ESPN's new stat shows Carlos Boozer as one of the worst players in NBA

ESPN's new stat shows Carlos Boozer as one of the worst players in NBA

ESPN unveiled it's new start, real plus / minus, and Carlos Boozer ranked, predictably, as one of the worst players on the team as well as one of the worst PFs in the NBA. Want to know why we love Taj Gibson? He ends up being the best on the team.

I'm a little queasy on the nebulous way this stat was calculated as the description sounds great, but the stat isn't explained a whole lot. It kind of sounds like something you'd tell a little kid to make it sound important when they discuss how scientific it is without going into much detail.

That said, there were three fun things to take from this stat:

Taj Gibson and Joakim Noah are really good

They ranked 17th (4.12) and 24th (3.89) in the NBA overall, both with massive defensive numbers and positive offensive numbers. According to this, Taj is the better offensive player of the two and the best offensive player on the Bulls.

I find the debate over whether Taj's scoring is more valuable than Noah's passing/ball handling rather interesting right now.

There's no doubt that Taj has added plenty of moves to his arsenal on offense. He has a step back jumper now, a low post fade away, and he's shooting the open mid range shot from further than in the past. He does more to create looks than any previous year, and has played like a plus player on offense rather than a hustle player.

However, Noah's improvement has been similar. He's always been a good passer, but the improvement in his driving game and baby hook have forced defenses to play up on him closer which has given him more space. His tornado ball needs a lot of room to shoot, but when teams give it to him, he's consistently knocking it down out to about 20 feet not.

The pair combine to average as many points per 36 minutes as David West and Roy Hibbert, and their total per 36 accounts for more than 20% of the Bulls offense which means the Bulls interior is getting the job done scoring wise for Chicago.

D.J. Augustin is really bad

I'm curious if this stat overly penalizes D.J. for his minutes in Toronto or if some preseason expectation is built in to extend the sample size since RAPM (the stat it extends) does that. He has the worst number on the team outside of Snell, but the game rarely feels that it plays out that way when he's on the floor.

My gut feeling is that he's not getting nearly enough credit for his offense and maybe his defense is overly penalized. That said, D.J. ranks in at -4.66 and actually has a negative number on both ends of the court. The large negative defensive number isn't surprising but the offensive one is.

Now a zero represents league average, which means Augustin still rates as below average on offense in this system. I suppose given that the Bulls have one of the worst offenses in the league that isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

Carlos Boozer is really, really bad

He ranks 79th out of 89 PFs in the survey with a -3.79, and I doubt that surprises anyone. What's shocking about this number is that it's made up of a -3.74 on offense and a -.05 on defense.

Now it's probably fair to note that if you are playing defense next to Joakim and Taj, both amongst the best defenders in the NBA then you'll look a bit worse on defense than you really are, but I can't truly believe that Boozer's defense is just a shade below average.

What I can believe is that his offense has been horrible this season. He no longer can score in isolation at all, though truth be told, he was never that good at it for Chicago anyway. He draws no fouls, hits no threes, and shoots mostly fade away jumpers at a pedestrian rate.

When Boozer can't score, he's dead weight on the floor because he sure isn't helping anyone defensively. That said, the Bulls need someone to chew up some minutes, and at least Boozer can do that better than Nazr Mohammed. Maybe.

Not sure what to think of this one

I don't know how much I'd rely on this stat. Much like the net +/- number on, it backs up some things that make sense to me while flying in the face of other things I think are obviously true. I personally can't put too much faith in it without knowing more about how the stat is calculated though.

Chicago's finest Brew is back

Ronnie Brewer signed with the Chicago Bulls for the rest of the season squashing my thoughts that his workout may not have gone well enough for Chicago to bring him back.

The signing makes a world of sense for the Bulls since Brewer is familiar with much of the team and the system. He fills a defensive hole created when Luol Deng left that Tony Snell hasn't been able to step in and fill.

I don't know whether or not Brewer will see much court time, but I feel better having another guy in there for depth.

Some will argue the Bulls should have gone for more offense, but after signing Jimmer Fredette that's totally unnecessary. We have the other offensive guy on the bench, we just don't want to let him play.

