He says: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Breaking down the blame So many problems are affecting the underachieving Bulls at the all-star break, so Mike McGraw has broken down exactly how much blame should be assigned to each issue: No contract extensions -- 26 percent Ben Gordon and Luol Deng have every right to negotiate their salaries. But winning basketball will always be about sacrifice, which doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with trying to prove you deserve more than $50 million. Back to grade school -- 22 percent The Bulls were counting on contributions from four players in their first or second NBA seasons -- Tyrus Thomas, Thabo Sefolosha, Joakim Noah and Aaron Gray. None were ready to push the Bulls forward when the season began. Injured and out -- 20 percent There weren't five games in the previous five seasons when the Bulls were missing three of their top five scorers. Then it happened five times in seven games recently. Top scorers Gordon and Deng were both out for 10 of the last 12 contests. Art of War to Art of Noise -- 16 percent We all knew the day was coming when the Bulls would tune out head coach and Sun Tzu fan Scott Skiles. That timetable accelerated quickly when the early season slump hit. Big money, bad slumps -- 10 percent The Bulls' two highest-paid players, Ben Wallace and Kirk Hinrich, were terrible at the start of the season. That didn't help pad the win column and must have frustrated teammates looking for the Bulls to open the wallet even wider. Change up front -- 6 percent Veteran forward Joe Smith is an upgrade on offense from P.J. Brown, but a step down defensively. As a result, Wallace has not been as effective on defense and his limited offense is more of a liability in higher-scoring games.</div> Looks about right to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 18 2008, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm in the camp of 100% Paxson for overrating this roster</div> Most of those items fall back to Paxson if you read between the lines. * Acrimonious negotiations with Deng and Gordon 13%. I'll break that down evenly although in truth I think more lies on Pax's shoulders for the way things went. * Too many kids 22%. Pax drafted these guys. * Skiles 16%. Pax hired this guy. * Big money 10%. Pax signed these guys. * Crummy interior defense 6%. Add that up and you get 67% that's more or less on Pax. Seems about right to me.
The notion that you can break this down into precise percentages (I'd be okay with multiples of 5, but 16, 22, and 26?) both amuses and offends me. It's so... wrong.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 18 2008, 07:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The notion that you can break this down into precise percentages (I'd be okay with multiples of 5, but 16, 22, and 26?) both amuses and offends me. It's so... wrong.</div> Your post is 97.6% bullshit
I liked the odd percentage numbers. Its like he knows that assigning a number to all those factors is boo-shite anyway, so why not put in some ridiculous values and make it seem all scientific-like. I can't disagree with most of what he writes.
