Josh Giddey - Conundrum Killer

[Ice Man]

I was referring to the individual improvement this year from Giddey mainly. And then last years improvement with Ayo.

Each year, every team has players who improve their 3 point shooting and players who get worse. We can therefore make every shooting coach look good by pointing to the players who improved and ignoring those who went backwards, or make every coach look bad by doing the opposite.

For example, Ayo is shooting worse on 3s this year than he was as a rookie, before Patton joined the organization. What to make of that?

[Ice Man]

He’s our PG of the future. And we do need to build a very specific way around his unusual game, to account for warts. But I got what I wanted when I wrote about the conundrum: A chance to see what he can do without Lavine while playing with runners.

I’ve seen it now, and I’ve seen enough. Still, get the best deal you can. It’s not like he’s shown he’s a lock to not regress. But he’s shown way too much to not commit to the man.

Spot on.

[Jcool0]

Not really a conundrum anymore

Came to write the same thing. And I’m the OP. What he has done since the Lavine trade is just too consistent to ignore. He’s imposing himself on the game like a genuine star. You can now see teams game planning for him and struggling to do so.

He’s our PG of the future. And we do need to build a very specific way around his unusual game, to account for warts. But I got what I wanted when I wrote about the conundrum: A chance to see what he can do without Lavine while playing with runners.

I’ve seen it now, and I’ve seen enough. Still, get the best deal you can. It’s not like he’s shown he’s a lock to not regress. But he’s shown way too much to not commit to the man.

The only thing unusual about his game was his relative low scoring numbers for a guy who needed the ball (most PGs do). Anything around the 15-17 ppg was fine for him to do and his current 20 ppg is putting him in Luka light territory. The question now is how he plays with a better player. Like Coby, wasn't great when Zach was the #1 (though i thought he was better then most in that role).

[dougthonus]

The only thing unusual about his game was his relative low scoring numbers for a guy who needed the ball (most PGs do). Anything around the 15-17 ppg was fine for him to do and his current 20 ppg is putting him in Luka light territory. The question now is how he plays with a better player. Like Coby, wasn't great when Zach was the #1 (though i thought he was better then most in that role).

I think the main things for Giddey was to become decent enough off the ball to not destroy the other players. That was the problem in OKC (and the problems earlier with him on the Bulls). He was shooting so bad that teams just left him alone, like totally alone and could then hard double the ball.

He's now progressed his game to the point that he's killing you, absolutely killing you, if you do that. He's shooting 3s at a high percentage and drawing fouls when given some run towards the rim.

I have some concerns still, the quality of competition in all our wins is ridiculously low with the exception of the Lakers. The other two decent wins were Indiana and Denver, but with Haliburton and Jokic out those teams are effectively tank caliber teams too.

That said, the numbers are still just too good to ignore and think he's just lousy. The question now is more about how much upside is there, like you can see a path to superstar upside in the best case scenario (feels unlikely), but really good starter now seems like the base case and significant regression also seems really unlikely.

[Jcool0]

The only thing unusual about his game was his relative low scoring numbers for a guy who needed the ball (most PGs do). Anything around the 15-17 ppg was fine for him to do and his current 20 ppg is putting him in Luka light territory. The question now is how he plays with a better player. Like Coby, wasn't great when Zach was the #1 (though i thought he was better then most in that role).

I think the main things for Giddey was to become decent enough off the ball to not destroy the other players. That was the problem in OKC (and the problems earlier with him on the Bulls). He was shooting so bad that teams just left him alone, like totally alone and could then hard double the ball.

He's now progressed his game to the point that he's killing you, absolutely killing you, if you do that. He's shooting 3s at a high percentage and drawing fouls when given some run towards the rim.

I have some concerns still, the quality of competition in all our wins is ridiculously low with the exception of the Lakers. The other two decent wins were Indiana and Denver, but with Haliburton and Jokic out those teams are effectively tank caliber teams too.

That said, the numbers are still just too good to ignore.

