CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish with?

[Shakes]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

TheStig wrote:

He had a good month. If he was so productive throughout, he wouldn't have gotten traded. You exagerating the postives too, he shot 39% from three but a meager 41% fg overall. His fg% was right on par for his career, he was just making threes at a higher rate. He was still inefficient as ever.

As I'm sure you're aware, Kirk is hardly a hugely efficient offensive player. The question wasn't whether Larry Hughes was an all-star, it was whether the loss of Kirk hurt us much. I said having Larry Hughes playing the best ball of his career (low standard I know!) meant that Kirk going down last year didn't really hurt us.

Common now, if what you say is true, they would have jumped at the boozer deal since both were clearly on their way out then and boozer was an expiring allstar pf. Good value for a guy who you didn't want to resign and a pg that your looking for value for.

We could have traded him for an expiring during the off season, we can't now because he's stunk it up. And you know I don't believe the Boozer deal was ever on the table.

Salmons scored more at better efficiency than Rose last year. He was the second option after Gordon any way you care to look at it. But whatever, even if you call him the third option, we were only asking him to do the same this year and he didn't even come close.

Salmons didn't get much iso when he was here with BG. He'd get the ball with a defender off balance, pump fake and drive to the rim. At the begining at the year Salmons would get a lot of iso that he wasn't capable with, especially with rose slowed.

I could very well be wrong, I think losing our leading scorer and a good iso option really hurt us. But your Ray Allen example is off. Shard went to the Orlando after his last season with allen and shot .5% worse.

My bad, for some reason I had it in my head that Ray Allen was traded the year before the let Rashard go. Bad examples aside, how about the actual figures on Ben Gordon from last year? They show his team mates shot 1% better from three when he was on the court. Hardly enough to explain this year. Then again, they shot 5% better with Thabo, maybe trading him led to Hinrich's struggles. :laugh:

(Source: http://basketball-statistics.com/bl...mpact-on-his-teammates’-three-point-shooting/)

Actually, take a look at the list of players who had the biggest impact:

1. Desmond Mason, 12.27%
2. Will Solomon, 12%
3. Jamaal Magloire, 11.85%
4. Kyle Lowry (MEM), 8.92%
5. Mike Taylor, 8.61%
6. Lou Williams, 8.4%
7. Caron Butler, 8.07%
8. Rashard Lewis, 7.7%
9. Aaron Gray, 7.54%
10. Reggie Evans, 6.86%

Do they look like they have much in common to you? Do they look like superstars? To me it looks like it's essentially a random list of players, suggesting that if there is an effect on your team mate's ability to shoot, it's too small to measure reliably.

Your only concentrating on the first month. Even when their shooting picked up, the offense wasn't as good as last year and that with a better rose and noah.

They (Hinrich/Salmons/Miller) were better since the bad start, but they never reached what they did last year. Despite that, since Christmas the team was nearly as good as last year offensively.

That to me is the topic of the thread. How can you be disappointed when our three long term guys in Rose, Noah & Deng all performed well? The disappointment is the guys we're not keeping anyway.

Not making excuses, he dropped off but if your employer fired your best coworker and replaced him with a minimum wage guy who can't read, your will struggle to pick up the slack. And thats what happened when we let bg go and brought in pargo.

From the rotation that went 17-10, it's Deng, not Pargo, who we replaced BG with. When you figure Rose's improvement in, there is no slack to pick up. Well, other than the slack created by the cliff Miller, Hinrich & Salmons fell off.

 

[TheStig]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

Shakes wrote:

As I'm sure you're aware, Kirk is hardly a hugely efficient offensive player. The question wasn't whether Larry Hughes was an all-star, it was whether the loss of Kirk hurt us much. I said having Larry Hughes playing the best ball of his career (low standard I know!) meant that Kirk going down last year didn't really hurt us.

It was far from his best basketball. It was just his best 3pt shooting stretch, big difference. I really don't see how you can compare the effects of 30+ game injury to a 6 game injury and if hughes was producing so well he wouldn't have been dealt. Hughes stringing along a few good games doesn't negate the loss of our "leader".

We could have traded him for an expiring during the off season, we can't now because he's stunk it up. And you know I don't believe the Boozer deal was ever on the table.

I believe that we really didn't want to trade him. I think we were trying to trade Salmons first and would have only dealt Kirk if we had to. All prior examples lead to that. I really believe that the boozer deal was on the table, it was reported everywhere we declined and our reluctance to trade kirk shows that.

