Bulls re-sign Josh Giddey - 4/100- no options, fully guaranteed

[League Circles]

Oh I definitely agree he shot well for a short period of time (check his games played) from beyond the arc. I just wouldn't call a guy a "good shooter" based on that small of a sample of one type of shot.

1.5 years is not a small sample size, and I'm not sure what you mean by one type of shot, he had really good range, accuracy, super high volume, etc..

I'm not sure which 1.5 years you're talking about, but I think you're saying 20-21 and 21-22, during which he played a total of 90 games. But I'd even call 123 games a short sample size. Especially for a guy old enough to have played almost 700 games instead of the mere 287 he has.

But regardless, by one type of shot I mean the 3 point shot. He's very consistently been a below average overall shooter in the 6-8 years he's been in the league in terms of TS%. Considering he still has below par shooting form and shot terribly last year, I'm inclined to treat his relatively brief stretch of good 3 point shooting to likely be more of an aberration. He was 98th in the league in % even just among qualifiers in 20-21.

[dougthonus]

I'm not sure which 1.5 years you're talking about, but I think you're saying 20-21 and 21-22, during which he played a total of 90 games. But I'd even call 123 games a short sample size. Especially for a guy old enough to have played almost 700 games instead of the mere 287 he has.

But regardless, by one type of shot I mean the 3 point shot. He's very consistently been a below average overall shooter in the 6-8 years he's been in the league in terms of TS%. Considering he still has below par shooting form and shot terribly last year, I'm inclined to treat his relatively brief stretch of good 3 point shooting to likely be more of an aberration. He was 98th in the league in % even just among qualifiers in 20-21.

Well he had 3 years at a good percentage on incredibly high volume from 3. I'm not sure anyone cares about his mid range pull up game. A team with 4 healthy Lonzo Ball type players next to a superstar would be the best team in the league every year. Lonzo's only issue has been his health. Yeah, he wasn't great last year after three knee surgeries (the final being an experimental one that no one has ever had and played in the NBA afterwards), but that again gets down to health as his problem, not his talents.

[League Circles]

The numbers are good because of the volume, release speed, and pressure he could create with his shot. Maybe not the first year he did that, but definitely the 2nd year and his partial year with the Bulls.

Oh I definitely agree he shot well for a short period of time (check his games played) from beyond the arc. I just wouldn't call a guy a "good shooter" based on that small of a sample of one type of shot.

When that "one type of shot" is the 3 pointer and the "small sample" is 3 seasons of shooting 38.7% on 7.3 attempts, that's what exactly people mean when they say a good shooter. You know that, you're just shitposting

I mean, I guess we can all pretend that we've been lying for years about TS% being TRUE SHOOTING . It was 150 games over those "3 seasons", which were sandwiches in between 3 other seasons where he shot just terribly even from 3 (plus another two that he missed entirely).

I'm just saying, he has too poor of form, too much recent and career poor performance, and too small of a sample size for me to consider him a good shooter. He's a guy who can POTENTIALLY shoot well from 3 for you, but often hasn't, really hasn't overall in his career, and whose form does not suggest that he's a truly quality shooter if we had seen the hundreds of games he's missed we'd probably know it.

[League Circles]

I'm not sure which 1.5 years you're talking about, but I think you're saying 20-21 and 21-22, during which he played a total of 90 games. But I'd even call 123 games a short sample size. Especially for a guy old enough to have played almost 700 games instead of the mere 287 he has.

But regardless, by one type of shot I mean the 3 point shot. He's very consistently been a below average overall shooter in the 6-8 years he's been in the league in terms of TS%. Considering he still has below par shooting form and shot terribly last year, I'm inclined to treat his relatively brief stretch of good 3 point shooting to likely be more of an aberration. He was 98th in the league in % even just among qualifiers in 20-21.

Well he had 3 years at a good percentage on incredibly high volume from 3. I'm not sure anyone cares about his mid range pull up game. A team with 4 healthy Lonzo Ball type players next to a superstar would be the best team in the league every year. Lonzo's only issue has been his health. Yeah, he wasn't great last year after three knee surgeries (the final being an experimental one that no one has ever had and played in the NBA afterwards), but that again gets down to health as his problem, not his talents.

