ESPN Weekly Power Rankings

[kulaz3000]

Getting fussed over some ESPN ranking is just, well, it’s not even worth my time thinking up a suitable metaphor for something utterly pointless.

[MrSparkle]

Hmm I’ll take #4, but we’ve been obviously better than the Nets after 20 games. Our SRS and net rating are marginally better, but they’ve also beaten up on bad teams (and 1-6 against top-8 squads; some ugly blowouts), while we’ve beaten more good teams. And you know, we directly beat them twice. Of course Durant is still special, but there is a sense of struggle when you see them. Kyrie would’ve been enough to make it all easy, but thanks to his shenanigans and the adjusted jump shot (non-)fouls on Harden, you basically let him shoot bad contested shots and hope their geriatric pickups don’t score enough.

Their roster is badly declined. Kind of alarming if 36yo LMA and Patty Mills are crucial offensive pieces. Harris and Brown regressing ever since the Harden trade. If they could do it again, they keep Allen, LeVert and honestly probably win a chip last year with Durant back and healthy. They only lost by 4pts in game 7 to the Bucks. Harden was shooting atrociously. I’m not sure Bucks could score enough buckets with a rim protector like Allen forcing Giannis to shoot more 3Ps.

On a human level I guess the great thing about the trade is that Caris’ cancer growth was found in the physical, but basketball wise I’d take him and Allen over Beard. Mind you BRK owes 7 FRPs (3 swaps), which is absolutely insane. I think Marks managed to put BRK in another potential Deron/KG/PP situation. Crazy, because it seemed like such a shoe-in championship. Largely sabotaged by Kyrie. Shall be interesting.

Not sure if Atlanta’s play-in woes continue, but I had them as one of these hyped East candidates to blow it this season. Deep roster but a lot of faith in a 6’1 23yo being the glue that keeps it together. More a situation for a HOF vet like Lebron or Paul to keep the collection of talent “on track.” Hunter and Okongwu, another case of promising top picks who can’t stay healthy; Reddish a case of a guy with major ups and downs (imo he’s gonna have a solid but journeyman career ala Oubre). Bogdanovic and Gallinari having a rough decline.

OTOH if they’re 100% in April and we have to face them in a 2/7 or 3/6 playoff series, I’ll be very concerned.

[The Explorer]

Nba.com has the bulls at #4 behind Mil, Phx, and GS. Brooklyn at #6.

It was a big week for the Bulls and the Bulls came up big. They almost blew two leads of more than 20 points, but held off the two teams — Charlotte and New York — that entered the week directly behind them in the East standings. Then, for the second time this season, they beat Brooklyn with a big fourth quarter. There are only four players who’ve shot better than 50% on at least 20 clutch shots, the Bulls have two of the four, and those two guys — DeMar DeRozan (12-for-21) and Zach LaVine (15-for-29) — have also combined to shoot 34-for-35 (97%) on clutch free throws.

Games 15-19 were the Bulls’ worst five-game stretch of offense this season (106.1 points scored per 100 possessions). Games 20-24 have been the best (119.4 per 100). DeRozan (28.4 points on 56% shooting over those five games) has been fantastic and Nikola Vucevic (18.2 on 51%) has seemingly found his shot. He had more buckets from outside the paint in the wins over Charlotte and New York (13-for-22) than he had in his previous six games combined (12-for-40).

[meekrab]

Hmm I’ll take #4, but we’ve been obviously better than the Nets after 20 games. Our SRS and net rating are marginally better, but they’ve also beaten up on bad teams (and 1-6 against top-8 squads; some ugly blowouts), while we’ve beaten more good teams.

We've also dropped some embarrassing losses to Indy and Houston. Indy because it was a blowout that the team didn't even show up for, and Houston because they were 2 and infinity when we played them and it kicked off their winning streak.

Losing to bad teams is a lot worse than beating good teams is better, in terms of power rankings. There's a clear pattern to our losses, too, we're helpless against reasonably competent athletic bigs. Plus there's the "elite talent" factor, Harden and Durant will probably forever be considered a higher level of star than DeRozan and LaVine until the latter get to an NBA Finals.

[WindyCityBorn]

All I care about is our record. Rankings are meaningless.

[InsideInfo]

They think we're 4th, that's totally defensible. We're behind 3 teams with better records and ahead of one with a better record, and ahead of Milwaukee which is basically the same record and had all their losses when suffering massive injuries.

I think overall, that's a pretty optimistic take on the Bulls.

I mentioned specifically being behind the Nets. Beating them twice, including once at their arena there is no justification for it.

