Do the Bulls have the second scorer needed to win a ring?

[Frank Mulely]

Look it's not about the PPG, the issue is that under playoff pressure a team will collapse on Rose like Miami did 2 years ago. Then when nobody else on the roster can create their own shot, the Bulls lose.

[mysticbb]

Look it's not about the PPG, the issue is that under playoff pressure a team will collapse on Rose like Miami did 2 years ago. Then when nobody else on the roster can create their own shot, the Bulls lose.

No, the issue was that the Bulls didn't have the necessary outside shooting when having the necessary defensive lineup in place. If shooters are there, who can move well without the ball, and the Bulls apply enough ball movement in those situations, the opponent will have to pay for such defense. And it wasn't like the Heat didn't try that in other games (regular season for example), just that the Bulls shooting was not consistent enough to make them pay.

Having someone with the ability to create in 1on1 situation (whether it is for himself or others), helps, but with Hinrich the Bulls have a much better ball handler at their disposal, who can play the SG spot without getting killed defensively. Replace Bogans with Hinrich in 2011 and the Bulls would have looked better against the Heat instantly.

[JDizzel3000]

Probably not ..... I hope my bulls can swing a trade for Gordon if the pelicans land Reke tho

[JDizzel3000]

Look it's not about the PPG, the issue is that under playoff pressure a team will collapse on Rose like Miami did 2 years ago. Then when nobody else on the roster can create their own shot, the Bulls lose.

Basically this

[JDizzel3000]

Look it's not about the PPG, the issue is that under playoff pressure a team will collapse on Rose like Miami did 2 years ago. Then when nobody else on the roster can create their own shot, the Bulls lose.

No, the issue was that the Bulls didn't have the necessary outside shooting when having the necessary defensive lineup in place. If shooters are there, who can move well without the ball, and the Bulls apply enough ball movement in those situations, the opponent will have to pay for such defense. And it wasn't like the Heat didn't try that in other games (regular season for example), just that the Bulls shooting was not consistent enough to make them pay.

Having someone with the ability to create in 1on1 situation (whether it is for himself or others), helps, but with Hinrich the Bulls have a much better ball handler at their disposal, who can play the SG spot without getting killed defensively. Replace Bogans with Hinrich in 2011 and the Bulls would have looked better against the Heat instantly.

With boozer and Noah being locked in at the 4/5 slot there's only so much shooting you can put aroun rose ... We had korver that year and still couldn't get it done .... You need another creator who can also get their shot in a diverse way and make a defense pay for basically playing a Box-1 defense

[mysticbb]

Probably not ..... I hope my bulls can swing a trade for Gordon if the pelicans land Reke tho

Holy crap, you want an often injured player who has the size of a PG and can't defend? Seriously, I hope the Bulls are not that stupid.

You need another creator who can also get their shot in a diverse way and make a defense pay for basically playing a Box-1 defense

The way to let the defense pay for that is ball and player movement. With Hinrich and Butler that looks better than it looks in 2011. Also, you may not have notice it, but playing Korver caused some serious defensive trouble. That's why I pointed out that the Bulls would have needed a shooter who would not cause defensive problems. Hinrich could have defended Wade while providing another ball handler who can shoot. Now, replacing Bogans with Hinrich would have helped, much more than having an undersized SG without defense like Eric Gordon on the roster.

[JDizzel3000]

Probably not ..... I hope my bulls can swing a trade for Gordon if the pelicans land Reke tho

Holy crap, you want an often injured player who has the size of a PG and can't defend? Seriously, I hope the Bulls are not that stupid.

You need another creator who can also get their shot in a diverse way and make a defense pay for basically playing a Box-1 defense

The way to let the defense pay for that is ball and player movement. With Hinrich and Butler that looks better than it looks in 2011. Also, you may not have notice it, but playing Korver caused some serious defensive trouble. That's why I pointed out that the Bulls would have needed a shooter who would not cause defensive problems. Hinrich could have defended Wade while providing another ball handler who can shoot. Now, replacing Bogans with Hinrich would have helped, much more than having an undersized SG without defense like Eric Gordon on the roster.