Maybe this comes down to semantics. I consider him a gimmick 3 point shooter the same way I considered much of Joakim Noah's offensive game as a gimmick. Most people automatically consider 3 pt shots to be good shots and so they just casually treat .375 (98th in the league among qualifiers) as good, when it's probably a shade under a league average efficiency shot considering typical average TS% in the 57-58% range.

Ball has been a quality player, but that's cause he's an outstanding defender which is half the game and also a very good but not great passer. That's a lot. I mean if Ball is a good shooter he's a max guy. Kinda like we said with Giddey. If Ball is a good shooter so is Ayo, and Ayo isn't a good shooter either.

[nomorezorro]

would you describe tyson chandler as a good shooter because he had a good ts%

[nomorezorro]

i guess i would genuinely believe it if you said yes because you obviously think about basketball in an unorthodox way. but you have to realize that other people are generally trying to communicate something else when they are saying "good shooter"

[dougthonus]

Maybe this comes down to semantics. I consider him a gimmick 3 point shooter the same way I considered much of Joakim Noah's offensive game as a gimmick. Most people automatically consider 3 pt shots to be good shots and so they just casually treat .375 (98th in the league among qualifiers) as good, when it's probably a shade under a league average efficiency shot considering typical average TS% in the 57-58% range.

Ball has been a quality player, but that's cause he's an outstanding defender which is half the game and also a very good but not great passer. That's a lot. I mean if Ball is a good shooter he's a max guy. Kinda like we said with Giddey. If Ball is a good shooter so is Ayo, and Ayo isn't a good shooter either.

You seem to be conflating TS% with shooting. TS% is a scoring efficiency measure, not a pure shooting measure. Ball isn't a great or even a good scorer. He's a great shooter though. He's also a great passer that also strikes me as really weird you said he wasn't. He was an elite passer.

The only thing stopping him from being a max guy is the fact that even before his recent spat of injuries he averaged 55% or so availability over his first four years and had no off the dribble game at all, and a near zero shot creation game. I'd say if you could guarantee Ball's health and give him pre-injury ability level, he'd easily be a 25% max guy on today's market.

[League Circles]

would you describe tyson chandler as a good shooter because he had a good ts%

No, I never said a good TS% is sufficient to be a good shooter. But a bad TS% coupled with bad form is a good indication that a guy probably isn't a good shooter.

[League Circles]

Maybe this comes down to semantics. I consider him a gimmick 3 point shooter the same way I considered much of Joakim Noah's offensive game as a gimmick. Most people automatically consider 3 pt shots to be good shots and so they just casually treat .375 (98th in the league among qualifiers) as good, when it's probably a shade under a league average efficiency shot considering typical average TS% in the 57-58% range.

Ball has been a quality player, but that's cause he's an outstanding defender which is half the game and also a very good but not great passer. That's a lot. I mean if Ball is a good shooter he's a max guy. Kinda like we said with Giddey. If Ball is a good shooter so is Ayo, and Ayo isn't a good shooter either.

You seem to be conflating TS% with shooting. TS% is a scoring efficiency measure, not a pure shooting measure. Ball isn't a great or even a good scorer. He's a great shooter though. He's also a great passer that also strikes me as really weird you said he wasn't. He was an elite passer.

The only thing stopping him from being a max guy is the fact that even before his recent spat of injuries he averaged 55% or so availability over his first four years and had no off the dribble game at all, and a near zero shot creation game. I'd say if you could guarantee Ball's health and give him pre-injury ability level, he'd easily be a 25% max guy on today's market.

I feel like so much of what you say about guys like Vuc, Giddey and many others over the years (which I agree with) is contradicted by this.

There is no disagreement - Lonzo Ball was a good to great 3 point shooter for about 150 games. I say good to great because the only time he was really great was the 35 games he played pre injury for us. 98th in the league among qualifiers isn't really "great" even if you shoot them frequently. If he hadn't played those 35 games for the only good Bulls team we've had in a decade I don't think anyone would be treating him like this.

But that was done 4 years ago. Since then he's been atrocious at shooting, also 35 games. He was also atrocious at shooting for his first two seasons prior to that.

