Free Noa.

[Senor Chang]

I virtually guarantee Noa will play plenty this season. Book it. This is a chance to give everyone a look, and for guys like Phillips, probably a last look.

IMO, Noa will be competing with Patrick for the back 4 minutes, who in turn will be competing for backup 3 minutes as well.

I think Buz will be playing some 3 and Noa some 4 with Pat. Next season Noa will get some run at the 5 too.

I think Noa is shorter and skinnier than Matas. I think his chances of playing C are about the same as him playing PG next season.

Noa is taller and longer than Matas. In fact i think it’s odd Matas is listed as his rounded up in-shoes height while Noa is listed in his barefoot height. Noa is 6’11” in shoes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Evil_Headband]

I think Buz will be playing some 3 and Noa some 4 with Pat. Next season Noa will get some run at the 5 too.

I think Noa is shorter and skinnier than Matas. I think his chances of playing C are about the same as him playing PG next season.

Noa is taller and longer than Matas. In fact i think it’s odd Matas is listed as his rounded up in-shoes height while Noa is listed in his barefoot height. Noa is 6’11” in shoes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm reminded that Joakim Noah preferred to be listed as 6'11" instead of 7'0" because he thought seven-footers were freaks!

Maybe Noa wants to be shorter so he isn't seen as a potential center as opposed to a wing!

[DuckIII]

Insane? Bringing a rookie (and second youngest player in the league) along slowly is insane?

It can be. When VDN tried to do it with Rose it was insane.

Every situation is different. Every player is different. I lean towards the theory that by the time you reach the NBA, the idea that playing in live games hurts your development is pretty hard to buy into as a general matter. But its definitely possible, because players have different psyches. It is up to a good coach to decide how to develop a rookie and there is no one correct formula.

If BD determines that early, regular bench playing time would be detrimental to Noa's development then he should bring him along very slowly. If he determines Noa is the type who benefits more from learning by doing in real time, then he should play him.

Because OP is definitely right about one thing. From a talent, quality, and upside perspective there is zero reason Phillips or Terry should play even a second over Noa. The only reason to slow Noa's development is if its best for him in the long term.

I agree that different players can and should be treated differently. I will admit to being annoyed though when posters infer that people who disagree with their assessment of a complex topic have a serious cognitive problem. I understand that "insane" isn't often meant to be taken literally but I don't think such terms aid in the goal of us having respectful, interesting discussions. And I think my point still stands. There can be legitimate arguments made to bring a very young player along slowly.

Of course there are. Its situation specific. Any other argument is nonsense.

EDIT: That's not fair to just say its nonsense. Here is an incomplete list of factors that go into how to handle a rookie's development:

1. The rookie himself and how ready he is mentally and physically and what motivates him, This is a wide spectrum.

2. The context of the team and what its goals are for the coming season.

3. Who is in front of the rookie? What does the roster look like?

4. What position does he play? Does he have immediately value as a specialist like a shooter or defender that can provide some immediate value while limiting his time with the ball in his hands or other things he's not ready for?

You can't look at a guy who struggled as a rookie with significant playing time, who still had an excellent career and say "See? Throw them in the fire! That's the way." Just like you can't look at Pat who was given minutes early and developed poorly and say "See? Gotta bring them along real slow or they'll bust! That's the way."

[Ice Man]

You can't look at a guy who struggled as a rookie with significant playing time, who still had an excellent career and say "See? Throw them in the fire! That's the way." Just like you can't look at Pat who was given minutes early and developed poorly and say "See? Gotta bring them along real slow or they'll bust! That's the way."

I agree. There is no one way that is best for all. Although I will also say that I don't find this topic to be particularly complicated. Rookies usually suck. They are net negative players. So, use them sparingly until they improve enough to at least not hurt the team. The exceptions being 1) the uncommon rookie who actually is pretty good (say, Derrick Rose) or 2) a guy on a team that is so bad that there's nobody clearly better in his role (say, Coby White).

I'm pretty sure that Noa will be doing a lot of justifiable watching in the first half of the season. After that, hmmm we'll see. That's on him.

[2weekswithpay]

Somewhat relevant. The creator of BasketballGM is skeptical about the impact of playing time on player development.

And one last thing in the book relates to a controversial part of BBGM. In BBGM, player development does not depend on stats or playing time - just age, coaching, and luck. I did it this way because I always felt skeptical that playing time mattered. Players spend so much time playing games and practicing before the NBA, and then once in the NBA there is tons more practice. Does a little bit of time in games really matter? I get asked about this so much that it's in the FAQ. Most people say yes, but I remain skeptical.

