Official Championship History of the SF position, including recent history thread

[e-monk]

PER is flawed in a number of ways and tends to disadvantage slashy wing players, especially those who play D on the perimeter rather than boarding up and play off the ball on offense and dont get a lot of dimes - in fact playing off a guy like Rose is probably detrimental to your PER

[Diable]

PER is a number that should be used in context. It overstates the value of rebounds, which Hollinger freely admits and does not quantify many aspects of the game. In the Marion case it is merely telling us that he is a good garbage man. That is Marion is never asked to do anything and when he does do something it is easy to do it efficiently. When he actually scores it is usually be because he either catches lob passes or he puts back offensive rebounds, meaning that he scores very efficiently when you look at the numbers in a vacuum. He's a good rebounder and he does not turn the ball over because it's rarely in his hands that long. That gives you a high PER

Your PER gets lower because you are asked to do more difficult things at which you will not always succeed at a high rate. You have to take long range shots or you have to make decisions. Great players can do difficult things efficiently, most players can only do easy things efficiently and are not used expected to do the hard stuff all game long or whatsoever in Marion's case.

In this case PER is being deliberately used out of context because using it with context would lead to logical conclusions which the OP is too stubborn to accept. You see it all the time on message boards. Someone weds theirself to a position which turns out to be incorrect, but rather than admitting that they were wrong they try to obfuscate the facts to fit a preconceived idea.

[thebizkit69u]

Originally Posted by jnrjr79

That's all well and good, but none of it changes the point I made. There was significant debate in the media and among the fanbase, your hindsight 20/20 argument notwithstanding.

Your point is moot, there was no debate in the front office, who cares what fans or the media thought.

The Skiles thing is hilarious and sad, in retrospect. You are simply incorrect if your assertion is that nobody believed Tyrus was going to have offensive talent. Remember, there was all this talk about how he could handle the ball, would play the 3, might develop shooting range, blah blah blah. You are correct that none of it turned out to be true. The Tyrus/Aldridge pick is obviously the biggest draft blunder made by the current front office regime. It worked out terribly. The solace you can find is that had that egregious error not been made, the franchise never gets Derrick Rose. That doesn't excuse the blunder, however.

First of all, I never said nobody believed Tyrus was going to be any good offensively, I said that only idiots thought he was going to be anything more than what he is. He is a prime example of whats wrong with scouting a prospect primarily on combine/stop watch numbers, it has its place dont get me wrong, but Tyrus was such a legit project and he had soooo many holes in his game that if the Bulls would have just developed Tyrus defensively he might still be on the Bulls.

Yeah, Gordon I suppose turned out to be the best guy from among that bunch, though I'm with you that Livingston was a really talented guy who was terribly unlucky on the injury front. Gordon seems to be an example where the front office was able to identify offensive talent, though, no?

He was a good shooter but damn, the guy could not Dribble, pass, defend, break a defense one on one, etc. I think they just went with the best player available, even though Livingston by far had the most potential. I'm guessing they passed on Livingston because they felt like they had the PG of the Future in Kirk, but damn, thinking that Ben Gordon was going to be the teams answer at the 2, wow. Ben was only what, 6'2 6'3 generously?

[jnrjr79]

Originally Posted by thebizkit69u

Your point is moot, there was no debate in the front office, who cares what fans or the media thought.

Upon realizing your position was demonstrably wrong, you simply move the goalposts. Also, I hope you enjoyed this meetings you had with Pax, given your apparent first-hand knowledge of the deliberations or lack thereof.

First of all, I never said nobody believed Tyrus was going to be any good offensively, I said that only idiots thought he was going to be anything more than what he is. He is a prime example of whats wrong with scouting a prospect primarily on combine/stop watch numbers, it has its place dont get me wrong, but Tyrus was such a legit project and he had soooo many holes in his game that if the Bulls would have just developed Tyrus defensively he might still be on the Bulls.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with our conversation vis a vis draft history.

[/quote]
He was a good shooter but damn, the guy could not Dribble, pass, defend, break a defense one on one, etc. I think they just went with the best player available, even though Livingston by far had the most potential. I'm guessing they passed on Livingston because they felt like they had the PG of the Future in Kirk, but damn, thinking that Ben Gordon was going to be the teams answer at the 2, wow. Ben was only what, 6'2 6'3 generously?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that there's anything showing they thought he was the "answer" at the 2. You're setting up strawmen.