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

[MGB8]

Not really a conundrum anymore

Came to write the same thing. And I’m the OP. What he has done since the Lavine trade is just too consistent to ignore. He’s imposing himself on the game like a genuine star. You can now see teams game planning for him and struggling to do so.

He’s our PG of the future. And we do need to build a very specific way around his unusual game, to account for warts. But I got what I wanted when I wrote about the conundrum: A chance to see what he can do without Lavine while playing with runners.

I’ve seen it now, and I’ve seen enough. Still, get the best deal you can. It’s not like he’s shown he’s a lock to not regress. But he’s shown way too much to not commit to the man.

The only thing unusual about his game was his relative low scoring numbers for a guy who needed the ball (most PGs do). Anything around the 15-17 ppg was fine for him to do and his current 20 ppg is putting him in Luka light territory. The question now is how he plays with a better player. Like Coby, wasn't great when Zach was the #1 (though i thought he was better then most in that role).

I don’t think it’s that so much. I think he has found his fit on defense and that helps. He is playing the 3/4 defensively, and while that has been the case for a while now, he has grown into that - and the team has addressed the defensive issue by player groupings with him.

On offense, I think his points per game are an overrated stat. The greater issue is him having the ball enough to control the flow of the game - and too many other guys clamoring for lots of shots hurts that. But him with 1 primary scorer and secondary lead ball handler, plus a bunch of 2ndary scorers (like him) works fine.

Not sure that the last 2 months of very high level efficiency are fully sustainable, but I think that some amount is - and it’s likely just because there has been a more settled role on both ends that both he and other players have adjusted to. The middle of the season (before the LaVine trade, and even a bit after) was a lot of experimentation with lineups (plus injury adjustments).

[Jcool0]

Came to write the same thing. And I’m the OP. What he has done since the Lavine trade is just too consistent to ignore. He’s imposing himself on the game like a genuine star. You can now see teams game planning for him and struggling to do so.

He’s our PG of the future. And we do need to build a very specific way around his unusual game, to account for warts. But I got what I wanted when I wrote about the conundrum: A chance to see what he can do without Lavine while playing with runners.

I’ve seen it now, and I’ve seen enough. Still, get the best deal you can. It’s not like he’s shown he’s a lock to not regress. But he’s shown way too much to not commit to the man.

The only thing unusual about his game was his relative low scoring numbers for a guy who needed the ball (most PGs do). Anything around the 15-17 ppg was fine for him to do and his current 20 ppg is putting him in Luka light territory. The question now is how he plays with a better player. Like Coby, wasn't great when Zach was the #1 (though i thought he was better then most in that role).

I don’t think it’s that so much. I think he has found his fit on defense and that helps. He is playing the 3/4 defensively, and while that has been the case for a while now, he has grown into that - and the team has addressed the defensive issue by player groupings with him.

On offense, I think his points per game are an overrated stat. The greater issue is him having the ball enough to control the flow of the game - and too many other guys clamoring for lots of shots hurts that. But him with 1 primary scorer and secondary lead ball handler, plus a bunch of 2ndary scorers (like him) works fine.

Not sure that the last 2 months of very high level efficiency are fully sustainable, but I think that some amount is - and it’s likely just because there has been a more settled role on both ends that both he and other players have adjusted to. The middle of the season (before the LaVine trade, and even a bit after) was a lot of experimentation with lineups (plus injury adjustments).

He has been good on defense most of the year and was 3/4th a really good PG. People mostly didn't like him because he was averaging 10 ppg for months despite also averaging 7 rebounds 6 assists and over 1 steal. i had assumed his scoring was going to be better here and for awhile i was wrong on that. Its hard to tell with any of this what translates into next year. For Giddey he does have some history of being a 15+ ppg guy but he also has history of starting slow and ending strong. No one can predict the future and 95% chance now AK just runs is back next year. So i guess its just wait and see.

