Yes, he's not a hall of fame level coach, yet. If he did what he did for 20 years like Sloan, then probably. Obviously one of the best NBA head and assistant coaches in modern times. Without question.
Yes, usually. Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Jerry Sloan and others show why the word usually is used. And if a coach doesn't have the horses, there will be no ring. Thibs obviously is one of the best NBA head and assistant coaches in modern times. Without question. His record speaks for itself. ---- The only thing we can agree on is that we both likely hope Hoiberg is a great coach.
If that's the case, then it was time for another coach, and the newly hired coach "...deserves a chance. Let's hope he's at least competent. Many people are very high on him, so maybe he's good."
Its time for a different management team versus a new coach. The new coach of course deserves a chance. Let's hope he's more like Thibs from a success standpoint than a replacement level coach. If management simply can't get along with yet another head coach, it looks like the coach is the one to go on the Bulls. It was the case when Paxson physically assaulted Vinny. It was the case when Paxson undermined and smeared one of the best coaches around during a season when the Bulls had a very legit shot of at least making the NBA Finals.
I'm guessing that I didn't include it for the same reason you didn't follow the link to the SPS information provided in the Paine article...laziness. The other alternative is that the linked info didn't sufficiently support your narrative.
How do you know I didn't follow that link? The Atlanta Hawks analytics consultant and senior writer for FiveThirtyEight admits in the article that the projections are imperfect. (what projections are perfect?) But, as basketball reference states, imperfect and simple to calculate != useless. Or we can just go with what Kelly Dwyer wrote. Its just outlining Thibs' accomplishments, which are of course quite impressive. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...-fire-head-coach-tom-thibodeau-161751861.html Any dirt on Kelly Dwyer?
I guess I don't know that you didn't follow the link. When SST challenged the methodology, if you had read through the basketball reference support info from the link I would have thought you'd use what you learned to inform SST. But yeah, I could be wrong about that. As for Thibodeau, he did a good job. He was also fortunate that he was given very high-character coachable players with which to work. Your narrative insists that any success that any player who was coached by Thibodeau achieves is directly attributable to Thibodeau. Very bold and original. Most folks believe that the NBA is a player's league. I agree with most folks. When Rose went down with his first knee injury, the Bulls couldn't get by the 35-31 Sixers. Some blamed Thibodeau. I didn't. NBA head coaches simply don't matter that much. The following season, the Bulls won 45 games without Rose. Thibodeau deserves some credit, but so do the players, most notable Noah and Deng. They stepped up and I don't buy that they wouldn't have stepped up under another head coach. The 2013-14 season was similar to the preceding season, but with a more disappointing playoff failure. Last season was about as joyless a fan experience as I can remember. I blame the Bulls FO, Thibodeau's camp and the media in approximately equal shares. Something had to change and the idea that Forman would be fired while Thibodeau was retained is the stuff of pure fantasy. While it's hard to prove how much player support Thibodeau had, I'm confident that the FO had a pretty good idea that the Bulls key players would be OK with Thibodeau's firing. I feel the same about the Oklahoma City Thunder letting Scott Brooks go. Anyway, I hope that readers on this forum don't have their time wasted much longer in reading about a guy who used to coach here.
Good point. Very good point. Outstanding point. I'm done with the ex, and I'm moving on to the next...