[thebizkit69u]

Originally Posted by jnrjr79

Upon realizing your position was demonstrably wrong, you simply move the goalposts. Also, I hope you enjoyed this meetings you had with Pax, given your apparent first-hand knowledge of the deliberations or lack thereof.

Only an idiot really thinks that there was any real un certainty on who to draft that night, that pick was Rose from the moment the Bulls won the lottery. Obviously they did their homework on Beasley and obviously they had discussions on whether they should draft him, but the pick was never in question, it was going to be Rose.

I'm not sure that there's anything showing they thought he was the "answer" at the 2. You're setting up strawmen.

Yeah, so the Bulls drafted him #3 overall with no expectations of him becoming the starting 2 guard of the future... oy

[Dornado]

Hoodey - this has to be you getting ripped up by Dan Bernstein right now on the score... using all of the exact same arguments you've been using... salary/per/Jerome Kersey... why would I trust you over Hollinger, etc... I love it. Let's post the podcast.

[Rhyder]

Originally Posted by thebizkit69u

Only an idiot really thinks that there was any real un certainty on who to draft that night, that pick was Rose from the moment the Bulls won the lottery. Obviously they did their homework on Beasley and obviously they had discussions on whether they should draft him, but the pick was never in question, it was going to be Rose.

The pick was not Rose when they won the lottery. Do you not recall Rose wowing people in pre-draft workouts relating to his offensive game? A lot of scouts/analysts said they Rose did not flash much of his one on one ability at Memphis and played within the team system. If memory serves me correctly, Beasley was the consensus #1 pick on nbadraft.net and draftexpress at the conclusion of the collegiate season until the combine and pre-draft workouts.

By draft night, I would agree there was very little question that they were going to go with Rose, but certainly not from the moment the Bulls won the lotto.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by Firefight

Hoodey... I feel like you just watched "Moneyball" and are on a sabermetrics high.

Basketball is not all about PER and $$ and stats. Yes, you can prove certain things with numbers, but they don't measure intangibles. I'm not going to draw up a long argument because I feel both cases have been exhausted in both threads...

Again, I'm open to the "intangibles" thing. PER only measures offensive production per minute.

There is also defense and intangibles. But:

a) I've watched Bruce Bowen, Ron Artest and Dennis Rodman when he was young and still more of a 3. Luol Deng isn't that.

b) I've watched the clutch performers like Joe Dumars, Dennis Johnson, Byron Scott, Reggie Miller, Robert Horry; guys who always seemed to come up way bigger than their regular performance when it mattered most. There is none of that in Luol Deng.

Look, as a Bulls fan, I wish Luol Deng was a guy who got to the ECF and just started dropping bombs like Big Game James Worthy. But he's not. In big moments, he doesn't outplay his normal standard the way Derek Fisher, Danny Ainge or Jerry West did. And we're not talking about being as good as West or Ainge, merely how well you play in big moments relative to your normal play.

[quite]You just can't discount certain things, and I think that is the biggest flaw with your arguments. If you strictly look at PER, and numbers, compared to money and championships, then yes, certain players on the Bulls are overpaid. With Deng, he is paid more then the average SF, and yes, most teams do not build around a SF, but you just can't disregard certain things, like they do not matter at all...specifically, age and intangibles.
According to you, Marion is a better deal then Deng...fine, yes, according to the stats you bring up... But in the big picture, with the age of our core, and playing time left on both Deng/Marion, that difference isn't the way you make it seem. Team chemistry is another factor you totally dismiss.
There is only 1 "best" at each position. You cannot have a team of all the best. It just seems like you would find something wrong with every single player on every single team.[/QUOTE]

When you say "age of our core" why are you pretending that Deng is somehow linked to Derrick Rose long term? They're two different kind of players. One is a guy who will be one of many "good" players on a team like the 93 Cavs. The other is a guy who you can match up with a legit #2 and a bunch of guys and win titles.

Luol Deng in the 2 star - 10 role player format is a #3/high end role player a la Horace Grant. The problem is that they're paying him like a #2, especially once we get to next year. He's not a #2 on a title team.

