Vucevic Trade Watch 2025

[jnrjr79]

Just don't get the hate. He's worse defensively than most starting centers, granted. Though that's not altogether true, since defensive rebounds are a huge part of defense. And he tries most plays, at least. His size and weight help when defending bigger players in the paint. So basically perimeter defense and rim protection.

I'm not sure I'd agree that defensive rebounds are a "huge" part of defense. Vooch is 13th in rebounds per 36, which is certainly good. I'd not KAT is 4th in that regard and Thibs has had to bench him at times because he's been defensively unplayable.

It's true Vooch has the body to guard bigger guys in the paint, but that is an increasingly small need for NBA teams.

He's elite for position at shooting, rebounding, scoring, playmaking and BBall IQ, imo. I say for position assuming every team will have a legit starting center. He's elite at actually being healthy and playing, unlike guys like Embid, better player by far but can't stay on the court. Those things have to count for something. There are just not a lot of 6'10-7'0 players more skilled than hm.

It would sure be nice to have a good defensive C on the team to actually have a year to take a look at whether you can survive the Coby-Giddey pairing.
Vooch is not an "elite" shooter or scorer. He's probably not an "elite" rebounder, either, but he's certainly closer to that than shooting or scoring.

I agree that Vooch is super durable and, while not exactly skill, definitely matters a lot when comparing him to other players.

I also tend to agree that there aren't a lot of bigs that are "more skilled" than him, but lesser skilled bigs who have more athleticism/defense/motor would be more impactful generally and better firts specifically for this team.

What isn't shown in Vuc's stats per se is that our defense requires everyone else to hedge off of their man to cover the paint (aka lay-up line) for Vuc, so Vuc's man's performance may not be impacted every time, but the domino effect is real.

To me it's not really about Vuc, he's gone after this year. It's about whether to keep Coby, and it will be harder to see if the Coby Giddey tandem is something that can be covered for with a good C or not. If not, we shouldnt' keep Coby.

[MikeDC]

Article on DFG% if anybody is interested. TLDR: DFG% is fine for shots at the rim but useless for everywhere else on the court.

The NBA's tracking for DFG is wonky and unreliable.

Read on Twitter

That's a pretty terrible take, because the guy doing the writing isn't controlling for anything like usages or averages.

What he did here is exactly the same, in principle, to showing a chart of Points per 36 and declaring it "random" and "useless" because a few guys who played like 5 minutes for the year averaged over 40 points per 36.

To go back to DFG, if you look at guards who played at least 1000 minutes and defended more than the average shots per 36 (again, usage is a crucial component of measuring defense), the top defending guards against 3 pointers looked like this:

Caruso
Jaquez
Castle
Wiggins
Ellis
LeVert
Watson

If you look at defending against 2s (not just rim 2s) you get
Caruso
Watson
Jaquez
Champagne
LeVert
Green
Pippen Jr

....... I've done this kind of drill on previous year data as well, and, just like this sample, it's' obviously not random. And... if you regress DFG% against contest rates, it's clear that higher contest rates do, in fact, lead to fewer makes, even for 3 point shots.

Basically, sure, it's' obvious that the further away you are, the more dependent on the offensive player's skill it is, but that doesn't make it random. There is still a statistically significant probability that contesting shots and high usage defenders reduce DFG3%.

Edit: I want to add that the Steph Curry take is especially silly. Can we imagine why the over DFG% against Curry is pretty low? Well, yes... because he's pretty much only defending the 3 point line. So the average for guards is like 36% on DFG% and Curry ended the year with a DFG3% of 38.5.

So, below the average, but probably not anything to worry about.

What drove Curry's overall number (temporarily) low is that his DFG2% (the one you're claiming is reliable!) was abnormally low. Only 50.4% on all 2s and 56% at the rim.

Does that mean Steph should be defending in the post? No. When you start looking at his usage, it's clear he's defending a lot fewer shots than the average guard at 3, 2 and the rim. The answer is they do a good job of hiding him on defense. When you appropriately discount for that, the fact that he's doing a good job of defending the weakest defender on the floor means he's... nowhere close to the best.

[2weekswithpay]

Using nbarapm because they have shots contested per 100 possessions.

Filtering out players with less than 1000 minutes played, these are the PGs and SGs with the most contests per 100 possessions.