Look at his eFG% (career, career high, etc) compared to, well, everyone on our mediocre team. He can't get the ball in the bucket very well. Like worse than our entire roster level bad. He just has a very abnormal shooting profile where despite being quite bad at shooting overall, which is strongly suggested by his poor shooting form, he was able to shoot well only from 3 for the equivalent of 1.5 years. Maybe some think that the injuries ruined his shooting. I think it's moreso just expected variation over reasonable time frames.

I won't quibble on the passing. I don't think he was nearly creative enough to be considered elite at passing, though just like with 3 pt shooting obscured his overall shooting for some, his very specific long, quarterback style passing mostly in transition was indeed excellent, but IMO he's nothing that special as a passer in most situations like in the half court. Like I think Giddey is a way better passer, and is truly elite.

Again though, I think highly of him as a player, or at least I would if he had any durability. Loved the tradable extension we gave him. He's a phenomenal defender and very high IQ player and doesn't hurt you. Outright, unambiguously poor overall shooter for his career and obviously currently per the information we have.

[drosestruts]

Will Gohtleib was on the Nate Duncan podcast (i realize opinions on podcasts value vary).

Thought it was a good listen as they talked more about what worked well over the last 25 games and why. It was less future prospects focused and more here's what went well, here's the areas they can continue to be good at, etc.

One thing that stuck out to me was the discussion around the % of 3-pointers for both Giddey and Vuc that were "open shots". They discussed how the conversation around this is often done in a way that diminishes the value of their shooting because so many shots were open, but rarely looks at it from a complementary standpoint of the Bulls offense being able to generate a high volume of open shots for its players.

Anyways - here's hoping we get a step-back 3 from Giddey sometime in the future. At his height it's honestly all he'd need. If he had that along with his foul rate we saw over the last 25 games - he's a max player.

[dougthonus]

There is no disagreement - Lonzo Ball was a good to great 3 point shooter for about 150 games. I say good to great because the only time he was really great was the 35 games he played pre injury for us. 98th in the league among qualifiers isn't really "great" even if you shoot them frequently. If he hadn't played those 35 games for the only good Bulls team we've had in a decade I don't think anyone would be treating him like this.

That could definitely be true. That was by far his best stretch and the stretch I watched the most.

But that was done 4 years ago. Since then he's been atrocious at shooting, also 35 games. He was also atrocious at shooting for his first two seasons prior to that.

I agree. No one is saying he was great when he entered the league nor is anyone saying he's great now. You referenced past tense, and up until the injury he was a great shooter, great passer, great defender. Health and inability to do anything off the dribble were his two main weaknesses.

Now, who knows if he's even a viable player in the NBA, he looked so mechanical last year. It got better as the year went on, but then he got hurt again, no faith he will ever stay healthy.

[MikeDC]

Will Gohtleib was on the Nate Duncan podcast (i realize opinions on podcasts value vary).

Thought it was a good listen as they talked more about what worked well over the last 25 games and why. It was less future prospects focused and more here's what went well, here's the areas they can continue to be good at, etc.

One thing that stuck out to me was the discussion around the % of 3-pointers for both Giddey and Vuc that were "open shots". They discussed how the conversation around this is often done in a way that diminishes the value of their shooting because so many shots were open, but rarely looks at it from a complementary standpoint of the Bulls offense being able to generate a high volume of open shots for its players.

Anyways - here's hoping we get a step-back 3 from Giddey sometime in the future. At his height it's honestly all he'd need. If he had that along with his foul rate we saw over the last 25 games - he's a max player.

I've made a discovery recently, that I'm increasingly confident about that ties into this. If you want to see who the best shooters in the league are, go to stats.nba.com and shot dashboard and instead of all 3 pointers, look at the "Open 4-6ft" category rather than the wide open one. If you look at wide open (6+ ft), you'll see that the guy who took the most wide open 3s last season was Royce O'Neale.

That's nice, but what really creates gravity in the NBA is the ability to shoot with a guy at least trying to defend you. On the 4-6ft filter, the top 5 guys are: Edwards, Curry, Tatum, D. Mitchell and Jalen Green.

