Bellinelli v Korver Redux

[Rerisen]

But they weren't without Rose who still played in over half the games last regular season. C.J was better than Kirk who is a known slow starter shooting wise. Taj last season was not awful the first two months.

Rose missed 41% of the season last year.

In that span we went 18-9, .666 winning percentage (this team is at .562). Ronnie Brewer was the primary starting SG in that time.

[the ultimates]

Skill set or style preferences over performance and results, only thing it can be.

Yea, seems like it.

How big should the sample size as a Bull be then? I'm looking at his numbers and play for the last twenty playoff games. I think a fair assessment can be made from that.

I'm just saying that people are basing their decisions of a small sample size. That's fine, but then apply the same standard to Marco.

If sample size is the argument then again all Marco has to do is play well in one playoff series over a two year stretch to equal Korver. If you use that then you can't definitively say that Korver is better in the playoffs as a Bull when Marco hasn't had that chance yet. In the regular season I've seen Marco and Kyle play without Rose and Marco looks better.

[GetBuLLish]

If sample size is the argument then again all Marco has to do is play well in one playoff series over a two year stretch to equal Korver. If you use that then you can't definitively say that Korver is better in the playoffs as a Bull when Marco hasn't had that chance yet.

I'm not the one saying it. People are using the playoffs to make their decision, so I am just responding.

In the regular season I've seen Marco and Kyle play without Rose and Marco looks better.

That's fair. I just find it weird when people say there's no question that Marco is better and that he's significantly better. It defies all logic, it seems.

[the ultimates]

But they weren't without Rose who still played in over half the games last regular season. C.J was better than Kirk who is a known slow starter shooting wise. Taj last season was not awful the first two months.

Rose missed 41% of the season last year.

In that span we went 18-9, .666 winning percentage (this team is at .562). Ronnie Brewer was the primary starting SG in that time.

What was the opposing teams record during that span and you had Watson and Gibson was playing good ball.

[Kirk Boozer]

In the regular season I've seen Marco and Kyle play without Rose and Marco looks better.

That's fair. I just find it weird when people say there's no question that Marco is better and that he's significantly better. It defies all logic, it seems.

I can't speak for everyone, but I find it weird and illogical when people say that Korver is better than Marco.

[HomoSapien]

You also had better offensive production from Watson and Taj didn't struggle for the first two months of the season and Derrick even banged up still played in more than half of last seasons games.

If you want to compare at the team level like that, Nate is better than Lucas, and if Marco is better than Korver, and Butler about as good as Brewer, we should we better than last year in the same game span without Rose right? Noah is eating up 65-70% of Asik's lost minutes and is better than him. But we haven't been. That leaves just Watson and Hinrich, are we to blame Hinrich for the difference? Not like CJ had a great season last year at all, only slightly more productive than Kirk was.

Kirk is to blame.

It's really not fair to compare the roster head to head and say last year's team was better without Rose than this team. It's not a fair comparison as last years team had the chance to develop chemistry. They were able to build off the confidence they had established with Rose.

This team, is doing remarkably well given the circumstance.

[Rerisen]

It's really not fair to compare the roster head to head and say last year's team was better without Rose than this team. It's not a fair comparison as last years team had the chance to develop chemistry. They were able to build off the confidence they had established with Rose.

But it is fair when we had the chance to bring that team back and chose not to in a not insignificant way. Because we are comparing against something we could have still had. Both at the individual replacement level (i.e. Korver vs Beli) and at the larger team bench level.

This team isn't going to ever this year get the chemistry those teams had either, because they won't have enough games with Rose to do it.

Anyway, if we can't use team comparison, we can't use individual performance, we can't use lineup data, then let's just throw out all objective evidence in measuring players. Be nice if people would actually explain what they do rate players on though, beside just, "I think this guy is better". Might as well just have polls then and dispense with posts altogether.

[kulaz3000]

But they weren't without Rose who still played in over half the games last regular season. C.J was better than Kirk who is a known slow starter shooting wise. Taj last season was not awful the first two months.