The Bulls didn't actually have another quality defensive wing outside of Butler, and when they play Miami there will be times that they may need one more guy if Hinrich gets into foul trouble.

Overall, nice job by Chicago to get Utah to pick up Murphy and then add Brewer to the team.



Leave a comment
  • I tend to think Basketball Reference's Win Shares per 48 is the most reliable of the one-number advanced stats. They break it out by team if the player was on multiple teams in a season. Average is .099

    DJ's WS/48 with the Bulls is .174. That places him second behind Noah (.191). Taj is .124, Boozer is .076, which is way below average.

    To pick on some random dudes, DJ is better than Marco B. (.148) Kyle Korver (.124) Klay Thompson (.113), and Eric Gordon (.059; worse than Boozer. Let's trade for his massive contract right now!)

  • It's worth noting that enticing new era stats like PER, Real Plus Minus etc. are being created in essence by a marketing firm. ESPN owns the product. and of course they are going to prime interest with any device available of which the internet now makes advanced stats at your fingertips a reality.

    Advanced statistics lets face it beyond appropriately trained persons are like shiny, sparkling toys we tinker with to in essence 'create' our own reality of what the NBA is today. Applying advanced stats is really sort of like being god where you create your own new world of meaning

    Of course not all stats are rocket science. Some admittedly were crying to be acknowledged as in created no doubt. Take John Hollinger's PER for example. When Doug began referencing PER in his evaluation of NBA star and every day player ranking and honed in on how worthless mid range shooting was in terms of rewards/efficiency I was skeptical to say the least. Truth is, PER is a good, highly relevant statistic because it does quantify value in threes as in points per attempt and free throws which are high efficiency points generated by guys who can get to the line among whom are usually stars of the league like LeBron and Kevin Durant.

    Still, just because something is relevant and under recognized doesn't mean it can't be over valued or misinterpreted. PER in the regular season denotes the over all inefficiency of mid range shot attempts. Yet in the playoffs and championships, which are the highest value sensitive area we are concerned with, mid range games of top stars and thus top teams are often very, very above average. Thus despite PER's notion of devaluing mid range in fact the cream of the crop defy this aspect of PER as in being beyond relevant, but often(see Dirk vs Miami II) crucial to winning championships.

    I like stats a lot. If I was a better mathematician I'm sure I would like them even more including the more complex, exotic ones. However, I find the value of basic stats like field goal percentage, steals, rebounds, true shooting percentage and assists highly accurate defining credentials for both draft prospects and assessing the hierarchy of the league. NBA caliber Efficient volume, prolific scoring and necessary skills and athleticism do not necessarily require a lot of these other more complex, newer appealing metrics. The true value of such is likely so nuanced that only true professionals and trained specialty related field 'experts' if you will can tailor them to form micro level conclusions about their own team and opponents which are critically telling. In other words, advanced stats are meant to micro analyze more so then macro average fan generalize.

  • Side Note: The NCAA national championship last nigh was won by Connecticut. The most famed, bullshit move is to over value many of these players in the draft. That's why I'm saying here and now I like Shabaaz Napier as a late, even mid first round pick. Wait, what???

  • In reply to RoadWarrior:

    Why not draft Napier with one of the first round picks? Do you think a chump like Tony Snell could have led the Huskies to wins over Michigan State, Kentucky, etc. In my opinion, Snell is more suited to being a uniformed usher showing fans to their correct seats.

    I read an article once in which the Bulls director of scouting indicated how much resources and time go into scouting for the draft. Huh? Does he mean that all those man-hours of traveling and looking at film had compelled the franchise to choose an undernourished kid from a so-so program who averaged 12 points and two rebounds (Snell) over a guy who was chosen the country's best big man of the year (Plumlee), played for Duke, and was only the second player Coach K ever had at Duke who averaged a double-double?

    By the way, Plumlee and Dieng are having really good seasons. Dieng has been on a double-double tear and last I looked Plumlee had the highest PER of any rookie. In fact, the other day he shot 8-10 from the field and blocked three shots in 23 minutes.

