PG: Can't stop, won't stop

[Onibuh]

just Play Niko at the 3 with Lauri and Rolo. Have a hole there and Niko could fix that.

[rowseyna]

Nikola Mirotic - 35 MIN, 11-18 (61.1%) FG, 3-5 (60%) 3P, 4-4 (100%) FT, 9 REB, 2 STL, +3, 29 PTS

Watch on YouTube

Kris Dunn - 34 MIN, 7 REB, 8 AST, 4 STL, +3, 13 PTS

Watch on YouTube

Robin Lopez - 36 MIN, 4 REB, 5 AST, 3 BLK, 16 PTS

Bobby Portis - 22 MIN, 8 REB, 3 AST, +5, 9 PTS

Denzel Valentine - 36 MIN, 5-8 (62.5%) FG, 1-2 (50%) 3P, 2-2 (100%) FT, 3 REB, 2 AST, 13 PTS

Justin Holiday - 24 MIN, 3-7 (42.9%) FG, 1-2 (50%) 3P, 4 REB, 2 STL, 12 PTS

[Dresden]

If we get pick 5, 6, 7 or later.....we failed miserably.


The draft is in Chicago! The league will give us a top pick, we just need to suck wtf!

Yeah, I know in 2011, there were some teams that are glad they got top 7 instead of 8 or 15 or 30 or 60...

Multiple stars, like 2011:

1- Kyrie
2- Derrick Williams
3- Kanter
4- Tristan
5- Jonas
6- Jan Vesely
7- Biyambo
8- Kemba
15- Kawhi
30- Jimmy
60- Not Zeke Thomas

Im not trusting GarPax to find the gems. Dont forget, these are the same guys that literally wasted draft picks on Erik Murphy, Marques Teague, Tony Snell, an Cameron Beartoes etc...

And on Taj Gibson, Niko Mirotic, Omer Asik, and Jimmy Butler.

[Dresden]

I can't believe how bad the #2 picks have been. Of all those selections, KD was the only one good enough to be a 1st option for a title contender. A team could have drafted for 10 straight years in the #2 position and never come away with a superstar.

If that isn't Exhibit A for not tanking, you shouldn't be a lawyer, or serve on jury duty.

And very few of the #1 overall picks are leading a team to a title.

And if people aren't aware, that's the last 20 drafts in a row (starting with 2013, all of those guys are off their rookie deals. 2014 draft are on the last year of their rookie deal right now.

It would be interesting to show at what points in the draft in the last 20 years the 3 best players from that draft class were chosen at. Donovan Mitchell was #12 or something like that this year, wasn't he? How did scouts and GM's miss so badly on this guy? He should have gone 1 or 2.

[FriedRise]

It's easy to point all the winning at Niko since it coincided with his return and him publicly taking all the credit, but the truth is we have so many guys improving and playing well all at the same time.

Dunn is actually running the offense as a competent starting PG. He's been a clutch plus player despite his long ball and layups not falling.
Lopez continues to set great screens and seals the opposing team's big(s) so others can grab a rebound.
Nwaba is such a huge positive player every time he gets on the court, on both ends of the floor.
Portis playing well and shooting very efficiently.
Grant being a positive player and efficient while stealthily handing out assists off the bench (I still don't understand how he ends up with 9 assists for the night.. I never see him make those passes!).
Even Zipser isn't playing as putrid as he once was to start the season.

Then you add Niko looking like the second coming of Prime Dirk, and yeah you can win games that way. Assuming those things above continue, let's say we:

* Trade Lopez: Niko will likely start at the 5 with Lauri at the 4. While there might be some dropoff in terms of rebounding and overall defense, it'll be counteracted with better offense. Felicio will have to play off the bench, so that might balance things out.

* Trade Niko: if he ever agrees on getting traded (highly unlikely given the type of minutes he can get here), you'll have our regular starting lineup and Portis/Felicio pair off the bench. Felicio obviously doesn't score as much as Niko, so we'll most likely struggle to score. But if Lauri plays as well as Niko has, then it's not gonna make much of a difference.. we might still win games.

* Trade Lopez AND Niko: we'll have to start Lauri/Bobby and play Zipser or Pondexter with Felicio off the bench. We will likely return to being unwatchable and find ourselves in a double digit hole before end of 1st quarter. This move rights the tank and guarantees an L on a more consistent basis while we (hopefully) secure some future picks.

But then there's the wild card that is the LaVine effect. We don't know what kind of player he'll be when he returns. If he assumes an efficient volume scorer role, him and Lauri can easily counteract the loss of Niko and Lopez from the scoring standpoint.