A #2 on a traditional format title team (not the 04 Pistons, an anomale on so many levels), is Pau Gasol, Paul Pierce, Tony Parker, Shaquille O'neal (06), Kobe Bryant.

I'll put it to you this way. Is Luol Deng as good as Rip Hamilton was in 04? In terms of tangibles or intangibles?

Rose will likely have to enter another "life cycle of a team" to win a title. There is no "beloved core" that includes Noah, Deng, etc. long term. Eventually the Bulls will have to break that up and get a legit #2, and then we'll win with ten guys off the street and one guy like Luol Deng playing the #3 role.

Mind you, if paid like a #3, Deng is fine, but then you can't pay Boozer like a #2.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by Rhyder

My post had nothing to do about overpaying, and everything about how Paxson does not fall in love with his guys. Despite re-signing Kirk, he has not held onto his guys too long as Schianowski is saying. Why does he say it? He is either extremely short sighted or is trying to stir up something to talk about. Most likely, the latter.

I think you can look at "falling in love with your own guys" two ways. Not only holding on to them too long, but overpaying.

The problem is this. Everyone seems to acknowledge that Boozer is nowhere close to a championship #2 player, and yet is paid #2 money.

But no one will acknowledge that that was a bad decision, because Paxson they claim HAD TO do it, because we were going to lose the cap room we could have held over and not spent once Rose signed his current deal.

My counter point is, well, you overpaid Deng. But Paxson's supporters want to live in a world where he had to do everything and no one decision made things bad.

Maybe overpaying Deng was bad not because of his value in a vacuum, but because you had to look at the money beyond 8 mill AND/OR the money you paid Noah beyond a certain sum, and say "well, this will impact our window in terms of how long we'll be able to have money available to pick up a #2.

After all, when Deng signed, the team already knew they had Derrick Rose. Are you telling me if you low ball Deng and he walks, you won't be able to ever find a #2 to play with Rose.

This would be like, instead of getting Pippen, the Bulls overpaid Charles Oakley. Oakley was a good basketball player, but had that hampered the Bulls ability to get a Pippen (Paxson has to pay for one because he'll never pull a coup like that in a trade), I'd have been pretty ticked.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by Rhyder

That's not how I remembered the Tyrus selection, but perhaps that is because I wanted Aldridge. Despite the shot blocking, Aldridge is probably the better defender than Tyrus. Perhaps that was misjudgement. The James Johnson pick was to help the offense. He was a superb offensive player from a second tier program. He was not known for defense when drafted. In fact, he couldn't get on the court with a defensive minded coach. Ironically, he is playing more major minutes as a defender for his current team.

I do remember "The Right Way," but I think Paxson's track record shows he prefers more known quantities. Gordon was no known quantity despite coming from a good UConn team. He certainly did not prefer defense to offense in that pick.

I liked the Hirnich and Deng picks at the time. I wanted to get Iguodala instead of Gordon, but mostly because I just didn't like Gordon. Even though I thought Josh Smith was the better talent in a vacuum, I questioned whether he could work here with the Chandler and Curry debaucle.

However, I never though Hirnich and Deng would get paid here, especially 11.3-13.3 like Deng. I thought that they would be players who would deliver us from being a perpetual Wizards team (current Wizards), and then we'd look to add players with more talent as time went on and we were no longer a non-competitor.

At this point, my question becomes one of whether we need the Dengs and Noahs of the world. We have Derrick Rose. We don't need Right Way Baskenomics. The 2002 Bulls aren't going to come back and take us over if we go for a real #2.

The Right Way should have been something that came and went in 2-4 years. And yet we still have Luol Deng getting paid as a #2 along with Boozer. Now, if Boozer WAS a legit #2 and Deng was our #3, that would be fine. Deng would be a damn fine #3 on a team with two legit players serving as #1 and #2.

The problem isn't Deng, Noah or Boozer in a vacuum individually. It's the fact that when you add them and their salaries together, we're still missing a #2. Deng is a damn fine basketball player.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by jnrjr79

There's some revisionist history in here. Rose was not the "ONLY" pick Paxson would be allowed to make, nor was it a "no-brainer," at least according to conventional wisdom. There was legitimate debate between Rose and Beasley, both within the media and certainly on this board.