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    The Tony Snell pick went over like a fart in a space suit. It's easy to "mis-remember" personal draft favorites(and duds), but I can honestly say I was extremely disappointed when they took Snell. Everybody has heard by now the repeated warnings about passivity etc. from scouting services not to mention non-existent production college stats. Contrarily almost everybody seemed to like Dieng - like Napier a winner. And the Plumlee option was at least plausible at that spot. Certainly a wasted pick as in bad.

  • In reply to RoadWarrior:

    The Tony Snell pick had Gar Forman written all over it. Forman worked at New Mexico State for 6 years (19988-1994) as an assistant/recruiter and maintains close ties. After taking a projected 2nd round player at No. 20, the following day Forman fired Bulls assistant Ron Adams for criticizing personnel decisions.

  • In reply to Edward:

    Snell was projected to be a first-round pick in 10 of 15 mock drafts.

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    First of all, 12 points and 2 rebounds (Snell) vs an award-winner who averaged a double-double (Plumlee) is exactly why scouts spend so much time traveling and watching film.

    If all anyone did was go by stats and awards, you wouldn't need scouts at all, you'd just draft the guy with the best stats and who won the most awards. College stats and awards mean absolutely nothing when it comes to NBA success.

    MJ averaged less than 20 points/game his last year in college. Ewing averaged 15 pts and 9 reb as a college senior. Adam Morrison averaged 28 points as a senior. Beasley averaged 26/12 as a senior.

    You know who the other guy was who averaged a double-double for Coach K? Shelden Williams. He did it twice, and went on to average 4.5 points and 4.3 rebounds in the NBA.

    Wow, that's impressive.

    Shane Battier
    TJ Ford
    Jameer Nelson
    Andrew Bogut
    JJ Redick
    Tyler Hansbrough
    Evan Turner
    Jimmer Fredette

    From 2001-2012, EIGHT of the 12 Naismith College Player of the Year didn't play in one single All-Star game.

    2013's winner was Trey Burke, who in 32 minutes a night is putting up 12.6 pts and 5.5 ast with a .473 TS%. Snell has a higher TS% than Burke.

    Noah is an All-Star, and he's a lock for (at least) 2nd-Team All-NBA and another All-Defense, and he's about to become the 4th center in NBA history to have a 12/11/5 season... and he wasn't even 2nd-Team All-Rookie.

    He got beat out by the likes of:

    Jamario Moon, Toronto
    Juan Carlos Navarro, Memphis
    Thaddeus Young, Philadelphia
    Rodney Stuckey, Detroit
    Carl Landry, Houston

    I'm not sure which is a worse predictor of future NBA success, college stats and awards, or who made the All-Rookie team. They both mean so little, I'll call it a tie for 2nd.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    I understand your point(s). Notwithstanding, Snell still sucks and that's the larger point. Anyone can see that he is physically weak, soft, and passive. Certainly, well-paid professional scouts should have seen it.

    I suspect the Bulls drafted this guy because 1) Thibs complained that the team needed shooters and Snell was considered a good college shooter and had the requisite height, wingspan, etc. and 2) Nazr indicated he would come back. Be that as it may, it was ridiculous to think he was the best player available.

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    No offfense, but when you say "Snell still sucks and that's the larger point", to me that means that you totally didn't understand my point(s) at all.

    Snell pretty much sucks right now, and Dieng and Plumlee are certainly outplaying him right now- even a blind man can see that.

    My point was that you simply can't judge most guys after their rookie seasons, and it is certainly possible that 2-3 years from now, Snell will be a much, much better player than Plumlee or Dieng.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    Sure it's possible. It's also possible that Tyrus Thomas will come back and lead the Bulls to a championship in 2015 or that a Black Hole will pass through our galaxy and suck up the Earth.

    To be honest with you I think some of your points were pretty fatuous. Are you saying Michael Jordan was a "reach" to be drafted that high because he averaged less than 20 points a game, or are you saying that Tony Snell is the next Jordan? It is really tiresome debating someone who throws out gobs of less than relevant information in the hopes that the other person will just have to give up and agree with him.

