Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10
kodo wrote:I hope Patrick returning doesn't cut into Matas minutes, but not sure how that's possible especially with Lonzo back.
DuckIII wrote:Stratmaster wrote:DuckIII wrote:
Not every year. But bearing in mind that the general quality of the league - “the best basketball league in the world” - is irrelevant. To the extent you were under the impression I was stating the Bulls are bad relative to all other basketball teams on Earth, I was not.
I am referring to relative peer quality.
It’s not at all emotional. Losing more than you win over the course of an entire season is bad. So is finishing the season with a negative point differential illustrating you were clearly worse than your opponents over the course of a full sample size. For example, right now we are 23rd in point differential. That is objectively bad.
I’ll give you that evaluating the strength of your conference is subjective, though not necessarily emotional.
Point diff isn't meaningful at this point of the season unless you qualify it... which is what I am doing by talking about strength of schedule. If the Bulls played their first 10 games of the season against the 3 best teams in the league, and then didn't have to play any of them again, what good would point diff be?
Sample sizes matter. But aren’t we talking about the significance of making the playoffs and whether a team can accomplish that and still be bad? That’s what I was discussing, and it necessarily assumes the sample size of 82 games.
DuckIII wrote:kodo wrote:I hope Patrick returning doesn't cut into Matas minutes, but not sure how that's possible especially with Lonzo back.
Pat should not impact Matas. Tons of room for both. Matas, on the other hand, should massively impact Phillips and Terry.
Chi town wrote:DuckIII wrote:kodo wrote:I hope Patrick returning doesn't cut into Matas minutes, but not sure how that's possible especially with Lonzo back.
Pat should not impact Matas. Tons of room for both. Matas, on the other hand, should massively impact Phillips and Terry.
Pat and Bud should get burn every game together, ideally with Lonzo too. I want to see what the defense looks like with them out there together.
Stratmaster wrote:So your analysis is that they are on a 33.5 pace so that is how they will end up? No facts that might affect that analysis are meaningful? Your prediction is Lonzo Ball won't play a meaningful number of games. That's fair. It has a historical basis. Or maybe he will.
What about the other things I have mentioned?
Chi town wrote:Billy on Buz…
“There’s going to be these ups and downs (with Buzelis), so I give him a lot of credit (after) the five or six-minute rotation against Boston,” said Donovan. “One of his great strengths — he gets disappointed — he wants to do better and it doesn’t paralyze him. I’ve seen players afraid to make mistakes and don’t do anything; he’s not that way. He came out pretty focused and earned his minutes. The work ethic, the competitiveness, all that stuff I love. I think that’s going to be a huge. He’s got a really good mentality.
“He has to find an offensive game in terms of there are things he is accustomed to doing he can’t get away with up here,” Donovan counseled. “Not so much change his game, but in particular on drives to the basket there are times he tries to eurostep because he’s long and tall. But as strong as guys are a lot of times on drives he gets knocked off balance. Those are things he always got away with. He’s established himself as a good catch-and-shoot guy. He’s a guy who also can put the ball on the floor and I think he’ll learn how and when to do it. But for a young player like Matas, 6-foot-10 and athletic and a very good runner I think the athleticism in the open floor translates. I think he can evolve because he does have a skill set to do that. He’s not afraid of failure or messing up. So it’s going be a process for him. But he can get there and be a very good player.”
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:So your analysis is that they are on a 33.5 pace so that is how they will end up? No facts that might affect that analysis are meaningful? Your prediction is Lonzo Ball won't play a meaningful number of games. That's fair. It has a historical basis. Or maybe he will.
What about the other things I have mentioned?
I'm not making a prediction. You said let's check in at 50 games, I said sure, let's do that. I'm not trying to mock you, I'm agreeing with your suggestion to give it some time and see where they are at.
You said they are a .500 team. They aren't. A record that is on pace for 34-48 is not close to .500 from an objective, factual perspective. You pushed the idea of only counting games Zach plays in, but that doesn't seem like a reasonable metric as many teams have injuries and he's missed 3 of 22 games. That's on pace for him missing 11 games this season. That's probably better than his career average for missed games in a year.
Maybe Lonzo will be really healthy going forward and be a big plus. Maybe Vuc, at 34, will also not continue to have the 2nd best year in his career and won't continue shooting 11% better than his career average from 3, and 14% better than his previous 3 year combined average and come back down to Earth. Maybe the team further gels and melds together under a new system and picks up momentum over time. Maybe any number of things good or bad will happen from here.