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

I wouldn't go so far as to say that playing time doesn't matter, but I don't think entitlement minutes versus the slow approach make much of a difference. I don't think Pat is a disappointment because they gave him entitlement minutes. If Noa is good enough, play him.

[GoBlue72391]

Playing time absolutely matters for player development. Practices, scrimmages, college games, summer, and G League games can only do so much.

The speed and physicality and instant decision-making of the NBA against the best basketball players in the world in live game scenarios with W's and L's on the line can only be learned with live game reps.

It's not the only thing or the most important thing that matters for player development, but it's definitely up there.

[fleet]

Insane? Bringing a rookie (and second youngest player in the league) along slowly is insane?

How long this complaint been lodged by us…..as long as this board has existed.

[GoBlue72391]

I think Noa is shorter and skinnier than Matas. I think his chances of playing C are about the same as him playing PG next season.

Noa is taller and longer than Matas. In fact i think it’s odd Matas is listed as his rounded up in-shoes height while Noa is listed in his barefoot height. Noa is 6’11” in shoes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm reminded that Joakim Noah preferred to be listed as 6'11" instead of 7'0" because he thought seven-footers were freaks!

Maybe Noa wants to be shorter so he isn't seen as a potential center as opposed to a wing!

I'm pretty sure that was Kevin Garnett, but maybe Jo copied him because I believe KG was his favorite player growing up.

[coldfish]

I never understood this desire to see unready players fail on the NBA court.

At any rate, I assure you, when and if Noa is capable of helping the Bulls win games, Billy will play him -- just as he did with Matas last year. Buzelis averaged 15 minutes per game before the All Star break and then 27 per game after, when Billy saw that Matas had started to figure things out.

How many minutes Noa gets is up to him.

Agreed. If Noa is playing his ass off and not getting any minutes, that's nuts. The key is to play him proportional to his readiness for it.

I have been watching the NBA for a very long time and I have never seen an unready player get entitlement minuted into success.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/draft.html

One team I will point to is Detroit with their back to back picks of Hayes and Doumbouya. Both got a ton of entitlement minutes and it did NOTHING for them.

People just have amnesia with this kind of thing. I'm not sure that sitting them instead and forcing them to earn time would have turned out better for Detroit but it definitely would not have turned out worse. There is like no downside to playing a player based on his readiness level.

[Chi town]

This draft class is off to a STRONG START.

- Flagg Ace and VJ all look really good.

- CMB looks like a 2 way winning player

- Kon looks like a high IQ movement shooter

- Yang looks like Sengun


Noa won’t be playing enough mins to show anything. Lots of patience will be required when all these other rookies are showing out in rotation roles.

[MrSparkle]

I think it’s stupid for a play-in/lotto team to ice their rookie lottery pick.

Put them in the game and let them learn faster. The idea that in-game experience is no different than the practice center is a complete farce and some deep reverse psychology BS.

Matas could’ve played in October-Feb. and he would’ve probably competed for ROY, as opposed to finishing with putrid stats. Even worse, the Bulls were sub-500 at that point.

If we had Durant and Aaron Gordon in the rotation, I’d understand. But give me a break- icing him for Patrick, Dalen, Phillips? These guys have negative or minimal worth to the Bulls now and long-term.

A good pick plays in his rookie season. If he’s that “unready,” then why the hell did you spend a 12th pick on him?

There is no superstar in the history of the NBA who couldn’t buy a rookie minute on a losing team. Jimmy could’ve played, but Thibs had Deng on the 48 mpg program (and a stacked veteran rotation with the best record in the NBA).

I’m not talking about starting Noa, but this talk of red-shirting him or planning his G-League stint is utter nonsense.

And if they believe he has no star potential… then why did they draft him at #12!?

And anybody else using the false causation argument with “Pat got entitlement minutes and look at him now…” I have no words… Do you really believe DNPing rookie Pat would’ve helped his career?

Billy’s college academia approach to NBA coaching is asinine… and I refuse to endorse it.

[dougthonus]

I think it’s stupid for a play-in/lotto team to ice their rookie lottery pick.

Put them in the game and let them learn faster. The idea that in-game experience is no different than the practice center is a complete farce and some deep reverse psychology BS.