    Of course, Snell could improve and become a better player than the other guys. You are RIGHT. But based on 1) Plumlee and Dieng's proven college careers, 2) this year's performances by Plumlee and Dieng, and 3) this year's performance by Snell, any fair-minded projection by any fan would deem this highly unlikely. Now go to bed.

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    Look simpleton, all I 'm saying is that you can't judge a player by his college career. That's why 8 of the last 12 players of the year in college didn't even make one all-star game.

    You're acting as if proven college careers mean anything, and they don't. That's why 8 of the last 12 players of the year in college didn't even make one all-star game.

    You seem to think that you can tell what kind of career a guy is going to have based on his rookie season. I'm sure that after Noah's rookie season, you knew he would develop into an All-NBA center, and I'm sure you knew that he'd join Wilt, Kareem and Russell as the only 12/11/5 centers in NBA history.

    Your entire "argument" is that Plumlee and Dieng had better college careers and better rookie seasons than Snell. Thanks for that, Captain Obvious, WE ALL KNOW THAT.

    Buh-bye moron.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    IDK how that felt to write but it was very satisfying to read. Fwiw, there are some good players on that all-rookie team. But your point stands. People who respond to data with opinion as though they're equivalent deserve to be de-pantsed at half-court during a time out at the UC. At some point morons need to be taken down like a gazelle on a nature show. Ah, the circle of life is a beautiful thing to behold.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    It's always interesting when one poster has to resort to personal attacks like "simpleton" and "moron" to get his points across. Unfortunately, you are wrong about your basic point. You can judge a player to a significant extent by his college career. Certainly, not all. For example, I can assure you that Jabari Parker will have a more successful NBA career than anybody on this year's Northwestern squad. Is it possible I could be wrong? Sure. But, unlikely.

    I believe the Bulls made a mistake by drafting Snell when better players were on the board. Forman and Paxson have made good choices in the past. Not only Taj and Jimmy but I have no quarrel with the James Johnson pick as he appeared to be the best player left on the board. But they have also made mistakes. My issue with you is that you appear to reflexively defend the decisions of Bulls management. And then you dredge up unrelated information to support your argument.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    For what it is worth, during his rookie season, I stated that Noah would average a double double if given starters minutes, so at least in his case some of us saw that intangible quality in him that made us think, hey this guy has what it takes to make it. I certainly didn't predict all NBA(and we still have to wait and see that, but) but you really cannot compare Noah(even as a rookie) with Snell in that intangible will to get better/win category. That was also something that Noah displayed in college(2 NCAA championships) that Snell didn't.

    I get your overarching point, and generally agree with it, even if I don't agree with all your examples. I think that we all saw something to hope for in both Butler and Taj as rookies. Snell really hasn't given us all that much to work with in the legitimate/logical hope department.

    It isn't time to completely give up on Snell yet, but we'd all certainly be happier right now going forward with either Dieng or Plumlee. Even with Mirotic coming onboard next season, a young bigman to back up Noah is needed, and would give you great flexibility(Trading Taj for a scoring wing) going forward.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    As they say, anything is possible, but given Snells demeanor, do you really think that it is likely. I have already seen enough of Plumlee to know that he has a first class motor and great physical attributes. Tonight will be my first chance to evaluate Diengs attributes in those areas, so I can't say where he rates relative to Snell and Plumlee.

    You might be able to find/dig up some guys who made it in the NBA, but were slack jawed mope a dopes as rookies. None come immediately to mind to me. That would have been the biggest red flag against Snell to me. Bill Parcels had a line about not being able to teach toughness/aggressiveness to players, something about needing to be that way as puppies to be that way as adults. Some things you can't teach/learn/change.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    I didn't think that Noah would ever develop into the point center he is today, I saw Rodman lite and nothing more. But to me anyway, Snell going from where he is now to solid, starting 25-30 min 3 and D guy isn't as much of a reach as Noah going from where he was as a rookie to where he is today.