My bad, for some reason I had it in my head that Ray Allen was traded the year before the let Rashard go. Bad examples aside, how about the actual figures on Ben Gordon from last year? They show his team mates shot 1% better from three when he was on the court. Hardly enough to explain this year. Then again, they shot 5% better with Thabo, maybe trading him led to Hinrich's struggles. :laugh:

(Source: http://basketball-statistics.com/bl...mpact-on-his-teammates’-three-point-shooting/)

Actually, take a look at the list of players who had the biggest impact:

1. Desmond Mason, 12.27%
2. Will Solomon, 12%
3. Jamaal Magloire, 11.85%
4. Kyle Lowry (MEM), 8.92%
5. Mike Taylor, 8.61%
6. Lou Williams, 8.4%
7. Caron Butler, 8.07%
8. Rashard Lewis, 7.7%
9. Aaron Gray, 7.54%
10. Reggie Evans, 6.86%

Do they look like they have much in common to you? Do they look like superstars? To me it looks like it's essentially a random list of players, suggesting that if there is an effect on your team mate's ability to shoot, it's too small to measure reliably.

I meant more in fg% not threes. BG didn't stretch the floor to create more threes but more open looks and drives was my point.

They (Hinrich/Salmons/Miller) were better since the bad start, but they never reached what they did last year. Despite that, since Christmas the team was nearly as good as last year offensively.

That to me is the topic of the thread. How can you be disappointed when our three long term guys in Rose, Noah & Deng all performed well? The disappointment is the guys we're not keeping anyway.

Right, thats what happens when you lose your best scorer. They never really recovered when everything else was better. Clearly Salmons hasn't forgot how to shoot, He is lighting it up for the bucks.

I don't know how you can't call the longest tenured bull a long term fixture, he isn't an expiring and isn't going anywhere. And he has sucked. Furthermore, I think as you said with the other three guys improving, why hasn't it translated to wins?

From the rotation that went 17-10, it's Deng, not Pargo, who we replaced BG with. When you figure Rose's improvement in, there is no slack to pick up. Well, other than the slack created by the cliff Miller, Hinrich & Salmons fell off.

I was talking about the sg postion specifically since thats where our problem is. Pargo was listed as a guy that would play ahead of BG according to the guy who makes the final decision. Furthermore, Deng was still under contract last year and played a bit, he wasn't added.

 

[Shakes]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

TheStig wrote:

I don't know how you can't call the longest tenured bull a long term fixture, he isn't an expiring and isn't going anywhere. And he has sucked. Furthermore, I think as you said with the other three guys improving, why hasn't it translated to wins?

It translated into wins when both Noah & Rose were healthy. Everyone talks about the 17-10 run, well this year we went on a 21-10 run. If we'd had Rose putting up 25 on 50+% all year with Noah's second in the league in rebounding, then it wouldn't be a question of if we'd scrape into the playoffs, it'd be a question of who would be coming to play us at the UC on the opening night of the first round.

I don't think it's a slur against Ben Gordon to say this team was damn good when healthy this year. To be fair, if we also had a healthy BG in addition to the rest then we'd be a dark horse championship contender this year. Really it's only Ben Gordon's injury and subsequent poor play that's stopping me from being won over to the "we should have kept him even if we overpay ala the Magic with Rashard Lewis" camp. I didn't expect Rose to be as good as he has been (lets be honest, last year he was more hype than substance). His play takes the pain out of overpaying for a supporting cast, because I think we're reaching the point where we can be pretty sure we do have a genuine star and just need the pieces around him.

And come on, Kirk's a fixture on the team? Since I know you follow the trade rumours, you know we've apparently had Kirk on the block the last three trade deadlines and two off seasons. The only reason he's here is because we haven't liked the offers due to "he has sucked". Management only talk glowingly of Kirk because he's on the team, you don't trash the value of your own players (in Kirk's case, his play does that just fine).

I was talking about the sg postion specifically since thats where our problem is. Pargo was listed as a guy that would play ahead of BG according to the guy who makes the final decision. Furthermore, Deng was still under contract last year and played a bit, he wasn't added.

Nobody believes that Pargo was ahead of Ben Gordon on the depth chart. That's PR spin and we all know it. The reality is that from last year's 17-10 run team (which is what everyone really means when talking about last year, the team before the trade deadline kinda sucked) we moved Salmons to SG and put Deng in at SF. That's the only real change, Pargo barely saw the court except during garbage time when everyone was healthy.

