamin > Nazr, Ruben Patterson, Rashard Lewis with 4 picks
Booth -> Lots of junk behind him, but even within 9 slots was Marc Jackson (no, not Mark Jackson, but still)
Then the awful 2000 Draft, but Fizer could have been Mike Miller, or I'd have taken Przybilla. Bagaric could have been like a few other Euros who did something more than a negative WS (Tsakalidis, Brezec, Jaric), or even Mark freaking Madsen.
I mean save for Sellers, these guys were surrounded by LOTS of junk, mostly being late picks, except Seller/Fizer. But still, you could have drafted bad players and still did better than a few of these picks. No one gets upgraded for circumstance here (Booth was the closest to being upgraded to poor status due to circumstance, but he just sucked anyways).

So after alignment its (out of 23 of 30 picks)
4 Great Picks (17.4%)
5 Good Picks (21.7%)
2 Average Picks (8.7%)
1 Poor Pick (4.3%)
11 Atrocious picks (47.9%)

Just a bizarre set of results. If you looked at a guy like Pax, he probably has a normal bell curve distribution. I don't know if Krause was just swinging for the fences all the time or if he was just purely lucky those times.

[troza]

Thought I'd take a look at Krause's picks within the first 30 picks. This includes trades he acquired, and doesn't include guys traded away on or near draft day. I'm not included his last pick, Jay Williams, for obvious reasons. And I'll compare them against all 1st round picks from 1980-2005 for that slot (roughly aligns with his reign, a little before, a little after).

Using career WS I will compare against the median player instead of the average/mean, except for the top grade, where a player must greatly exceed the mean and median career WS for that slot. Going with the mean should help reduce some of the weird outliers at each pick that throw off the average.
Grades as follows;
>200% of the Median and Mean at that slot = A (Great Pick)
>150% of Median at that slot = B (Good Pick)
75%>150% of Median at that slot = C (Average Pick)
25%>75% of Median at that slot = D (Poor Pick)
<25% of Media at that slot = F (Atrocious Pick)

Obviously the weakness is not all of these guys contributed their full WS with the Bulls. Some were flipped by Krause. Some weren't retained by his predecessor. I'll note those as well as any good "redemption moves"

Also not every draft is the same so its not fair to only look at the draft slot. I'll take a look at some mitigating circumstance of who else would be available in that draft and adjust up or down one slot if he did poor/well for the circumstance, but I'll generally limit that to 5-10 picks within a player's slot

Great Picks (4)
Pippen (87), Grant (87), Kukoc (90), World Peace (99)
World Peace did most his career damage outside Chicago, but a great mid-round pick.

Good Picks (6)
Oakley (85), Armstrong (89), Blount* (93), Brand (99), Crawford (00), Chandler (01)
*Blount is a beneficiary of the 25th pick being a weird outlier here. The 25th and 26th picks have a couple studs and then utter trash. So he measures much more favorably against median than mean. I'm bumping him down for that. A more robust model would probably try to smooth the curve on the pick values. I'm not downgrading him for "could have been's though" Van Excel and Byron Scott were a distant 12 and 20 spots after him as the significant upgrades.
Both Oakley (Malone, 5 slots) and Chandler (Gasol, 1 slot) had HOF picked near after them, but I won't personally downgrade. Yes, Krause had the opportunity to do better, but these were still good picks (despite neither fulfilling their career potential with Chicago). I suspect some will take issue with not downgrading these. But there were lots of really bad picks within the vicinity of Oakley and Chandler too.
You could make an argument to bump up Crawford due to the historical awfulness of the draft class. Its close, but I am going to leave him as a good pick (partially influenced that he really developed much later in his career, well after his short Bulls run)

Average Picks (2)
Purdue (88), Caffey* (95)
Well at least Perdue got flipped for The Worm.
*Caffey downgraded to Poor, with Finley one slot behind him.

Poor Picks (3)
King* (89), Randall** (91), Curry*** (01)
*King, within 8 spots of King - Nick Anderson, Mookie Blaylock, Tim Hardaway - >Downgraded
**Randall, within 5 spots of Randall were Pete Chilcutt and Randy Brown. Not world beaters, but Randall was cut before the end of his rookie year! and put up 1 career WS ->Downgraded
***Curry, Next two picks were Richardson and Battier. Joe Johnson 6 picks away -> Downgraded

Atrocious Picks (8)
Sellers (86), Sanders (89), Simpkins (94), Knight (96), Booth (97) Benjamin (98), Fizer (00), Bagaric (00)
I mean this group. Woof. Half of them have negative WS. One had his rights released before even getting a contract. The only silver lining was Sellers being flipped for a 1st round pick that became BJ.
Sanders could have been Blue Edwards (24.2 WS) the next pick. Divac 6 picks later.
Simpkins could have been Wesley Perkins 2 picks later or Charlie Ward 5 picks later.
Knight could have actually been considered poor or average if they signed him, then again Othella Harrington was the next pick.
Benjamin > Nazr, Ruben Patterson, Rashard Lewis with 4 picks
Booth -> Lots of junk behind him, but even within 9 slots was Marc Jackson (no, not Mark Jackson, but still)
Then the awful 2000 Draft, but Fizer could have been Mike Miller, or I'd have taken Przybilla. Bagaric could have been like a few other Euros who did something more than a negative WS (Tsakalidis, Brezec, Jaric), or even Mark freaking Madsen.
I mean save for Sellers, these guys were surrounded by LOTS of junk, mostly being late picks, except Seller/Fizer. But still, you could have drafted bad players and still did better than a few of these picks. No one gets upgraded for circumstance here (Booth was the closest to being upgraded to poor status due to circumstance, but he just sucked anyways).

So after alignment its (out of 23 of 30 picks)
4 Great Picks (17.4%)
5 Good Picks (21.7%)
2 Average Picks (8.7%)
1 Poor Pick (4.3%)
11 Atrocious picks (47.9%)

Just a bizarre set of results. If you looked at a guy like Pax, he probably has a normal bell curve distribution. I don't know if Krause was just swinging for the fences all the time or if he was just purely lucky those times.

One thing this also shows is that he picked better in the 80s and got worse as time went by, meaning that he actually lost the touch with the progress of the NBA.

Other thing is that even winning 6 titles in 8 years could have been better... not only by Jordan not retiring... that's super crazy.

I still feel that the King one (although someone here explained that it make sense at the time) was his worst pick. About all others: now we only draft for talent but I don't think that the mindset was always that. So... what pick made sense at that time?

About the late picks: some of them were awful but how many of those would have significant minutes in here? Wouldn't that impact their development?


Final question: who is there that can be compared to Krause in terms of number of picks? Pax, Jerry West, Pat Rilley?