[GameBredAPBT]

Mitchell was a needle in a haystack. And anyone who says differently is trying to sell you a ski lodge in Iowa.

He showed glimpses of this during his last month of college, but obviously spent the entire summer in the gym & in the weight room.

But this polish & go for the throat hunger he's displaying could have never been predicted.

Just goes to show you, pick rankings are largely meaningless. Anyone can break out & develop at any given time. Anyone picked in the top 20 is an elite basketball prospect & has a chance of being a star. It's all about drafting smart. I don't think the Bulls are bad drafters by any means.

[Chitownbulls]

Just get 1 of Ayton, Bagley, Porter Jr or Doncic an Ill be happy.

[GameBredAPBT]

Knox & Bridges could wind up being superior to anyone in this draft class. That's the point we're making.

[sco]

1) A win is a loss. Utah is a better measuring stick than Boston without Kyrie. Mitchell is an allstar. Nice pick! Gobert surprised me with how bad his hands are.

2) A nice game from Niko. I don't really want him here long-term, but I feel good for him to get some broad respect for his game based on everything that happened. A win-win would be him finding someone who'll start him at PF and trade us a 1st rounder for him. With Lauri coming back, I vote that we shift Niko to SF - it should help take some pressure off Lauri while pumping Niko's trade value.

3) Kudos to Dunn for finding ways to contribute, even though his shot wasn't falling (finishing at the rim against Gobert is tough). I like that he is becoming a threat offensively, but really the value of that is that teams can't double-off him and that he can make it easier for other guys to get open looks. I really like his passing off of his penetration. His defense is fun to watch too.

4) Nwaba was also fun to watch again. He didn't score a ton, but he impacts the game in so many ways.

5) Valentine just needs to stop at the arc. Even on an uncontested break-away, he isn't a threat to score inside the 3pt line. It is so odd, but if he can just play defense, make passes and play outside the arc - I'm fine with him on the floor. If he can't, just bench him.

[Stratmaster]

So, does Niko start over Lauri?

Of course. Her is the better player... for now.

Absolutely not. Lauri goes right back to the starting lineup. The goal is to develop the young core guys. If we were trying to win more games, that would be a different story. Niko will still get plenty of minutes off the bench.

Niko was named the starter before the punch. He is clearly a better player (right now) and is outplaying Lauri. I'm a huge Lauri fan and applauded the pick but I said at that time it would not be a good thing for Lauri to start. Niko is the only scorer on the team until Lavine gets back and starting Lauri does three bad things:

1. It slows his development. Becoming the main scorer immediately means we see the player Lauri is now for the rest of the season. There are few practices during the season. The ball is always coming to him and he is going to fall back on what he has learned and what he knows to date. Lauri can learn a lot on both sides of the court from watching Niko against other teams best talent.

2. It puts a ton of pressure on Lauri's shoulders. We want this kid set up in a can't fail (at least can't fail too badly) situation. He is only 20 years old. He needs to build confidence and comfort evel without that pressure.

3. It puts heavier minutes and pressure on a kid who has never had to play 82 games in a season, or 4-5 games in a week repeatedly.

What happened to the "it's OK to bring these guys along slowly because we are tanking" mantra?

Lauri will still get plenty of minutes off the bench.

The good news is all 3 PF's are going to be forced to work on their game very diligently. They all think they are starter quality and two of them are right. They have to outplay the other 2 if they want the long term starting job; or punch them in the face if they aren't good enough to earn it.

[Rerisen]

Just goes to show you, pick rankings are largely meaningless. Anyone can break out & develop at any given time. Anyone picked in the top 20 is an elite basketball prospect & has a chance of being a star. It's all about drafting smart. I don't think the Bulls are bad drafters by any means.

If top 20 picks are now suddenly meaningless or equal we could have just kept Butler and our 42 win team and built on to them through the draft as well as we are now.

Except they aren't meaningless. While everyone can cherry pick stars picked later, or years where the #8 beat the #1 or whatever, the historical odds are pretty clear that average production/talent, decreases linearly as you go down the draft.

So while sure you can still make a good pick or gem later on, it gets harder and harder with each spot you go down. Just search 'NBA average production by draft position' and you'll get reams of articles detailing the odds in various ways.

For instance here's an 11 year study looking All-Star selections by spot. While the #2 pick has been uniquely busting in modern history, otherwise the chart reads exactly as you'd expect with diminishing results.

