Please help me out here

[HomoSapien]

Comparing Boston’s top six to Chicago’s is missing the point. Aside from last year, Boston has typically overachieved far beyond their talent and that’s because of Stevens. He’s the special sauce for that franchise/ if you’re going to talk top 6 you should include him on that list.

[johnnyvann840]

Any chance to take free dig at Zach and you’re going to take it at every turn. At least you’re consistent if nothing else.....

If you want to debate the contents of JV's post, go ahead. But please don't reply if your only intent is to take a personal dig at another poster.

I have debated the content of his posts in the past. I got my wrist slapped for that too. I suppose the moral of the story here is that JV is a made poster that shouldn’t be touched period. So it’s whatever for me at this point.

LOL. Been called a lot of things, but a "made poster" is a new one. Believe me, I've had my share of getting slapped and warned for being annoying and hard on Lavine. I just call it like I see it. It wasn't a "dig", it was just a truthful statement and probably one of the reasons why the over/under was handicapped the way it was, among other things. I think it's assumed that Zach will be the go to guy or at least a main weapin I mean if we're being honest about it we admit that many, many Bulls games were lost last season late in 4th Q's as we watched Lavine fall apart and make bad decisions down the stretch of games. Turn the ball over, take bad shots, make terrible passes to no one in particular and just crumble to pieces under pressure. Maybe with some more help this season he can turn that around, but it happened and it has to be a concern for us as Bulls fans. Last season people wanted the team to lose so it didn't bother anybody really. However, if the goal is to win this year and make the playoffs, we need to see smarter, poised closer in Zach. Not a frenzied, panicky, deer in headlights when doubled and pressured.

[dougthonus]

When you couldn't believe I gave GarPax a 2.5/5 for their trading on the podcast we did the other week, that reaction you had to me was what I just had in reading this.

I would be floored if the Bulls finished 3rd. That would shock me.

We also can't measure things by comparing the talents of teams and their top players. If it were that simple, the Celtics and Pacers wouldn't have near identical records last season.

The primary premise is that the #3 seed sucks relative to a normal #3 seed. I called the group between 3-10 seeds as 35-45 win talent teams, and I do think the Bulls are towards the bottom that group on paper (7-10 area). I just think the gaps in that group aren't large.

Top 6 or 7 guys on each team:
Celtics: Kemba, Hayward, Tatum, Brown, Smart, Kanter - Kemba hasn't won anything ever or proven he can play with good players, Tatum is no more a breakout candidate than Lauri and is worse statistically, Hayward is a shell of himself, and Brown, Smart, and Kaner are nothing particularly special, just solid players

Raptors: Siakam, Lowry, Gasol, Ibaka, VanVleet, Powell - There's no great shot creator on this team anymore and most of the talent is at the tipping point where we have already seen serious decline and they are about to fall off a cliff and aren't the types that can likely bring it over an 82 game season, especially after being fatigued from a championship run.

Nets: Irving, Dinwiddie, Jordan, Lavert, Allen, Harris, Temple - Irving is going to have to lead a cast of young players less talented than the ones he just got pissed off and failed to lead a year ago. They have good potential if Irving is a good locker room guy and their guys step up, but there aren't real high potential guys on the roster and Irving is a massive injury risk himself, the team probably completely falls off the map without him too.

Pacers: Oladipo (out at least half the year), Brogdon, Turner, Sabonis, Warren, Lamb - The Pacers lost 5 of their top 7 minute players last season and most of their scoring. Any thought that the Pacers are anything is based entirely on anchoring. This is almost a brand new team. Look at that lineup that will roll for half the season and tell me there is anything special there at all.

Heat: Butler, Dragic, James Johnson, Olynik, Waiters, Myers Leonard, Winslow - Jimmy Butler and a bunch of nothing special here unless Dragic has a great comeback season at 33.

Ran out of time to go through the others, but the Pistons, Hawks, Magic aren't going to excite you any more either while the Hornets, Cavs, and Knicks are set up to not even be remotely in the competition and is where the the teams go to sub 30 wins.

[League Circles]

Haven't read the whole thread but typically a team with a bunch of average starters, an average coach, and an average bench will actually be a pretty bad team IMO. In a certain sense, sometimes you're only as good as your best player. I'd say going into the year, Otto is our best player, despite being the third or fourth option offensively. If Lauri, or Zach I guess, can become a top quartile player at their position and stay healthy, I think we'll be at least .500. If not things could go south quick. I think Boylen will be a good coach. Not OK, but legit good.

