Thank You Isiah

Some Random Thoughts About A Nice Win

2009-11-18T10:11:00.003-06:00

* After watching the Bulls break 100, I was a bit concerned I'd wake up this morning and the sun would be rising in the west, the sky would be black as night, and the U.S. Senate would be a functional institution. But no, everything still seems normal. Maybe the Bulls can keep trying this.

* It helps that the Kings are terrible defenders, particularly when decimated by injuries (although it's not like Martin and Nocioni would really help much on that end, either).

* Since I bemoaned our lack of Morris Peterson, Salmons has had two nice games. And even though Kirk shot like crap last night, he defended well, which, so long as Salmons and Deng are both hitting shots, is really all we need from him.

* I'm struggling to come up with the right nickname/metaphor for Pargo. He's not quite Halley's Comet, because his offense does show up a little more regularly than once every 76 years. Maybe Old Semi-Faithful? You can basically count on him to have an absurdly hot 3-minute offensive stretch about once every five games. Outside of that, he's totally useless; but those three-minute stretches really do help! Anyway, if you can come up with a proper metaphor for him, let me know.

* I think James Johnson has one of the weirdest games I've ever seen. He's definitely talented and skilled, but those talents and skills are almost completely at odds with the normal skillset of someone with his size (and at odds with what the Bulls really need from someone with his size). He's kinda like the inverse of a great rebounding point guard who has a nice post-up game. His handle looks pretty incredible, which, y'know, is great, but a power forward with a great handle isn't really all that necessary when you've got Derrick Rose. But I'm still intrigued by him. If utilized correctly, he could be a tremendous asset, but I think at the moment, utilizing him correctly would require making him too much the focus of the offense, which, at this point, probably isn't worth the tradeoff (on both the defensive end and in taking the ball out of Rose's hands).

* Speaking of Rose, he is obviously still injured, and all the people freaking out about any regression on his part need to recognize that. What made him so amazing last year was his explosiveness (particularly around the rim) and he is showing almost no signs of it right now. He looks...ordinary. To judge from last night, I would say he's at 80 percent, tops. Which leads to the question: Should the Bulls just sit him down until he completely heals? Not being a doctor or sports trainer, I have no idea. If there's even the slightest chance that he could permanently damage his ankle, then I would say, yes, absolutely, but that would mean flushing this season directly down the shitter, leaving an already-thin team absolutely threadbare. Though I often have my doubts, I'm going to kindly assume that the Bulls' organization isn't totally idiotic and that if Rose was in any jeopardy of causing any permanent damage by playing, they would make him sit. (They actually did this with Jordan when he got injured in his second year, and though he loathed and resented them for it, it was obviously the right call.) Which to me means that rather than gnashing our teeth about the lack of Rose's development, we should instead appreciate that he is on the floor every night, gutting it out, doing what he can. He's been a grinder, very much like this team, which is playing very good defense and is now at 6-4 (considerably better than what I thought they'd be at this point). Outside the Boston game and the 4th quarter of the Raps' game, they've been fun to watch, and I'm starting to focus less on what this team doesn't do (which is still considerable) and to appreciate more of what they do very well.

(P.S. Noah is totally awesome.)

Sign of the Apocalypse: Peterson Envy

2009-11-12T15:54:00.005-06:00

To piggyback on my last post: Writing about the firing of Byron Scott, Matt Yglesias notes:

Paul, Okafor, and a bunch of average guys could make the playoffs. But these are not average guys. Morris Peterson is shooting .341 from the field and .269 from three point land.

For comparison's sake: Kirk is shooting .346 and .222 from 3 land; Salmons is at .306 and .262.

My Kingdom For A Two-Guard!

2009-11-12T09:53:00.003-06:00

Only caught the fourth quarter, so it's kinda funny in retrospect that throughout it, I was so disgusted by Kirk's play that I was screaming at the TV, "Where the hell is Salmons?! Put in Salmons!!," blissfully unaware that the subject of my desire was himself mired in a 1 for 11 game. (Then again, at least he had no turnovers, compared to Kirk's four. And my God, was Kirk fouling up the offense in the 4th! Dribbling to nowhere, stupid passes, forced shots. Just putrid.)