No. 1 pick: All-Star Appearances: 41
No. 2 pick: All-Star Appearances: 11
No. 3 pick: All-Star Appearances: 26
No. 4 pick: All-Star Appearances: 22
No. 5 pick: All-Star Appearances: 16
No. 6 pick: All-Star Appearances: 4

[Stratmaster]

Of course. Her is the better player... for now.

Absolutely not. Lauri goes right back to the starting lineup. The goal is to develop the young core guys. If we were trying to win more games, that would be a different story. Niko will still get plenty of minutes off the bench.

This. If Bulls bench Lauri I have no reason to watch this franchise anymore. They can all go to hell.

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. Whether Lauri starts or not, it isn't like he is getting "benched" and isn't going to play 25 mpg anyway. Lauri had hit a bit of a wall. He also was not prepared for the 82 game grind of the NBA. He still has rookie faults like any rookie. Niko is playing great in all areas right now and was named the starter before the season started. If you want Lauri to succeed at the highest level possible, the best way to develop him is to let him learn the game this season.

I'm a huge Lauri fan but this isn't like we drafted Rose, or Jordan. Lauri has a lot of learning to do... and it appears a back issue that needs to be resolved completely so it doesn't turn into a chronic year to year issue.

[Stratmaster]

Just goes to show you, pick rankings are largely meaningless. Anyone can break out & develop at any given time. Anyone picked in the top 20 is an elite basketball prospect & has a chance of being a star. It's all about drafting smart. I don't think the Bulls are bad drafters by any means.

If top 20 picks are now suddenly meaningless or equal we could have just kept Butler and our 42 win team and built on to them through the draft as well as we are now.

Except they aren't meaningless. While everyone can cherry pick stars picked later, or years where the #8 beat the #1 or whatever, the historical odds are pretty clear that average production/talent, decreases linearly as you go down the draft.

So while sure you can still make a good pick or gem later on, it gets harder and harder with each spot you go down. Just search 'NBA average production by draft position' and you'll get reams of articles detailing the odds in various ways.

For instance here's an 11 year study looking All-Star selections by spot. While the #2 pick has been uniquely busting in modern history, otherwise the chart reads exactly as you'd expect with diminishing results.

No. 1 pick: All-Star Appearances: 41
No. 2 pick: All-Star Appearances: 11
No. 3 pick: All-Star Appearances: 26
No. 4 pick: All-Star Appearances: 22
No. 5 pick: All-Star Appearances: 16
No. 6 pick: All-Star Appearances: 4

What about the 7-10 picks, which is where the Bulls will likely end up?

[ctl131]

Just goes to show you, pick rankings are largely meaningless. Anyone can break out & develop at any given time. Anyone picked in the top 20 is an elite basketball prospect & has a chance of being a star. It's all about drafting smart. I don't think the Bulls are bad drafters by any means.

If top 20 picks are now suddenly meaningless or equal we could have just kept Butler and our 42 win team and built on to them through the draft as well as we are now.

Except they aren't meaningless. While everyone can cherry pick stars picked later, or years where the #8 beat the #1 or whatever, the historical odds are pretty clear that average production/talent, decreases linearly as you go down the draft.

So while sure you can still make a good pick or gem later on, it gets harder and harder with each spot you go down. Just search 'NBA average production by draft position' and you'll get reams of articles detailing the odds in various ways.

For instance here's an 11 year study looking All-Star selections by spot. While the #2 pick has been uniquely busting in modern history, otherwise the chart reads exactly as you'd expect with diminishing results.

No. 1 pick: All-Star Appearances: 41
No. 2 pick: All-Star Appearances: 11
No. 3 pick: All-Star Appearances: 26
No. 4 pick: All-Star Appearances: 22
No. 5 pick: All-Star Appearances: 16
No. 6 pick: All-Star Appearances: 4

Its not like in those 11 years its been 11 #1 picks making 41 All-Star appearances; I'm sure LeBron has 11 of them. A few guys make up pretty much all of those appearances, they aren't spread out between multiple superstar players. So out of 66 players taken in those 6 spots over 11 years, how many different players made all star games in each spot is the more relevant statistic, not how many total appearances.

I get that the chances of finding that one superstar that gets 11 straight all-star appearances is higher picking at #1, but those players very rarely come along anyway.

[Rerisen]

What about the 7-10 picks, which is where the Bulls will likely end up?

How dare you, we are not ending up 7-10!

[Rerisen]

I get that the chances of finding that one superstar that gets 11 straight all-star appearances is higher picking at #1, but those players very rarely come along anyway.

Well that's why we nuked, or should have, to try and get one.

It would be dumb to nuke a playoff team just to spend 3-5 years being excited over the next Hinrich's and Deng's and rebuilding a 1st-2nd round playoff team you just had.