#1 with the bulls current cap situation your not just going out and getting a perfect option at your disposal.... Lebron ain't walking thru these doors anytime soon .... Is Eric Gordon undersized sure is he often injured sure ... But that's the risk you may need to take to get a guy who can so perfectly fit the offensive void tht this team has


#2 the whole point of me saying It didn't work with Korver is well .... Because it didnt work with Korver! Lol ... I know he had defense deficiencies but conversly he also gave you offensive firepower it's a trade off just like Kirk and or Butler give you better versatility defensively they're not close to being the same caliber of shorer Korver was for us back then .... So like I said until you find the perfect option In the mean time you may have to take some risk to make this thing work

[Frank Mulely]

Look it's not about the PPG, the issue is that under playoff pressure a team will collapse on Rose like Miami did 2 years ago. Then when nobody else on the roster can create their own shot, the Bulls lose.

No, the issue was that the Bulls didn't have the necessary outside shooting when having the necessary defensive lineup in place. If shooters are there, who can move well without the ball, and the Bulls apply enough ball movement in those situations, the opponent will have to pay for such defense. And it wasn't like the Heat didn't try that in other games (regular season for example), just that the Bulls shooting was not consistent enough to make them pay.

Having someone with the ability to create in 1on1 situation (whether it is for himself or others), helps, but with Hinrich the Bulls have a much better ball handler at their disposal, who can play the SG spot without getting killed defensively. Replace Bogans with Hinrich in 2011 and the Bulls would have looked better against the Heat instantly.

I pretty much disagree. You need two guys who can create their own shot AND shooters. A team with one creator and shooters isn't going to really get it. We saw LeBron flailing in Cleveland in that configuration.

[mysticbb]

.

#1 No, you don't need to take that risk at all. The Bulls have pretty good overall basketball players for that position, with Butler and Hinrich they can add defensive strength, that makes a Bulls a better defensive team, than the advantage of having Gordon on offense would give. And that is the whole point of the game, be better than your opponent. Whether that is via defensive strength or offensive strength or by both doesn't matter. At the end the score is the outcome of the game. And winning 76-73 is better than losing 100-110, even though you scored 34 points more in that losing game.
Gordon is a good enough overall basketball player to justify his salary.

#2 Korver brought in more issues defensively than he solved offensively in the playoffs. Hinrich is a much better ball handler, Butler much better defensively. If Korver could have played the SG spot defensively good enough, the issue would have been smaller. Also, the Bulls lost that series by an average margin of 2.2 points, and at that there is luck involved, some bad luck for the Bulls and some good luck for the Heat. That happens. Concluding upon this that the Bulls would never win against the Heat without having a better "2nd scorer" has no sufficient basis.

[mysticbb]

I pretty much disagree.

Ok.

[Luigi]

Shooters are overrated. Penetration is what you need.

Everybody is obsessed with stretching the floor. Interior defense, reliable offense (post presence, or someone who can get inside and finish), and perimeter defense are all more important that the beloved 3 point bombers. A second option through 3s requires a lot of luck to get very far. You want someone who can bother the defense from more than beyond the 3 point line.

[mysticbb]

Shooters are overrated. Penetration is what you need.

Well, the facts are saying that 3pt shooting is actually very important, and better spacing helps to create the openings for penetration, cuts, etc.

NBA teams find shooters to be pretty important, that's why they are looking to add those and teams increasing the amount of 3pt shots. Better than average offensive teams over the last 3 years took in average 2.8 more 3pt attempts per 100 poss than worse than average offensive teams. Teams over the last 3yrs which were at least 1 standard deviation better offensively than average took 5.3 3pt attempts more per 100 poss than those being at least 1 standard deviation worse than average offensively. Either the facts are all wrong, the coaches of the better offensive teams are stupid or you have a misleading impression about how basketball works.

[richboy]

Over the last 34 years, the 2nd best scorer on the championship team scored 17.5 points per 36 min on 54 TS% during the finals, on the losing team it was 17 points on 53 TS%. No idea, but that is an scoring output someone like Deng or Boozer can have for a series, and the difference in scoring from the "2nd scorer" does not explain the difference in overall playing level between those two finalists.