[MGB8]

The only thing unusual about his game was his relative low scoring numbers for a guy who needed the ball (most PGs do). Anything around the 15-17 ppg was fine for him to do and his current 20 ppg is putting him in Luka light territory. The question now is how he plays with a better player. Like Coby, wasn't great when Zach was the #1 (though i thought he was better then most in that role).

I think the main things for Giddey was to become decent enough off the ball to not destroy the other players. That was the problem in OKC (and the problems earlier with him on the Bulls). He was shooting so bad that teams just left him alone, like totally alone and could then hard double the ball.

He's now progressed his game to the point that he's killing you, absolutely killing you, if you do that. He's shooting 3s at a high percentage and drawing fouls when given some run towards the rim.

I have some concerns still, the quality of competition in all our wins is ridiculously low with the exception of the Lakers. The other two decent wins were Indiana and Denver, but with Haliburton and Jokic out those teams are effectively tank caliber teams too.

That said, the numbers are still just too good to ignore.

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

Maybe, but the one big difference I see now is that Giddey is flashing his upside, including having developed enough defensively - and the team figuring his role enough defensively- that he doesn’t kill you there. Then you have Coby, who is on a heater, but he and Giddey have seemingly learned to coexist. Buz has real high level upside, too - enough to be the best of those 3.

Is that a championship core? Probably not - no top 10 type player, Buz might approach that but unlikely. Then again, you look at Boston - I don’t that any of Tatum, Brown, Jrue, White, Porzingis are top 10. They are all all-stars - and on any given date 3 of them can play like a top-10 guy - Porzingis at times looking “generational” (but completely unreliable due to health)… but that across the board quality (despite only a couple of high end bench players and a huge roster cost) made them a juggernaut.

[dougthonus]

I think the main things for Giddey was to become decent enough off the ball to not destroy the other players. That was the problem in OKC (and the problems earlier with him on the Bulls). He was shooting so bad that teams just left him alone, like totally alone and could then hard double the ball.

He's now progressed his game to the point that he's killing you, absolutely killing you, if you do that. He's shooting 3s at a high percentage and drawing fouls when given some run towards the rim.

I have some concerns still, the quality of competition in all our wins is ridiculously low with the exception of the Lakers. The other two decent wins were Indiana and Denver, but with Haliburton and Jokic out those teams are effectively tank caliber teams too.

That said, the numbers are still just too good to ignore.

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

Maybe, but the one big difference I see now is that Giddey is flashing his upside, including having developed enough defensively - and the team figuring his role enough defensively- that he doesn’t kill you there. Then you have Coby, who is on a heater, but he and Giddey have seemingly learned to coexist. Buz has real high level upside, too - enough to be the best of those 3.

Is that a championship core? Probably not - no top 10 type player, Buz might approach that but unlikely. Then again, you look at Boston - I don’t that any of Tatum, Brown, Jrue, White, Porzingis are top 10. They are all all-stars - and on any given date 3 of them can play like a top-10 guy - Porzingis at times looking “generational” (but completely unreliable due to health)… but that across the board quality (despite only a couple of high end bench players and a huge roster cost) made them a juggernaut.

Another thought is that nothing we do likely yields championship upside in any obvious way. You're going to need some insane luck or unexpected growth. If we have 3 guys that look like they could be the nucleus of a 45 win team and are under 25 that's as good a start as you could realistically expect.

[WindyCityBorn]

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

Maybe, but the one big difference I see now is that Giddey is flashing his upside, including having developed enough defensively - and the team figuring his role enough defensively- that he doesn’t kill you there. Then you have Coby, who is on a heater, but he and Giddey have seemingly learned to coexist. Buz has real high level upside, too - enough to be the best of those 3.

Is that a championship core? Probably not - no top 10 type player, Buz might approach that but unlikely. Then again, you look at Boston - I don’t that any of Tatum, Brown, Jrue, White, Porzingis are top 10. They are all all-stars - and on any given date 3 of them can play like a top-10 guy - Porzingis at times looking “generational” (but completely unreliable due to health)… but that across the board quality (despite only a couple of high end bench players and a huge roster cost) made them a juggernaut.