I don't recall anywhere Tyrus being picked over Aldridge because he had better defensive ability. Tyrus was picked because he was perceived as having the highest ceiling and superstar potential. I still remember on draft night Jay Bilas saying over and over that Tyrus was the most talented guy on the board and legitimately could/should be picked #1, but that he was a bit of a project. It only turned out that Tyrus's sole use was a guy who could jump high and block some shots, but that wasn't necessarily what the basketball intelligentsia predicted.

You're right on Gordon. There did seem to be emphasis put on guys who came from winning programs, and probably too much so.

No, Rose was definitely a no-brainer. If you love tweener forwards and combo guards then Beasley was probably a guy who you could try to rationalize to fit into your view basketball.

I remember when there was talk in the CHICAGO media that Paxson was considering Beasley. I was not living in Chicago at the time and the rection where I was living was "really, on what planet??"

There was debate on this board because at that time the board was full of almost a religion that the game was changing, that positions were going away, and that there was no such thing as too many forwards. In fact, THAT there was debate by some on this board about picking Beasley says it all about those people.

It's like when someone tries to critique Jay Cutler, and you remember that the same guy was a Rex Grossman fanatic. It gets a little hard to take them seriously.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by e-monk

just to clarify something here

Shawn Marion is making just better than MLE money because when his contract came up he was 32, had been bounced around to 3 teams in 2 seasons, and was coming off back to back injury plagued seasons with mediocre PER (since someone thinks that's important)

prior to that Marion was making serious money because he signed a contract when he was in his mid 20s and just peaking (low 20 PERs - that's more or less all star level)

forcing a trade to the Heat when he was 29 and contract negotiations had broken down with the Suns (because he wasnt worth what he was asking for) Marion got that extension which paid him 17m and which the Heat almost immediately regretted

soon thereafter Marion (along with Marcus Banks) was traded for Jermaine O'Neal and Jamario Moon (please note the relative value there = cash dump + 28 year old journey-man with limited upside within 2 seasons neither player was still on the heat))

it was at this low point when Marion had essentially no leverage to negotiate with that the Mavs took a gamble (mind you) that paid off

now compare this history to Deng who at age 22 was coming off back to back seasons with PERs in the high teens 18.7, 17.0 when his new contract came up he was offered 6 years starting at 9.3m (total 6 years 71m) - this deal for a 22 year old who had just logged PERs in the high teens might not be a flat out steal but it is far from disgraceful and to characterize it as anything but what it is (market value) is delusional - given those circumstances (22 year old, back to back near all star seasons) every team in the league is going to make that offer and most would be happy to get it

It doesn't change that Dallas got a deal.

Dallas made a judgment call that he wasn't that guy anymore, and yet used what happened there to get a deal favorable to them.

This is no different than when Krause traded for Rodman, whom everyone had left for dead. Had Rodman had a rep as a "great guy" there's no way he gets Rodman for Will Perdue.

Or when Joe Dumars traded practically nothing for Rasheed Wallace. Wallace was bouncing around and just acting insanely stupid. But if he was stable and acting like a totally calm guy, there's no way Dumars could have afforded him.

Dallas rolled the dice, which you usually have to do. Take Scottie Pippen for example. If anyone knew he was going to be that good, do you think you get him for Olden Polynice? NO.

Always remember this... it applies to the value that you get when you draft Hakeem Nicks or Michael Floyd and they turn out to be very good, as opposed to paying #1 free agent money for Vincent Jackson, and it applies to Marion.

When you decide that you know a guy is going to be good, but the rest of the world doesn't know, whether it's a guy who has been acting up, or a college player in the draft as opposed to free agents who command top dollar, you always get rewarded if you're right, because the price for unknown is way cheaper than the price for known.

Yes, Dallas took a shot. I only wish we would take more shots. But we can't, because we're crippled by the monumental fear that we somehow might lose the irreplaceable Luol Deng. This organization has been crippled by fear for 7 years (which isn't quite as bad as what we were crippled by before that lol).

Also, nothing about a 17.0 PER, absent some kind of Bruce Bowen-like defensive prowess, or some Robert Horry-like clutch-ability, says "let's pay this guy a six year contract with four years of 11.3-13.3."