 

[Fred]

"They played pretty well before John showed up" - Fred about Milwaukee
postdiction wrote:
They did NOT play well before Salmons got there. They are currently 5 games over .500 and I believe they are 11-1 since his arrival. So before he got there they were 5 games under. I don't know 5 games under in the east doesn't count as great in my book.
[/quote]

I just re-read this. The Bucks were actually 24-28 before Salmons played his first game with Milwauke, on Feb 19th. 4 games under .500.

The Bulls won the last game Salmons played for us on Feb 15th. We were 26-26 after that game, to climb to .500. Up until that point:

1. I believe Noah had missed 5 games. We were 3-2 in the games he missed.
2. Rose, Deng, Miller, and Taj Gibson had played in every game.

Milwaukee, by that time, had lost Michael Redd for the entire season. He played in 18 games overall up to that point.

Which team was hurt more by injuries up until that point? True, we lost Kirk's feistiness for 6 games, and bench player Thomas, but we still had Salmons to step in for the Captain. And I'd say the loss of Michael Redd (for 30+games to that point) hurt more than the loss of the greatest white 29 year old defender from Iowa.

So, yes, I felt that Milwaukee, a far less talented team, played "pretty well" up until that point. Especially in comparison to my beloved Bulls.

BTW, Milwaukee had played the hardest part of their schedule in January, with 11 games against +.500 teams.

 

[TheStig]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

Shakes wrote:

It translated into wins when both Noah & Rose were healthy. Everyone talks about the 17-10 run, well this year we went on a 21-10 run. If we'd had Rose putting up 25 on 50+% all year with Noah's second in the league in rebounding, then it wouldn't be a question of if we'd scrape into the playoffs, it'd be a question of who would be coming to play us at the UC on the opening night of the first round.

Every team has streches of injuries or people playing through injuries. Kobe has had a broken thumb for whole seasons at times and still gets wins and the lakers win, adding speratic injuries to bynum and gasol they still have the best record over the last couple of years.

I don't think it's a slur against Ben Gordon to say this team was damn good when healthy this year. To be fair, if we also had a healthy BG in addition to the rest then we'd be a dark horse championship contender this year. Really it's only Ben Gordon's injury and subsequent poor play that's stopping me from being won over to the "we should have kept him even if we overpay ala the Magic with Rashard Lewis" camp. I didn't expect Rose to be as good as he has been (lets be honest, last year he was more hype than substance). His play takes the pain out of overpaying for a supporting cast, because I think we're reaching the point where we can be pretty sure we do have a genuine star and just need the pieces around him.

If Rose was a superstar last year and doing the same, Deng coming in committed and not playing on the gb team and noah caring, we could have been even better last year. I think its weird the same people who stick up for deng's injuries are the first to emphasize bgs injury. The guy got really injured for the first time in 5 years, I'm not gonna write him off because of that and I'm sure he will be back to usaul if not better next year.

And come on, Kirk's a fixture on the team? Since I know you follow the trade rumours, you know we've apparently had Kirk on the block the last three trade deadlines and two off seasons. The only reason he's here is because we haven't liked the offers due to "he has sucked". Management only talk glowingly of Kirk because he's on the team, you don't trash the value of your own players (in Kirk's case, his play does that just fine).

He's like a cockroach, he never gets affected by anything around him. Nothing ever sticks to him, he has absolutly become worse than he was as a rookie and yet he is the glue guy or shut down guy. And if he isn't a fixture or loved by management then why don't they dump him for an expiring? His 9 mill in cap space can get you a 5/55 deal to sign a lee, *** or maybe even boozer in addition to a max deal.

Nobody believes that Pargo was ahead of Ben Gordon on the depth chart. That's PR spin and we all know it. The reality is that from last year's 17-10 run team (which is what everyone really means when talking about last year, the team before the trade deadline kinda sucked) we moved Salmons to SG and put Deng in at SF. That's the only real change, Pargo barely saw the court except during garbage time when everyone was healthy.

What I got from last year first and foremost was that Rose and BG were a good backcourt and one of the best offensive backcourts in the league. To me, if Rose made the same steps this year and could improve his d a bit and BG was healthy, I wouldn't hesitate to call them the best backcourt in the league. Add in a healthy Deng and a improved Noah and they are as you said a dark horse championship team with max cap room. Don't you think a guy like Bosh would be dying to come to that situation?