Yeah, this is bullshit. I hope you don't believe this and are just trying to have a little fun trolling. Because I never "attack" a source over whether I agree with the substance. I place the contents of an article in the context of the writer who is publishing in it. With KJ Johnson, history has shown us there's a likelihood it's coming from management. If it's Woj, it's probably going to be agent friendly. Methodology is king with analytics-based articles. The problem is, you can obtain page views by producing two types of analytics-based content: (1) solid articles that force people to re-evaluate prior conceptions; or (2) fun articles that use analytics to reach controversial conclusions. John Hollinger is a great example of a writer who used analytics to be a contrarians and get people riled up. With out a discussion of his methodology, I have no idea how Paine is approaching the article. I spent some time trying to figure out Paine's methodology and stumbled upon SPS, the page Transplant lined to. But there's no discussion on basketballreference.com about how to use SPS for team projections. I mean, is Paine just using team points to project victories? Is he just showing that the Bulls have won substantially more games than they should have given points scored in recent years? If that is indeed what he's shown, the discrepancy is the result of the Bulls' consistently bad offenses, and consistently good defenses. This is all gobbledygook without an explanation. And the one prediction that Paine made in the article -- the line of suitors for Thibdoeau -- has turned out to be wrong. It really doesn't. Otherwise there wouldn't be ten threads on it right now.
Its admittedly (by the author) imperfect. That being said, bullshit might be a bit strong. I realize you don't like the results, but it was considered good enough to pass the editorial board of Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight and was written by an analytics consultant for the Atlanta Hawks (super smart, budenholzer, low minutes, analytics community darlings). It does also pass the BS eye test. I'm sure you'll like that Pops in #1 on the list! I've yet to see a metric or source in my years of message boarding that hasn't been attacked by the camps that disagree with the results. Just another data point that shows Thibs was a great coach for the Chicago Bulls. And... the results were pretty darn good..... Five years is a long stint for a head coach without a title and the situation with a crappy management team wasn't sustainable, and Uncle Jerry wasn't going to get rid of the management team (not Paxson at least, you're next Gar!) so it was time to go. Its hard to label his 1st stint as a head coach as anything but a success though. It was a damn good run. Let's hope Freddy Del Hoiberg is at least competent. Maybe he'll even be great! I liked the last 5 years of Bulls basketball. It was fun being one of the elite teams again, even though we could never get by Lebron. I would like another 5 years of that, as a Bulls fan, and if you get enough bites at the apple and you are one of the elite teams, you have a decent chance to win the big one.
I've never seen Bobby Portis play. After watching his highlight reel........I can see why he's a 22nd pick. He looks like he has Thomas Robinson syndrome and his game has no pop around the rim. He's a decent jump shooter but his release is closer to Taj's when he first came into the league than Niko's.......big difference. The most remarkable part of his game seems to be his ability to defend on the perimeter. I completely agree with SST that he won't have the size or athleticism to translate all of his hustle game in the pro's, which to me is a big downer. If we were to trade Noah it'd be great to slot someone else with a high impact motor in his spot. I don't think he has Niko's first step or shiftiness so I don't see him being nearly as effective offensively. He's this weird mix between Taj and Niko, but not really in a good way. I'm seeing a Bo Outlaw/Popeye Jones sort of thing going on. I think the BAE sized question is: if we were to trade one of Taj/Noah, would the team be okay with him as a 4th big? I have no clue.
This write-up on how Portis may be used in a Hoiberg offense might a long way toward settling the qualms anyone feels about his selection. http://patternofbasketball.blogspot.com/2015/06/nba-draft-review-22-30.html
At least at first blush, Portis is a heftier and modernized (outside and put the ball on the floor) version of Gibson. Both are good, not great athletes. Both are known as "high motor" guys. Here are the combine numbers for both (I used Taj's current weight rather than his 214lbs coming out of college): Height no shoes - 6' 8.5 Taj to 6' 9.5 Portis Weight - 225 Taj to 246 Portis Standing reach - 9' 1 Taj to 9' 0.5 Portis No-step vertical - 25.5" Taj to 25.0" Portis Max vertical - 30.0" Taj to 31.5" Portis Sprint - 3.41 sec Taj to 3.56 sec Portis After watching some game film on Portis, what struck me is that he appears comfortable anywhere on the court on offense and defense. His jumpshot is a funky slingshot affair, but it seems to be reasonably effective. He shows you a little bit of everything and there's nothing I saw that he does poorly. On the other hand, other than his motor, I didn't see anything that he does that I'd consider world class.