Another thought is that nothing we do likely yields championship upside in any obvious way. You're going to need some insane luck or unexpected growth. If we have 3 guys that look like they could be the nucleus of a 45 win team and are under 25 that's as good a start as you could realistically expect.

Exactly.

[Jcool0]

I think the main things for Giddey was to become decent enough off the ball to not destroy the other players. That was the problem in OKC (and the problems earlier with him on the Bulls). He was shooting so bad that teams just left him alone, like totally alone and could then hard double the ball.

He's now progressed his game to the point that he's killing you, absolutely killing you, if you do that. He's shooting 3s at a high percentage and drawing fouls when given some run towards the rim.

I have some concerns still, the quality of competition in all our wins is ridiculously low with the exception of the Lakers. The other two decent wins were Indiana and Denver, but with Haliburton and Jokic out those teams are effectively tank caliber teams too.

That said, the numbers are still just too good to ignore.

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

Maybe, but the one big difference I see now is that Giddey is flashing his upside, including having developed enough defensively - and the team figuring his role enough defensively- that he doesn’t kill you there. Then you have Coby, who is on a heater, but he and Giddey have seemingly learned to coexist. Buz has real high level upside, too - enough to be the best of those 3.

Is that a championship core? Probably not - no top 10 type player, Buz might approach that but unlikely. Then again, you look at Boston - I don’t that any of Tatum, Brown, Jrue, White, Porzingis are top 10. They are all all-stars - and on any given date 3 of them can play like a top-10 guy - Porzingis at times looking “generational” (but completely unreliable due to health)… but that across the board quality (despite only a couple of high end bench players and a huge roster cost) made them a juggernaut.

You dont think Tatum is a top 10 player? He is currently averaging 27 points, 8.7 rebounds, 6 assists & is currently 4th in NBA.com MVP ladder.

[Ice Man]

Another thought is that nothing we do likely yields championship upside in any obvious way. You're going to need some insane luck or unexpected growth. If we have 3 guys that look like they could be the nucleus of a 45 win team and are under 25 that's as good a start as you could realistically expect.

Yes, that would be just fine.

In 2013, the Warriors had a 47-35 team with two rising young stars in 24 year old Steph and 22 year old Klay. Steph admittedly already looked as if he would be more special than any of our guys, but Klay certainly did not. Nor did the 3rd future star of that group, 22 year old Draymond, who was a rookie coming off the bench.

So hey, if it could happen to them, it could happen to the Bulls. Not likely of course -- title contenders aren't common. But with Giddey, Matas, and Coby, the Bulls at least have a hat in the ring.

[League Circles]

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

In no way does having better odds at a top 5 pick assure (or warrant) a "complete rebuild". Only Flagg is even significantly likely to be a real step above Coby, Giddey and Matas as a prospect, and that's still just one guy. If we get Flagg there is no reason per se to tear everything else down around him.

[MGB8]

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

Maybe, but the one big difference I see now is that Giddey is flashing his upside, including having developed enough defensively - and the team figuring his role enough defensively- that he doesn’t kill you there. Then you have Coby, who is on a heater, but he and Giddey have seemingly learned to coexist. Buz has real high level upside, too - enough to be the best of those 3.

Is that a championship core? Probably not - no top 10 type player, Buz might approach that but unlikely. Then again, you look at Boston - I don’t that any of Tatum, Brown, Jrue, White, Porzingis are top 10. They are all all-stars - and on any given date 3 of them can play like a top-10 guy - Porzingis at times looking “generational” (but completely unreliable due to health)… but that across the board quality (despite only a couple of high end bench players and a huge roster cost) made them a juggernaut.

You dont think Tatum is a top 10 player? He is currently averaging 27 points, 8.7 rebounds, 6 assists & is currently 4th in NBA.com MVP ladder.