 

[postdiction]

Fred wrote:

I just re-read this. The Bucks were actually 24-28 before Salmons played his first game with Milwauke, on Feb 19th. 4 games under .500.

The Bulls won the last game Salmons played for us on Feb 15th. We were 26-26 after that game, to climb to .500. Up until that point:

1. I believe Noah had missed 5 games. We were 3-2 in the games he missed.
2. Rose, Deng, Miller, and Taj Gibson had played in every game.

Milwaukee, by that time, had lost Michael Redd for the entire season. He played in 18 games overall up to that point.

Which team was hurt more by injuries up until that point? True, we lost Kirk's feistiness for 6 games, and bench player Thomas, but we still had Salmons to step in for the Captain. And I'd say the loss of Michael Redd (for 30+games to that point) hurt more than the loss of the greatest white 29 year old defender from Iowa.

So, yes, I felt that Milwaukee, a far less talented team, played "pretty well" up until that point. Especially in comparison to my beloved Bulls.

BTW, Milwaukee had played the hardest part of their schedule in January, with 11 games against +.500 teams.

Okay, I have no problem with your opinion, mine's just different. However I will say 2 additional things:

1) Redd wasn't that great of a player this year. His loss did mean something but, it wasn't as catastrophic to their team as losing Noah was for our team. A friend of mine who is Bucks fan told me that their record with Redd in there was about even or worse than their record with out him.

2) While Rose did play in all of the games at the start of the season in hindsight we can see he wasn't playing like the "improved Rose" (When you said both Noah and Rose have made huge improvements this season) until mid-late December.

My main point being we were a bad team to start the season due to injuries causing poor play/not being in shape (Rose, TT, Noah). Then we were a pretty good team with everyone healthy and in shape, a playoff caliber/41+ win team IMO. Then due to 2 trades we lost some depth (TT & Salmons) then due to injury to key players for various amounts of games (Noah/Deng) we are a bad team with an almost 0 chance of making the playoffs.

Thats how I see it.

 

[Fred]

postdiction wrote:My main point being we were a bad team to start the season due to injuries causing poor play/not being in shape (Rose, TT, Noah). Thats how I see it.[/quote]

Noah started last season out of shape. He played horribly for most of the first half. He was 1/2 the man he was this year. This year, from game 1, he started throwing up double doubles. Rose actually hit the rookie wall in December of last year, and played pretty inconsistently. We had Hinrich miss half the season, and Salmons and Miller only played in 25 games for us. We still won 41, despite major injuries to Hinrich, Deng, Gooden, and Hughes...and we didn't have Taj.

Rose started this season like he played last year. He went from solid to superstar in December. He wasn't bad to start this season. He wasn't the problem.

Going forward, this team is done if Rose is out. I agree injuries will kill us going forward. But there is no excuse for our poor record up to Feb, considering how well Noah, Rose, and Deng played. Despite, Kirk missing 6 games and Tyrus missing how ever games he missed.

 

[Fred]

postdiction wrote:

Fred wrote:

I just re-read this. The Bucks were actually 24-28 before Salmons played his first game with Milwauke, on Feb 19th. 4 games under .500.

The Bulls won the last game Salmons played for us on Feb 15th. We were 26-26 after that game, to climb to .500. Up until that point:

1. I believe Noah had missed 5 games. We were 3-2 in the games he missed.
2. Rose, Deng, Miller, and Taj Gibson had played in every game.

Milwaukee, by that time, had lost Michael Redd for the entire season. He played in 18 games overall up to that point.

Which team was hurt more by injuries up until that point? True, we lost Kirk's feistiness for 6 games, and bench player Thomas, but we still had Salmons to step in for the Captain. And I'd say the loss of Michael Redd (for 30+games to that point) hurt more than the loss of the greatest white 29 year old defender from Iowa.

So, yes, I felt that Milwaukee, a far less talented team, played "pretty well" up until that point. Especially in comparison to my beloved Bulls.

BTW, Milwaukee had played the hardest part of their schedule in January, with 11 games against +.500 teams.

Okay, I have no problem with your opinion, mine's just different. However I will say 2 additional things:

1) Redd wasn't that great of a player this year. His loss did mean something but, it wasn't as catastrophic to their team as losing Noah was for our team. A friend of mine who is Bucks fan told me that their record with Redd in there was about even or worse than their record with out him.

