2010-2011 NBA Thread

[southsider2k5]

Stop calling the Bulls great until they earn it.

 

Testy this morning...

[Balta1701]

Testy this morning...

It's afternoon for both me and you.

[MurcieOne]

A great year does not a great team make.

 

The 90-91 Bulls were not a great team until they took out the 'Stons and the Lakers.

 

At least that's my view.

 

I agree with this point of view.

 

If the Bulls lose to the Magic in the 2nd round or Heat in the Conference Finals, nobody will remember this team for its greatness. They may remember it as a stepping stone to great things that happened later on. The 89-90 Bulls didn't get a night memorializing their achievements.

 

Basically, this team hasn't earned the title "great" until it does something worth recognizing in the post-season. We're not even close to that point yet.

 

Additionally, I still feel like post season basketball is a completely different game. I am eager to see how this team will respond, but have serious reservations about facing the Heat, Magic and Celtics when they are fully loaded. I have faith in the team, but without seeing how they will react in the postseason setting, I am not ready to start making Grant Park reservations.

[bmags]

Not sure the celtics can be fully loaded anymore.

 

That said, Bill Simmons year in review articles were pretty great.

[MexSoxFan#1]

I also agree with Balta and Murcie.

The word great gets thrown around so much...great NBA teams to me are the Bird Celtics, Magic Lakers, Olajuwon Rockets, Thomas Pistons, Duncan Spurs and these Lakers, you gotta win more than one title or at least make it to a few finals to be great IMO...the 2006 Heat were the best team that year but great?Naw.

Edited April 11, 2011 by MexSoxFan#1

[Jenksismyhero]

I also agree with Balta.

The word great gets thrown around so much...great NBA teams to me are the Bird Celtics, Magic Lakers, Olajuwon Rockets, Thomas Pistons, Duncan Spurs and these Lakers, you gotta win more than one title or at least make it to a few finals to be great IMO...the 2006 Heat were the best team that year but great?Naw.

 

I'm not saying that they're an all-time great team, but they can be "great" in comparison to other "good" teams like the Heat or Spurs.

[LittleHurt05]

I'm not saying that they're an all-time great team, but they can be "great" in comparison to other "good" teams like the Heat or Spurs.

 

So the Spurs have a better record in arguably a tougher conference, but they are only "good"?

[MexSoxFan#1]

I'm not saying that they're an all-time great team, but they can be "great" in comparison to other "good" teams like the Heat or Spurs.

 

 

Until we pummel those teams when it counts, these 2011 Bulls are pretty good.

[witesoxfan]

If the Bulls win the title this year, they will be remembered as a great team because they were the team that won it the year that Miami had the Superfriends. They were also in on that sweepstakes and didn't get LeBron nor any of the others.

[MurcieOne]

I'm not saying that they're an all-time great team, but they can be "great" in comparison to other "good" teams like the Heat or Spurs.

 

Where I would disagree with you is that, if the Heat or Spurs win it all, then they will and maybe should be considered "great" teams. Regardless of the somewhat turbulent regular season that the Heat have experienced, if they win it all, they will be lauded for "enduring the the media spotlight", "prevailing against the masses who wished for their doom" or "needed the time to work out the kinks" so on and so forth.

 

I think, in general, that it is too early to anoint anyone as "great" because we just don't know how this will all shake out. In terms of the regular season, the Bulls had a pretty outstanding regular season. But so did the 2006-07 Mavericks (67 Wins) and they lost to the Warriors in the first round. I don't think anyone would use the word "great" to describe that team, despite its amazing regular season.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

A great year does not a great team make.

 

The 90-91 Bulls were not a great team until they took out the 'Stons and the Lakers.

 

At least that's my view.

 

Stop calling the Pistons the 'Stons until they......just stop calling them that

[Jenksismyhero]

So the Spurs have a better record in arguably a tougher conference, but they are only "good"?

 

Yeah, I suppose you got me there. I guess I only consider them "good" because they're not at full strength, but they have been impressive.

[bmags]

Where I would disagree with you is that, if the Heat or Spurs win it all, then they will and maybe should be considered "great" teams. Regardless of the somewhat turbulent regular season that the Heat have experienced, if they win it all, they will be lauded for "enduring the the media spotlight", "prevailing against the masses who wished for their doom" or "needed the time to work out the kinks" so on and so forth.

 

I think, in general, that it is too early to anoint anyone as "great" because we just don't know how this will all shake out. In terms of the regular season, the Bulls had a pretty outstanding regular season. But so did the 2006-07 Mavericks (67 Wins) and they lost to the Warriors in the first round. I don't think anyone would use the word "great" to describe that team, despite its amazing regular season.

 

The Bulls play really great defense though, which makes me a lot more confident than if I were the 06-07 mavs. Bulls definitely have high hopes, and I will be disappointed grreatly if they lost to miami or anyone really. But yeah, having a #1 seed going into the playoffs (i.e. 5 months of great basketball) is not the same as getting 38 wins and the eight seed like the late part of the last decade. This was a fun season no matter.

