Looking back at the 2nd threepeat team. We played a starting lineup with two SGs: Jordan and Harper. Pippen played PG on offense; he dribbled the ball up court, made the first pass to start the offense, etc. He played at the top of the key, was the first man back on defense. He led the team in assists. How else would you define a PG? Pippen was a terrific scoring PG. All things considered, a superior player to Derrick Rose (to this point in his career). Pippen scored over 20 points per game several seasons, and 18 or 19 points in several others. He had 7 seasons with an elite PER over 20. I think we all appreciate Pip as the great player he was. But I want to talk about Harper. He was 6'6" and played terrific defense well into his 30s. He was a 20 point a game scorer in his own right, averaging 20+ PPG or the high teens for many seasons and 18 in the playoffs before he suffered recurring injuries. He was a 19/5.8/4.3 offensive player for the Clippers the season before signing with the Bulls as a UFA. He sacrificed all that to become an elite defender and fit in with PJax's scheme. He was the team's 5th option, behind MJ, Pip, Kukoc, and yes, Luc Longley. He gave us a PER about the same as our current #1 option, Luol Deng. I remember his offense as being almost non-existent but yet the stats show he had PER of 13.6, 14.7, and 14.7 during those three seasons. If we're going to be a championship contender, we need Rose to be our Jordan, another player to come along and be his Pippen/sidekick. We need Deng to be our 5th best player instead of our 2nd best. And we really need two guys, like Pip and MJ, who can handle the ball score 20+ each.
Good plan. I feel confident in agreeing that, if you can work it out that Luol Deng is your 5th best player, you will indeed be a championship contender.
All things considered, the plan so far has been Deng as #2. As great as our championship teams were, there were a few times, I seem to recall, that we won in game 6 on last second type shots. Those prevented a game 7 where we could have lost. Of course we're glad we won the championships, but the thing to take away from the closeness of those series is that you don't have to have THE most dominant player in the league to give the champs a run for it. Those Seattle, Phoenix, and Utah teams were deep and had superb athletes who were near the best in the league. Particularly these guys: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1996.html
I suspect that the plan was for Deng to be the 3rd best player behind Rose and Boozer. As I see it, the reality is that Deng is 3rd behind Rose and Noah. Come to think of it, Boozer's a pretty damn good (not to mention well-paid) 4th-best player.
On the current team, Deng is #1, Boozer is #2 or #3 (when he's in). Whenever Nate is in, he's the #1 Noah's like the 5th option. The first pass to him is not in the post where he uses his decent post moves to score easy baskets. Seems like he gets his points off of offensive rebounds and put backs. Did the Bulls run some awesome fast breaks or what last night? Or what.
The issue with the Bulls is that the contending teams #2 is way ahead of the Bulls #2. No easy way to fix this problem other than retain as many productive, impact players as you can and constantly and aggressively be willing to make the deal to land said player, or perhaps develop from within. The good thing, IMO, is that Rose is young and the current dominant Eastern conference team has a star level #2 that is getting older and gimpier by the week. Bulls org needs to build around their MVP.
Yes, but it's because the two best players are not playing. Well, I don't consider "#1 scoring option" to be equal to "best player." This said, if you're just talking scoring, there was no need to put the smilie after Nate. This season you could make a great argument that he's been the best scorer on the team...#1 in points per 36 and #2 (behind Butler) in true shooting%.
A Pippen like guard or forward would be great. Someone else than create,defend, and score almost as much as Derrick can and will on any given night.
I consider #1 scoring option to be the guy who takes the most shots while on the court with some group of guys. Ideally, he's the guy you actually want to be taking all the shots. Nate is certainly a gunner. But I'm not sure there's anyone else to take the shots much of the time he's out there. If not take the shots, get open to take shots.
As I see it, if a team runs an offense, that offense (and how the defense responds) dictates who takes the shot. I'd rather get a layup for my 5th most offensively skilled player than a closely contested shot for my most offensively-skilled player. Of course, many offenses are designed to get the ball to the most offensively-skilled player(s) in a position of offensive advantage. Of course, a set offense in the NBA only accounts for the first 18 or so seconds on the shot clock. After that, all that "#_ option" and "offensive creator" stuff become more important. The ball needs to be in the hands of a player who can create his own shot and make difficult shots. For the Bulls, that means DRose time when he's healthy. Rose may not always take that clock-running-down shot, but he almost always decides who takes it. With Rose out, the "go-to" role goes to others. When Nate's on the floor, it's him. Despite his lack of size, he can get off his shot and make a reasonable percentage.
The distribution of shots is going to tell you who the #1 and #2 options are, etc. Deng is #1 at 14.8 per game. Boozer is #2 at 14.1. Robinson is #3 at 10.8. Noah and Rip are #5 at 9.9. But Rip barely played 24 minutes. So maybe per 36 makes sense, too. Boozer 16.2, Rip 15.8, Nate 15.7, Deng 13.6. Nah. It's the per game that matters.