Sure there is, they have a better record than us and have stars with better track records than us and have went 7-3 in their last 10 vs 6-4. We won a toss up game in their arena, but H2H isn't the only relevant metric. If it was you'd have all these impossible transitive property relationships.

I mean I totally get saying the Nets are too high, but I can also see why they're above us. Frankly, I'd put Milwaukee above us right now. I could see us above the Nets too for the reasons you state. I just think it's close enough that I don't care much about it (to the extent I care about power rankings anyway, which is very small). I think this is defensible and overall we're given pretty good benefit of the doubt.

Doug, my issue is this... this is what is written under their power ranking by ESPN

"The Nets remain atop the Eastern Conference but have now gone a combined 1-6 against teams currently in the top eight in the NBA standings, including losses to Chicago, Miami, Phoenix and Golden State at Barclays."

Im not sure why ESPN used this stat... that are actally 1-7 against the teams who currently have the top 10 records in the NBA. They left out the Hornets who beat them.

Currently the best team that they Nets have beat record wise is the Wizards. That just isnt good enough for me to say they are the best team in the league behind the Suns and Warriors.

The bulls are 4-2 against the top 10 teams currently.

[Dieselbound&Down]

The bulls are 4-2 against the top 10 teams currently.

That's the good stuff right there.

They played well on the extended west coast trip. Played well without their without their best, and really only likely starting quality, big man at a position where they have no depth. They have done well against the good teams, not just been flat track bullies.

This team continues to show their record is not an aberration.

The only thing that can sidetrack this team is Vuc going down for an extended period or having to absorb Coby's rusty minutes while they put him the shop window for the 1st couple weeks after he comes back. But we'll be a beast come playoff time.

[MrSparkle]

Hmm I’ll take #4, but we’ve been obviously better than the Nets after 20 games. Our SRS and net rating are marginally better, but they’ve also beaten up on bad teams (and 1-6 against top-8 squads; some ugly blowouts), while we’ve beaten more good teams.

We've also dropped some embarrassing losses to Indy and Houston. Indy because it was a blowout that the team didn't even show up for, and Houston because they were 2 and infinity when we played them and it kicked off their winning streak.

Losing to bad teams is a lot worse than beating good teams is better, in terms of power rankings. There's a clear pattern to our losses, too, we're helpless against reasonably competent athletic bigs. Plus there's the "elite talent" factor, Harden and Durant will probably forever be considered a higher level of star than DeRozan and LaVine until the latter get to an NBA Finals.

Eh; if it was a pattern I’d be concerned, but I think any good team can be vulnerable to 1 or 2 bad nights every month. Ala the 96 Bulls and Toronto.

Not like the Pacers are a clown show; strong depth chart and coaching despite the record. Plus we were missing some guys that night (Caruso and Vuc), against a big Pacers lineup. Didn’t help that Coby got the keys and played worse than Dotson on a bad night.

And HOU caught fire and still haven’t missed, kind of entering the history books (longest win streak ever of any pro team after losing 16 in a row), and it’s not like we got manhandled. Barely lost that one. Again, Coby and Vuc were rough coming back from their missed time, but getting minutes to play into shape.

With the exception of Indiana (where we both played flat and were missing 2 really important guys), it seems like every loss came down to preposterously hot 3P shooting (around 50% high volume). If that's what it takes to beat us, I'll take it. I've watched a lot of NBA playoff basketball the last 30 years, and with a few exceptions (Durant/Splash Warriors, Kyrie/Lebron/JR/Love Cavs), I really can't think of any teams that shot the 3P at such an elite level for 4 games every round. Plus we have defensive ball-hounds to protect that 3P line if we have to make adjustments. The one Achille's Heel has been giving up that 3P% with no answer in the paint (Embiid). Bam and Capella could also hurt us if Vuc doesn't play up.

So unless we run into one of the good squads in the first 2 rounds and Furkan/Niang/Embiid are on some Nov. hot-streak BS, or Kemba comes back from the reserves to kill us, or the Hawks/Heat just do what they do with a healthy roster... I'm feeling pretty good about our floor. I know we'll run into some hot shooting, but 4 nights of blistering shooting from such guys? Only the Hawks and Heat concern me in that regard, and they have injuries starting up to some key players (and the Heat rely on some older guys).

[FriedRise]

Brooklyn without Kyrie doesn't scare me. KD is gonna get his, but if you can somehow neutralize Harden (like we have so far this year), that'll be too much for them to overcome. It's asking a lot for LMA, Millsap, or Patty Mills to carry that big of an offensive load at this stage in their career.