Rose missed 41% of the season last year.

In that span we went 18-9, .666 winning percentage (this team is at .562). Ronnie Brewer was the primary starting SG in that time.

But that group had the benefit of having already played one full season, plus playoff games together under their belt - that's a huge factor that can't be dismissed.

[EastBayFJ]

Comparing player A and B who is better at creating for themselves, ball handling, starting offense, creating off pick and roll things stats may not show you.

What they will show you though, is how many shots the player takes actually go in the basket. More important, how many points they produce on the possessions they use up offensively.

At the lineup level they will show you if that creating for others, setting up offense, etc, is actually leading to better team offense while the player is in.

The real litmus test will be in the playoffs

This team is vastly different ( and I believe latently better ) than last year's team

If we can get ourselves a Diop or a Mozgov - I reckon we can have a white knuckle fist fight with the Heat in the EC Finals and prevail , because , beyond the 5 and 19 comparisons ...I think Derrick is good enough to be that bridge - on nominal numbers at least ...but more importantly we simply have better versatility and upgrades in all positions across the 2nd unit - bar Omer

So...paring it back to a one on one comparative - and with the benefit of Derrick Rose and also another creator in Nate Robinson ...I reckon Marco provides more value to us than what Kyle did when we didnt have the offensive versatility that was required when it mattered

[Rerisen]

But that group had the benefit of having already played one full season, plus playoff games together under their belt - that's a huge factor that can't be dismissed.

Seems like an even more important reason to keep as many of those guy as possible then right, especially in a season you know you will be without Rose for most of.

[EastBayFJ]

It's really not fair to compare the roster head to head and say last year's team was better without Rose than this team. It's not a fair comparison as last years team had the chance to develop chemistry. They were able to build off the confidence they had established with Rose.

But it is fair when we had the chance to bring that team back and chose not to in a not insignificant way. Because we are comparing against something we could have still had. Both at the individual replacement level (i.e. Korver vs Beli) and at the larger team bench level.

This team isn't going to ever this year get the chemistry those teams had either, because they won't have enough games with Rose to do it.

Anyway, if we can't use team comparison, we can't use individual performance, we can't use lineup data, then let's just throw out all objective evidence in measuring players. Be nice if people would actually explain what they do rate players on though, beside just, "I think this guy is better". Might as well just have polls then and dispense with posts altogether.

And this year's team has built fair to good chemistry without Rose. They have done it through adversity in the offseason and being written off

And they were.

I called thsi team a 50 win team at the start of the season and I stand by that

Adding Derrick and re-establishing " chemistry" wont , IMO , be as big a deal as you suggest

[Rerisen]

The real litmus test will be in the playoffs

Ultimately, yes it will be. However, I'm not a believer in that the regular seasons means nothing and cannot tell you significant truths about not just our team, but any team.

Also should note my POV is based on thinking we had a legitimate shot to win the title last year already, with last year's team, before Rose got hurt. I had our odds as high as 50/50 before the Philly series. Though they diminished a little bit some seeing the ways we subsequently crumbled without Derrick.

But too often people look back on the last two years and talk as if Miami just beat us both years. This is expected from lazy opponent fans such as on the general board, but Bulls fans should know better and not talk assuredly as if last year's team had the same fatal flaw as the 2011 team, we don't know that.

We don't know what Korver would have done, we don't know what difference Rip would have made, how much Noah and Boozer could have played better than in 2011, etc.

[EastBayFJ]

The real litmus test will be in the playoffs

Ultimately, yes it will be. However, I'm not a believer in that the regular seasons means nothing and cannot tell you significant truths about not just our team, but any team.

Also should note my POV is based on thinking we had a legitimate shot to win the title last year already, with last year's team, before Rose got hurt. I had our odds as high as 50/50 before the Philly series. Though they diminished a little bit some seeing the ways we subsequently crumbled without Derrick.