These guys are, I think, the best shooters in the NBA, because they can make a sustainable percentage (or higher) with a guy somewhat in their face. If I had my way, I'd change the language of these shots to be:

• 4-6 feet = "Open"
• 6+ feet = "Undefended" instead of "Wide open"

What's important is identifying the difference between guys who will not take relatively easy but still contested shots.

Because when you get to the playoffs, the contest rates go up, and across the board percentages go down. It's kind of a misnomer to say that guys like Giddey and Okoro were/are Unguarded in the playoffs. What happens isn't that they're not totally unguarded, because they've shown that they can hit undefended shots. But they're not guarded tightly because the defense knows that if you get anywhere close to him, he's not going to take the shot at all.

Looking at "Open" but contested (4-6) shots

• Ant was 197/473 (41%) to lead the league
• Giddey was 17/62 this year and 5/26 the year before. So, total of 22/88 (25%) over the course of two seasons.

I think he probably needs to double the attempts and be around 33% or higher to start being taken seriously as a shooter. The wide open looks are nice, but unless he can make a shot with some pressure on him we won't get anywhere.

A couple other random notes after looking at this:

1. Coby is probably a top 20 shooter. Toward the bottom of the top 20, but there, because he took 235 last year. He also kills it on the wide open looks and he gets a lot of those. Don't think he's worth $30M+ though, probably.

2. I've got more interest in Jalen Green than I did before. Maybe in the right situation, he could really blow up? He does a lot of things wrong, but he's young and he hits a lot of difficult shots at a good rate.

3. Guys who shoot plenty of wide-open shots but get really gunshy when they're just "open" are valuable, but I think it's pretty easy to understand why. Just a little bit of pressure, and they're no longer confident to hit open shots. Giddey actually does pretty well on the wide open ones. But he **** the bed when a guy gets close. If a guy running at you on a closeout makes you abandon the attempt, even if the guy is starting 10 feet away, you need to get better.

4. Same with Okoro. Took 135 wide open/uncontested 3s last year and only 15 open.

5. To give a rough idea of shot difficulty, think of the ratio of wide open shots to open shots a guy takes. Last year:

• Coby 1.34 (he takes 1.34 uncontested (6+) shots for every open 3 he takes)
• Haliburton 1.78
• Giddey 4.84
• Okoro 9.0
• DeRozan 0.84... weirdly he takes and makes more open than wide open/uncontested 3s. If Giddey can get to Demar's level of taking open (not just wide open) 3s, he'd be way more dangerous. DeRozan took 113 open 3s last year and 101 the year before.

That is another way to look at this. When you think about DeRozan and what a bad shooter he is, he still took about about 30% more shots of this type than Giddey and Okoro took together.

Like with other discussions, this obviously isn't the only metric of shooting, but I would argue that the evidence speaks for itself. 4 of the 5 guys in the top of the "open" category are generally acknowledged as some of the best players in the league. The top of the "wide open" category are mostly role players outside of Haliburton.

[Tutupa]

Is there anything official about the contract structure? I can´t find it.

Spotrac and Hoopshype already has it as an ascending contract which is the "standard" but at the same time a shame, a missed opportunity since we had a lot of margin until the luxury tax line this summer (and I don't expect the Bulls to use the remaining exceptions wisely anyway).

I would have added a few more million to the total contract just to make it descending (or even flat). After all, you have flexibility today, and fewer millions in year 3 and 4 would have been great.

[dougthonus]

Is there anything official about the contract structure? I can´t find it.

Spotrac and Hoopshype already has it as an ascending contract which is the "standard" but at the same time a shame, a missed opportunity since we had a lot of margin until the luxury tax line this summer (and I don't expect the Bulls to use the remaining exceptions wisely anyway).

I would have added a few more million to the total contract just to make it descending (or even flat). After all, you have flexibility today, and fewer millions in year 3 and 4 would have been great.

Bobby Marks said it is 25M a flat across the board.

https://youtu.be/FdljA2VbLy0?si=32af0ODMzbUaMVs8

It's at the 3:45ish mark.

[MGB8]

Will Gohtleib was on the Nate Duncan podcast (i realize opinions on podcasts value vary).

Thought it was a good listen as they talked more about what worked well over the last 25 games and why. It was less future prospects focused and more here's what went well, here's the areas they can continue to be good at, etc.

