RealGM

This is intended to be a fun comparison and to shed light on the importance of pure talent (as it relates to winning, etc).

Now I'm lazy so I'm gonna go off pure memory for the poll choices. I'm going to list the ones I can remember that people might think have good pure talent. Obviously units can be very talented but fail miserably due to not realizing their talent and consistently converting it into winning as a unit. Then other units are such a well oiled machine of consistent high effort and veteran discipline that they win more. This can be thought of as sort of a which team would you draft first in fake world fantasy or a video game or something type question.

Edit: I lied, I looked through the year by year lineups.

I'm still trying to decide myself, but no joke, I'm tempted to pick the first or last options, which were pretty easily the worst performing options.

League Circles wrote:I'm still trying to decide myself, but no joke, I'm tempted to pick the first or last options, which were pretty easily the worst performing options.

I know Curry and Chandler are perceived to be "pure talents", but both of them were so flawed an incomplete. I mean, Chandler had literally no offensive talent outside of dunking. On the other hand, Noah isn't considered a "pure talent", yet he was an amazingly skilled passer.

I'd pick the Butler, Gasol, Rose, Noah team personally.

HomoSapien wrote:

League Circles wrote:I'm still trying to decide myself, but no joke, I'm tempted to pick the first or last options, which were pretty easily the worst performing options.

I know Curry and Chandler are perceived to be "pure talents", but both of them were so flawed an incomplete. I mean, Chandler had literally no offensive talent outside of dunking. On the other hand, Noah isn't considered a "pure talent", yet he was an amazingly skilled passer.

I'd pick the Butler, Gasol, Rose, Noah team personally.

That's definitely a good choice but just to be clear the perimeter guys that played with Tyson and Eddy were just as much of a reason for me considering them.

From a pure talent standpoint, the Rondo/Wade/Butler/Gibson/Lopez and Rose/Gordon/Salmons/Thomas/Miller teams probably deserve a shout out. Would also give one to Crawford/Mercer/Artest/Brand/Miller.

I went Gasol because he was still very productive with the Bulls.

Several lineups had more talent before or after they were with the Bulls, maybe they still put up numbers in Chicago but just as individuals not making the unit better.

Like Wade Butler Rondo, had the awesome history but it didn't show up here.
Jay Willams could have led a great team, Eddie Robinson was very good until he got here, Jalen Rose was a good part of good teams but he wasn't a good #1 here,
No team counting on Tyrus Thomas had enough
Rose and Noah were still on their way up but Boozer was slowing down and Hamilton wasn't a main piece anymore

Great teams have a lineup of individuals that are all on the way up or at their peak years all at the same time, not these 3 going up, this guy leveled off and that one slipping back.

Talent only... Rose, Butler, Gasol, Noah and whoever was Mike Dunleavy Jr... but their form wasn't the best at that time. Not yet the best Butler for the Bulls and no longer the best Rose and Noah for us. Gasol was excelent.

How do you vote for anything other than the lineups that won 60+ games and were the 1st seed?

Yeah, the Rose, Butler, MDJ, Noah, Gasol lineup would be the most talented if we ignore the fact that the four super talented guys in it were no where near their peak talent while they played together. As a unit, they were a 50 win team which was good, but hardly special. The prime Rose team was unequivocally a top four team in the NBA.

dougthonus wrote:How do you vote for anything other than the lineups that won 60+ games and were the 1st seed?

Yeah, the Rose, Butler, MDJ, Noah, Gasol lineup would be the most talented if we ignore the fact that the four super talented guys in it were no where near their peak talent while they played together. As a unit, they were a 50 win team which was good, but hardly special. The prime Rose team was unequivocally a top four team in the NBA.

Because this is about raw talent, not success. They are often not highly correlated IMO. Our teams while Rose was out with injuries were pretty successful but very much lacking in talent for example. Another thing is that I'm talking about starting units, not teams or best possible unit or closing units, etc.

IMO, Boozer and Noah far outplayed their talent in their careers, as has Butler to an extent as examples. Bogans had very little talent.

I honestly think that by my definition of "talent", the worst lineups on my list are arguably as talented or more talented than the best lineups. The point is that raw talent is often not highly correlated with success, at least as far as total lineup talent.

HomoSapien wrote:I'd pick the Butler, Gasol, Rose, Noah team personally.

I don't think those guys could ever have meshed properly. Two centers plus two driving smalls, with only MDJ as a shooter. And too slow defensively for the modern game.

That squad seemed like a good idea at the time, but in hindsight it was built for the Nineties. I am of the opinion that if those guys re-played the Cavs 10x in the playoffs, they would lose 9x. The Cavs were just flat-out better.

