There's no advanced statistics involved in this analysis, just a look at the scoreboard. Game 1 vs. Indy IND 27-28-24-20 -- 99 CHI 23-28-20-33 -- 104 Game 2 vs. Indy IND 18-29-20-23 -- 90 CHI 17-27-23-29 -- 96 We sure look good in Q4, but not so much in Q1. Or Q3 for that matter. We lose Q1 by a combined 5 points. We win Q2 by a combined 2 points. We lose Q3 by a combined 1 point. We win Q4 by a combined 11 points. Why aren't we doing in Q1 what we do in Q4? Here's what the line scores look like if we did do in Q1 what we do in Q4: Game 1 vs. Indy IND 20-28-24-20 -- 92 CHI 33-28-20-33 -- 114 Game 2 vs. Indy IND 23-29-20-23 -- 95 CHI 29-27-23-29 -- 108
Hmmm...that's certainly a puzzler. Could it by any chance have something to do with Keith Bogans and Kyle Korver?
I think the team looked bored yesterday. I think the Bulls were legitimately struggling on Saturday, but yesterday that just didn't seem interested enough to close out the game early.
OK, let's try a more serious answer. The CSN announcing crew kept marveling at how similar games 1 and 2 were. True in terms of the back and forth closeness, but not in terms of what was being done out there. Last night was much more of a "muck and grind" affair...a combination of incompetent offense and good defense made game 2 much uglier. Because the nature of the play was so different, I can't answer Denny's question because there are different answers for each game. In game 1, the problem in Q1 was the Bulls' defense, particularly on Collison and Hibbert, with those 2 combining for 18 of the team's 27 points. Those two combined scored a grand total of 1 point in Q4. Rose actually scored more points in Q1 (11) than in Q4 (9) of game 1. The most obvious difference in game 2 was Rose's aggressiveness on offense. In Q1, Rose tried very hard to get others, particularly Boozer, involved. As a result (and because of foul trouble), he only scored 4 points. In Q4 of game 2, Rose took over, scoring 14 points. In general with these Bulls, the difference-makers are usually team defense and Derrick Rose. The reason the Bulls have had a phenomenal season is because these two factors have been overwhelmingly positive.
The games were similar because our several of our starters combined for an awful shooting % in Q1. I know I made the same observation in both game threads. Another common thing was Korver hitting big 3 point shots in Q4 of both games. A big difference was getting Boozer involved early in game 2 - he had 7 points and 6 rebounds in Q1, and not so coincidentally, Indy's bigs all were in foul trouble.
The biggest difference is Collison. Game 1 Q4 he didn't score and 1 ast, Game 2 Q4 he didn't play. Game 1 Q1 10 pts 2 asts, Game2 Q1 6 pts 1ast. Controlling Collison is the key to the series for the bulls. And that got a lot easier when he sprained his ankle.
It's pretty clear that when he went after rebounds in game 2, he drew a LOT of fouls on their bigs. See the box score. By Q4, they didn't have so many fouls to use on Rose...
I'll agree with that. The problem is that the Bulls' defense isn't really designed for uber-fast small point guards. Derrick Rose's job isn't really so much as to stop the ball as it is to funnel the opposing point guard into a double team at the right point on the floor. If you have a point guard who can beat the doubling big to the spot it creates havoc. Collison is able to do the same things D.J. Augustine and Raymond Felton are able to do and that just destroys the Bulls' schemes.