PGs

Spoiler:

SGs

Spoiler:

Now let's select the 5 players that contested the most jumpers (contested per 100 - rim contests per 100) and look at their contest numbers in previous seasons. Excluding those without at least 4 seasons in the NBA.

1. Alex Caruso 14.7 jumpers contested

Spoiler:

2. Jamal Murray 14.3 Jumpers contested

Spoiler:

3. Deaaron Fox 14.2 jumpers contested

Spoiler:

4. Aaron Wiggins 14 jumpers contested

Spoiler:

5. KPJ 14 jumpers contested

Spoiler:

I'll stop there, but I don't think one can conclude that more contests = lower opponent FG%, at least not by NBA tracking numbers.

[MikeDC]

Using nbarapm because they have shots contested per 100 possessions.

Filtering out players with less than 1000 minutes played, these are the PGs and SGs with the most contests per 100 possessions.

I'll stop there, but I don't think one can conclude that more contests = lower opponent FG%, at least not by NBA tracking numbers.

Respectfully, you're not going about it in a way that would ever reach any sort of meaningful conclusion. Just looking at the top or bottom few guys and trying to find an inference isn't going to work when the numbers are starting out in a pretty tight range in the first place.

What Like, what I did was a linear regression of DFG3% as the independent variable and Contest3% as one dependent variable along with some other obvious one (3 point shots defended, DFG2%, Contest 2%, 2pt shots defended, etc...). Run that on a sample of 368 players (most of the league that played significant minutes) and you get the result that, on average, contesting more 3s is statistically significant to ~90% and leads to a small decline in DFG3%.

There's a lot of other stuff going on that affects it, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it matters. It does.

If you have guy A, who contests every shot, and guy B, who contests nothing, I don't think you or anyone else believe they're likely to get the same results.

[dougthonus]

There's a lot of other stuff going on that affects it, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it matters. It does.

If you have guy A, who contests every shot, and guy B, who contests nothing, I don't think you or anyone else believe they're likely to get the same results.

I think contest percentage probably means a lot more than DFG% to me.

Whether or not contesting a shot makes a difference isn't a point that needs to be argued. If it didn't make a difference no one would need to play defense an the game would be a random number generator. There's a reason FT% is a lot higher than FG%.

DFG% I would expect to be interesting, but really noisy and probably require a lot of work and regression of quality of opponent and shot type and situation to get a reliable answer out of. As a single metric, I think it would be hard to take much from it.

[ShouldaPaidBG]

We dont need stats to tell us Vuc can't jump or move his feet and is easily scored on by everyone, and also has a horrible attitude every time it happens.

[MikeDC]

There's a lot of other stuff going on that affects it, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it matters. It does.

If you have guy A, who contests every shot, and guy B, who contests nothing, I don't think you or anyone else believe they're likely to get the same results.

I think contest percentage probably means a lot more than DFG% to me.

Whether or not contesting a shot makes a difference isn't a point that needs to be argued. If it didn't make a difference no one would need to play defense an the game would be a random number generator. There's a reason FT% is a lot higher than FG%.

DFG% I would expect to be interesting, but really noisy and probably require a lot of work and regression of quality of opponent and shot type and situation to get a reliable answer out of. As a single metric, I think it would be hard to take much from it.

Yeah. I think lots of folks get hung up on wanting a single metric. In that sense, DFG% is no different than FG%. Obviously it has value, but there's no single stat that explains everything without the context of other stats.

Getting back to the idea of Vuc and what the Bulls do at center, I would say the following:


1. Jalen Smith seems like a dead end. Below average on D, not quite good enough on O, too expensive to be a third or fourth string center, not aware enough to to really play the position well, and subject to weird conditioning and ongoing injuries. Unless he has some kind of amazing turnaround, he's trending to struggle for his next contract.

2. Collins is a fine stopgap, but I don't see any reason to imagine him as a starter.

3. It is probably underestimated how much Vuc makes the game easier for Giddey on offense. If people want Giddey to be a great PG, they need to consider that he needs to throw dimes to somebody. To maximize his game, he needs an extremely strong offensive front court player to be paired with. Secondly, this guy needs to be a capable shooter because Giddey is not.

4. The sort of center we need (given Giddey) to get is likely never going to be available except through the draft. A center with strong defensive potential who can shoot. Forget about Wemby, even a guy like JJJ or Prozingis or Mobley is basically never available. Even a guy on a lower tier like Alex Saar or Kel'el Ware becomes close to untouchable when they turn up.