I guess, many just overrating the importance of that "2nd scorer". It is much more important to have good basketball players on the roster, and the Bulls for sure have that. They have their strength rather on the defensive end than on the offensive end, but if a team does not allow the opponent to score as often as they themselves, they still outscore the opponent and win the game.

This is why you shouldn't be looking at the stats. It not about how much they score. Its about how they score. Its about being able to create against tough defense. About being able to handle the post. Its not just about scoring. Its about scoring in a way that takes the pressure off the number 1 guy. Unless that number 1 guy is historically dominate you will need that number 2 guy to take over the game.

So let me ask you.Miami has Lebron James on Derrick Rose. He can't beat him. What play you running for Luol Deng to get himself or a teammate a shot. What play you running for Boozer. Boozer right now is nothing more than a pick and pop big man. Luol Deng can't create his own offense off the bounce with any consistency.

The answer to this question is no. They need someone that can create for themselves without needing Rose. Be able to do it consistently. Someone that can do something in the post. Perhaps someone that pretty special off the dribble himself.

Chicago is the classic regular season team that out works and plays harder than most teams in the regular season. I fully expect them to push 60 wins if Rose is back healthy. Then they will lose in the playoffs They don't dominate the glass as much when better teams start to match there energy level. Suddenly the fact they have 1 guy that can create offense against elite defense is showcased. When he is taken away Boozer, Noah and Deng are not guys that you can run offense threw.

[mysticbb]

As typical the point of my post went right over your head, but well ...

This is why you shouldn't be looking at the stats. It not about how much they score. Its about how they score.

If by "how they score" you actually mean "how efficient they score", I may even agree, but I doubt that the scorekeeper gives out extrapoints, because you like the "way" one player scores more than that of the other. ;)

Its about being able to create against tough defense.

Oh, and I thought it would be about scoring more points as a team than the other team, and that this would decide which team wins. That isn't the case anymore?

So let me ask you.

You showed so often that you are much more interested in staying with your personal belief that giving you a serious answer is rather pointless.

[Luigi]

Shooters are overrated. Penetration is what you need.

Well, the facts are saying that 3pt shooting is actually very important, and better spacing helps to create the openings for penetration, cuts, etc.

NBA teams find shooters to be pretty important, that's why they are looking to add those and teams increasing the amount of 3pt shots. Better than average offensive teams over the last 3 years took in average 2.8 more 3pt attempts per 100 poss than worse than average offensive teams. Teams over the last 3yrs which were at least 1 standard deviation better offensively than average took 5.3 3pt attempts more per 100 poss than those being at least 1 standard deviation worse than average offensively. Either the facts are all wrong, the coaches of the better offensive teams are stupid or you have a misleading impression about how basketball works.

You have shown 3 point shooting is becoming more frequent. It does not follow that 3 point shooting is not overrated.

An offense that creates open shooters through penetration is more effective than an offense that creates penetration opportunities through having good shooters. Inside out is a much better approach than outside in. I named a few things more important than 3 point shooting. Interior defense and perimeter defense also remain more important that 3 point shooters, despite the obsession with them.

[richboy]

As typical the point of my post went right over your head, but well ...

This is why you shouldn't be looking at the stats. It not about how much they score. Its about how they score.

If by "how they score" you actually mean "how efficient they score", I may even agree, but I doubt that the scorekeeper gives out extrapoints, because you like the "way" one player scores more than that of the other.

Its about being able to create against tough defense.

Oh, and I thought it would be about scoring more points as a team than the other team, and that this would decide which team wins. That isn't the case anymore?

So let me ask you.

You showed so often that you are much more interested in staying with your personal belief that giving you a serious answer is rather pointless.

No its exactly how I said it. This isn't about personal belief. This is about knowing the game and knowing that stats can be deceiving. That some people just say well if Carlos Boozer and Magic Johnson averaged 17 somehow they must be comparable.