But too often people look back on the last two years and talk as if Miami just beat us both years. This is expected from lazy opponent fans such as on the general board, but Bulls fans should know better and not talk assuredly as if last year's team had the same fatal flaw as the 2011 team, we don't know that.

Fair enough

Only thing I would add is that last season is difficult to judge for me . The shortened season , the cramped schedule and the resultant injuries make it ( for me ) a murky comparative

All I'm saying is - I feel good about this team being around #3 to #4 seed with Derrick coming back

Sure - there are going to be some short term chemistry issues but there is going to some genuine benefits in the positive affirmatory stuff that counter balance

I think we have just as good a shot this season . I really do.

[Rerisen]

All I'm saying is - I feel good about this team being around #3 to #4 seed with Derrick coming back

Sure - there are going to be some short term chemistry issues but there is going to some genuine benefits in the positive affirmatory stuff that counter balance

I think we have just as good a shot this season . I really do.

So far this team has some high points reminiscent of last year, but also has a lot more low points too. What I see, and I think the numbers have backed this up so far, we are just a bit worse on both ends. Maybe 2-4 games worse over a full season. And that is counting Rose at his normal 100% level when he comes back. Which would still give us an outside shot. Of course, if he isn't able to be the same, then it will all be moot.

If my assessment is on, to shed so much money and still stay almost as good, is indeed an accomplishment in a shrewd management sense. But it offers little solace to the fan wanting the best team possible.

[HomoSapien]

It's really not fair to compare the roster head to head and say last year's team was better without Rose than this team. It's not a fair comparison as last years team had the chance to develop chemistry. They were able to build off the confidence they had established with Rose.

But it is fair when we had the chance to bring that team back and chose not to in a not insignificant way. Because we are comparing against something we could have still had. Both at the individual replacement level (i.e. Korver vs Beli) and at the larger team bench level.

In other threads I got the impression that you brought the roster comparison up in a "look all things are equal yet the 2013 team is worse" type of way. Is that an accurate portrayal of your thought process on this? If so, then my response is that all things aren't equal at all here. We've lost Asik and haven't had the same amount of time to build cohesion. However, the way you've stated it above seems that it's just a completely different point. You're raising up a great philosophical point about how we chose not to bring back a roster with great established chemistry. I support your line of thinking on this. I think we chose to break up that team for all the wrong reasons. We did it to get cheaper, not better. This is really unfortunate and seems unfair to the players involved, the coaching staff, and even the us -the fans.

That being said, I think this roster minus Rose has a good chance of being more dangerous than the other one did without Rose pound for pound at every spot except for backup center.

Marco's stats are difficult to objectively quantify at this point because it's really been the "tale of two Marcos". The Marco before gaining confidence was bad. The one since starting, has been really good for the most part. I'd be curious to know what his PER was as a starter, and I would guess that it was probably around 15. It also remains to be seen whether or not Marco was just on a hot streak or if he actually grew as player. I happen to think it's the latter, as I saw a certain type of passion in the way that he played that I hadn't seen out of him early in the season or at any point in his career. I agree with you that Korver should have started on the Bulls, but for whatever reason, Thibs didn't feel like he could give him the chance. He clearly doesn't feel the same way about Marco and trusts him as a starter. Stylistically, I like what he gives us on offense. Even if he isn't elite at it, he is someone who can handle the ball, penetrate, and be creative on offense. At the very least, it gives us another dimension on offense.

You're right that Korver impacted our offense in a different way. Defenses had to stick to him, and it affected the opposing team's game plan. That being said, Marco is shooting about 42% from behind the arc. He is elite. He just isn't one of the greatest of all time.

Nate Robinson is a great weapon and is something that the other team didn't have. We finally have a dangerous scorer off the bench.

Brewer's defense was remarkable, but letting him go in order for Butler to grow was the correct and necessary move.

[Rerisen]

Also worthy of note to put out there for those who feel Miami was a special Kyriptonite to Korver, even if they were - which I don't see much in the way of - but, Miami is not by any stretch the same defense they were in 2011.