5. Noa Essengue is our best chance here. I find it odd that people haven't talked about him like this, he's one of the few guys who has something like the Giannis/AD style frame to build into. That's not to say he's going to do that, just that he's pretty much the only option.

6. I don't see how guys who are plodding drop back centers like Kessler or Clingan are very good fits unless our PF is just an amazing shooter.

[sco]

There's a lot of other stuff going on that affects it, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it matters. It does.

If you have guy A, who contests every shot, and guy B, who contests nothing, I don't think you or anyone else believe they're likely to get the same results.

I think contest percentage probably means a lot more than DFG% to me.

Whether or not contesting a shot makes a difference isn't a point that needs to be argued. If it didn't make a difference no one would need to play defense an the game would be a random number generator. There's a reason FT% is a lot higher than FG%.

DFG% I would expect to be interesting, but really noisy and probably require a lot of work and regression of quality of opponent and shot type and situation to get a reliable answer out of. As a single metric, I think it would be hard to take much from it.

Yeah. I think lots of folks get hung up on wanting a single metric. In that sense, DFG% is no different than FG%. Obviously it has value, but there's no single stat that explains everything without the context of other stats.

Getting back to the idea of Vuc and what the Bulls do at center, I would say the following:


1. Jalen Smith seems like a dead end. Below average on D, not quite good enough on O, too expensive to be a third or fourth string center, not aware enough to to really play the position well, and subject to weird conditioning and ongoing injuries. Unless he has some kind of amazing turnaround, he's trending to struggle for his next contract.

2. Collins is a fine stopgap, but I don't see any reason to imagine him as a starter.

3. It is probably underestimated how much Vuc makes the game easier for Giddey on offense. If people want Giddey to be a great PG, they need to consider that he needs to throw dimes to somebody. To maximize his game, he needs an extremely strong offensive front court player to be paired with. Secondly, this guy needs to be a capable shooter because Giddey is not.

4. The sort of center we need (given Giddey) to get is likely never going to be available except through the draft. A center with strong defensive potential who can shoot. Forget about Wemby, even a guy like JJJ or Prozingis or Mobley is basically never available. Even a guy on a lower tier like Alex Saar or Kel'el Ware becomes close to untouchable when they turn up.

5. Noa Essengue is our best chance here. I find it odd that people haven't talked about him like this, he's one of the few guys who has something like the Giannis/AD style frame to build into. That's not to say he's going to do that, just that he's pretty much the only option.

6. I don't see how guys who are plodding drop back centers like Kessler or Clingan are very good fits unless our PF is just an amazing shooter.

I still you are are very wrong about Smith. He's not the solution, but I think he'd be our best starter next season, followed by Collins.

The point about not starting Vu is that see what our 3 main guys can do to see if they are good enough as our future core, especially Matas. IMO it's about are they good enough to keep together or do we need to get rid of one or more of them (likely Coby). Back to Smith, I would like to give him the nod to see what Coby/Giddey can do when they have literally anyone other than Vuc out there (where they need to hedge for his limitations).

I would like to see us make a move that brings in a guy like Robinson, who is a game changer. I don't need the C to be a scorer, just set good picks and make open dunks and grab rebounds. That, IMO, is a 10 win addition over Vuc.

[2weekswithpay]

I'm not arguing that contesting doesn't matter vs leaving a guy open. I'm trying to say that DFG% on perimeter shots isn't a stat worth using.

These are 3 perimeter shots that Vuc contested in the first game of the season. In all 3, Vuc doesn't contest the shot, and he probably isn't the closest defender. The Curry play wasn't just about his DFG%, he was being credited with a defended shot and a miss when he wasn't the one who contested the shot. NBA.com or Synergy doesn't reliably track what fans consider a "contest". Add in other stuff like the randomness of jumpers, scheme, etc. The stat shouldn't be used IMO.

[dougthonus]

1. Jalen Smith seems like a dead end. Below average on D, not quite good enough on O, too expensive to be a third or fourth string center, not aware enough to to really play the position well, and subject to weird conditioning and ongoing injuries. Unless he has some kind of amazing turnaround, he's trending to struggle for his next contract.

2. Collins is a fine stopgap, but I don't see any reason to imagine him as a starter.

Center is kind of like the RB in the NFL now. You just don't want to sink money here unless you have someone elite. Collins/Smith are probably backup quality guys.