[coldfish]

I'm not going to predict it but I could forsee a non-ridiculous series of events occur that leave the Bulls in 3rd. Its funny but IMO, I think Bulls fans are sleeping on this roster. As Doug is saying, what happened last year has very little bearing on this year. The team might randomly devolve into a complete cluster F of injuries and infighting again but if it doesn't, then you will have a team on the floor all year that doesn't resemble last year in virtually any way.

I will expand on one thing. Teams and individuals frequently achieve their regular season goals. Its well beyond 50%. When I say that, I mean their REAL goals. Sometimes teams just want to chill during the regular season. Sometimes they want to tank. Sometimes individuals are out for contracts and throw up numbers that don't really help winning. Sometimes teams just want to develop young guys at the expense of wins.

This year, the goal for the Bulls is to win regular season games and virtually everyone is on board with that. Its great for chemistry. Only Dunn scares me since he is out of contract after this year but if he starts being an ass I suspect he will be the #4 PG pretty quickly. I suppose Otto too but he doesn't strike me as the type to play bad basketball just to pump up his numbers.

[HearshotKDS]

30.5 is the very low end of my expected wins range. The team has improved a lot, but past performance from this teams medical staff leads me to believe we will see similar injury patterns to what we saw the last few seasons: IE significant time missed from multiple players. 30.5 though seems very pessimistic even for me, and I'm not exactly swimming in the Kool-Aid.

[DASMACKDOWN]

I think there is always a ton of anchored bias in most of Vegas equations.

There are always 3 outcomes though. Way too high, way too low or just about right.

Meaning there isn't a clear answer.

They were dead wrong about a lot of teams last year. But concerning the Bulls, you have to have some sort of anchoring bias because of the previous 2 years. So it just makes sense that it will still be low.

They generally don't ever predict a major spike in wins unless a team gets a top player in the offseason. Get KD, Lebron or Kawhi, it will spike. But for normal improvement, you hardly see it. Its the reason why Sacramento's prediction was also low last year. They had them around 25 wins I believe and they won 39.

So what we are hoping for is health and improvement.

If we actually have that, its not a stretch nor surprise to be high 30s at worst or sneak into the playoffs.

[kingkirk]

The primary premise is that the #3 seed sucks relative to a normal #3 seed. I called the group between 3-10 seeds as 35-45 win talent teams, and I do think the Bulls are towards the bottom that group on paper (7-10 area). I just think the gaps in that group aren't large.

Top 6 or 7 guys on each team:
Celtics: Kemba, Hayward, Tatum, Brown, Smart, Kanter - Kemba hasn't won anything ever or proven he can play with good players, Tatum is no more a breakout candidate than Lauri and is worse statistically, Hayward is a shell of himself, and Brown, Smart, and Kaner are nothing particularly special, just solid players

Raptors: Siakam, Lowry, Gasol, Ibaka, VanVleet, Powell - There's no great shot creator on this team anymore and most of the talent is at the tipping point where we have already seen serious decline and they are about to fall off a cliff and aren't the types that can likely bring it over an 82 game season, especially after being fatigued from a championship run.

Nets: Irving, Dinwiddie, Jordan, Lavert, Allen, Harris, Temple - Irving is going to have to lead a cast of young players less talented than the ones he just got pissed off and failed to lead a year ago. They have good potential if Irving is a good locker room guy and their guys step up, but there aren't real high potential guys on the roster and Irving is a massive injury risk himself, the team probably completely falls off the map without him too.

Pacers: Oladipo (out at least half the year), Brogdon, Turner, Sabonis, Warren, Lamb - The Pacers lost 5 of their top 7 minute players last season and most of their scoring. Any thought that the Pacers are anything is based entirely on anchoring. This is almost a brand new team. Look at that lineup that will roll for half the season and tell me there is anything special there at all.

Heat: Butler, Dragic, James Johnson, Olynik, Waiters, Myers Leonard, Winslow - Jimmy Butler and a bunch of nothing special here unless Dragic has a great comeback season at 33.

