Hollinger/Broussard Team Rankings: Bucks 13th

[Newz]

Boozer is a solid weapon no question. However, playing with the best point gaurd in basketball served him well. I question whether Rose can utilize Boozer as effectively as Deron Williams did. I also question whether or not a rookie coach can motivate Boozer as well as Jerry Sloan.

You can say that Boozer is a lot more proven in terms of impact on winning basketball games than anyone that the Bucks added this summer. However, what does that truly mean when debating which team will be better. The Bucks "proved" to be better than the Bulls last season and it wasn't even close. 3 out of 4 head to head and finishing ahead of them in the division.

20/10 with very good efficiency is 'solid'? I guess I can see why you guys don't think the Bulls have improved that much. I think that Rose not being as good of a passer as Williams and their coach not being as good as Sloan are concerns for them. I also think that Boozer's history of getting a contract and then getting 'hurt' is a concern as well. Just like the Bucks have concerns.

What does adding a 20/10 guy who has been on winning teams pretty much his whole career have to do with winning? Uhhh... What? It has, I don't know, everything to do with winning?

The Bulls have a LOT of ground to make up when you consider the Bucks winning percentage after acquiring Salmons last season. Are Boozer and the other Bulls additions enough to surpass that factual gap when also factoring in the improvements the Bucks made? I doubt it. I doubt it VERY seriously.

You can doubt it all you want. I think you are a huge homer either way if you think the Bucks are significantly better than the Bulls or the Bulls are significantly better than the Bucks. I think it's rather obvious (assuming health) that those teams are very close to one another. I can see the arguments for one team being slightly better than the other. I cannot agree with any argument that has one team being significantly better than the other though.

[rilamann]

I think Boozer is a lot more of a proven player in terms of impact on winning basketball games than anyone we added this offseason... And it is by far. If you disagree with that then I question your ability to evaluate basketball players.

First you have to understand that the Bucks were already the better team before the Bulls added Boozer.It would be like if you were 6'0 and I was 6'5 and a year later you where 6'5 and I was 6'6,you might have grown significantly more than me in that year but I'd still be taller than you.


Boozer is a funny player though,he's proven he can be a rock solid player on a good team (with Deron Williams) but he also has proven he's not that same rock solid guy when he gets his money.

If you go back and look at Boozer's first few seasons after signing that big contract with the Jazz in 2004 he hardly even played until around 2007.

If I was a Bulls fan I'd be nervous about that.

And while Boozer (if he comes to play) is a much better player than anyone the Bucks have added,I think his track record after signing a big contract raises a bigger question than any questions the Bucks have.

To further put that into preservative.

The Bulls paid big money for Boozer to come in and be a ''main guy'' so if Boozer bombs like he did his first few season in Utah the Bulls bomb.

Boozer's first year on his Utah contract the Jazz only won 26 games (I think)in large part because Boozer was the NBA's version of Justin Harrel.

The Bucks didn't bring in any new guys to be ''main guys'' like the Bulls did with Boozer.

The Bucks still revolve around Bogut,Jennings & Salmons.The guys we added are for depth.

So If Maggette for example bombs we have other guys to take his minutes and Bogut,Jennings & Salmons will still be the main guys on the team.

I think the Bucks coming off a 46 win season last year and returning this year with coaching stability and improved depth along with all key players from last season are a safer bet to win around 52 games than the Bulls.

The Bulls,a team that was 41-41 last season now with a rookie head coach and their improvement largely hinging on a guy who rarely played the first 3 seasons of his last big contract.

[Newz]

First you have to understand that the Bucks were already the better team before the Bulls added Boozer.It would be like if you were 6'0 and I was 6'5 and a year later you where 6'5 and I was 6'6,you might have grown significantly more than me in that year but I'd still be taller than you.

What are you talking about...? When did I say the Bucks were worse than or on the same level as the Bulls last year? We won, what? Five more games? I think Carlos Boozer coming to a team with no inside scoring can easily make a five game increase in wins, especially when it is jumping from the low 40's to the high 40's.

As for the rest of your post, yes. Carlos Boozer did get 'hurt' the last time he signed a big deal. Like I said, the Bulls are not without problems or potential issues. Just like the Bucks aren't without potential problems or issues.

If you want to bring up injuries and players sitting out games, a poster supporting the Bulls could very easily point out that Bogut has been (and still is) hurt before and he could very well be hurt again. That is an equally valid point and is about as big of a concern for Milwaukee as Boozer is for Chicago.