This post says it exactly. You didn't address the post. You didn't have nothing to say. Oh the score keepers don't care. This isn't regular season. You understand that. The question is do they have enough to win the championship. Luol Deng scoring average means squat to me. His game is what matters. Because that is the only thing that is going to determine if he can do it against Lebron or Durant, or whoever he might play.

Derrick Rose put up great numbers his MVP year but what did he shoot against the Heat. Saying well Rose averaged so and so during the year isn't going to help. What Deng did during the regular season not going to help. That what they did on average. Where not talking about average teams and average circumstances. There not playing average defense.

Your not going to win with 1 guy that can create his offense and nothing else. Not against the best of the best. Please you can spout what they did against all the other teams in the league. You need guys that can perform against elite defenses. That is all i'm saying. All I'm saying is Deng and Boozer don't have the game to perform.

[DRoseCantStop]

If they could somehow get Kevin Love...

YES!!!!

[mysticbb]

You have shown 3 point shooting is becoming more frequent.

And that more frequent 3pt shooting (just the 3pt attempts, not even the makes!) correlates with a better offense.

It does not follow that 3 point shooting is not overrated.

Well, if we are accurate, you haven't shown that it is "overrated" at all. ;)

An offense that creates open shooters through penetration is more effective than an offense that creates penetration opportunities through having good shooters.

Can you show me the evidence for that?

Inside out is a much better approach than outside in.

What is "outside-in"? And how does the ball gets inside in the first place to get out again?

Interior defense and perimeter defense also remain more important that 3 point shooters, despite the obsession with them.

Do you have any evidence which would support your claim? And by evidence I mean real hard facts from a sufficient sample, not some anecdotal evidence.

[mysticbb]

No its exactly how I said it. This isn't about personal belief. This is about knowing the game and knowing that stats can be deceiving.

Which means we are at the point where you start to talk about your personal beliefs without disproving anything based no facts. We had such conversations before and they weren't useful, because that for example:

That some people just say well if Carlos Boozer and Magic Johnson 17 somehow they must be comparable.

was never a point made by me. As I said, the point went right over your head, you then proceeded to try to counter your interpretation, your own fantasy, not what I wrote. And that's how that will go on while you will invent more strawmen followed by some more shifted goalposts, etc. pp. As I said, pointless.


The Bulls don't have the talent to win via incredible offense, but they have the talent to win via incredible defense. It is pretty simple, and that is my point. Basketball is a team game in which a team tries to score more points than the opponent. Now, the question must be: Are the Bulls good enough to beat good teams consistently enough in order to win it all? And given their strength in previous seasons with Rose-Deng-Noah on the court, we can very well assume that this is the case next season. They just need the health to play their best players.

[Luigi]

And that more frequent 3pt shooting (just the 3pt attempts, not even the makes!) correlates with a better offense.

Better needs to be carefully defined if that's what you are insisting on.

Well, if we are accurate, you haven't shown that it is "overrated" at all.

I have made a claim about a kind of offense. You challenged that claim with numbers, which don't seem to speak very much to the claim. What kind of support would you like for my claim? I am not willing to do a detailed empirical study to discover that the sky is blue or that paint dominance is key in basketball. But I'd think it's already been done.

Can you show me the evidence for that?

Again, too lazy for an empirical study myself. I do think they are very valuable, but it is rare that they are used well outside of peer reviewed journals of statistics . . . and even then . . .

What is "outside-in"? And how does the ball gets inside in the first place to get out again?

This is something you really should appreciate before using numbers to understand the game.

Do you have any evidence which would support your claim? And by evidence I mean real hard facts from a sufficient sample, not some anecdotal evidence.

I think you should expand on what you consider support. The statistical world is impoverished without a broad appreciation for the game. To approach comprehension, the metrics you are using need to be significantly improved and enriched to reflect actual basketball success. Even by your own logical positivist criteria, I don't think you'll fare well. Are you going to pick your winners based on the data you've produced? I think a good analyst can fare better. Even if you do insist on maintaining your statistical approach, this is an internet message board . . I don't think it's appropriate to ask for a statistical response to cherry picked data.