Ran out of time to go through the others, but the Pistons, Hawks, Magic aren't going to excite you any more either while the Hornets, Cavs, and Knicks are set up to not even be remotely in the competition and is where the the teams go to sub 30 wins.

I’d say you’ve probably left off one or two guys from certain teams that definitely should be included e.g. Bam Adebayo is about to make the leap this season. He’s good, will start for the Heat at center. That, and you’re probably underselling the value or talent of some of these players.

But like I said, you can carry out this exercise for the Bulls too and come up with a negative slant on it pretty quickly, something you’ve done with the above teams. Moreover, the real point here is that you can’t just look at the top 6 of a team and assume that is how the season will play out, or that talent alone forms team chemistry.

That, and if we’re going to project injuries potentially crippling a team like the Nets should Irving miss games, are we not factoring that in for the Bulls, who are one Otto Porter injury away from having no credible SFs to replace him?

I understand your wider point that the East is bad. I agree. And while I agree it doesn’t necessarily make sense to use last season’s results as a baseline, even if we assume a fully healthy Bulls team probably wins 28-32 games, jumping from that, which would’ve still put them wait outside the playoffs, to a 45 win team that jumps to the third seed is a significant leap, one that should shock us.

I’m more than happy to run with the Bulls could sneak into the playoffs next season, but third seed seems like way to big a jump to be talking about at this point.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

People dismiss the injury issue and shouldn’t forget it. The majority of the roster has had injury issues (Lavine, Lauri, WCJ, OPJ all have missed time), and the Bulls training staff doesn’t have a good track record.

If everyone at worst remains neutral or advances their game AND stays healthy, this team could win around 40 games. But the likelihood of that happening, since these guys have never remained healthy with each other, isn’t likely.

Also, if you backtrack to last year, the majority of fans here suggested to take the over on that Bulls win total. They all would have lost money.

[dougthonus]

I’d say you’ve probably left off one or two guys from certain teams that definitely should be included e.g. Bam Adebayo is about to make the leap this season. He’s good, will start for the Heat at center. That, and you’re probably underselling the value or talent of some of these players.

But like I said, you can carry out this exercise for the Bulls too and come up with a negative slant on it pretty quickly, something you’ve done with the above teams. Moreover, the real point here is that you can’t just look at the top 6 of a team and assume that is how the season will play out, or that talent alone forms team chemistry.

That, and if we’re going to project injuries potentially crippling a team like the Nets should Irving miss games, are we not factoring that in for the Bulls, who are one Otto Porter injury away from having no credible SFs to replace him?

I understand your wider point that the East is bad. I agree. And while I agree it doesn’t necessarily make sense to use last season’s results as a baseline, even if we assume a fully healthy Bulls team probably wins 28-32 games, jumping from that, which would’ve still put them wait outside the playoffs, to a 45 win team that jumps to the third seed is a significant leap, one that should shock us.

I’m more than happy to run with the Bulls could sneak into the playoffs next season, but third seed seems like way to big a jump to be talking about at this point.

Nothing you said really contradicts my point. I picked the Bulls to be near the bottom of that group, so I am in fact assuming that things won't go well for them.

I just said it's not a stretch in their best case outcome to do better than these other teams. I said that outcome was unlikely, just not shocking (to me). Beating Philly/Milwaukee (barring a Giannis injury) would be shocking.

A good example would be last year, Orlando went from 25 to 42 wins and Brooklyn went from 28 to 42 wins. I think the Bulls have more untapped potential than either of those teams and in their best case scenarios can do better (obviously could do worse too).

[kingkirk]

Nothing you said really contradicts my point. I picked the Bulls to be near the bottom of that group, so I am in fact assuming that things won't go well for them.

I just said it's not a stretch in their best case outcome to do better than these other teams. I said that outcome was unlikely, just not shocking (to me). Beating Philly/Milwaukee (barring a Giannis injury) would be shocking.

A good example would be last year, Orlando went from 25 to 42 wins and Brooklyn went from 28 to 42 wins. I think the Bulls have more untapped potential than either of those teams and in their best case scenarios can do better (obviously could do worse too).

I’m contradicting your point by saying it should absolutely be a shock to us to see the Bulls finishing as the third seed. No analytical model, not Vegas, not any others, have the Bulls even remotely close to that.