2) While Rose did play in all of the games at the start of the season in hindsight we can see he wasn't playing like the "improved Rose" (When you said both Noah and Rose have made huge improvements this season) until mid-late December.

My main point being we were a bad team to start the season due to injuries causing poor play/not being in shape (Rose, TT, Noah). Then we were a pretty good team with everyone healthy and in shape, a playoff caliber/41+ win team IMO. Then due to 2 trades we lost some depth (TT & Salmons) then due to injury to key players for various amounts of games (Noah/Deng) we are a bad team with an almost 0 chance of making the playoffs.

Thats how I see it.

Michael Redd is a career 20 PPG scorer. That's why he's making 17 million this year. Your mentioned that your friend was disappointed in his performance this year, in the 12 games he started. True, his numbers were well below his career averages. I just want to confirm this...you believe that the injuries to Hinrich and Thomas hurt us more than the Michael Redd injury hurt Milwaukee? Just confirming...

 

[Shakes]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

TheStig wrote:

Every team has streches of injuries or people playing through injuries. Kobe has had a broken thumb for whole seasons at times and still gets wins and the lakers win, adding speratic injuries to bynum and gasol they still have the best record over the last couple of years.

The Lakers have more good players than us. Their top players are better than our top players. Of course they handle injuries better.

If Rose was a superstar last year and doing the same, Deng coming in committed and not playing on the gb team and noah caring, we could have been even better last year. I think its weird the same people who stick up for deng's injuries are the first to emphasize bgs injury. The guy got really injured for the first time in 5 years, I'm not gonna write him off because of that and I'm sure he will be back to usaul if not better next year.

I only mention it because if I'm going to say that in retrospect what we should have done, I'm going to have to consider all the facts. Fact is Gordon, Rose and Noah (and now maybe Deng) all got injured for significant chunks of this year, which would have killed our team. Yes I think Gordon will probably be back next year, but I was talking this year.

He's like a cockroach, he never gets affected by anything around him. Nothing ever sticks to him, he has absolutly become worse than he was as a rookie and yet he is the glue guy or shut down guy. And if he isn't a fixture or loved by management then why don't they dump him for an expiring? His 9 mill in cap space can get you a 5/55 deal to sign a lee, *** or maybe even boozer in addition to a max deal.

You can find a team willing to take Kirk on for expirings? I think the Bulls tried and failed at the trade deadline. Yes in retrospect they should have traded him during the off-season, but it did look like waiting until the trade deadline would net us more.

What I got from last year first and foremost was that Rose and BG were a good backcourt and one of the best offensive backcourts in the league. To me, if Rose made the same steps this year and could improve his d a bit and BG was healthy, I wouldn't hesitate to call them the best backcourt in the league. Add in a healthy Deng and a improved Noah and they are as you said a dark horse championship team with max cap room. Don't you think a guy like Bosh would be dying to come to that situation?

I think a guy like Bosh is dying to cash his bigger paycheck by staying with his team.

Negativity about the big 3 moving aside, as I said, Rose is looking good enough I worry less about flexibility right now, and so overpaying Gordon might have been the right thing to do.

 

[TheStig]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

Shakes wrote:

The Lakers have more good players than us. Their top players are better than our top players. Of course they handle injuries better.

They also lost someone much better than we have. They lost a top 5 player in the league, we a double double center.

I only mention it because if I'm going to say that in retrospect what we should have done, I'm going to have to consider all the facts. Fact is Gordon, Rose and Noah (and now maybe Deng) all got injured for significant chunks of this year, which would have killed our team. Yes I think Gordon will probably be back next year, but I was talking this year.

Regardless of injury, having an injured BG would have likely made the difference between playoffs and not making it. I'm sure BG would have won us at least a couple more games in the begining of the year and would be useful now instead of starting Pargo like we did tonight. If we could even sneak into the playoffs we would make it a series as everyone will be healthy by playoff time.

You can find a team willing to take Kirk on for expirings? I think the Bulls tried and failed at the trade deadline. Yes in retrospect they should have traded him during the off-season, but it did look like waiting until the trade deadline would net us more.

I really don't think they were willing too. It seemed quite obvious they weren't interested in trading him and it seemed like they would only trade him if they couldn't trade Salmons. He just isn't going away, I think he will retire a bull.

