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

[mysticbb]

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

Well, better offensive efficiency than average and one standard deviation better than league average in terms of offensive efficiency.

I have made a claim about a kind of offense.

You actually claimed that it would be "overrated". Well, how is that "rated" in the first place and how should it be "rated"?

Again, too lazy for an empirical study myself.

Ok, so you just have a feeling here, but you are so sure about that feeling that you felt the need to express that feeling on internet forum. Would have been better, if you had spend that time to check whether your feeling actually has some merit, tbh.

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

Oh, you misunderstood my point. I know how that game works, I just have the feeling that you don't. That's why I asked those questions in order to get a better understanding about your knowledge of the game besides throwing out some buzz words. Your answer obviously didn't help me here, which you might appreciate.

I think you should expand on what you consider support.

How would you know that? I actually pointed out what I don't consider as support (anecdotal evidence for that matter), which somehow triggered a weird response by you in which you assumed a lot of nonsense.

What I got from this conversation so far: Instead of making a proper analysis about how valuable each different trait is, how those are "rated" and then make a conclusion about "over-" and "under-"rated based on the results, you just provided us with your belief that "shooters would be overrated".

And no, none of what I wrote so far says anything about how I rate those different traits against each other, even though you might want to believe something else.

I don't think

Indeed, that's how it seems, you don't think, maybe you can't or you are too lazy, for the topic at hand either is quite useless.

[richboy]

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.

Incredible offense? They don't even have the ability to perform even good offense vs great defense. They played well enough defensively to beat Miami 2 years ago. Miami is well under there usually offensive rating in 4 of the 5 games. Yet they lost 4 of the 5 games. So I guess your genius point is they have to even play better defense. When in reality they played better defense against the Heat than any team has played against them.

They lost because they had an offensive rating of 94 in the last 4 games of that series. Those guys were named Boozer, Deng, Rose, and Noah. Yet I have to prove to you they have don't have enough offense? I understand your trying to say they have to play great defense to win. The problem I have with it is your asking them to play at a level defensively that is completely unrealistic.

Anybody can say well they have enough defense to win. Problem is they will face other good defensive teams. They have to score and they haven't shown any ability to score against elite defensive teams at any decent rate to suggest they can win a title. They were dominated by the Heat in 5 games and the Heat struggled or even couldn't break 100 offensive rating in most of the series. The Heat broke 100 offensive rating in each game against the Mavericks and lost in 6. They did better defensively than the Mavericks, Pacers, or Spurs. Unless you think the Bulls have the ability to be by far the greatest defensive team in the sport by a big margin they need more offense to combat teams that also are elite defensively but have more offense.

[mysticbb]

Which means we are at the point where you start to talk about your personal beliefs without disproving anything based no facts.

blub

Q.E.D.

[Luigi]

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

Well, better offensive efficiency than average and one standard deviation better than league average in terms of offensive efficiency.

I have made a claim about a kind of offense.

You actually claimed that it would be "overrated". Well, how is that "rated" in the first place and how should it be "rated"?

Again, too lazy for an empirical study myself.

Ok, so you just have a feeling here, but you are so sure about that feeling that you felt the need to express that feeling on internet forum. Would have been better, if you had spend that time to check whether your feeling actually has some merit, tbh.

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

Oh, you misunderstood my point. I know how that game works, I just have the feeling that you don't. That's why I asked those questions in order to get a better understanding about your knowledge of the game besides throwing out some buzz words. Your answer obviously didn't help me here, which you might appreciate.

I think you should expand on what you consider support.

How would you know that? I actually pointed out what I don't consider as support (anecdotal evidence for that matter), which somehow triggered a weird response by you in which you assumed a lot of nonsense.

What I got from this conversation so far: Instead of making a proper analysis about how valuable each different trait is, how those are "rated" and then make a conclusion about "over-" and "under-"rated based on the results, you just provided us with your belief that "shooters would be overrated".

And no, none of what I wrote so far says anything about how I rate those different traits against each other, even though you might want to believe something else.

I don't think

Indeed, that's how it seems, you don't think, maybe you can't or you are too lazy, for the topic at hand either is quite useless.

Wow. Statistics require trust and good faith that they're being used well. You clearly deserve no trust and offer no good faith.

[Trader_Joe]

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.

