How many Bulls have had a PER over 18 since the dynasty was rudely dumped? Toni Kukoc had an 18.6 PER in 44 games that first season. In his two seasons with the Bulls, Elton Brand exceeded 20 both times - 20.6 and 20.4. The 21 win 2001-02 Bulls were probably the best collection of talent we've had since the dynasty. Brad Miller 19.6, Jalen Rose 18.4, and Ron Artest 18.4 all exceeded this arbitrary 18 PER mark. In Cartwritght's only full season as head coach, Donyell Marshall had an 18.4 PER, and Marcus Fizer came close at 17.9. Here come the Paxson years. 2003-04 nobody 2004-05 nobody 2005-06 nobody 2006-07 Deng 18.6, Gordon 18.2 2007-08 nobody 2008-09 Brad Miller 18.6 (27 games), Cedric Simmons 18.0 (11 games) 2009-10 Rose 18.3 >= 17? 2009-10 Noah 2008-09 Gordon 2007-08 Gooden (18 games), Deng 2006-07 Hinrich 2002-03 Curry, Fizer 1999-00 Kukoc (24 games)
I think most people would agree that Paxson had an excellent draft in his 2nd year, getting Gordon, Deng, Duhon, and then signing Nocioni. He drafted Hinrich #7 the season before. How have they panned out? Hinrich career 14.4 PER Gordon career 16.0 PER Deng career 16.5 PER Duhon career 11.4 PER Nocioni career 13.2 PER
Interestingly, we had 21 wins with 3x 18+ PER guys and we had 49 wins with Gordon, Deng at 18+ and Hinrich at 17+.
Gee, do you think there are there any obvious factors you can point to that you think might account for that?
Yeah, the more guys with higher PERs, the better your team should be. Though it's been beaten to death, if we had hung on to Artest, Brand, and Miller, we'd have had 3 all-stars and I doubt we'd have been a 20 win team all those years.
It's the attention to detail that makes Denny such an interesting read... An 18 PER isn't all that great, it's a borderline all-star. You need to get into the low 20's before you've got a guy who can actually carry a team. Brand and now Rose are the only two guys who meet that criterion. Krause would still be GM if he hadn't traded Brand, but Artest was a time bomb waiting to happen. As far as drafting goes Paxson has been about as good as can be. Maybe Iguodala over Deng, maybe. And maybe Roy over Tyrus, but you take size over and athleticism every time, just like everybody would have taken Oden over Durant, which looks silly today. And the Rose draft kind of made up for all the bad luck the bulls had in getting the next pick after the sure things were gone in 02, 03 and 04.
If you don't have a guy with a 20+ PER, then 3 guys with 18 PERs gives you a shot at making some noise in the playoffs, at least. If you do have a guy with a 20+ PER, then 3 guys with 18 PERs gives you a shot at a championship. If you have a guy with a 20+ PER and nobody else with 18 PERs, you are the Toronto Raptors. If you have no guy with a 20+ PER, one guy with an 18 PER, you are the Bulls.
Maybe Roy over Tyrus? thanks for the laugh. Maybe just about anyone over Tyrus, let alone a guy who's got a career 21 PER. thanks for the laugh.
If you were really going for size, you'd draft Raphael Araujo over Iggy. Or LaMarcus Aldridge over Tyrus. Or so forth. I don't think things can be simplified down to single dimensions because players are better than others in multiple dimensions
Um, no it doesn't. The bulls are pretty much the case study for why you need a dominant player and nice talent doesn't get you very far. And the bulls haven't had a team with three guys with 18+ PER's on it at the same time since Jordan. And if you could take off your Captain Hindsight goggles for just a few moments, you might have noticed that 99% of GM's would have taken Tyrus over LMA. And even his own GM took him over Roy. Other things being more or less equal, you always take the bigger, more athletic guy over the shorter guy.
The Bulls are a case study in tricking the fans into believing guys like Tyrus are the next big thing. I don't believe 99% of the GMs would have taken Thomas with the #2 pick in the draft. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2002.html Bulls had 3 guys with 18+ PER on that team, just not at the same time. Two of them were traded for the other, in a typical Bulls trade where we get the worse end of the deal.
Thank you for retyping that. Is this some kind of random Denny fact of the night, or did you have a point? Wouldn't this be evidence for letting the one dimensional scorer go and keeping the better all around players who can defend?
21 wins (without him) to 30 wins (with him) to 23 wins (without him) says otherwise. Maybe there's a real price you can measure in wins when you dump big time scorers from winning college programs for the sake of developing the "next big thing."
You know what the difference between 20 wins and 30 wins is in the NBA? Excluding injuries, the only difference is trying. Ever notice how mediocre teams all of a sudden pick it up after the all-star break, like Milwaukee this year? Because other teams stop trying. The bulls have gotten that bounce every year they've made the playoffs. Were they suddenly a better team? No, but they kept trying while most of the teams they were playing didn't care. It's about the same with PER Kind of like there isn't much difference between a PER of 12.5-17.5. It's mostly style of play. Guys who are really better than the rest aren't going to peak at 18, they are going to get to the next level in the 20's.
One thing about 18 PER or 20 PER players is that it's rare they play for the Bulls since the dynasty. And there is a significant difference between a 12 and a 17 PER, especially when the bulk of your players are ~12.
There isn't a big difference, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. And in the bulls case, since they predominantly tried to build through the draft, it's speaks to the dearth of above average players in the draft over the last decade. Take another look at the 2002 team and remember that that was the year of the great draft with LBJ and Wade and Bosh. You don't think the fact that the bulls suddenly jumped to 30 wins had something to do with other teams tanking? The bulls weren't suddenly better, more teams just weren't trying.
If you're not winning in the draft, isn't it common sense to trade up in the draft (e.g. to draft Wade instead of Hinrich) or have your high salaried players guys like Gasol instead of like Ben Wallace or PJ Brown?