    I do see a few things I like in Snell, he seems very comfortable pushing the ball up the floor after a missed shot. He shows a little bit of drive-and-kick instinct in the half-court. And I think he's going to wind up being a ~38% 3pt shooter. He kind of reminds me of a young Pippen, who was pretty shy and timid when he first came to the league (I'm sure you remember the Game 7 "migraine headache") vs Detroit.

    And just to be clear, I'm not even saying Snell is going to be anything in the league, just that you can't always judge a guy with 100% certainty when he is stll that young. And that you could easily be right about Snell, he might never get the confidence to play with the big boys.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    That list of rookies who beat out Noah is great! I'm not ready to discount Snell's future. That's not to say I'm not concerned about how passive he can be, but I think he can be a solid shooter and defender in this league. He may not be suited to be a star or anything, but he could be a solid role player. Being picked at #20, that wouldn't be to bad.
    I'm starting to buy into Kentucky's James Young. That dunk he had was one of the best I've seen. It kind of takes the question of his athleticism off the table.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    I agree that stats aren't a good indicator of NBA ability in terms of better stats = better ability.

    That said, name a successful NBA wing player with the same or worse stats that Snell put up.

    College stats are often a threshold indicator. If you don't do well enough, it's almost guaranteed you won't be an NBA player, but once you hit the "good enough" bar, it doesn't tell you much about who is better.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Nobody pops into my head immediately, but I'm sure there has to be at least a few. We just don't ever hear about them, because it's not a big deal for someone to surprise everyone and become a role player. :D

    We usually only hear about guys like Pippen, who started out mediocre and worked themselves up to All-Star status.

    But then there are guys like Jamario Moon, whose rookie scoring average turned out to be his career high.

  • In reply to Don Ellis:

    Hey, I actually agree with the vast majority of your post.

    However, Noah didn't have a shot at making any all rookie team, mostly because he was buried behind/underneath the big bum Ben Wallace. I hated the Wallace signing before it even happened. But once I saw that Wallace was doing nothing but stealing minutes from Noah's development time, I immediately began calling for his boozerization just so Noah could play. Same thing happened with Drew Gooden, who isn't even a center

    Obviously, the Bulls deluded themselves into thinking that they were good enough to win in those seasons, so they weren't interested in developing Noah. He also had some growing and growing up to do, but would certainly have done so faster if he had gotten real playing time from day one.

    Neither Dieng or Plumlee would have gotten a chance this season if it weren't for injuries.

    I certainly hope that Snell hasn't become your newest love child replacing Teague. I have slightly more hope for Snell than I ever did for Teague, even though they both have that slack jawed mope a dope demeanor that I am never a fan of. Something that rarely if ever goes away to reveal a beast of a player.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    Actually, Snell and Teague are a pretty good comparison. We'll know by November of 2016 if I was right about Teague, because if he's still in the league that will mean he made it through his rookie contract and got another deal.

    All I ever said about Teague is that he'll have a decent career as a back-up, you (and pretty much everyone else I know) think he'll never make it through his rookie deal.

    And your Wallace/Noah comparison is a good one, who knows what Snell would look like if he would have gone to a team where he was given consistent minutes from Opening Night on.

  • Few corrections: Taj is not the Bulls player with the best offensive RPM (which considering it's +0.70 points per 100 possessions would be pretty sad). That distinction went to Rose (+2.86), followed by Dunleavy (+1.36) as the only Bulls players with decent positive offensive RPM impact. Despite Rose looking rusty and generally not good, he still was far and away the biggest impact player for us in generating points according to RPM.

    Also, the premise behind Real Plus Minus is that it accounts for teammates, opponents, and opposing coaches and tries to mathematically strip out their influences on any one player's rating. So Boozer's middling defensive RPM is in theory not from playing with Noah and Taj, because the stat aims to cut out teammate influence. RPM is ESPN's own weighted version of adjusted plus/minus, but xRAPM is another form that's not run by ESPN and the numbers for Boozer and the other players come out similarly, that Boozer is a big liability on offense and Augustine is a welcome mat on defense.

    Plus-minus is an interesting contrast to something like PER, in any case. Whereas PER tries to consolidate a player's individual stats into one number from the bottom up, RPM goes from the top down, taking the team's net production and then trying to filter outside influences to get a player's individual contribution to the team. Like any other single rating it doesn't really explain why the rating is, just that it is.