Matas could’ve played in October-Feb. and he would’ve probably competed for ROY, as opposed to finishing with putrid stats. Even worse, the Bulls were sub-500 at that point.

If we had Durant and Aaron Gordon in the rotation, I’d understand. But give me a break- icing him for Patrick, Dalen, Phillips? These guys have negative or minimal worth to the Bulls now and long-term.

A good pick plays in his rookie season. If he’s that “unready,” then why the hell did you spend a 12th pick on him?

There is no superstar in the history of the NBA who couldn’t buy a rookie minute on a losing team. Jimmy could’ve played, but Thibs had Deng on the 48 mpg program (and a stacked veteran rotation with the best record in the NBA).

I’m not talking about starting Noa, but this talk of red-shirting him or planning his G-League stint is utter nonsense.

And if they believe he has no star potential… then why did they draft him at #12!?

And anybody else using the false causation argument with “Pat got entitlement minutes and look at him now…” I have no words… Do you really believe DNPing rookie Pat would’ve helped his career?

Billy’s college academia approach to NBA coaching is asinine… and I refuse to endorse it.

I think philosophically, I largely agree with you, but I think you're a bit overly binary here.

I think Pat would have been better off not being given so many minutes and instead having to earn some of them. Especially when he was getting routinely outplayed by Javonte Green and Derrick Jones Jr. Maybe he wouldn't have developed better, but I think there is a chance he might have. We also sure as hell wouldn't have paid him 18M a year if we actually had based his time on what he deserved.

I think conceptually making a player "earn it" to some degree has merit. I also agree with you completely that you don't want to go 0 minutes. I think it's fine to give a guy say 15 minutes a night because you drafted him early and whatever happens happens. If you want to go up to 28 minutes a night, then I think they need to be effective. I wouldn't toss a guy out there for near 30 a night even if they suck balls unless you are a 20 win caliber team intent on tanking.

I would have played Matas a bit more early, but he was really bad early, and I don't mind how Billy brought him along. It doesn't seem like Matas minds either, and in fact, seems like we have developed him quite well based on where he is today. Maybe many paths could have gotten to the same spot we are now, maybe some better and some worse, but I feel good about Matas and his development.

[sco]

I think it’s stupid for a play-in/lotto team to ice their rookie lottery pick.

Put them in the game and let them learn faster. The idea that in-game experience is no different than the practice center is a complete farce and some deep reverse psychology BS.

Matas could’ve played in October-Feb. and he would’ve probably competed for ROY, as opposed to finishing with putrid stats. Even worse, the Bulls were sub-500 at that point.

If we had Durant and Aaron Gordon in the rotation, I’d understand. But give me a break- icing him for Patrick, Dalen, Phillips? These guys have negative or minimal worth to the Bulls now and long-term.

A good pick plays in his rookie season. If he’s that “unready,” then why the hell did you spend a 12th pick on him?

There is no superstar in the history of the NBA who couldn’t buy a rookie minute on a losing team. Jimmy could’ve played, but Thibs had Deng on the 48 mpg program (and a stacked veteran rotation with the best record in the NBA).

I’m not talking about starting Noa, but this talk of red-shirting him or planning his G-League stint is utter nonsense.

And if they believe he has no star potential… then why did they draft him at #12!?

And anybody else using the false causation argument with “Pat got entitlement minutes and look at him now…” I have no words… Do you really believe DNPing rookie Pat would’ve helped his career?

Billy’s college academia approach to NBA coaching is asinine… and I refuse to endorse it.

I think philosophically, I largely agree with you, but I think you're a bit overly binary here.

I think Pat would have been better off not being given so many minutes and instead having to earn some of them. Especially when he was getting routinely outplayed by Javonte Green and Derrick Jones Jr. Maybe he wouldn't have developed better, but I think there is a chance he might have. We also sure as hell wouldn't have paid him 18M a year if we actually had based his time on what he deserved.

I think conceptually making a player "earn it" to some degree has merit. I also agree with you completely that you don't want to go 0 minutes. I think it's fine to give a guy say 15 minutes a night because you drafted him early and whatever happens happens. If you want to go up to 28 minutes a night, then I think they need to be effective. I wouldn't toss a guy out there for near 30 a night even if they suck balls unless you are a 20 win caliber team intent on tanking.

I would have played Matas a bit more early, but he was really bad early, and I don't mind how Billy brought him along. It doesn't seem like Matas minds either, and in fact, seems like we have developed him quite well based on where he is today. Maybe many paths could have gotten to the same spot we are now, maybe some better and some worse, but I feel good about Matas and his development.