One thing that stuck out to me was the discussion around the % of 3-pointers for both Giddey and Vuc that were "open shots". They discussed how the conversation around this is often done in a way that diminishes the value of their shooting because so many shots were open, but rarely looks at it from a complementary standpoint of the Bulls offense being able to generate a high volume of open shots for its players.

Anyways - here's hoping we get a step-back 3 from Giddey sometime in the future. At his height it's honestly all he'd need. If he had that along with his foul rate we saw over the last 25 games - he's a max player.

I've made a discovery recently, that I'm increasingly confident about that ties into this. If you want to see who the best shooters in the league are, go to stats.nba.com and shot dashboard and instead of all 3 pointers, look at the "Open 4-6ft" category rather than the wide open one. If you look at wide open (6+ ft), you'll see that the guy who took the most wide open 3s last season was Royce O'Neale.

That's nice, but what really creates gravity in the NBA is the ability to shoot with a guy at least trying to defend you. On the 4-6ft filter, the top 5 guys are: Edwards, Curry, Tatum, D. Mitchell and Jalen Green.

These guys are, I think, the best shooters in the NBA, because they can make a sustainable percentage (or higher) with a guy somewhat in their face. If I had my way, I'd change the language of these shots to be:

• 4-6 feet = "Open"
• 6+ feet = "Undefended" instead of "Wide open"

What's important is identifying the difference between guys who will not take relatively easy but still contested shots.

Because when you get to the playoffs, the contest rates go up, and across the board percentages go down. It's kind of a misnomer to say that guys like Giddey and Okoro were/are Unguarded in the playoffs. What happens isn't that they're not totally unguarded, because they've shown that they can hit undefended shots. But they're not guarded tightly because the defense knows that if you get anywhere close to him, he's not going to take the shot at all.

Looking at "Open" but contested (4-6) shots

• Ant was 197/473 (41%) to lead the league
• Giddey was 17/62 this year and 5/26 the year before. So, total of 22/88 (25%) over the course of two seasons.

I think he probably needs to double the attempts and be around 33% or higher to start being taken seriously as a shooter. The wide open looks are nice, but unless he can make a shot with some pressure on him we won't get anywhere.

A couple other random notes after looking at this:

1. Coby is probably a top 20 shooter. Toward the bottom of the top 20, but there, because he took 235 last year. He also kills it on the wide open looks and he gets a lot of those. Don't think he's worth $30M+ though, probably.

2. I've got more interest in Jalen Green than I did before. Maybe in the right situation, he could really blow up? He does a lot of things wrong, but he's young and he hits a lot of difficult shots at a good rate.

3. Guys who shoot plenty of wide-open shots but get really gunshy when they're just "open" are valuable, but I think it's pretty easy to understand why. Just a little bit of pressure, and they're no longer confident to hit open shots. Giddey actually does pretty well on the wide open ones. But he **** the bed when a guy gets close. If a guy running at you on a closeout makes you abandon the attempt, even if the guy is starting 10 feet away, you need to get better.

4. Same with Okoro. Took 135 wide open/uncontested 3s last year and only 15 open.

5. To give a rough idea of shot difficulty, think of the ratio of wide open shots to open shots a guy takes. Last year:

• Coby 1.34 (he takes 1.34 uncontested (6+) shots for every open 3 he takes)
• Haliburton 1.78
• Giddey 4.84
• Okoro 9.0
• DeRozan 0.84... weirdly he takes and makes more open than wide open/uncontested 3s. If Giddey can get to Demar's level of taking open (not just wide open) 3s, he'd be way more dangerous. DeRozan took 113 open 3s last year and 101 the year before.

That is another way to look at this. When you think about DeRozan and what a bad shooter he is, he still took about about 30% more shots of this type than Giddey and Okoro took together.

Like with other discussions, this obviously isn't the only metric of shooting, but I would argue that the evidence speaks for itself. 4 of the 5 guys in the top of the "open" category are generally acknowledged as some of the best players in the league. The top of the "wide open" category are mostly role players outside of Haliburton.

Just keep in mind that NBA.cpm stats defaults to playoff stats for whatever reason. When I toggled to regular season the list was a bit different (mainly Jalen Green dropped out, others moved up).

