Code: Type W L W% 0-5 9 12 43% 11% 15% 26% 6-10 15 12 56% 18% 15% 33% >10 17 17 50% 21% 21% 41% Type W L W% 0-5 5 5 50% 15% 15% 30% 6-10 6 4 60% 18% 12% 30% >10 3 10 23% 9% 30% 39% What it says, I guess, is that the Bulls no longer ever seem capable of winning by a comfortable margin. Because they struggle so much to score, they have very little margin for error. Every game is going to be a nail biter. Unless we're getting our doors blown off, which we seem to do at about last year's rate. Last year they were slightly worse at close games, but much more capable of winning by wider margins. If I had to sum it up, I'd guess that Vinny is slightly better at coaching and he's got a crummier team to work with. Think of it this way. If we made a very rough "quality of win" scale based on margin, give 3 points for a victory of >10, 2 for 6-10, and 1 for 1-5. Then -1 for a loss of 1-5, then -2 and -3 for the worse losses. The average Bulls margin scale last year was 0.5. The average this year is -2.8.
So you'd assign the coach sole responsibility for a lost when he coached the team to a 35 point lead?
When you lose because you only play 7 guys and failed to use your bench I would. That should have been a 10 point win at least. I'd say VDN costs the bulls 4-6 points a game so far. He sucks for in game adjustments. I don't think he's that much worse than the average nba coach, but the bulls have an entirely too small margin of error to absorb Vinny's deficiency. And they've completely replaced BG's scoring. Deng is up over 3.5 pts/game and Rose is up over 2.2 and rising. The problem is that Miller is down over 5 pts per game. I'm pretty certain BG leaving has nothing to do with that. He's missing open shots. Salmons is also down, too, but he's not starting anymore and he's where Deng was last year anyway. Hinrich's average is within 1 point and rising. Hell, BG is even down 2 pts/game. And there's no ripple effect because BG wasn't creating for anybody else or making it easier for anybody else. The guy averages ~3.5 assists per game. The starters are getting it done, it's the bench that's letting them down.
2008-2009 Bulls 102.2 PPG (8th best in the league) 2009-2010 Bulls 92.3 PPG (3rd worst in the league) -9.9 PPG, or ~1/2 of Gordon's PPG last season. Opposing teams 2008-2009 Bulls 102.5 PPG (21st in NBA, -.3 differential) 2009-2010 Bulls 97.6 PPG (13th in NBA, -4.9 better, but -5.3 differential, 4th worst in NBA) I don't see how you can look at -9.9 PPG and say we've made up for Gordon's overall scoring. That also doesn't factor in the double-digit scoring quarters, particularly late in games. It doesn't factor in that at least one defender has to stand in the corner with him, leaving 3 or 4 guys to defend the lane. But he missed a few last second shots in his career - in games where he scored the team's previous 7 or 9 points leading up to that shot. Rose's FG% is down from 47.5% to 46%. His assists are down from 6.3 to 5.8. As you pointed out, everyone but Rose and Deng's numbers are down (well, Noah's up but given minutes). Deng's FG% is down from 47.3% career to 45.6%. Noah's FG% is down from 55.7% to 48.2% It's really hard to find bright spots on this team. However, given that Vinnie's team scored 102+ PPG last season, it's hard to argue he costs the team points.
What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Miller's decline accounts for more than half of the difference in points. Rose played the first month of the season on a gimpy ankle and has only recently played like he did last year. They're playing at a somewhat slower pace as well. Throw in injuries to Hinrich and TT and Vinny's ridiculous early rotations and that pretty much explains the difference. If Salmons improves (looking like a big if, I'll admit) and Hinrich continues to improve the bulls will be just about where they were last year with a much more balanced offense and a much better go to scorer in Rose. But you guys go on crying about why this season's shot at the 5th seed was lost when they didn't pony up and overpay for BG. The hypocrisy kills me when you bitch about overpaying for Hinrich and Deng, two guys who can actually credibly play their positions both ways... You guys go on and on like the bulls let some 8 time all-star go. This isn't Maddux or Wilber Marshall leaving, it's Steve Trachsel. You're crying about Steve Trachsel....