3. It is probably underestimated how much Vuc makes the game easier for Giddey on offense. If people want Giddey to be a great PG, they need to consider that he needs to throw dimes to somebody. To maximize his game, he needs an extremely strong offensive front court player to be paired with. Secondly, this guy needs to be a capable shooter because Giddey is not.

If you get capable shooter Vuc, I think he's okay on offense, especially in his 2nd half role where we stopped trying to go to him in the low post, but if you don't get capable shooter Vuc (which has been true in the majority of his time here), then he's a disaster on both ends. I wouldn't be shocked if we get capable shooter Vuc, but I sure wouldn't be shocked if we didn't either.

4. The sort of center we need (given Giddey) to get is likely never going to be available except through the draft. A center with strong defensive potential who can shoot. Forget about Wemby, even a guy like JJJ or Prozingis or Mobley is basically never available. Even a guy on a lower tier like Alex Saar or Kel'el Ware becomes close to untouchable when they turn up.

I think just getting a defensive, rim running center would be fine next to Giddey, say Daniel Gafford as an example. If you start looking for players that cover all of Giddey's flaws then you just shouldn't have signed Giddey. We have to hope Giddey can shoot well enough that we don't need shooting out of our center. It's far more likely than not needing a defensive oriented center, since every team really needs defense from that spot.

5. Noa Essengue is our best chance here. I find it odd that people haven't talked about him like this, he's one of the few guys who has something like the Giannis/AD style frame to build into. That's not to say he's going to do that, just that he's pretty much the only option.

I think Essengue is interesting, but until he actually performs well, I'm not going to get excited. Obviously that might happen, and I hope it happens, and the Bulls (broadly speaking) need to nail all their draft picks in order to become a really good team because they don't have a lot of obviously strong future facing stuff on the roster now.

[League Circles]

There's a lot of other stuff going on that affects it, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it matters. It does.

If you have guy A, who contests every shot, and guy B, who contests nothing, I don't think you or anyone else believe they're likely to get the same results.

I think contest percentage probably means a lot more than DFG% to me.

Whether or not contesting a shot makes a difference isn't a point that needs to be argued. If it didn't make a difference no one would need to play defense an the game would be a random number generator. There's a reason FT% is a lot higher than FG%.

DFG% I would expect to be interesting, but really noisy and probably require a lot of work and regression of quality of opponent and shot type and situation to get a reliable answer out of. As a single metric, I think it would be hard to take much from it.

Yeah. I think lots of folks get hung up on wanting a single metric. In that sense, DFG% is no different than FG%. Obviously it has value, but there's no single stat that explains everything without the context of other stats.

Getting back to the idea of Vuc and what the Bulls do at center, I would say the following:


1. Jalen Smith seems like a dead end. Below average on D, not quite good enough on O, too expensive to be a third or fourth string center, not aware enough to to really play the position well, and subject to weird conditioning and ongoing injuries. Unless he has some kind of amazing turnaround, he's trending to struggle for his next contract.

2. Collins is a fine stopgap, but I don't see any reason to imagine him as a starter.

3. It is probably underestimated how much Vuc makes the game easier for Giddey on offense. If people want Giddey to be a great PG, they need to consider that he needs to throw dimes to somebody. To maximize his game, he needs an extremely strong offensive front court player to be paired with. Secondly, this guy needs to be a capable shooter because Giddey is not.

4. The sort of center we need (given Giddey) to get is likely never going to be available except through the draft. A center with strong defensive potential who can shoot. Forget about Wemby, even a guy like JJJ or Prozingis or Mobley is basically never available. Even a guy on a lower tier like Alex Saar or Kel'el Ware becomes close to untouchable when they turn up.

5. Noa Essengue is our best chance here. I find it odd that people haven't talked about him like this, he's one of the few guys who has something like the Giannis/AD style frame to build into. That's not to say he's going to do that, just that he's pretty much the only option.

6. I don't see how guys who are plodding drop back centers like Kessler or Clingan are very good fits unless our PF is just an amazing shooter.

What's the distinction between Matas and Essengue?

[League Circles]

Yeah IMO the required caliber of a shooter we need at C is a function of other stuff mostly:

1. How good of a shooter our other unknown starter becomes (Okoro?)
2. How good of a rim running finisher the C is
3. How good of a defender the C is

The better any of the three of those are the lesser of a shooter/spacer we can get away with at C.

[MikeDC]

What's the distinction between Matas and Essengue?