Milwaukee remains the scarier team because they have three two-way guys in their prime playing large minutes who can really hurt you. It's why they're the champs.

[bad knees]

ESPN has us third now.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/32979419/nba-power-rankings-week-12-where-first-place-chicago-bulls-other-streaking-teams-stand

CBS Sports places us 2nd.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-power-rankings-warriors-back-on-top-bulls-right-behind-kemba-walker-leads-knicks-surge-celtics-fall/

The Athletic puts us 4th, and among the six contenders for a championship (BKN, MIL, GS, PHO, UTA are the others).

We are a thing, nationally. The ride continues.

[cool007]

NBA has us on 5th. I really don't care much either way but I personally would have (based on the last week).

1 - Warriors
2 - Suns
3 - Bulls
4 - Jazz
5 - Bucks
6 - Nets (2 losses).

[FriedRise]

538 says we're 12th.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-nba-predictions/

There are 11 teams better than the Chicago Bulls

[kodo]

I would have knocked us down based on our recent play, not pushed us up. Our defense has been terrible last 10 games, 24th which is worse than Orlando's.

We are already worse than last year's defense for the season. These last two W's are a smokescreen for a team that can barely limp by Indiana and Washington. I assume/hope that the normal, dominant Bulls we're used to is back with Lonzo & Caruso.

[Jvaughn]

538 says we're 12th.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-nba-predictions/

There are 11 teams better than the Chicago Bulls

I'm blacklisting the site so I don't accidentally ever click on it again. Smh

[gardenofsound]

I would have knocked us down based on our recent play, not pushed us up. Our defense has been terrible last 10 games, 24th which is worse than Orlando's.

We are already worse than last year's defense for the season. These last two W's are a smokescreen for a team that can barely limp by Indiana and Washington. I assume/hope that the normal, dominant Bulls we're used to is back with Lonzo & Caruso.

Bold for emphasis.

[Dresden]

It's hard to make much of the past 2 weeks, with rosters being so depleted. I think somewhere 2-6th is right for us. Warriors are better. Everyone else we can compete with I believe. Teams that worry me the most after that: PHO, MIL, BRK, UT.

In any case, to go from where we've been the past 3-4 years to a top 5 ranking is just incredible- who saw this coming? Finally something goes unexpectedly right for Chicago sports fans!

[MrSparkle]

538 says we're 12th.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-nba-predictions/

There are 11 teams better than the Chicago Bulls

538 needs to scratch its NBA algorithm and start over. Nate Silver is a genius but that RAPTOR formula is severely flawed.

[nomorezorro]

538 says we're 12th.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-nba-predictions/

There are 11 teams better than the Chicago Bulls

i was scrolling down the list and got to the clippers and thought, "well, obviously this is goofy just based on this season, but i get why they'd be higher than us based on their roster at full strength."

then i got to the 76ers and was like "ehhhhh....i guess if it's still factoring ben simmons as a guy on the roster?"

then i got to the celtics and mavericks and i had no choice but to lol. i've said it once and i'll say it again: 538's basketball metrics are trash

[FriedRise]

538 says we're 12th.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-nba-predictions/

There are 11 teams better than the Chicago Bulls

i was scrolling down the list and got to the clippers and thought, "well, obviously this is goofy just based on this season, but i get why they'd be higher than us based on their roster at full strength."

then i got to the 76ers and was like "ehhhhh....i guess if it's still factoring ben simmons as a guy on the roster?"

then i got to the celtics and mavericks and i had no choice but to lol. i've said it once and i'll say it again: 538's basketball metrics are trash

There's been a hilarious weekly 538 bashing on the Bulls subreddit because of their dumb algorithm, but basically they HEAVILY use previous year's data as a baseline to rate a team. So this year's Bulls team is heavily influenced by a good number of guys who aren't even on the team or in the league anymore.

It's nuts how one can use THAT as a basis for any sort of analytics projections.

[bad knees]

538 says we're 12th.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-nba-predictions/

There are 11 teams better than the Chicago Bulls

i was scrolling down the list and got to the clippers and thought, "well, obviously this is goofy just based on this season, but i get why they'd be higher than us based on their roster at full strength."

then i got to the 76ers and was like "ehhhhh....i guess if it's still factoring ben simmons as a guy on the roster?"

then i got to the celtics and mavericks and i had no choice but to lol. i've said it once and i'll say it again: 538's basketball metrics are trash

Isn't that the site that labeled DDR as a "Dubious Starter" for us? Ah, yes it was. Useless crap analysis.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-nba-player-projections/demar-derozan/