I think the Pat example is a tough one. Sure there is blame due AK for reaching for non-lotto talent, but it is understandable given his tempting physical attributes. I don't blame Billy for the entitlement treatment there. The team did pretty much everything right in terms of developing him. I think they were clear what they wanted from him. Surrounded him with vets with good habits. The problem at its core is that ultimately he isn't able to be more than a defensive oriented player and a 3pt shooter; however, he's not been conditioned to try to play as a playmaker which requires both skill and bbiq that he clearly lacks, and it's very hard to put that genie back in the bottle to get him to play within his (limited) abilities.

[dougthonus]

I think the Pat example is a tough one. Sure there is blame due AK for reaching for non-lotto talent, but it is understandable given his tempting physical attributes. I don't blame Billy for the entitlement treatment there. The team did pretty much everything right in terms of developing him. I think they were clear what they wanted from him. Surrounded him with vets with good habits. The problem at its core is that ultimately he isn't able to be more than a defensive oriented player and a 3pt shooter; however, he's not been conditioned to try to play as a playmaker which requires both skill and bbiq that he clearly lacks, and it's very hard to put that genie back in the bottle to get him to play within his (limited) abilities.

Well the Bulls have Pat on an albatross contract right now, so mistakes were made. We ended up in a terrible outcome, and to think there was nothing we could have done differently, everything was understandable doesn't seem correct to me.

If we had just played Pat the minutes he deserved, at a minimum, we'd have likely been negotiating with him at around 8M a year instead of 18M a year like Okoro. Maybe that also would have pushed him to improve and box out and play better or maybe it wouldn't, but we'd be paying him like the bench player he was instead of the starter we squinted real hard and wished he was.

[MrSparkle]

I think it’s stupid for a play-in/lotto team to ice their rookie lottery pick.

Put them in the game and let them learn faster. The idea that in-game experience is no different than the practice center is a complete farce and some deep reverse psychology BS.

Matas could’ve played in October-Feb. and he would’ve probably competed for ROY, as opposed to finishing with putrid stats. Even worse, the Bulls were sub-500 at that point.

If we had Durant and Aaron Gordon in the rotation, I’d understand. But give me a break- icing him for Patrick, Dalen, Phillips? These guys have negative or minimal worth to the Bulls now and long-term.

A good pick plays in his rookie season. If he’s that “unready,” then why the hell did you spend a 12th pick on him?

There is no superstar in the history of the NBA who couldn’t buy a rookie minute on a losing team. Jimmy could’ve played, but Thibs had Deng on the 48 mpg program (and a stacked veteran rotation with the best record in the NBA).

I’m not talking about starting Noa, but this talk of red-shirting him or planning his G-League stint is utter nonsense.

And if they believe he has no star potential… then why did they draft him at #12!?

And anybody else using the false causation argument with “Pat got entitlement minutes and look at him now…” I have no words… Do you really believe DNPing rookie Pat would’ve helped his career?

Billy’s college academia approach to NBA coaching is asinine… and I refuse to endorse it.

I think philosophically, I largely agree with you, but I think you're a bit overly binary here.

I think Pat would have been better off not being given so many minutes and instead having to earn some of them. Especially when he was getting routinely outplayed by Javonte Green and Derrick Jones Jr. Maybe he wouldn't have developed better, but I think there is a chance he might have. We also sure as hell wouldn't have paid him 18M a year if we actually had based his time on what he deserved.

I think conceptually making a player "earn it" to some degree has merit. I also agree with you completely that you don't want to go 0 minutes. I think it's fine to give a guy say 15 minutes a night because you drafted him early and whatever happens happens. If you want to go up to 28 minutes a night, then I think they need to be effective. I wouldn't toss a guy out there for near 30 a night even if they suck balls unless you are a 20 win caliber team intent on tanking.

I would have played Matas a bit more early, but he was really bad early, and I don't mind how Billy brought him along. It doesn't seem like Matas minds either, and in fact, seems like we have developed him quite well based on where he is today. Maybe many paths could have gotten to the same spot we are now, maybe some better and some worse, but I feel good about Matas and his development.