In the sense that they both need to blow up for the Bulls to be good, very little.

In terms of who can conceivably grow into playing real minutes at center, Noa's starting with 3 inches of wingspan and 4.5 inches of standing reach, bigger hands, and 7lbs of muscle as a starting point. For reference, he's got 2 inches of standing reach on AD.

He's just big enough that he can get by there and Matas probably isn't

[League Circles]

What's the distinction between Matas and Essengue?

In the sense that they both need to blow up for the Bulls to be good, very little.

In terms of who can conceivably grow into playing real minutes at center, Noa's starting with 3 inches of wingspan and 4.5 inches of standing reach, bigger hands, and 7lbs of muscle as a starting point. For reference, he's got 2 inches of standing reach

He's just big enough that he can get by there and Matas probably isn't

Got it, thanks. I didn't know the extent of the frame differences. I agree Essengue has an outside chance to be our C of the future. Certainly more than anyone else other than maybe Smith and unknowns tbd.

[MikeDC]

4. The sort of center we need (given Giddey) to get is likely never going to be available except through the draft. A center with strong defensive potential who can shoot. Forget about Wemby, even a guy like JJJ or Prozingis or Mobley is basically never available. Even a guy on a lower tier like Alex Saar or Kel'el Ware becomes close to untouchable when they turn up.

I think just getting a defensive, rim running center would be fine next to Giddey, say Daniel Gafford as an example. If you start looking for players that cover all of Giddey's flaws then you just shouldn't have signed Giddey. We have to hope Giddey can shoot well enough that we don't need shooting out of our center. It's far more likely than not needing a defensive oriented center, since every team really needs defense from that spot.

Gafford was the exception made possible by Luka being a heliocentric guy who himself can shoot. So Luka has the ball a ton, and holds it and uses a lot of scoring possessions himself.

Gafford works as an extension of that, because as a defense collapses on Luka, Gafford gets open and Luka can make that tight pass. But Gafford by himself has very little gravity.

Giddey is the not at all like Luka though. He's more like Haliburton if Haliburton couldn't shoot. He's got to move the ball quickly because if it sticks to him, the defense just lets him hold it.

Partly Haliburton counteracts that by being a shooter, but the other way the Pacers counteract it is because the rest of their players create enough gravity to offset it.

So even if Giddey becomes a better shooter, he's never going to be the kind of shooter Haliburton is, which means the other players on the floor with him need to create more gravity and generally have that much more offensive firepower.

Beyond the player specifics, this is also how the league is moving. Turner, Jokic, Porzingis, Giannis+Lopez, Holmgren+Hartenstein... there's a clear trend here.

[dougthonus]

Gafford was the exception made possible by Luka being a heliocentric guy who himself can shoot. So Luka has the ball a ton, and holds it and uses a lot of scoring possessions himself.

Gafford works as an extension of that, because as a defense collapses on Luka, Gafford gets open and Luka can make that tight pass. But Gafford by himself has very little gravity.

Giddey is the not at all like Luka though. He's more like Haliburton if Haliburton couldn't shoot. He's got to move the ball quickly because if it sticks to him, the defense just lets him hold it.

Partly Haliburton counteracts that by being a shooter, but the other way the Pacers counteract it is because the rest of their players create enough gravity to offset it.

So even if Giddey becomes a better shooter, he's never going to be the kind of shooter Haliburton is, which means the other players on the floor with him need to create more gravity and generally have that much more offensive firepower.

Beyond the player specifics, this is also how the league is moving. Turner, Jokic, Porzingis, Giannis+Lopez, Holmgren+Hartenstein... there's a clear trend here.

FWIW, I'm not saying the team would be great with Gafford. I'm saying a center that has high gravity, shooting, and great defense is not generally obtainable under normal circumstances. Like you can't go to market and just find one of those guys in trade or free agency. There are probably 0-1 prospects in a typical draft that fit that profile.

I do think you could find a rim running defensive center in trade, and of the different attributes I could get, then I see a better pathway towards building a team with that guy than an offensive oriented center if I have to choose.

And it may be semantics, but someone like Turner as an example doesn't really create gravity. He's a competent shooter, not someone who scares you. I'd say same with Lopez. Jokic is the best player in the league, not really a statement on where the league is going, just a generational talent. Holmgren is a good young example, but was the #2 pick in the draft and viewed as a superstar potential guy if he could stay healthy.