I'm not dismissing the possibility that the Bulls could finish the season strong, especially as a team that is unwilling to tank in a conference where maybe half the teams decide to tank the end of the year. Maybe its just semantics and they are low-average vs high-bad. They aren't a bottom level unwatchable team like Washington, if that is your definition of bad. But I don't think they could beat any team in the playoffs in a series, even if they got matched up against whomever the worst playoff team outside of them would be. To me, that makes them bad, but I can see the argument that this statement could be true, and they are still average depending on how you define average.
Stratmaster wrote:That's all very fair. My assessment is admittedly heavily based on the schedule. If you took a formula that adjusted the record and projected record based on SOS I believe the Bulls would rate as the equivalent of a .500 team, possibly over that. I will have to see if I can find any such metrics.
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:That's all very fair. My assessment is admittedly heavily based on the schedule. If you took a formula that adjusted the record and projected record based on SOS I believe the Bulls would rate as the equivalent of a .500 team, possibly over that. I will have to see if I can find any such metrics.
If you look at their net-rating as -4.2 and their schedule has a net rating of 1.35 worse than average, if you adjust for the league average net rating ignoring the Bulls net rating (since they can't play themselves), that would be 1.2 worse, giving them an adjusted net rating of -3 which would tie them with the Pistons for 19th/20th. I could see the case to say that's an "average" team vs a bad team.
Last year, the Bulls had a net rating of -1.4 and were 37-45, the Nets had a -2.9 (closest to this mark) and had a 30-52 finish.
I don't know how valid this approach is, throwing it out there as it seems quasi-reasonable for what I could come up with in a few seconds.
Here's a site that I believe is regressing the net ratings and has the Bulls in a similar range:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/ranking/predictive-by-other/
Stratmaster wrote:dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:That's all very fair. My assessment is admittedly heavily based on the schedule. If you took a formula that adjusted the record and projected record based on SOS I believe the Bulls would rate as the equivalent of a .500 team, possibly over that. I will have to see if I can find any such metrics.
If you look at their net-rating as -4.2 and their schedule has a net rating of 1.35 worse than average, if you adjust for the league average net rating ignoring the Bulls net rating (since they can't play themselves), that would be 1.2 worse, giving them an adjusted net rating of -3 which would tie them with the Pistons for 19th/20th. I could see the case to say that's an "average" team vs a bad team.
Last year, the Bulls had a net rating of -1.4 and were 37-45, the Nets had a -2.9 (closest to this mark) and had a 30-52 finish.
I don't know how valid this approach is, throwing it out there as it seems quasi-reasonable for what I could come up with in a few seconds.
Here's a site that I believe is regressing the net ratings and has the Bulls in a similar range:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/ranking/predictive-by-other/
The one I saw had the Bulls ahead of Toronto, Atlanta and Philadelphia. But I haven't had time to understand the methodology so...
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:That's all very fair. My assessment is admittedly heavily based on the schedule. If you took a formula that adjusted the record and projected record based on SOS I believe the Bulls would rate as the equivalent of a .500 team, possibly over that. I will have to see if I can find any such metrics.
If you look at their net-rating as -4.2 and their schedule has a net rating of 1.35 worse than average, if you adjust for the league average net rating ignoring the Bulls net rating (since they can't play themselves), that would be 1.2 worse, giving them an adjusted net rating of -3 which would tie them with the Pistons for 19th/20th. I could see the case to say that's an "average" team vs a bad team.
Last year, the Bulls had a net rating of -1.4 and were 37-45, the Nets had a -2.9 (closest to this mark) and had a 30-52 finish.
I don't know how valid this approach is, throwing it out there as it seems quasi-reasonable for what I could come up with in a few seconds.
Here's a site that I believe is regressing the net ratings and has the Bulls in a similar range:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/ranking/predictive-by-other/
CROBulls wrote:Chi town wrote:Billy on Buz…
“There’s going to be these ups and downs (with Buzelis), so I give him a lot of credit (after) the five or six-minute rotation against Boston,” said Donovan. “One of his great strengths — he gets disappointed — he wants to do better and it doesn’t paralyze him. I’ve seen players afraid to make mistakes and don’t do anything; he’s not that way. He came out pretty focused and earned his minutes. The work ethic, the competitiveness, all that stuff I love. I think that’s going to be a huge. He’s got a really good mentality.