Your ceiling isn't going to be much higher than that if you don't have a legit superstar.

[Rerisen]

Here's what half the posts in this thread are saying, that downplay a top 3 pick.

[Stratmaster]

Just goes to show you, pick rankings are largely meaningless. Anyone can break out & develop at any given time. Anyone picked in the top 20 is an elite basketball prospect & has a chance of being a star. It's all about drafting smart. I don't think the Bulls are bad drafters by any means.

If top 20 picks are now suddenly meaningless or equal we could have just kept Butler and our 42 win team and built on to them through the draft as well as we are now.

Except they aren't meaningless. While everyone can cherry pick stars picked later, or years where the #8 beat the #1 or whatever, the historical odds are pretty clear that average production/talent, decreases linearly as you go down the draft.

So while sure you can still make a good pick or gem later on, it gets harder and harder with each spot you go down. Just search 'NBA average production by draft position' and you'll get reams of articles detailing the odds in various ways.

For instance here's an 11 year study looking All-Star selections by spot. While the #2 pick has been uniquely busting in modern history, otherwise the chart reads exactly as you'd expect with diminishing results.

No. 1 pick: All-Star Appearances: 41
No. 2 pick: All-Star Appearances: 11
No. 3 pick: All-Star Appearances: 26
No. 4 pick: All-Star Appearances: 22
No. 5 pick: All-Star Appearances: 16
No. 6 pick: All-Star Appearances: 4

What about the 7-10 picks, which is where the Bulls will likely end up?

I just did a quick search. I would suggest that number of appearances may not be as telling as how many players.

Since 2000, only 9 of the #1 picks have made the all-star game (Caveat: obviously, players who are still active but haven't been an all-star could make the all-star team in the future and make that total rise)

Only 3 #2 picks have made the ASG

5 of the #3 picks have made the ASG

3 of the #4 picks

4 of the #5 picks

2 of the #6 picks, 2 of the #7 and NONE of the #8.

7 of the #9 picks, 5 of the #10 picks,

Basically, other than the very first pick, there is absolutely no advantage from the standpoint of getting an all-star player between #2 and #10. If you believe the numbers...if you don't get the #1 pick you are just as likely to hit pay dirt at the #9 or #10 spot in the draft. What that really tells you is that other than certain generational tyype players in the #1 spot, it is a complete and total crap-shoot.

Info per:

http://www.nba-allstar.com/players/lists/players-by-draft-pick.htm

[Rerisen]

Basically, other than the very first pick, there is absolutely no advantage from the standpoint of getting an all-star player between #2 and #10.

But 'from the standpoint of getting an All-Star' is hardly the only measurement, it was just one example.

If you read every study on the topic, whether averaging Expected Wins, PER, production, whatever, it becomes very clear the lottery is a very linear scale going down, and one that is heavily front loaded toward the top 3.

I would agree that the difference between 4 and 10 is a lot less than say 5 vs 1, but that just shows all the more importance in truly being one of, or the worst, team in the league this year.

To whatever degree GarPax ARE good at identifying talent, each spot down is a spot the guys they wanted could be gone.

[RedBulls23]

Just goes to show you, pick rankings are largely meaningless. Anyone can break out & develop at any given time. Anyone picked in the top 20 is an elite basketball prospect & has a chance of being a star. It's all about drafting smart. I don't think the Bulls are bad drafters by any means.

If top 20 picks are now suddenly meaningless or equal we could have just kept Butler and our 42 win team and built on to them through the draft as well as we are now.

Except they aren't meaningless. While everyone can cherry pick stars picked later, or years where the #8 beat the #1 or whatever, the historical odds are pretty clear that average production/talent, decreases linearly as you go down the draft.

So while sure you can still make a good pick or gem later on, it gets harder and harder with each spot you go down. Just search 'NBA average production by draft position' and you'll get reams of articles detailing the odds in various ways.

For instance here's an 11 year study looking All-Star selections by spot. While the #2 pick has been uniquely busting in modern history, otherwise the chart reads exactly as you'd expect with diminishing results.

No. 1 pick: All-Star Appearances: 41
No. 2 pick: All-Star Appearances: 11
No. 3 pick: All-Star Appearances: 26
No. 4 pick: All-Star Appearances: 22
No. 5 pick: All-Star Appearances: 16
No. 6 pick: All-Star Appearances: 4

Thank you.

As I posted links showing how the same thing historically that as the pick goes lower, so goes the chances of landing an all-star caliber player.

It will be annoying if they end up outside the top 3-4.