League Circles wrote:Because this is about raw talent, not success. They are often not highly correlated IMO. Our teams while Rose was out with injuries were pretty successful but very much lacking in talent for example. Another thing is that I'm talking about starting units, not teams or best possible unit or closing units, etc.

IMO, Boozer and Noah far outplayed their talent in their careers, as has Butler to an extent as examples. Bogans had very little talent.

I honestly think that by my definition of "talent", the worst lineups on my list are arguably as talented or more talented than the best lineups. The point is that raw talent is often not highly correlated with success, at least as far as total lineup talent.

A guy can't outplay his talent over a season. It is you underrating his talent. To figure maybe Gasol/Noah/Rose/Butler's talent was higher, but they just underplayed it ignores the reasons they underplayed it had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with where they were at those points in their career.

If we can pretend that Rose never tore his ACL, then maybe that group would have been the most talented, but at that moment in time they weren't even close. They were a totally pedestrian group. Maybe if Noah was fully healthy and Gasol was 3 years younger and Butler was 3 years older and a bunch of other things that weren't true were true, then sure.

However, one group absolutely put together 2 elite NBA seasons that is at least a full standard deviation and maybe 2 from the norm, and one put together 1 season that was on the good side of generally average.

dougthonus wrote:

League Circles wrote:Because this is about raw talent, not success. They are often not highly correlated IMO. Our teams while Rose was out with injuries were pretty successful but very much lacking in talent for example. Another thing is that I'm talking about starting units, not teams or best possible unit or closing units, etc.

IMO, Boozer and Noah far outplayed their talent in their careers, as has Butler to an extent as examples. Bogans had very little talent.

I honestly think that by my definition of "talent", the worst lineups on my list are arguably as talented or more talented than the best lineups. The point is that raw talent is often not highly correlated with success, at least as far as total lineup talent.

A guy can't outplay his talent over a season. It is you underrating his talent. To figure maybe Gasol/Noah/Rose/Butler's talent was higher, but they just underplayed it ignores the reasons they underplayed it had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with where they were at those points in their career.

If we can pretend that Rose never tore his ACL, then maybe that group would have been the most talented, but at that moment in time they weren't even close. They were a totally pedestrian group. Maybe if Noah was fully healthy and Gasol was 3 years younger and Butler was 3 years older and a bunch of other things that weren't true were true, then sure.

However, one group absolutely put together 2 elite NBA seasons that is at least a full standard deviation and maybe 2 from the norm, and one put together 1 season that was on the good side of generally average.

FWIW I wasn't comparing or particularly talking up the Gasol group. I agree talent degrades as players age or get injured (one reason I didn't include the Rondo-Wade unit).

But there is a lot that goes into winning other than raw talent. Coaching, consistency, continuity, endurance etc are just a few of the huge ones. Notably, the worst two "performing" units I listed (the first and last in the list) had poor coaching, extremely poor consistency, and virtually zero continuity.

Guys like Jimmy Butler and Joakim Noah spent years playing somewhat close to their best on most nights. Contrast that with somebody like Lauri, Coby White/Dunn, or young Jamal Crawford, who played near their best only once in a while, and you'll see more of what I was trying to get at.

If you consider things like consistency and coachability, etc to be integral to talent, I can more easily see why the #1 seed team unit would be more of a clear winner for you. And it's reasonable to do that, but that's not what I was getting at in this question. This is basically something more akin to asking which 5 man starting lineup you'd want if they all magically played their very best game together for one game of a basketball video game playing 48 minutes without fatigue.

League Circles wrote:FWIW I wasn't comparing or particularly talking up the Gasol group. I agree talent degrades as players age or get injured (one reason I didn't include the Rondo-Wade unit).

But there is a lot that goes into winning other than raw talent. Coaching, consistency, continuity, endurance etc are just a few of the huge ones. Notably, the worst two "performing" units I listed (the first and last in the list) had poor coaching, extremely poor consistency, and virtually zero continuity.

Guys like Jimmy Butler and Joakim Noah spent years playing somewhat close to their best on most nights. Contrast that with somebody like Lauri, Coby White/Dunn, or young Jamal Crawford, who played near their best only once in a while, and you'll see more of what I was trying to get at.

If you consider things like consistency and coachability, etc to be integral to talent, I can more easily see why the #1 seed team unit would be more of a clear winner for you. And it's reasonable to do that, but that's not what I was getting at in this question. This is basically something more akin to asking which 5 man starting lineup you'd want if they all magically played their very best game together for one game of a basketball video game playing 48 minutes without fatigue.