I think a guy like Bosh is dying to cash his bigger paycheck by staying with his team.

Negativity about the big 3 moving aside, as I said, Rose is looking good enough I worry less about flexibility right now, and so overpaying Gordon might have been the right thing to do.

I think Bosh wants to win. He is tired of losing. I don't think he would consider moving unless there was a clear chance of winning. No one really gives him that and toronto has improved enough to make him comfotable.

Eh, I guess the reason I was upset about losing BG is because I though him and Rose were a year to two away from being the best backcourt in the league. Unless we get Wade(much better no debate) it seems like we will always have kirk or a subpar sg.

 

[Shakes]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

The problem with Bosh not wanting to lose is he can always just sign with Toronto for more money then complain in a year. He doesn't have to take a pay cut to get out of Toronto. He can do it the way stars have always done it, through trade demands.

 

[TheStig]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

Shakes wrote:

The problem with Bosh not wanting to lose is he can always just sign with Toronto for more money then complain in a year. He doesn't have to take a pay cut to get out of Toronto. He can do it the way stars have always done it, through trade demands.

He certainly can but you saw how long it took VC to get out of Tornoto. He will have to really suck to get out of that town.

 

[Dpauley23]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

Fred wrote:

postdiction wrote:My main point being we were a bad team to start the season due to injuries causing poor play/not being in shape (Rose, TT, Noah). Thats how I see it.

Noah started last season out of shape. He played horribly for most of the first half. He was 1/2 the man he was this year. This year, from game 1, he started throwing up double doubles. Rose actually hit the rookie wall in December of last year, and played pretty inconsistently. We had Hinrich miss half the season, and Salmons and Miller only played in 25 games for us. We still won 41, despite major injuries to Hinrich, Deng, Gooden, and Hughes...and we didn't have Taj.

Rose started this season like he played last year. He went from solid to superstar in December. He wasn't bad to start this season. He wasn't the problem.

Going forward, this team is done if Rose is out. I agree injuries will kill us going forward. But there is no excuse for our poor record up to Feb, considering how well Noah, Rose, and Deng played. Despite, Kirk missing 6 games and Tyrus missing how ever games he missed.[/quote]

Wait are you really saying that the Gooden and Hughes injuries made us worse?

 

[Fred]

Re:CBE 93: How many wins will the Bulls finish wit

Dpauley23 wrote:

Fred wrote:

postdiction wrote:My main point being we were a bad team to start the season due to injuries causing poor play/not being in shape (Rose, TT, Noah). Thats how I see it.

Noah started last season out of shape. He played horribly for most of the first half. He was 1/2 the man he was this year. This year, from game 1, he started throwing up double doubles. Rose actually hit the rookie wall in December of last year, and played pretty inconsistently. We had Hinrich miss half the season, and Salmons and Miller only played in 25 games for us. We still won 41, despite major injuries to Hinrich, Deng, Gooden, and Hughes...and we didn't have Taj.

Rose started this season like he played last year. He went from solid to superstar in December. He wasn't bad to start this season. He wasn't the problem.

Going forward, this team is done if Rose is out. I agree injuries will kill us going forward. But there is no excuse for our poor record up to Feb, considering how well Noah, Rose, and Deng played. Despite, Kirk missing 6 games and Tyrus missing how ever games he missed.

Wait are you really saying that the Gooden and Hughes injuries made us worse?[/quote]

At the time, the Gooden injury made us worse. Noah was out of shape, and Tyrus was terrible as a fundamental defender. As I've said many times, the November-Jan 2008-09 was the worst interior defensive team I've ever seen. It's a miracle that were .500 in December, and all of it was due to the great play of our backcourt.

The Hughes injury hurt only because Hinrich was injured. There was about a week and a half where the Bulls had no depth in the backcourt due to injuries of Hinrich and Hughes. Hughes still sucks, but he's better than nothing, at least some of the time.

 

[postdiction]

postdiction wrote:

Fred wrote:


Michael Redd is a career 20 PPG scorer. That's why he's making 17 million this year. Your mentioned that your friend was disappointed in his performance this year, in the 12 games he started. True, his numbers were well below his career averages. I just want to confirm this...you believe that the injuries to Hinrich and Thomas hurt us more than the Michael Redd injury hurt Milwaukee? Just confirming...

lol @ Fred it looks like you have been using your jump to conclusions mat again.