I agree that generally speaking, you are seeing centers be way more competent at shooting than they were a decade ago, and radically more competent than 2 decades ago though, but Jalen Smith was 15th in 3PA per game (while barely playing any minutes) at 3.5, so finding a center that really creates gravity as a shooter is still pretty rare, and then finding one that's still a good defender on top of that is even tougher.

You could even say Jalen Smith is one of the most reasonable guys to bet on being able to develop in that role if you were trying to find a guy like that to take a chance on.

[sco]

Gafford was the exception made possible by Luka being a heliocentric guy who himself can shoot. So Luka has the ball a ton, and holds it and uses a lot of scoring possessions himself.

Gafford works as an extension of that, because as a defense collapses on Luka, Gafford gets open and Luka can make that tight pass. But Gafford by himself has very little gravity.

Giddey is the not at all like Luka though. He's more like Haliburton if Haliburton couldn't shoot. He's got to move the ball quickly because if it sticks to him, the defense just lets him hold it.

Partly Haliburton counteracts that by being a shooter, but the other way the Pacers counteract it is because the rest of their players create enough gravity to offset it.

So even if Giddey becomes a better shooter, he's never going to be the kind of shooter Haliburton is, which means the other players on the floor with him need to create more gravity and generally have that much more offensive firepower.

Beyond the player specifics, this is also how the league is moving. Turner, Jokic, Porzingis, Giannis+Lopez, Holmgren+Hartenstein... there's a clear trend here.

FWIW, I'm not saying the team would be great with Gafford. I'm saying a center that has high gravity, shooting, and great defense is not generally obtainable under normal circumstances. Like you can't go to market and just find one of those guys in trade or free agency. There are probably 0-1 prospects in a typical draft that fit that profile.

I do think you could find a rim running defensive center in trade, and of the different attributes I could get, then I see a better pathway towards building a team with that guy than an offensive oriented center if I have to choose.

And it may be semantics, but someone like Turner as an example doesn't really create gravity. He's a competent shooter, not someone who scares you. I'd say same with Lopez. Jokic is the best player in the league, not really a statement on where the league is going, just a generational talent. Holmgren is a good young example, but was the #2 pick in the draft and viewed as a superstar potential guy if he could stay healthy.

I agree that generally speaking, you are seeing centers be way more competent at shooting than they were a decade ago, and radically more competent than 2 decades ago though, but Jalen Smith was 15th in 3PA per game (while barely playing any minutes) at 3.5, so finding a center that really creates gravity as a shooter is still pretty rare, and then finding one that's still a good defender on top of that is even tougher.

You could even say Jalen Smith is one of the most reasonable guys to bet on being able to develop in that role if you were trying to find a guy like that to take a chance on.

I think part of the Vuc debate centers around the fact that, compared to other positions, there really are no centers that are perfect players. Embiid was probably as close as you could get, except he can't stay healthy. Joker is a bit lacking defensively. So is KAT. Turner doesn't provide gravity, like you said.

Per the bolded part, given our system, coupled with the fact that this is more of an evaluation/development season, Smith really should start. Worst case, we'll know that he's not a fit. Best case, he brings the defense (in concert with Matas and Okoro) to offset Coby/Giddey out there together, and this team makes a quantum leap.

[MikeDC]

Gafford was the exception made possible by Luka being a heliocentric guy who himself can shoot. So Luka has the ball a ton, and holds it and uses a lot of scoring possessions himself.

Gafford works as an extension of that, because as a defense collapses on Luka, Gafford gets open and Luka can make that tight pass. But Gafford by himself has very little gravity.

Giddey is the not at all like Luka though. He's more like Haliburton if Haliburton couldn't shoot. He's got to move the ball quickly because if it sticks to him, the defense just lets him hold it.

Partly Haliburton counteracts that by being a shooter, but the other way the Pacers counteract it is because the rest of their players create enough gravity to offset it.

So even if Giddey becomes a better shooter, he's never going to be the kind of shooter Haliburton is, which means the other players on the floor with him need to create more gravity and generally have that much more offensive firepower.

Beyond the player specifics, this is also how the league is moving. Turner, Jokic, Porzingis, Giannis+Lopez, Holmgren+Hartenstein... there's a clear trend here.