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by Firefight

very well said...
Why are people falling in love with PER now? I just don't get it. Basketball is such a team sport where "hustle" stats and defense aren't measured. I understand you can't build a team full of hustle guys, but some of those traits are valuable and not measure in PER, or steals, or any other basketball stat. Plus, age can never be dismissed. You're running a franchise, not a one year fantasy team.

My criticism of Deng is simple. First, he's good, I just feel he's overpaid. Let's not turn this into a discussion where I'm saying he's not a good basketball player. He's a good #3 on a title team built around two legit stars. A lower middle class man's Horace Grant in terms of impact, not style of play.

It's that Deng isn't a #2, and yet is paid like one, especially next year when his salary jumps to 13.3.

His PER is not a #2 PER. I'm not in love with that, as I am willing to credit anyone for defense or clutch play if that's what makes them so valuable.

But when I'm thinking about #2s making a living on defense despite pedestrian offensive production, I'm thinking of Dikembe Motumbo, an aging David Robinson circa 1999 (next to Duncan), Scottie Pippen, Bruce Bowen (whose defense was #2 quality despite him not being there as a player), Dennis Rodman (ditto).

Luol Deng's defense just isn't there.

When I'm thinking of clutch ability that would make Deng worth the money despite pedestrian production and pretty good (not great) defense, I'm thinking of a clutch player along the lines of Joe Dumars or Robert Horry. Guys who, despite how good they are in a given moment, are that much better when the going gets tough.

If you'll remember, I noted Marion's PER and the fact that that defense contained Lebron with him. I did not merely say "PER! It's all over!"

Come on now, be fair.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by Diable

PER is a number that should be used in context. It overstates the value of rebounds, which Hollinger freely admits and does not quantify many aspects of the game. In the Marion case it is merely telling us that he is a good garbage man. That is Marion is never asked to do anything and when he does do something it is easy to do it efficiently. When he actually scores it is usually be because he either catches lob passes or he puts back offensive rebounds, meaning that he scores very efficiently when you look at the numbers in a vacuum. He's a good rebounder and he does not turn the ball over because it's rarely in his hands that long. That gives you a high PER

Your PER gets lower because you are asked to do more difficult things at which you will not always succeed at a high rate. You have to take long range shots or you have to make decisions. Great players can do difficult things efficiently, most players can only do easy things efficiently and are not used expected to do the hard stuff all game long or whatsoever in Marion's case.

In this case PER is being deliberately used out of context because using it with context would lead to logical conclusions which the OP is too stubborn to accept. You see it all the time on message boards. Someone weds theirself to a position which turns out to be incorrect, but rather than admitting that they were wrong they try to obfuscate the facts to fit a preconceived idea.

But what is Luol Deng asked to do that is so difficult? He's not a passing SF and the Bulls never ask him to drive to the basket. Are you talking about all of those difficult wide open jumpers they ask him to take?

Oh and Deng's best stat relative to great SFs IS rebounds per game, where he's averaging 7.3.

Here are two players at age 25:

Scottie Pippen 1990-91 - 17.8 PPG 7.3 RPG 6.2 APG 2.4 SPG 1.1 BPG 52.0% FG 70.6% FG
Luol Deng 2011-12 - 16.0 PPG 7.3 RPG 2.5 APG 1.2 SPG 0.7 BPG 43.9% FG 75.8% FG

The one area Deng hangs with Pippen, a legit #2, statistically IS rebounds per game. 2.4 APG? That's really really lower pedestrian. If you're not being asked to distribute the basketball (because you're coddled and not asked to drive to the basket period) then how good are you?

I thought it would be nice to compare Deng at the same age to the guy his fans THINK he is.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by thebizkit69u

He was a good shooter but damn, the guy could not Dribble, pass, defend, break a defense one on one, etc. I think they just went with the best player available, even though Livingston by far had the most potential. I'm guessing they passed on Livingston because they felt like they had the PG of the Future in Kirk, but damn, thinking that Ben Gordon was going to be the teams answer at the 2, wow. Ben was only what, 6'2 6'3 generously?

Gordon's talent offensively was as a modern Vinnie Johnson, nothing more.