I don't know how you would ever consider talent without factoring in consistency as one of the largest factors. Literally anyone could have a day where they are amazingly hot for a brief stretch.

dougthonus wrote:
I don't know how you would ever consider talent without factoring in consistency as one of the largest factors. Literally anyone could have a day where they are amazingly hot for a brief stretch.

Hot shooting day, perhaps (Tony Delk scoring 50 rings a bell), but not excellent overall game IMO where they exert their will in many facets. It's more of a question of overall physical capabilities. If I was put in an NBA game with 4 hall of famers I might get a ton of open jumpers and once in a blue moon I might hit 80% of them in a given hot night or whatever, but that's not really a great game IMO. It's a statistical anomaly that doesn't reflect ehat actually was happening.

Honestly, though there are plenty of exceptions, draft position is actually a pretty good barometer for what I'm talking about. Of course we see more as time goes on which is especially relevant for guys from questionable levels of competition (Doug McD lol), but the main thing we see going forward, which makes the draft position (roughly raw perceived talent) look like a bad predictor of success (winning), is that we see things like consistency, endurance, and the effects of continuity and coaching. There is also some skill development of course, but not much development of inherent talent aspects as I'd define them. I'd say most players get more consistent as they age.

Ice Man wrote:

HomoSapien wrote:I'd pick the Butler, Gasol, Rose, Noah team personally.

I don't think those guys could ever have meshed properly. Two centers plus two driving smalls, with only MDJ as a shooter. And too slow defensively for the modern game.

That squad seemed like a good idea at the time, but in hindsight it was built for the Nineties. I am of the opinion that if those guys re-played the Cavs 10x in the playoffs, they would lose 9x. The Cavs were just flat-out better.

Totally agree, but from a pure talent standpoint that lineup has arguable four hall of famers. From a chemistry standpoint, we has several teams that were better.

I think Jimmy/Pau gave the team the most 'authority' and legit post-season chance.

But they also played the ugliest game I ever had the misery of watching up-close in-person. Utah absolutely decimated the Bulls in Jan. 2015. It was a full healthy Bulls roster (I think only MDJ was missing), and everybody looked like they wanted to go home and bury their heads in their pillows besides Taj and Jimmy. Utah had talent but they were a bad, losing team, which made it worse.

And I had been to many games during the Floyd and Cartwright ages, including one of MJ's final (Wizard season) games at the UC where they went on to blow out the Bulls.

But on the nights where the team clicked and Rose played a half-semblance of his old confident self (including that Cavs game-winner), and Pau provided his on-court IQ and offensive spacing, that was by and far the most "talented" team the Bulls had since 98. It's a real shame Pau pulled his hamstring, cause I don't think it would've been a stretch to beat that short-handed Cavs team (Love and Kyrie were out). Rose had to double his production with Pau out, and he folded.

Hawks and Warriors would've presented their challenges, maybe/probably won. But you never know; at a certain point, especially with old players, it becomes this game of luck and x-factors. If Noah, Pau and Rose could channel their best versions of themselves for 3 or 4 games out of a 7 series, then their inconsistencies don't matter for the games they lost. You knew Jimmy and Taj were gonna bring it every game. I do think the biggest mistake (besides the whole Doug draft trade) was going in with Kirk as Rose's primary backup. Man, if they had resigned DJ Augustin or brought in Livingston (who I actually wanted on the cheap as he was a journeyman bargain FA at the time)... Kirk was a high minute, 0 point kind of a guy. I hated the decision to bring him back in 2012, was boggled in 2014 when they didn't just offer the vet. min. and they wanted so badly to keep him so they spent cap. Those were the small GarPax moves that killed me.

Take out MDJ and keep Deng in that spot and your perimeter defense would have been awesome with Butler and Deng out there.

prolific passer wrote:Take out MDJ and keep Deng in that spot and your perimeter defense would have been awesome with Butler and Deng out there.

The idea was to compare actual lineups, not hypothetical ones of guys from different years.

League Circles wrote:

prolific passer wrote:Take out MDJ and keep Deng in that spot and your perimeter defense would have been awesome with Butler and Deng out there.

The idea was to compare actual lineups, not hypothetical ones of guys from different years.

I know. That's why the one with MDJ is blowing the other ones out of the water. More so the talent around MDJ.

One that needs a mention is 04-05 with Curry, Davis, Deng, Hinrich, and Duhon. They were on a 50 win pace before the injuries to Deng and Curry.

one with khalid el amin is missing