[rilamann]

First you have to understand that the Bucks were already the better team before the Bulls added Boozer.It would be like if you were 6'0 and I was 6'5 and a year later you where 6'5 and I was 6'6,you might have grown significantly more than me in that year but I'd still be taller than you.

What are you talking about...? When did I say the Bucks were worse than or on the same level as the Bulls last year? We won, what? Five more games? I think Carlos Boozer coming to a team with no inside scoring can easily make a five game increase in wins, especially when it is jumping from the low 40's to the high 40's.

You missed my point.

My point is even if Boozer's addition to the Bulls trumps the improvements of Jennings,having Salmons for 82 games and our added depth ect it won't trump it enough for the Bulls to be the better team.

I'm being hypothetical here but lets say If adding Boozer is worth an addition of +7 wins for the Bulls and lets say that Jennings improvement,having Salmons for 82 and our added depth is worth +3 wins we are still the better team.

Because we were the better team to begin with.

And I'm being generous to the Bulls in that hypothetical.Jennings improvement and having Salmons for 82 games alone will be worth at least 3 extra wins.If Gooden & Maggette contribute add a few more wins.

The Bulls didn't have to improve their roster to be better than us,they had to improve their roster to catch us.

All while the Bucks made improvements themselves.

[Newz]

You missed my point.

My point is even if Boozer's addition to the Bulls trumps the improvements of Jennings,having Salmons for 82 games and our added depth ect it won't trump it enough for the Bulls to be the better team.

I'm being hypothetical here but lets say If adding Boozer is worth an addition of +7 wins for the Bulls and lets say that Jennings improvement,having Salmons for 82 and our added depth is worth +3 wins we are still the better team.

Because we were the better team to begin with.

And I'm being generous to the Bulls in that hypothetical.Jennings improvement and having Salmons for 82 games alone will be worth at least 3 extra wins.If Gooden & Maggette contribute add a few more wins.

The Bulls didn't have to improve their roster to be better than us,they had to improve their roster to catch us.

All while the Bucks made improvements themselves.

Okay, but you are only factoring in one aspect of the Bulls improvement, yet you are factoring in all of the Bucks.

Yes, Jennings could improve. Ersan, Moute and CDR could all improve because of their youth. We will have Salmons for a full 82. Maggette could make us a lot better as a 6th man, etc.

Then you just turn around and say, oh Boozer could help them. Rose is one of the most talented young players in the league and is still improving, he could make an even bigger jump than Jennings. Noah is one of the most talented, young defensive bigs in basketball, he could also make big improvements. They added outside shooting with Korver, they added better role players in guys like Ronnie Brewer. They added a veteran presence with Kurt Thomas and Taj Gibson is also a very talented young player who could become a Paul Millsap type for them behind Boozer.

Yes, I think that their additions and potential improvement could match or surpass ours. How is it really even debatable? Saying it is doubtful that the Bulls could have a better record than us is just as dumb as saying it is doubtful we could have a better record than them.

[Wise1]

I still have the Bucks finishing 5 games in front of the Bulls.

Whether or not the 20-10 winning machine Boozer is better than any of the additions that the Bucks made this summer (he is) is irrelevant. Rilamann you are on point when you mention that the Bucks STILL have Bogut, Jennings, and one of the best defenses in basketball. The question that still remains is if the Bulls additions are enough to close the factual gap in record (including head to head) observed last season when also factoring in the Bucks new additions and last year's winning percentage after acquiring John Salmons.

I'll be concerned about a matchup with the Bulls when they find a player that can defend Bogut in the low post. The Bucks can do A LOT to stymie Derek Rose...especially with Bogut waiting in the paint. The Bulls appear to have precious little in regards to limiting Andrew Bogut's post game.

The Bucks simply have more offensive and defensive diversity than the Bulls. I see the Bucks being the better team both offensively and defensively next year. Rebounding will probably be a wash. In that regard, I like the Brockman acquistion as he should be another player that will fight Boozer and Noah tooth and nail for every rebound that comes off of the glass.

Most Bucks fans should adopt a "prove it" attitude when debating with Bulls fans. We have the trump card.

[rilamann]

You missed my point.

My point is even if Boozer's addition to the Bulls trumps the improvements of Jennings,having Salmons for 82 games and our added depth ect it won't trump it enough for the Bulls to be the better team.