[ZoomSlowik]

Please. They're the best in the East and are a game away from having the best record in the league. IIRC their record against contenders is better than anyone else. They've earned that. They don't have to win out for them to be considered great this year.

 

By this logic, the Cavaliers were a great team the past two seasons. You absolutely have to win in the playoffs to be considered great. No one is going to care that the Bulls had 4 more wins than the Heat and 5 more wins than the Celtics (obviously there are two games left) if one of those latter teams makes the Finals.

[MurcieOne]

It's just nice to have a discussion about the bulls having the potential to be great. Any such discussions (if any) that have taken place since 1998 have included the caveat, "if we could only find that one big star". Well, it certainly appears that we have that one big star. Derrick should only improve from where he is right now and I think we have the right coach to max out his potential. I am not sure that we will win the title this year, but I am pretty confident that will be get one (or three) before DR1 is old and cold.

 

This is just a ridiculously exciting time to be a Bulls fan.

[Jenksismyhero]

By this logic, the Cavaliers were a great team the past two seasons. You absolutely have to win in the playoffs to be considered great. No one is going to care that the Bulls had 4 more wins than the Heat and 5 more wins than the Celtics (obviously there are two games left) if one of those latter teams makes the Finals.

 

My initial argument was meant more towards what Steve was talking about - that it's refreshing for a modern day NBA "team" to be a "team" again, and not just a "team" consisting of a superstar playing one on five (like the Cavs). In that respect, they're a "great team." But whatever, good, great, fantastic....they're fun to watch and have had a "great" year.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

It's just nice to have a discussion about the bulls having the potential to be great. Any such discussions (if any) that have taken place since 1998 have included the caveat, "if we could only find that one big star". Well, it certainly appears that we have that one big star. Derrick should only improve from where he is right now and I think we have the right coach to max out his potential. I am not sure that we will win the title this year, but I am pretty confident that will be get one (or three) before DR1 is old and cold.

 

This is just a ridiculously exciting time to be a Bulls fan.

I'm not counting my chips before they're cashed. A couple years ago, it looked like Chris Paul was going to be a monster. Chris Paul's best seasons were at age 23-24, with his team peaking at age 23...then he got hurt, and now it's an open question whether he'll ever get to where he was before, since all it takes is just a little loss of quickness for a guy like this to fall back towards good but not amazing.

 

On top of that, who knows if there'll even be an NBA season next year.

 

That's why I wanted a SG this year...because this is the Bulls's chance. They might or might not get another one.

[MexSoxFan#1]

It's just nice to have a discussion about the bulls having the potential to be great. Any such discussions (if any) that have taken place since 1998 have included the caveat, "if we could only find that one big star". Well, it certainly appears that we have that one big star. Derrick should only improve from where he is right now and I think we have the right coach to max out his potential. I am not sure that we will win the title this year, but I am pretty confident that will be get one (or three) before DR1 is old and cold.

 

This is just a ridiculously exciting time to be a Bulls fan.

 

Yeah it is, but I don't have the same anxiety/fear I had back in Pistons Bad Boys/MJ and his up and coming Bulls era

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm not counting my chips before they're cashed. A couple years ago, it looked like Chris Paul was going to be a monster. Chris Paul's best seasons were at age 23-24, with his team peaking at age 23...then he got hurt, and now it's an open question whether he'll ever get to where he was before, since all it takes is just a little loss of quickness for a guy like this to fall back towards good but not amazing.

 

On top of that, who knows if there'll even be an NBA season next year.

 

That's why I wanted a SG this year...because this is the Bulls's chance. They might or might not get another one.

 

 

As the new Mr. Pessimistic guy, I'm going to enjoy this ride for as long as it lasts. All one has to do is think about those Ron Mercer-led Bulls teams and look at this team and not be anything but optimistic. About, well, everything.

[chw42]

So Derrick Rose's TS% went from as low as 53.5% to 55% after yesterday's 13/17 shooting performance. He's now 5th in win shares, still a win share behind Howard and two behind LeBron, but I don't think it's really a statistical fallacy to give Rose the MVP at this point. Like some others have suggested...

[bmags]

So Derrick Rose's TS% went from as low as 53.5% to 55% after yesterday's 13/17 shooting performance. He's now 5th in win shares, still a win share behind Howard and two behind LeBron, but I don't think it's really a statistical fallacy to give Rose the MVP at this point. Like some others have suggested...

 

Totally, let me quote and link to bill simmons article because it totally imo articulates the pro-rose case, w/o having to s*** on the others.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nba

 

The whole thing is great, but the choice parts i find are:

I can't give him my MVP vote for one simple reason: he leaves something on the table every night. Dwight Howard should be the league's most dominant player. Physically, there's nobody remotely like him. True story: I was watching SportsCenter the other night. My wife noticed Howard on TV and gasped, "Oh my God, who's that?" the same way you'd comment on the 12-year-old in Little League who's six inches taller than everyone else and has the makings of a mustache already. When I told her it was Howard, she said, "Just looking at him, it seems like he should be the best player, right?" Exactly. Howard has the same advantages that Wilt, Kareem, Robinson and Shaq had once upon a time ... if anything, it's a bigger advantage now because the center position died and turned into something else.