  • In reply to Mongoose:

    Rose's RPM is almost certainly based on past data, since the formula they use takes data from previous seasons.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    If it's indeed based on RAPM as ESPN states, then no, it's not based on past data, just on the current season. Adjusted Plus Minus that takes uses multiple seasons of data is responsibly labeled as such. Besides which, Rose has no past data from the last season, since he didn't play a game, so unless RPM accounts for three seasons at a time, it will have no past data for Rose.

    Regardless of their formula though, Rose's number is clearly the highest by a wide margin over the other Bulls players, so saying that Taj is the best offensive player based on his offensive RPM is incorrect.

  • I'm pretty sure Real Plus/Minus uses past years' performance to "smooth out" the results from this year, which would explain why Augustin looks so bad -- along with the fact that Augustin is a defensive liability even when he's playing well.

  • Scouts get paid to evaluate talent. Ditto FOs. The last 2 drafts of the Bulls have stunk! If they do not change whatever is wrong, it will be almost impossible for the Bulls to win the NBA Finals. If this draft is as poor as the last two, the FO should be canned!

    So, what, exactly, is wrong? Does the FO even know? Adams apparently felt he did, and it sure looks like he was correct.

    As for acquiring cheap FA guards, the Bulls have done extremely well in that department. Maybe they should apply whatever "science" they are using for the FA Gs to the draft!

  • In reply to rustyw:

    Drafting where the Bulls draft, they should be commended if they can find rotation players, not fired if they can't.

  • In reply to Roman F:

    Roman, you wrote, "they should be commended if they can find rotation players" lower in the draft. I agree with the commendation for finding rotation players, but, after all, that is their job, isn't it? And they get paid millions of dollars per year for that.

    I give the FO credit for Noah and Taj and Mirotic and Butler. But I blame them for picking Tyrus and Snell and Teague.

    I give the FO credit for signing a lot of good bench players, but I blame them for signing Boozer, which has continued to handicap the team for 5 years now!

    I give them credit for landing Asik, but I blame them for only signing him for two years and thus losing him early.

    I give them credit for trading Deng this year, but it was a year and a half too late.

    Credit for getting Thibs, but again a couple of years too late.

    Even with Thibs and Noah, but for Augustine, the Bulls might not even be in the playoffs. The FO looks like a decent but less than stellar FO, and therefore so does the team.

  • In reply to rustyw:

    I think you pretty much nailed it. The Bulls FO is generally competent but they are not an elite management team in my opinion. To this day, I can't understand how they missed the danger signals with Tyrus. He was an obvious knucklehead IMO. You may recall that right after he was drafted he told a reporter that he was a "small forward." Unfortunately, the team did not draft him for that position. It went downhill from there. I remember Del Harris yanking him out of games in Summer League for dribbling behind his back.

  • In reply to rustyw:

    Good start. All the mistakes you listed are facts. Now, go and evaluate all the other FO's under the same microscope under which you evaluated the Bulls, then tell me how you rate the Bulls FO. Pointing out mistakes and calling the FO "not elite" makes people feel smart, but pointing out mistakes, flaws and reasons to not believe are all extremely easy to do in any sport and in most facets of life. Actually believing something, defending something less than perfect, that's what's really challenging and what most humans are afraid to do in my opinion.

    If you take the same microscope to all teams, you'll have a hard time crediting any team that hasn't won multiple championships.

    Heck if you're going to say the Bulls were too late in trading Deng, I could tell you the Heat really blew it by not winning a championship their first year. And the Spurs really blew it by not winning last year.

    If their mistakes disqualifies the Bulls FO from being good, then the Lakers are also out because they hired Mike Brown and then Mike D'Antoni. Bad moves. Since 1996, they've drafted all of two impact players in Andrew Bynum and Marc Gasol. And they didn't keep those guys so I'm not going to give them credit.

    In fact, there are no elite FO's in the NBA because they all have histories littered with mistakes.