I'm being hypothetical here but lets say If adding Boozer is worth an addition of +7 wins for the Bulls and lets say that Jennings improvement,having Salmons for 82 and our added depth is worth +3 wins we are still the better team.

Because we were the better team to begin with.

And I'm being generous to the Bulls in that hypothetical.Jennings improvement and having Salmons for 82 games alone will be worth at least 3 extra wins.If Gooden & Maggette contribute add a few more wins.

The Bulls didn't have to improve their roster to be better than us,they had to improve their roster to catch us.

All while the Bucks made improvements themselves.

Okay, but you are only factoring in one aspect of the Bulls improvement, yet you are factoring in all of the Bucks.

Yes, Jennings could improve. Ersan, Moute and CDR could all improve because of their youth. We will have Salmons for a full 82. Maggette could make us a lot better as a 6th man, etc.

Then you just turn around and say, oh Boozer could help them. Rose is one of the most talented young players in the league and is still improving, he could make an even bigger jump than Jennings. Noah is one of the most talented, young defensive bigs in basketball, he could also make big improvements. They added outside shooting with Korver, they added better role players in guys like Ronnie Brewer. They added a veteran presence with Kurt Thomas and Taj Gibson is also a very talented young player who could become a Paul Millsap type for them behind Boozer.

Yes, I think that their additions and potential improvement could match or surpass ours. How is it really even debatable? Saying it is doubtful that the Bulls could have a better record than us is just as dumb as saying it is doubtful we could have a better record than them.

Yes I understand the Bulls have other possibilities of improvement besides adding Boozer.

I'm not saying the Bulls can't finish with a better record than the Bucks I'm saying it's unlikely based on facts.

My main thing was that based on those facts I find it funny that the Bulls are projected by the media and some fans to not only better than the Bucks but significantly better based on that list by ESPN (us at #13 Bulls at #6).

I find it laughable that someone could think the Bulls could be that much better than the Bucks.

I find it highly unlikely that the Bulls will have a better record than the Bucks period.

We'll see what happens when the games begin,maybe Boozer did become Karl Malone on his way from Utah to Chicago,we'll see.

That's the great thing about it,you can hype up and overrate a team all you want based on paper or whatever but the truth will come to light when the ball is in play.

[rilamann]

I still have the Bucks finishing 5 games in front of the Bulls.



Most Bucks fans should adopt a "prove it" attitude when debating with Bulls fans. We have the trump card.

Great post.And I agree especially with the two parts I quoted.

The problem I have and lot of Bucks fan have and it's really been my main point in this thread is that I have a problem with the media having this attitude that the Bucks have to ''prove it'' while they pencil in the Bulls for 50+ wins.

I think that's a pretty big slap in the face to the Bucks.

I think Luke23 made one of the best points in this thread when he asked if the Bucks would be rated as high and get as much hype as the Bulls are getting if we had the same roster coming off of a .500 season.

We all know the answer is hell no we wouldn't.

Especially if we had rookie head coach which the Bulls obviously do going into this season.

[Wise1]

Chicago being the 3rd largest market in the country has a lot to do with the love that the Bulls get and the general skepticism that the Bucks have historically received until they've actually proven it. Media types know where there bread is buttered. It's in their best interest to promote themselves and the product/organization they represent by pandoring to large markets = large dollars.

[rilamann]

Chicago being the 3rd largest market in the country has a lot to do with the love that the Bulls get and the general skepticism that the Bucks have historically received until they've actually proven it. Media types know where there bread is buttered. It's in their best interest to promote themselves and the product/organization they represent by pandoring to large markets = large dollars.

Yup.

It still annoys me though.

I just wish the NBA was marketed/promoted more on substance and less hype like the NFL is.

The NBA would be a better league and actually make more money if it was.

[Wise1]

Just makes it sweeter to me when all the smoke has cleared and what has transpired between the lines has come to pass. If we're beaten, then I'll tip my cap. Until then, stuff it I say.

[rilamann]

The greatest trick David Stern ever pulled was convincing the world the small market teams didn't exist.

[El Duderino]

You missed my point.

My point is even if Boozer's addition to the Bulls trumps the improvements of Jennings,having Salmons for 82 games and our added depth ect it won't trump it enough for the Bulls to be the better team.