The top 3 point shooting teams for the playoffs?
GSW
MIA
SAS

The bottom 3
MIL
LAL
LAC

I'd say the top 3 had a much better playoffs than the bottom 3.

Regular season top 5
GSW
MIA
OKC
SAS
NYK


Regular season bottom 5
MIN
ORL
PHO
CHA
TOR

Looks pretty important to me.

[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.

The top 3 point shooting teams for the playoffs?
GSW
MIA
SAS

The bottom 3
MIL
LAL
LAC

I'd say the top 3 had a much better playoffs than the bottom 3.

Regular season top 5
GSW
MIA
OKC
SAS
NYK


Regular season bottom 5
MIN
ORL
PHO
CHA
TOR

Looks pretty important to me.

There is a very complex relationship between taking 3s, making them, getting open, and using three point threats to effect other parts of the offense. None of that is being accounted for here. I think everyone is seriously underestimating the amount of data and analysis it takes to control for all of those factors.

A lot of fans get excited by the big 3 point shot. I think it's fair to say its overrated, and that other aspects of the game are more important? Is that crazy?

[Trader_Joe]

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.

The top 3 point shooting teams for the playoffs?
GSW
MIA
SAS

The bottom 3
MIL
LAL
LAC

I'd say the top 3 had a much better playoffs than the bottom 3.

Regular season top 5
GSW
MIA
OKC
SAS
NYK


Regular season bottom 5
MIN
ORL
PHO
CHA
TOR

Looks pretty important to me.

There is a very complex relationship between taking 3s, making them, getting open, and using three point threats to effect other parts of the offense. None of that is being accounted for here. I think everyone is seriously underestimating the amount of data and analysis it takes to control for all of those factors.

A lot of fans get excited by the big 3 point shot. I think it's fair to say its overrated, and that other aspects of the game are more important? Is that crazy?

Without any sort of supporting data, it's not crazy, it's just meaningless.
At least I supplied something that showed the best 3 point shooting teams are generally the best teams in the league.

But, I suppose your reasoning is based upon the fact Chicago was a bottom 10 3 point shooting team and you are trying to defend them. I joined the party late.. not sure what your point was TBH.

[mysticbb]

Statistics require trust and good faith that they're being used well.

Trust in what? Understanding of the game and a sufficient education in math seems to be more important than some sort of credulity, but that's just me ...

Do you have something substantial to say about the "shooters are overrated"? Or can we close that chapter by agreeing that you actually don't really know how they are "rated" and how they should be "rated"?

[Luigi]

Without any sort of supporting data, it's not crazy, it's just meaningless.
At least I supplied something that showed the best 3 point shooting teams are generally the best teams in the league.

But, I suppose your reasoning is based upon the fact Chicago was a bottom 10 3 point shooting team and you are trying to defend them.

I think things have meaning without quantification. Why do you think defending Chicago is my motive? I was just challenging the idea that 3 point shooting would be enough for them to get their offense working. It became a question about general basketball offense.

[mysticbb]

A lot of fans get excited by the big 3 point shot.

A lot of fans get excited by a dunk or a midrange shot or by a blocked shot or whatever. ;)

[Trader_Joe]

Without any sort of supporting data, it's not crazy, it's just meaningless.
At least I supplied something that showed the best 3 point shooting teams are generally the best teams in the league.

But, I suppose your reasoning is based upon the fact Chicago was a bottom 10 3 point shooting team and you are trying to defend them.

I think things have meaning without quantification. Why do you think defending Chicago is my motive? I was just challenging the idea that 3 point shooting would be enough for them to get their offense working. It became a question about general basketball offense.

See above.. joined the party late, didn't read through, simply saw your comment about shooting and wanted to weigh in. I'm not sure why you brought it up, but it is a Chicago thread and they were not a good 3 point shooting team...so I assumed it was to defend them.

[mysticbb]

I was just challenging the idea that 3 point shooting would be enough for them to get their offense working. It became a question about general basketball offense.

So, you challenged something which was never said. Are you sure that you have the necessary reading comprehension skills in order to make such a challenge in the first place?

The point was that better shooting (at that more accurate and more consistent) would have improved the offense of the Bulls, and thereby their chances to win. Do you honestly want to challenge that?