Bullshooter, can I ask why are you so obsessed with Ben Gordon? I can't help but notice that you are the one who, brought him up as a topic of conversation, and that you continue to goad folks in that direction, crying about people, calling them hypocrites, and generally being unpleasant. Everyone knows you don't think much of Gordon. Great. Your opinion is minority here, but you don't see anyone calling you names for having it. Extending the same courtesy would be appreciation. It's a game, and these guys are basketball players. In the words of Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis".
Another thing I've looked up were our W-L profiles on 82Games. This shows how we do against Good (top 10 record), average (middle 10 record) and bad (bottom 10 record) teams. This year, we were, at last update: Code: 09-10 W L Net Good 4 9 -11.7 Avg 4 7 -4.9 Bad 6 1 6.7 VS last year 08-09 W L Net Good 8 17 -6.8 Avg 16 14 2.9 Bad 17 10 2.2 This year our only positive has been that we seem to really beat up the worst teams. Our net point differential and winning margins against better teams, however, seem quite a bit worse. We used to beat other average teams, now we lose to them more. We used to keep things closer with the better teams.
We're beating one of those worse teams tonight. 6th seed isn't what the NBA is all about. It's the trophy and the rings. My feeling about Gordon is the same as Jeff Van Gundy: ''[Gordon] was explosive offensively,'' said Van Gundy, who incidentally has been mentioned as a potential replacement for Del Negro. ''He was irreplaceable, unless they did replace him, and they didn't. They are a 30-32-win team without him, and anybody expecting more is overstating their talent level. They are what they are, a mediocre team, because they lost their most irreplaceable player." IF we had replaced Gordon with Joe Johnson, we'd not be talking about how fortunate we are that the division sucks so bad we can make 6th or 5th seed with 32 wins. And maybe more of us would be fooled by the "wait until next year" or "wait until player X develops!" schtick that we've seen repeatedly. Why? Because it might seem like the team is actually trying to put together a quality roster.
We will be replacing Gordon with Joe Johnson! An aging, expensive Joe Johnson. We'll also be replacing Miller, Salmons and Thomas with the aging, expensive Joe Johnson and three minimum salary guys. Which really gets to that point. It's never been a matter of one-for one replacement. It's a matter of fielding a team.
Well, yeah, you do have to consider what we're giving up all the way around. We still are going to need help at PF and C. And we'll have an aging, expensive Kirk Hinrich along with an aging but less expensive Salmons to backup the 1-2-3.
On a good note, since Kirk and Tyrus have been back, our performance has looked closer to the way we played last year than to the way we played on our west coast trip. Assuming we stay somewhat healthy the rest of the year our +/- may look better and our suckitude from 10 games ago may end up being more of an outlier than the norm.
Possibly. I think we'll find out pretty quickly. Aside from Monday's game vs. the Pistons, we've got a pretty brutal schedule coming up. At the Celtics and then back home the next night against a rested Wiz team. Then a 7 game road trip out West.
The big difference between this year and last is how they lost. Last year the good teams would blow the bulls out in the first quarter and rest their guys for a lot more than usual and BG against the backups would generally shoot them back into respectability. This year, the bulls have played the good teams even for a half or so and then folded in the fourth. The game at Denver is a good example. Also, they've been a different team since Hinrich and Tyrus came back so it's hard to generalize about anything since they've really been two different teams, one that sucked and one that was mostly mediocre. And the only reason I keep harping on everybody's favorite $11 million sub is that I get at least one reply from Denny no matter what I comment on that whines about how the bulls would be a game and a half better if evil management had just completely overpaid for BG. I won't bring up anymore if no one else does, but there are certain comparisons that are just inescapable, like the difference between this year's and last year's team.
You think it's a bigger difference that we get blown out, instead of losing close games to good teams, than the fact that we actually beat average teams last year and now we don't? Denny said nothing of the sort here. You brought it up and are simply continuing to throw out more fodder in the hopes of... well... I dunno what exactly your obsession is... but it seems to have very little to do with having fun or talking about the Bulls.
The games were never close until the final 10 seconds. The bulls would be down double digits the entire game last year. Plus, the point differential has come down 3 points in the last three weeks. The big point differential isn't indicative of where this team is right now.