I'm being hypothetical here but lets say If adding Boozer is worth an addition of +7 wins for the Bulls and lets say that Jennings improvement,having Salmons for 82 and our added depth is worth +3 wins we are still the better team.

Because we were the better team to begin with.

And I'm being generous to the Bulls in that hypothetical.Jennings improvement and having Salmons for 82 games alone will be worth at least 3 extra wins.If Gooden & Maggette contribute add a few more wins.

The Bulls didn't have to improve their roster to be better than us,they had to improve their roster to catch us.

All while the Bucks made improvements themselves.

Okay, but you are only factoring in one aspect of the Bulls improvement, yet you are factoring in all of the Bucks.

Yes, Jennings could improve. Ersan, Moute and CDR could all improve because of their youth. We will have Salmons for a full 82. Maggette could make us a lot better as a 6th man, etc.

Then you just turn around and say, oh Boozer could help them. Rose is one of the most talented young players in the league and is still improving, he could make an even bigger jump than Jennings. Noah is one of the most talented, young defensive bigs in basketball, he could also make big improvements. They added outside shooting with Korver, they added better role players in guys like Ronnie Brewer. They added a veteran presence with Kurt Thomas and Taj Gibson is also a very talented young player who could become a Paul Millsap type for them behind Boozer.

Yes, I think that their additions and potential improvement could match or surpass ours. How is it really even debatable? Saying it is doubtful that the Bulls could have a better record than us is just as dumb as saying it is doubtful we could have a better record than them.

Yes I understand the Bulls have other possibilities of improvement besides adding Boozer.

I'm not saying the Bulls can't finish with a better record than the Bucks I'm saying it's unlikely based on facts.

My main thing was that based on those facts I find it funny that the Bulls are projected by the media and some fans to not only better than the Bucks but significantly better based on that list by ESPN (us at #13 Bulls at #6).

I find it laughable that someone could think the Bulls could be that much better than the Bucks.
I find it highly unlikely that the Bulls will have a better record than the Bucks period.

Did you even realize that last season the 6th highest win total was 53 games and and the 13th highest record had 50 wins when you factor in that multiple teams had 53 and 50 wins? So last year the gap in win totals for the 6th and 13th highest records was a measly 3 games.

Now i do agree with others who don't think the Bulls will finish with the 6th best record next season, but even if they did, the gap in games between the team who finishes with say the 6th or 7th best record and the team who finishes 11th/12th may only end up being 2-4 games. So i don't get why you and others are getting so bent out of shape by this ranking?

If we go based on last season's results, the 10th/11th/12th/13th best records all belonged to teams that won 50 games exactly. Under that scenario, the Bulls being the 6th best record would have won 53 games and the Bucks at 13th won 50 games. In fact, Boston which played in the NBA Finals won 50 games and was in a group of three other teams which finished tied for the 10th/11th/12th/13th best records in the league.

Going into this season, i see the Bulls and Bucks in a pack of about 7-8 teams that very well could win between say 45-53 games. Health and chemistry being a big factor in which ones win closer to 53 than 45. Both teams made quite a few moves that will likely cause significant changes from the teams they were last year. Some guys on both teams from last year won't play as much or are gone while newcomers will take their minutes, so you can only look so much into what happened last year. For me if health is reasonably good for both teams, i'd be surprised if either one finished more than 4-5 games higher in the standing than the other one.

[El Duderino]

I still have the Bucks finishing 5 games in front of the Bulls.

Whether or not the 20-10 winning machine Boozer is better than any of the additions that the Bucks made this summer (he is) is irrelevant. Rilamann you are on point when you mention that the Bucks STILL have Bogut, Jennings, and one of the best defenses in basketball. The question that still remains is if the Bulls additions are enough to close the factual gap in record (including head to head) observed last season when also factoring in the Bucks new additions and last year's winning percentage after acquiring John Salmons.

I'll be concerned about a matchup with the Bulls when they find a player that can defend Bogut in the low post. The Bucks can do A LOT to stymie Derek Rose...especially with Bogut waiting in the paint. The Bulls appear to have precious little in regards to limiting Andrew Bogut's post game.

The Bucks simply have more offensive and defensive diversity than the Bulls. I see the Bucks being the better team both offensively and defensively next year. Rebounding will probably be a wash. In that regard, I like the Brockman acquistion as he should be another player that will fight Boozer and Noah tooth and nail for every rebound that comes off of the glass.