[Infinity2152]

A lot of Giddey data seems situation dependent, making it hard to predict future prospects, imo. He came in as a starter at 18, defended by starters, playing with an MVP level PG. Played out of position for three years with a lot of good shooters. He's a pass first player who likes to drive.

Seems logical that he would take less contested jumpers than the average starter, he's young and surrounded by better shooters in OKC. Even if you make them, contested jumpers are not usually the best shots unless you're great at hitting them.

Confidence is a big thing too. He was the third or fourth option in OKC and his role was entirely different than it is here. Giddey sitting in the corner as a spot up shooter is not a good look. He looked unlocked the second half as primary or secondary scorer.

Was watching Carmelo and Tracy McGrady in a chat yesterday and McGrady was talking about he loves Lebron, but Melo got robbed of ROY. He came in as a 19-yr old rookie and took that team to the playoffs. They won like 20 games the season earlier. Talked about being kids playing against grown men and how fans forget the difference between 19 and 25 when it comes to strength and experience. They said they made a point to kill every great rookie. T'Mac's buddy bet him Lebron was going to kill him their first game. T Mac put up 41 pts, 11 rbs, 8 assts, 51% from the field, 55% from the three.

Expecting to see a much more confident shooting Giddey at 23-24 as a primary option than he was at 18-19 as a fourth.

[MikeDC]

Just keep in mind that NBA.cpm stats defaults to playoff stats for whatever reason. When I toggled to regular season the list was a bit different (mainly Jalen Green dropped out, others moved up).

FWIW, I was using the regular season since the samples are much bigger. When I look at regular season 4-6 ft I get:

1. Ant 41.6% on 473
2. Curry 38.6% on 420
3. Tatum 35.8% on 385
4. Mitchell 35.4% on 342
5. Green 34.3% on 335

Playoffs were:

1. Brunson 33.3% on 78
2. Haliburton 42% on 69
3. Dort 33.3% on 69
4. Shai 28.3% on 60
5. Ant 25% on 60

Probably the right thing to do is to look at both in per game mode

[MGB8]

Just keep in mind that NBA.cpm stats defaults to playoff stats for whatever reason. When I toggled to regular season the list was a bit different (mainly Jalen Green dropped out, others moved up).

FWIW, I was using the regular season since the samples are much bigger. When I look at regular season 4-6 ft I get:

1. Ant 41.6% on 473
2. Curry 38.6% on 420
3. Tatum 35.8% on 385
4. Mitchell 35.4% on 342
5. Green 34.3% on 335

Playoffs were:

1. Brunson 33.3% on 78
2. Haliburton 42% on 69
3. Dort 33.3% on 69
4. Shai 28.3% on 60
5. Ant 25% on 60

Probably the right thing to do is to look at both in per game mode

i see a different grouping: ant, Steph, Luka, Tatum, Miller, Mitchel, Beasley, Simons, Wemby(!), McCullom, LaVine, Irving, Markkanen, Lillard, Powell... Only Wemby, Markkanen and Lillard below Mitchel's percentage.

Edit: I think I figured it out - am looking at per game, not season totals (which I think is what you are looking at).

[Indomitable]

I just rewatched that Lakers game at the UC. The last three positions by the Bulls. Lebron was the weakest link.

He was roaming on defense which is why Williams was wide open.

Lebron then threw the ball to Giddey. Then after Reed hit the shot. Lebron was chilling and let Giddey run into that half court shot.

[kodo]

I just rewatched that Lakers game at the UC. The last three positions by the Bulls. Lebron was the weakest link.

He was roaming on defense which is why Williams was wide open.

Lebron then threw the ball to Giddey. Then after Reed hit the shot. Lebron was chilling and let Giddey run into that half court shot.

LA played with no center so Lebron was the defensive help. On an earlier play Lebron was just parked near the rim and he forced Giddey to shoot a high floater over his contest which caused a miss, so it worked there. So it's not always bad and every team needs a rim protector even if they play small.

But I think even LA agrees this isn't ideal which is why they've been hyper focused on getting a center all off-season. Ayton isn't ideal, but I do think it's better than 41 year old Lebron playing a Ben Wallace role of an undersized center trying to cover for Luka & Reaves defense.