If we apply a percentage on it, at least by my estimations, for everything to break right for the Bulls while not occurring for other teams, thus allowing the team to win 45 games and hit the third seed, the likelihood of that happening is so small that I couldn’t not be shocked if it did play out that way.

Perhaps you have more faith in Boylen than I do, but he holds the keys in the team making a massive jump like the Nets and Magic did. I'm not sure how you quantify or account for that, but he is more unproven than anyone else within the organisation, to the point where we should all be tempering expectations for now.

[dougthonus]

I’m contradicting your point by saying it should absolutely be a shock to us to see the Bulls finishing as the third seed. No analytical model, not Vegas, not any others, have the Bulls even remotely close to that.

Analytical projections are highly anchored generally.

If we apply a percentage on it, at least by my estimations, for everything to break right for the Bulls while not occurring for other teams, thus allowing the team to win 45 games and hit the third seed, the likelihood of that happening is so small that I couldn’t not be shocked if it did play out that way.

Those teams Orlando/Brooklyn teams were expected to win 30 and 32.5 games last year by Vegas which is where the Bulls are this year too.

I think the best case realistic upside scenario for the Bulls is 47-48 wins. There's some chance that's the 3 seed. I think their most likely scenario is actually around 38-40 wins.

[League Circles]

I don't know how anyone could be shocked at ANY NBA team finishing within 8 games of .500

[kingkirk]

Those teams Orlando/Brooklyn teams were expected to win 30 and 32.5 games last year by Vegas which is where the Bulls are this year too.

I think the best case realistic upside scenario for the Bulls is 47-48 wins. There's some chance that's the 3 seed. I think their most likely scenario is actually around 38-40 wins.

This ultimately comes back to how we view this team. I don't see a realistic path of 48 wins. Of course, I hope I'm wrong, but top side I see low 40s, with 34-37 what I'm expecting.

That fundamental difference in where we see the team is why I would be shocked with a third seed finish.

[kingkirk]

I don't know how anyone could be shocked at ANY NBA team finishing within 8 games of .500

...ok.

[League Circles]

I don't know how anyone could be shocked at ANY NBA team finishing within 8 games of .500

...ok.

I mean the spread is winning 4 of 10 vs 6 of 10. I just don't see that as a big difference. The Bulls clearly aren't a talent outlier IMO in either direction, and unlike the past two years will be trying to win, so I think something like 33-49 wins is very reasonable.

[dice]

I don't know how anyone could be shocked at ANY NBA team finishing within 8 games of .500

it certainly wouldn't be shocking to see the bulls win 33 games

[League Circles]

I don't know how anyone could be shocked at ANY NBA team finishing within 8 games of .500

it certainly wouldn't be shocking to see the bulls win 33 games

Correct. I guess I view all teams as .500 teams and then skew them away from that based on talent, chemistry, etc differentials.

I think some people just use bigger mental error bars than others. Like if you have a really hard time envisioning more than a +/- 10% win total from your projection, I'd suggest that's not allowing for variation enough. There's maybe like 6 total NBA teams that I'm confident will finish with above 50 or below 32 wins this year. It's hard to predict IMO.

[kingkirk]

I don't know how anyone could be shocked at ANY NBA team finishing within 8 games of .500

...ok.

I mean the spread is winning 4 of 10 vs 6 of 10. I just don't see that as a big difference. The Bulls clearly aren't a talent outlier IMO in either direction, and unlike the past two years will be trying to win, so I think something like 33-49 wins is very reasonable.

So you wouldn't be shocked if the Hornets or Cavs won 33 games, possibly even 49 games?

[League Circles]

...ok.

I mean the spread is winning 4 of 10 vs 6 of 10. I just don't see that as a big difference. The Bulls clearly aren't a talent outlier IMO in either direction, and unlike the past two years will be trying to win, so I think something like 33-49 wins is very reasonable.

So you wouldn't be shocked if the Hornets or Cavs won 33 games, possibly even 49 games?

Certainly not if they won 33. I guess you got me on the 49, I'd be quite surprised, though fwiw, that's not happening unless some real growth occurs, which unfolds before our eyes, so by the time they've won 49, you've already got used to the fact that they had some serious breakout guys and thus you're no longer shocked. I followed up on this initial exaggeration comment by saying that perhaps there are something like 6 teams that I'm confident will be above or below that .400-.600 range.