“He has to find an offensive game in terms of there are things he is accustomed to doing he can’t get away with up here,” Donovan counseled. “Not so much change his game, but in particular on drives to the basket there are times he tries to eurostep because he’s long and tall. But as strong as guys are a lot of times on drives he gets knocked off balance. Those are things he always got away with. He’s established himself as a good catch-and-shoot guy. He’s a guy who also can put the ball on the floor and I think he’ll learn how and when to do it. But for a young player like Matas, 6-foot-10 and athletic and a very good runner I think the athleticism in the open floor translates. I think he can evolve because he does have a skill set to do that. He’s not afraid of failure or messing up. So it’s going be a process for him. But he can get there and be a very good player.”
Lauri was like that. Always tried to euro step everything. Now he just go to work on them.
Indomitable wrote:CROBulls wrote:Chi town wrote:Billy on Buz…
“There’s going to be these ups and downs (with Buzelis), so I give him a lot of credit (after) the five or six-minute rotation against Boston,” said Donovan. “One of his great strengths — he gets disappointed — he wants to do better and it doesn’t paralyze him. I’ve seen players afraid to make mistakes and don’t do anything; he’s not that way. He came out pretty focused and earned his minutes. The work ethic, the competitiveness, all that stuff I love. I think that’s going to be a huge. He’s got a really good mentality.
“He has to find an offensive game in terms of there are things he is accustomed to doing he can’t get away with up here,” Donovan counseled. “Not so much change his game, but in particular on drives to the basket there are times he tries to eurostep because he’s long and tall. But as strong as guys are a lot of times on drives he gets knocked off balance. Those are things he always got away with. He’s established himself as a good catch-and-shoot guy. He’s a guy who also can put the ball on the floor and I think he’ll learn how and when to do it. But for a young player like Matas, 6-foot-10 and athletic and a very good runner I think the athleticism in the open floor translates. I think he can evolve because he does have a skill set to do that. He’s not afraid of failure or messing up. So it’s going be a process for him. But he can get there and be a very good player.”
Lauri was like that. Always tried to euro step everything. Now he just go to work on them.
Lauri never lacked strength. They do not remind me of each other at all.
sco wrote:Indomitable wrote:CROBulls wrote:Lauri was like that. Always tried to euro step everything. Now he just go to work on them.
Lauri never lacked strength. They do not remind me of each other at all.
IDK, I see two guys whose height lead one to assume they are best suited for the "PF" position, but neither has a back-to-the-basket game and should be playing SF. Lauri came in with more of a 3pt game, to be sure, but I see the comparison.
Matas still needs to refine his 3pt game to become elite, but he has better handles than Lauri and better defensive instincts as well. I fully expect us to bulk up the poor kid to be more physical in the paint and turn his quickness from a strength to a liability. We did it to Lauri, we did it to Pat, we did it to Ayo. Seems to be in our DNA.
Indomitable wrote:sco wrote:Indomitable wrote:Lauri never lacked strength. They do not remind me of each other at all.
IDK, I see two guys whose height lead one to assume they are best suited for the "PF" position, but neither has a back-to-the-basket game and should be playing SF. Lauri came in with more of a 3pt game, to be sure, but I see the comparison.
Matas still needs to refine his 3pt game to become elite, but he has better handles than Lauri and better defensive instincts as well. I fully expect us to bulk up the poor kid to be more physical in the paint and turn his quickness from a strength to a liability. We did it to Lauri, we did it to Pat, we did it to Ayo. Seems to be in our DNA.
Lauri best position is and was 4. He just had to get comfortable posting up.
Let them develop Mateas.
Chi town wrote:Billy on Buz…
“There’s going to be these ups and downs (with Buzelis), so I give him a lot of credit (after) the five or six-minute rotation against Boston,” said Donovan. “One of his great strengths — he gets disappointed — he wants to do better and it doesn’t paralyze him. I’ve seen players afraid to make mistakes and don’t do anything; he’s not that way. He came out pretty focused and earned his minutes. The work ethic, the competitiveness, all that stuff I love. I think that’s going to be a huge. He’s got a really good mentality.
“He has to find an offensive game in terms of there are things he is accustomed to doing he can’t get away with up here,” Donovan counseled. “Not so much change his game, but in particular on drives to the basket there are times he tries to eurostep because he’s long and tall. But as strong as guys are a lot of times on drives he gets knocked off balance. Those are things he always got away with. He’s established himself as a good catch-and-shoot guy. He’s a guy who also can put the ball on the floor and I think he’ll learn how and when to do it. But for a young player like Matas, 6-foot-10 and athletic and a very good runner I think the athleticism in the open floor translates. I think he can evolve because he does have a skill set to do that. He’s not afraid of failure or messing up. So it’s going be a process for him. But he can get there and be a very good player.”