Most Bucks fans should adopt a "prove it" attitude when debating with Bulls fans. We have the trump card.

We only play the Bulls four times this year. Even if say we won the matchup 3-1, there still is 78 more games both teams have to play.

For as well as the Bucks played defensively last season, the Bulls were 3rd best in defensive FG% allowed, were nearly identical in defending the three, and they sent offenses to the line less often than the Bucks did. It's true that the Boozer addition could weaken their defense because defense isn't his forte, but the Bucks added Gooden and Maggette who have histories of not being good defenders. Both teams should be good rebounding teams.

Offensively is where both teams struggled last season. The Bucks had the 2nd worst team FG% while the Bulls were 8th worst, but the Bucks shot better from three. Chicago was the 3rd worst three point shooting team in the league. With the additions both teams made, i expect both to be better offensively, but we'll have to see how the new additions on both teams effect the good defenses each had last year and the Bulls also have the wild card of a new coach. He comes with a great reputation for teaching defense while in Boston, but obviously being a head coach is a different animal.

[rilamann]

i don't get why you and others are getting so bent out of shape by this ranking?

2009'10 NBA Standings.

Milwaukee Bucks 46-36

Chicago Bulls 41-41

[bayrdbandit]

If the Nuggets trade off Melo for little in return, bump us up to twelve. They'll free-fall without him.

[Dobber-16]

I like the Bulls roster better than ours, but I agree that's too high for them. They would be between 9-12 if I was making the list.

I know it is a matter of opinion, but how in the hell did you come this this conclusion??

[El Duderino]

i don't get why you and others are getting so bent out of shape by this ranking?

2009'10 NBA Standings.

Milwaukee Bucks 46-36

Chicago Bulls 41-41

It's not 2009/10 though, this is a completely new season coming up. Hell, the Cavs won 61 games last year and Miami 47, that won't matter at all this season. Both the Bucks/Bulls pretty significantly changed their rosters around. The Bucks could have 6 new players that are a part of the regular rotation. The Bulls have 5 new players that could be a part of their rotation. The Bulls also have a new head coach. Both teams have young point guards that could improve to varying degrees. Both teams were very good defensively, but added key rotation pieces that haven't been good defensively in the past.

Last year only a few games separated the 6th/7th best teams record wise with the 12th/13th best teams record wise, it's not like the gap was huge as some in this thread are acting like. Add one win to the 12th/13th teams last year and add one loss to the 6th/7th best record teams last year and only one single game would have separated them. That's it. A bad bounce on a last second shot.

As i said earlier, i don't think Chicago will finish with the 6th or better best record in the league. I'd put money on that not happening and i certainly can envision the Bucks finishing with a better record. That said, i don't think it takes a biased Bulls fan or a biased press to think the Bulls will finish with a better record because i think it will be a close race between the two teams for who wins the division. At most either team wins the division by 4-5 games, likely it'll be 1-3 games separating them assuming reasonably good health. My gut feeling is we'll edge the Bulls by a slim margin, but i can understand someone feeling the Bulls will edge us. It's not crazy talk to think that. The Bulls like the Bucks have quite a bit of talent with a fair amount of questions to be answered, they aren't the Pistons or Cavs.

[paulpressey25]

The Bucks only did it last year for 40 games or so. Before those 40-games we had ten years of bad play, including four full years with our best player, Bogut, on the roster.

Until the Bucks can string together a full season and playoffs of 50-win play, they won't get the respect people on here crave.

[europa]

Until the Bucks can string together a full season and playoffs of 50-win play, they won't get the respect people on here crave.

While I agree with what you're saying the Bulls haven't had a 50-win season since Jordan retired (they did win 49 under Skiles once). They had two very good seasons under Skiles but other than those two seasons and one memorable playoff series against the Garnett-less Celtics two years ago they haven't exactly set the NBA world on fire post-Jordan. They are a lot like the Bucks in many ways in that regard.

I think the reasons for Chicago getting lavished so much praise this offseason is because the perception is Rose is a better player than either Bogut or Jennings, because Boozer is viewed by just about everyone around the league as one of the game's top PFs and because Chicago is a much stronger media draw than Milwaukee. The latter cannot be dismissed in my opinion. While nearly all of your savvy media types recognize there's something going on with the Bucks it's simply far trendier and always will be to lavish more praise on the bigger media market team.