Still don’t think that he is top 10. Sure, the counting stats give a strong argument that he is, this year, but I don’t think he has the individual impact of SGA, Luka, Giannis, Jokic, old man LeBron (still), old man Steph (still), old man Harden (still), Ant, Morant and Mobley or KAT. But in looking at it, and with Embiid crashing out, A.Davis injured, Durant’s team floundering, good teams … much harder. Still, take a Tatum off Boston and replace with a replacement level guy, not sure the results are that much worse.

Now, instead of Tatum, you sub in Durant or Scottie Barnes or Banchero or Fraz Wagner or another similarly versatile high level 3/4, and does anything change in terms of record? Might they be even better by a game or two (depending on variance)? Even an OG or Brandon Ingram or Jalen Williams or Miles Bridges or Cam Johnson or Jalen Johnson or even (more pure 4) Siakam or JJJ?

Maybe a better way to put it is that I’m not sure that there are 10 “top 10” players in the NBA this year.

[WindyCityBorn]

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

In no way does having better odds at a top 5 pick assure (or warrant) a "complete rebuild". Only Flagg is even significantly likely to be a real step above Coby, Giddey and Matas as a prospect, and that's still just one guy. If we get Flagg there is no reason per se to tear everything else down around him.

We look like we have 3 foundational pieces with all-star potential at 19, 22 and 25 years of age. The latter two are currently playing at near superstar level. I’m not complaining about lotto balls.

[Jcool0]

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

In no way does having better odds at a top 5 pick assure (or warrant) a "complete rebuild". Only Flagg is even significantly likely to be a real step above Coby, Giddey and Matas as a prospect, and that's still just one guy. If we get Flagg there is no reason per se to tear everything else down around him.

1. Bulls aren't getting Flagg. Its been that way for awhile now and even more cemented since the recent resurgence.

2. We have no idea if Coby, Giddey or Matas are worth building around. 2 weeks ago looked like Coby was gone in the off season. He still might be but most would of taken a mid teens pick for him then.

3. This Bulls team has needed a rebuild for a while now but AK wants no part of that.

[League Circles]

That's been the Bulls MO the last few season. Win enough at the end when it really doesn't matter to give the organization hope things are getting better. Then next season starts and they go 5-11 and are up and down the next few months. Everyone wants a complete rebuild and they are a week away from that happening and then they win 5 of the next 8 games drop out of any shot at a top 5 pick and are in the hunt for the post season. Wash and repeat.

In no way does having better odds at a top 5 pick assure (or warrant) a "complete rebuild". Only Flagg is even significantly likely to be a real step above Coby, Giddey and Matas as a prospect, and that's still just one guy. If we get Flagg there is no reason per se to tear everything else down around him.

1. Bulls aren't getting Flagg. Its been that way for awhile now and even more cemented since the recent resurgence.

2. We have no idea if Coby, Giddey or Matas are worth building around. 2 weeks ago looked like Coby was gone in the off season. He still might be but most would of taken a mid teens pick for him then.

3. This Bulls team has needed a rebuild for a while now but AK wants no part of that.

None of that contradicts the fact that having even significantly better odds in the lottery this summer was not going to warrant or result in a full rebuild. The full rebuild essentially already happened when we got rid of our three best players and replaced them with very different, much younger players and totally changed our play style.

[kodo]

Imagine if we hung up on this deal because OKC wouldn't include 2nd rounders.

[WindyCityBorn]

Imagine if we hung up on this deal because OKC wouldn't include 2nd rounders.

No hope except lottery balls.

[Jvaughn]

I was referring to the individual improvement this year from Giddey mainly. And then last years improvement with Ayo.

Each year, every team has players who improve their 3 point shooting and players who get worse. We can therefore make every shooting coach look good by pointing to the players who improved and ignoring those who went backwards, or make every coach look bad by doing the opposite.

For example, Ayo is shooting worse on 3s this year than he was as a rookie, before Patton joined the organization. What to make of that?

The fact that both players pointed to Patton when talking about what they did to improve YoY.

What would you attribute Giddey 's improvement to? Just a hot streak or are you just saying there's no way to know why he improved.