I think the Pat example is a tough one. Sure there is blame due AK for reaching for non-lotto talent, but it is understandable given his tempting physical attributes. I don't blame Billy for the entitlement treatment there. The team did pretty much everything right in terms of developing him. I think they were clear what they wanted from him. Surrounded him with vets with good habits. The problem at its core is that ultimately he isn't able to be more than a defensive oriented player and a 3pt shooter; however, he's not been conditioned to try to play as a playmaker which requires both skill and bbiq that he clearly lacks, and it's very hard to put that genie back in the bottle to get him to play within his (limited) abilities.

The other thing with Patrick, is that he actually played decently well for a green rookie… but also, he had to play cause of injuries and covid protocols. In hindsight, it was strange Billy continued playing him high minutes over better veteran players, AFTER the deadline, when the forward rotation was loaded (albeit mostly PFs).

AKME had every reason to hardball with the extension, because Pat’s Y2-4 body of work and stats sucked. All on him to have paid him.

Because of a variety of anomalies, I don’t even know if Pat should be used as an example of any traditional draft comps. I think he had a short peak of effort and exceptional confidence in the pandemic break, went way above his true worth in the draft, and somehow AK made a bonkers lucrative 5Y offer after 3 straight years of plateau/decline (from a solid yet mediocre rookie start). I struggle even thinking of any similar player trajectory. Most FOs cut their losses, but this FO couldn’t stop believing in their own hype. You almost think they plan on retiring Dalen and Patrick’s jerseys in 2031 (assuming they don’t move to Europe or China).

I can’t explain why Pat played as much as he did the last 2Y, other than the organization really wanted to save face. Again… my point, is simply… draft well, and play the guy consistently, whether it be a 10-15 mpg role or bigger. Don’t plan on red-shirting or having 8 older players in front of him in the rotation.

[kodo]

This draft class is off to a STRONG START.

- Flagg Ace and VJ all look really good.

- CMB looks like a 2 way winning player

- Kon looks like a high IQ movement shooter

- Yang looks like Sengun


Noa won’t be playing enough mins to show anything. Lots of patience will be required when all these other rookies are showing out in rotation roles.

JK also had 10 assists in 25min.

[Red Larrivee]

This draft class is off to a STRONG START.

- Flagg Ace and VJ all look really good.

- CMB looks like a 2 way winning player

- Kon looks like a high IQ movement shooter

- Yang looks like Sengun


Noa won’t be playing enough mins to show anything. Lots of patience will be required when all these other rookies are showing out in rotation roles.

Good luck with that.

Why didn't the Bulls draft insert player here instead?

[dougthonus]

You can't look at a guy who struggled as a rookie with significant playing time, who still had an excellent career and say "See? Throw them in the fire! That's the way." Just like you can't look at Pat who was given minutes early and developed poorly and say "See? Gotta bring them along real slow or they'll bust! That's the way."

I agree, and to state the obvious, we will also never know if something else would have helped or hurt. In life, we only ever get to play it out one way, and any theory otherwise is really just speculation.

For a guy that doesn't pan out, maybe bringing them along slower would help, maybe playing them more would help, maybe nothing would help. On the flip side, for a guy who becomes a stud, maybe the reverse is true and that no matter what you did he was going to be great or maybe there was some specific thing that made the difference.

I tend to think that is true of individuals and their own retrospectives of their own lives. I look at my own successes and failures and think just an unbelievable amount of those things were my pre-born traits plus some generalized matrix of possibilities that is decided largely by luck and chance. It's hard to know how different things might have been with some different set of lucky outcomes, maybe a lot, maybe not so much, maybe better, maybe worse.

[Chi town]

This draft class is off to a STRONG START.

- Flagg Ace and VJ all look really good.

- CMB looks like a 2 way winning player

- Kon looks like a high IQ movement shooter

- Yang looks like Sengun


Noa won’t be playing enough mins to show anything. Lots of patience will be required when all these other rookies are showing out in rotation roles.

Good luck with that.

Why didn't the Bulls draft insert player here instead?

That’s what we will hear for sure but I’m still all in on Noa. 6’11 Tayshaun Prince ish type is highly valuable in this league and I believe in his moxy, IQ, and work ethic.

[vxmike]

This thread is insane. The Bulls already tried unearned entitlement minutes, their name is Patrick Williams. It don't work. It won't work.

If Noa starts badly outplaying the other players than we can talk. I'm totally fine with the Buzelis plan for Noa.

Minutes for young guys who play super hard and have upside? That’s possibly worthwhile. You don’t develop on the bench.

Minutes for a lazy player with no motor just because he was a #4 pick? Nah, that’s wasteful.

If Noa plays hard and shows progressive development it won’t be the same as Williams.