FWIW, I'm not saying the team would be great with Gafford. I'm saying a center that has high gravity, shooting, and great defense is not generally obtainable under normal circumstances. Like you can't go to market and just find one of those guys in trade or free agency. There are probably 0-1 prospects in a typical draft that fit that profile.

Exactly, which is why the Bulls need to be looking hard for this guy.

You could even say Jalen Smith is one of the most reasonable guys to bet on being able to develop in that role if you were trying to find a guy like that to take a chance on.

Except that there's a lot of evidence now that neither the Bulls nor the Pacers nor the Suns thought he was. Everyone keeps saying "we need to see" but I think it should be acknowledge that he's already been seen. Just like Pat Williams, there's always some random chance he could turn it around, but this isn't the sort of thing the Bulls should be "betting" on outside of, like, a 1 year contract sort of way.

I do think you could find a rim running defensive center in trade, and of the different attributes I could get, then I see a better pathway towards building a team with that guy than an offensive oriented center if I have to choose.

There's degrees of offensive ability. But what I see is that Giddey is a whole lot more dependent on having space created for him than most guys who have the ball in their hands.

What this might look like is Giddey's numbers going down pretty significantly when he's stuck with a big who can't move away from the basket. Giddey seemed at his best last year when he could get to the rim, but he remains a pretty weak finisher. So if the defender can camp out in the post and take away both the "rim running" center and Giddey, it's going to make it really hard for the Bulls to score.

I think last year, the Bulls largely avoided this because Vuc could move away from the basket, and to some extent the other centers as well. And of course, because it was the regular season and teams aren't dialing in on this. Their game plan was usually for the typical Bulls with Vuc.

Once Vuc is gone, Giddey is going have to show he can defeat this defense before we go out and invest in a center who might make things that much worse.

[MGB8]

Outside shot that Collins may be the unicorn the Bulls are looking for.... If he can ever manage to stay healthy. Look at his draft profile - strong shooting on offense , shot blocking instincts, defensive range on D. His play, when healthy, in the NBA does seem to follow his draft profile.

Of course, Collins has never managed to stay healthy, but in stretches where he was reasonably healthy for a while, he did flash a little. Hence why he got his current contract.

Per the eye test, he looked like the best overall of the 3 last season to me.

[dougthonus]

Exactly, which is why the Bulls need to be looking hard for this guy.

"Looking hard" isn't going to make it more likely to happen because there just is little supply, and unless you're getting a superstar version of this player, then you still likely can't overpay for the player anyway. Like would you pay 2 first round picks for Porzingis?

Except that there's a lot of evidence now that neither the Bulls nor the Pacers nor the Suns thought he was. Everyone keeps saying "we need to see" but I think it should be acknowledge that he's already been seen. Just like Pat Williams, there's always some random chance he could turn it around, but this isn't the sort of thing the Bulls should be "betting" on outside of, like, a 1 year contract sort of way.

I don't disagree, just noting that of guys whom are obtainable, there is probably no one better than Smith to attempt to mold into this role, even given the progress to date hasn't lived up to what you'd hope.

What this might look like is Giddey's numbers going down pretty significantly when he's stuck with a big who can't move away from the basket. Giddey seemed at his best last year when he could get to the rim, but he remains a pretty weak finisher. So if the defender can camp out in the post and take away both the "rim running" center and Giddey, it's going to make it really hard for the Bulls to score.

With a good rim running center + an elite passer, I don't think a center can really guard both of them at once.

I think last year, the Bulls largely avoided this because Vuc could move away from the basket, and to some extent the other centers as well. And of course, because it was the regular season and teams aren't dialing in on this. Their game plan was usually for the typical Bulls with Vuc.

Once Vuc is gone, Giddey is going have to show he can defeat this defense before we go out and invest in a center who might make things that much worse.

No one guarded Vuc away from the basket, so I'm not sure how much impact that had on Giddey's spacing, Vuc did shoot well though which allowed us to capitalize on no one guarding him and punish the defense. That doesn't really change much for Giddey's ability to finish IMO. I have questions about Giddey's ability to continue to attack the rim, but much more tied to quality of competition and teams starting to gear up on him towards it. It also may impact his ability to find a good play when he doesn't want to finish (ie, Vuc kick out was there last year, but without a shooting center it won't be there in the future).

FWIW, I think we'll just play a ton of small ball. Wouldn't be surprised to see Matas / Noa playing center in small ball lineups in the future, though that may be a year away. No compelling reason to do that while Vuc / Collins / Smith are all still here.