[Rerisen]

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.

Be more interested in how often that #2 was assisted on his scores.

Bulls problems don't really seem to be volume of points, they had #5 offense in 2012 (actually stinks they didn't get to play Miami healthy to test if their was a 'problem'), but rather that their volume is so dependent on being created by Rose, which makes gameplanning them much simpler in theory.

[dice]

a team doesn't need a "second scorer" to win the championship. just makes it much easier

[mysticbb]

Be more interested in how often that #2 was assisted on his scores.

Would be interesting to see, but for that sample the necessary data isn't available.

Bulls problems don't really seem to be volume of points, they had #5 offense in 2012 (actually stinks they didn't get to play Miami healthy to test if their was a 'problem'), but rather that their volume is so dependent on being created by Rose, which makes gameplanning them much simpler in theory.

Well, in theory Hinrich should be helpful here in order to take pressure away. And if the less opportunities can be converted better, it would be helpful as well.

And I wholeheartedly agree that it is quite sad that the Bulls couldn't be healthy for 2012 and 2013. Would be nice to see how the perception of the Bulls could be very different right now.

[Rerisen]

There's always the 04 Pistons, the exception that can save your day. One you don't really want to go for though.

Who was their number 2 creator? Hamilton was mostly an off the ball guy even then.

Though all 4 of their offensive starters did have some creation talent, Sheed in the post, Tay could post a bit, attack a bit, Hamilton could dribble his way into mid-ranges if he had to. Of course Chauncey closed, but wasn't as good as healthy Rose.

[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.

Be more interested in how often that #2 was assisted on his scores.

Bulls problems don't really seem to be volume of points, they had #5 offense in 2012 (actually stinks they didn't get to play Miami healthy to test if their was a 'problem'), but rather that their volume is so dependent on being created by Rose, which makes gameplanning them much simpler in theory.

Sounds like something I was saying.

[Keller61]

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.

I think you are wrong to assume that LeBron can guard Rose all by himself. It's not like Rose is completely taken out of the game once LeBron is on him and then it's up to Luol Deng or someone else to create offense. Multiple defenders need to help on Rose, and that leaves someone else open or creates mismatches.

The Bulls don't need a second superstar scorer; they just need to execute their offense well and take advantage of the mismatches created when the Heat trap Rose or wall him off in the paint. Rose has to make smart decisions as well and not try to force the issue against multiple defenders. Having another ball handler would benefit the Bulls a lot - someone who Rose could outlet the ball to when he gets trapped and who could then quickly find the open man and make the Heat pay for trapping. It doesn't have to a be a great scorer though. I could see Kirk Hinrich playing a key role for the Bulls against the Heat. Jimmy Butler could help a lot as well with his driving ability.

Another thing is that when the Heat defense collapses on Rose, the guys who are left open need to make their shots. This is why it is so important for the Bulls to pick up shooters. A big reason why the Bulls lost to the Heat in 2011 was that guys just didn't make their open shots, and this forced Rose to try to score against multiple defenders.

[Rerisen]

Sounds like something I was saying.

Well yeah in 2011 Boozer and Deng were 2 of the top 4 most assisted players in the league at over 17 PPG.

I have to add a caveat though, Bulls were not at all healthy in 2011, when so many perceptions were formed of them.

Boozer stunk the whole last 50 games of the year after messing up his ankle twice (under 15 PER and not much better than .500 TS%), and Noah had a messed up hand, couldn't even finish bunnies in the lane.

Jimmy Butler is also shaping up to be a lot more well rounded player than the dreadful Bogans, or washed up Hamilton. He's no ideal second option but he can actually score inside the arc on his own.

Bulls could definitely use more shot creation on paper, but if they stay healthy, its likely to be way more interesting than 2011. Not to mention a 22 year old Derrick Rose first time out of the first round that year, bit older and wiser. LeBron at the same age put up the same type ugly stats in the Finals.

[dice]

There's always the 04 Pistons, the exception that can save your day. One you don't really want to go for though

there are also examples of teams with a superstar without a big scoring 2nd banana winning titles. otis thorpe was the 2nd leading scorer on the '94 rockets at 14 ppg. boozer and deng both were at 15 ppg last time rose played. the team led the league in wins. as thibodeau would say, "more than enough to win"