With old guys like Battier, Ray Allen, and Rashard Lewis running around out there, them playing so much small ball, even Wade himself slowed down some, their defense is noticeably weaker.

Right now its rated 14th in the league, and while you can give them a few ranks just for easing up on effort after the title, I cannot see them being able to ramp it up to what it was. Not unless they find some roster moves to improve before the playoffs.

Now might have been the year to go after them, concede nothing.

[Kirk Boozer]

Anyway, if we can't use team comparison, we can't use individual performance, we can't use lineup data, then let's just throw out all objective evidence in measuring players.

The problem is, stats are very misleading, and they aren't even close to being "objective". They all have lots of variables, and some of them are just plain a waste of time.

Team comparison- varies greatly depending on your team's injuries, your opponents' injuries, your opponents being better or worse than during a different season.

Individual performance- Again, totally misleading. Korver has a higher TS% than Kobe, does that mean he's better than Kobe?

Nate Robinson has a much higher PER than Deng, so I guess Nate is better than Deng? Hell, Taj has a higher PER than Deng right now, even though Taj has played like crap for a good portion of the season and is just now starting to turn it around.

Lineup data- depends on when that lineup plays, a lineup that mostly goes against the opponents' bench is going to look better than a lineup that faces starters the majority of the time.

Be nice if people would actually explain what they do rate players on though, beside just, "I think this guy is better". Might as well just have polls then and dispense with posts altogether.

This confuses me, I"ve read lots of examples in this thread as to why people think Marco is better than Korver. Personally, I rank players based on the eye test. If you watch all of the Bulls games, you'll already know who is a better FT shooter, who is a better 3-point shooter, who is the better defender, etc etc etc

Why do you think Hinrich and Boozer get more minutes than Nate and Taj? It certainly isn't based on PER or TS% or +/-. It's based on a top-3 coach in the NBA deciding that they deserve to be on the floor longer.

[Rerisen]

I haven't saw sufficiently explained reasoning to make me understand the choice is all. I've seen Beli is just better with no back up points. I've seen that Korver gets shut down based on a 5 game sample size, which is ridiculous. Then how did any specialist shooter, say Steve Kerr or older Robert Horry, thrive in the playoffs, they had no more tools than Korver.

And I've seen Marco can 'do more' offensively, even though its not leading to more points for him (well 1 more per 36) or better efficiency. While he actually produces less assists, rebounds, etc. It's not leading to his non-Rose lineups being as productive on offense as Korver's were.

Who can do more offensively, Danny Granger, or prime Reggie Miller? But who would you rather have?

[the ultimates]

I haven't saw sufficiently explained reasoning to make me understand the choice is all. I've seen Beli is just better with no back up points. I've seen that Korver gets shut down based on a 5 game sample size, which is ridiculous. Then how did any specialist shooter, say Steve Kerr or older Robert Horry, thrive in the playoffs, they had no more tools than Korver.

And I've seen Marco can 'do more' offensively, even though its not leading to more points for him (well 1 more per 36) or better efficiency. While he actually produces less assists, rebounds, etc. It's not leading to his non-Rose lineups being as productive on offense as Korver's were.

Who can do more offensively, Danny Granger, or prime Reggie Miller? But who would you rather have?

Korver was shut down against Miami, and Philly and only shot well in two of the six games against the Hawks. Thats a lot more than five games. The reason some of the advanced numbers are down is directly correlated to three point shooting. Watson, Lucas, Deng, Rose, and Korver all helped the Bulls to shoot 38% last year which was top 5 in percentage and they were 17th in makes. This season they are at 36% and 30th overall in makes. Belinelli has replaced Korvers shooting its the other players on the roster that are struggling. Hinrich always struggles shooting early in the season, Deng has shelved his three point shooting and Rip doesn't take many three's. So that only leaves Marco and Nate.

[Rerisen]

You want other players to shoot better, put a deadly spacer out there next to them like Kyle. Marco is a good shooter too, but not feared like Korver. Rose will of course help our shooters the most, but we have to survive a long time without him.