 

Remember when an in-shape Shaq ripped the NBA apart during Phil Jackson's first Lakers season (79 games, 29.7 PPG, 13.6 RPG, 40.0 MPG, 18.6 win shares, 30.6 PER) and everyone said, "HA! That's the Shaq we were waiting for! I knew he had that extra gear!" That's how I feel about Dwight Howard right now. Hakeem averaged a 24-14 with 4.6 blocks and 2.1 steals in 1990 and it wasn't even one of the best three seasons of his career. Robinson's 1994 season was an advanced metrics orgasm: a 30-11-5 with a 30.7 PER and 20.0 win shares. Shaq averaged a 30-15 in 58 playoff games during L.A.'s three-peat. You're telling me Howard's 23.1 points, 14.1 rebounds, 2.4 blocks and 26.1 PER is the best he can do? No way.

 

B. Speaking of advanced metrics, if you're using them to make the case against Rose, I submit the following two lines:

 

Player A: 27.2 PPG, 10.1 RPG, 4.2 APG, 54% FG, 76% FT, 28.4 PER, 16.6 WS, 60% TS%, 1st-team All-Defense.

 

Player B: 29.2 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 3.8 APG, 48% FG, 81% FT, 26.3 PER, 17.1 WS, 55% TS%, 1st-team All-Defense.

 

Who was better? It's close, but you picked Player A, right? Well ... those were the combined numbers for Karl Malone and Michael Jordan during the 1997 and 1998 regular seasons. You just picked Malone. Thank you and please drive through.

 

Anyway, advanced metrics weaken Rose's MVP case but don't murder it. Unlike LeBron the past two years, he isn't a sure thing. That's fine. Just consider these other two points ...

 

• Rose carries his team's offense more than anyone else carries their team's offense. He's the Bulls' only player who can create his own shot, and he's their only player who can create shots for others. Night after night after night, he walked onto the court knowing that Chicago's entire offense hinged on how he played. His usage (32.4 percent) and assist (39.4 percent) rates tell some of the story; in crunch-time per 48 minutes, he's averaged the second-most field goal attempts, the eighth-most free throw attempts and the ninth-highest assists (nobody else made the top-15 for all three categories, much less the top-10). The dude does everything for Chicago offensively, a little like Iverson on the 2001 Sixers (the year he finished with the sixth-highest usage rate ever and Philly somehow made the Finals, anyway). In my opinion, when you're doing everything, you should get a little statistical slack. You might have to take one or two shots per half that you shouldn't take, just because nobody else will take them. In crunch-time, the degree of difficulty ratchets up because the other team knows it's up to you, and you alone. You have to account for these things. That's why I love basketball so much: it's objective and subjective.

 

• Rose keeping the Bulls in contention for three-plus months when Boozer and Noah missed significant time was the most impressive thing I witnessed this season. Their quest for a No. 1 seed should have derailed in November, when Boozer missed a brutal seven-game Western road swing (including Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix and Los Angeles) plus games in Boston and Oklahoma City ... and yet, they emerged from a potential disaster at 9-6 (with Rose averaging a 28-8-5). Just when they were coming together, their defensive anchor (Noah) went down for two months ... Rose kept everything humming. (As a Celtics fan, I kept looking at the standings every morning thinking, "Jeez, they won't go away ... .") They finally had a full team when they were 35-14; they're 23-6 since. A one-seed. Phenomenal.

 

I will remember the 2010-11 season for LeBron and Wade, for Blake Griffin, for the dumb Celtics trade, and for how hard Derrick Rose played every night. He willed the Bulls to a No. 1 seed. Unfortunately, we don't have an advanced metric to quantify that specific achievement -- just a primitive, overrated statistic called "wins." I guess we'll have to make due. Derrick Rose, you're my 2010-11 MVP.

[chw42]

Totally, let me quote and link to bill simmons article because it totally imo articulates the pro-rose case, w/o having to s*** on the others.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nba

 

The whole thing is great, but the choice parts i find are:

 

Because of their phenomenal collection of tattoos, no team has ever been more fascinating to watch in HD -- which makes it doubly funny that they play in Denver, the one city in which people would absolutely get stoned and watch a basketball game just to marvel at tattoos in HD for 150 minutes. I'm telling you, there is MAJOR karma going on here.

 

Hahahaha

[bmags]

I think his whole section on memphis is very spot on. Frankly if the bulls had to play memphis in the first round I'd be very very worried. They played us hard.

[chw42]

I think his whole section on memphis is very spot on. Frankly if the bulls had to play memphis in the first round I'd be very very worried. They played us hard.

 

Memphis plays everyone hard. They're a very scrappy team.

[Felix]

I think his whole section on memphis is very spot on. Frankly if the bulls had to play memphis in the first round I'd be very very worried. They played us hard.

This obviously means very little, but Memphis has dropkicked the s*** out of Minnesota harder than any other team in the league this year. It's incredibly hilarious/depressing to see where they are compared to the Wolves, considering where each franchise is coming from.

 

Definitely hopping on that bandwagon come playoffs, if only because Shane Battier is the man.