  • In reply to Roman F:

    I agree with your point about the microscope that we as fans apply to our own team, and that if applied to other teams, not many, likely none would stand up to the scrutiny for very long, but you know what that is basically what being a fan means. It is not that different from the way that we judge otherselves vs others.

  • In reply to Roman F:

    The Teague pick you can let go, it was a swing for the fences on a very young guy with the athleticism to play in the league but clearly lacking the talent.

    The Snell pick is a head scratcher IMO. Either way, with Snell, the three players taking immediately after him were all preferable to me on draft day, all look better now, and were all more obvious selections.

    Can't win em all, I wasn't a big fan of the Butler/Gibson picks, so I will give the front office their wiggle room, but it sure didn't work this time.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    The statement wasn't that Snell was a sub-optimal pick, the statement was "the FO should be canned!"

    I didn't understand the Snell pick and still don't.

    They have two picks this year and if they screw up both, they should be in trouble, but their history tells me they won't screw it up.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    I could be wrong, but the Teague pick almost felt like a holy shit knee jerk reaction, as in looks who is still on the board at 30, so what if we never even considered this guy for a minute, I can't believe he's still on the board, we better take him. If ever there was a time to maintain some discipline that would have been it. All that said, if blowing a first round pick at 30 is the worst that can be said about a front office then we really don't have that much to complain about.

    If the Snell pick goes bad too, that would be a bigger failure, especially for the second year in a row, but still not a disaster as the 20th pick. It will only feel a lot worse if guys like Dieng or Plumlee go on to become solid players, like Taj, or worse yet legitimate starters. That and the fact that all of us amateurs would have picked them ahead of Snell.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    Don't forget SG Hardaway at No. 24.

  • In reply to rustyw:

    IMO, with two 1st round picks, the Bulls FO history tells me they will draft well with one pick and draft poorly with the other.

    Then again, Bulls may be active in various sorts of trade possibilities and not use both picks. Or draft and stash another Euro for future use like Mirotic.

    I expect this to be an interesting off-season! And of course Bulls won't telegraph or leak any information so we just have to wait and see what transpires.

    I do agree the last two drafts have lowered the 'rating' of Bulls FO. And this is a watershed off-season that may dictate level of Bulls team success for the next several years.

  • In reply to Edward:

    I would love for that Eurostash to be Dario Saric. Apparently he just signed a 3 year deal to play in Europe, with the usual buyout clauses. But, I guess that he still has to declare for the draft to be eligible. Does anybody know anything about the rules for drafting Euro's playing under contract for other teams. It seems to me, that once they are professionals, teams should be able to draft them at their own risk.

  • In reply to rustyw:

    I'll add to what Edward says in that I agree with both of you that it definitely lowers the rating of the Bulls FO. Careful what you wish for asking for their firing, though, it's hard to find good FOs and there are disasters throughout the league in markets big and small. The Bulls FO is good, but part of that "good" rating is because they've done such a good job finding late-round talent. They have come up short the last two times, unless Snell surprises all of us and develops into a decent player.

  • Indiana and Miami are now tied in the loss column.
    Who owns their tiebreaker?

  • In reply to Edward:

    The Pacers own the tiebreaker. They either will win the tiebreaker by beating Miami in their next game and winning the season series, or they'll own the tiebreaker due to conference record. Miami can match the Pacers' conference record by going 4-0 in their remaining games, but since they play the Pacers once, they'd end the season with a better record, so the tiebreaker would be a moot point.

  • In reply to Mongoose:

    Thanks, Mongoose!

  • I thinks it's too early to write Snell off as a bad pick. Here's a few reasons I give him another year or two.

    1--He was drafted as a Jr. not a Sr.--some players need all 4 years to mature.

    2--He plays for the Bulls. If he played for a 2nd tir team he'd get double or triple the minutes and stats, but would he be a better player..,I doubt it.

    3--He'll have a year under his belt..,let's see his self-motivation.

    4--Off-season regiment, especially diet could really improve and cause his body to fill out----get stronger.(Some guys just don't have the capacity to physically grow like he has).

    5--He has Thibs to guide his improvent.


Leave a comment