Anyway, you can't win when your two-guards score 16 points on combined 4 of 21 shooting against the worst defensive team in the league. The good news was that Hinrich and Salmons managed to hit 2 of 7 threes, thereby raising their 3 pt. FG percentage thus far to a stunning 24.6.

In other news, there's some guy playing the two for Detroit who's putting up 24 points a game, hitting 37% of his threes (still a career low), and getting to the line 7 times a game. (Our two shooting guards don't get there five times a night combined.)

But hey, why cry over spilled milk? Jerry Reinsdorf made a lot of money by letting that guy go, and we fans should like totally appreciate that.

Dates To Remember: 12/7/41, 9/11/01, 1/5/09

2009-11-10T09:37:00.003-06:00

In light of this, let us never, ever forget: Rick Morrissey is a douchenozzle.

Ten months ago, this guy wanted to cut Joakim Noah while admiring Larry Hughes' game, and he now thinks that eating a newspaper in public will somehow atone for his stupidity. Of course, when you churn out crappy columns every week without shame, what's a little more public humiliation?

Another Bouquet for Noah

2009-11-09T10:43:00.002-06:00

He's been getting props all over the place, but take a look at Hollinger's PER leaders among centers.

He's third, behind only Howard and Duncan. And looking at the rest of the list, I'm not sure if there's another center on it who I would prefer over him. Maybe Lopez, maybe Horford, but while not as skilled offensively as those two, Jo rebounds and passes better than both of them. (And probably is Lopez's near equal in blocking shots.) Oden, of course, still tantalizes with his potential, but given his injury history and how much trouble he has staying on the floor, I'm not sure I'd even take him over Noah.

Anyway, those are the only three possibilities coming to mind; any others?

Just So We're Clear...

2009-11-04T12:35:00.002-06:00

...I'm not saying that Jason Goff, Sarah Spain, and Steve Rosenbloom are involved in some sordid love triangle that may or may not also include bestiality. I'm just saying that it's "awfully convenient" that all three of them made dark insinuations about Tyrus Thomas' flu without a scintilla of evidence.

Of course, just as Ockham's razor might suggest that, lo and behold, Tyrus Thomas actually had the flu, one might also deduce that these three are just terrible journalists.

A Little Unsettling...

2009-11-02T10:30:00.002-06:00

Keeping in mind the GIGANTIC caveats that a) it's a totally worthless three-game sample size and b) the Bulls' three opponents thus far are among the league leaders in defensive efficiency (and will likely remain among them even when they're not playing the Bulls), is anyone else a little concerned that the Bulls are in the league's Top 5 in both offensive rebounding and smallest turnover ratio, and yet are the league's third-worst team in offensive efficiency?

I suppose the glass-half-full way to look at this is that all the Bulls really need to do is improve their shooting, which is (maybe) unlikely to remain this bad. The glass-half-empty view is that if there is any decrease in offensive boards and/or increase in turnovers, this offense could become historically shitty.

(But, hyuk, hyuk, Ben Gordon's really short, chortle, chortle...)

Game One: The X-Man Cometh

2009-10-30T11:14:00.003-05:00

During the first, second, and fourth quarters last night, the Bulls scrapped their way to a standstill against a talented (but tired-looking) Spurs team. The difference in the game was the third quarter, which is why, with apologies to Xavier McDaniel, I’ve got a new nickname for Tyrus: The X-Man. In the third quarter, he showed why, though by no means their best or even most essential player, he is perhaps the Bulls’ most important player, the X-factor who will determine just how good this team becomes.

And what’s great is, he doesn’t even need to be “consistent” throughout an entire game. Rather he just needs to consistently bring spurts like he flashed in the third quarter. Man, was he everywhere: blocking shots (3), getting rebounds (3), getting to the line (3 times), nailing open jumpers and cutting for easy dunks (going 4 of 6 from the floor), and not turnning the ball over once. It’s a cliché but Tyrus embodied it during the third quarter: He was a game changer.

These sporadic bursts of dynamism are what helped his LSU team reach the Final Four when he was a freshman, and they're why the Bulls drafted him over someone like Aldridge. Over the long haul, Aldridge will likely be a more consistent player, pulling in his 7 to 8 rebounds over four quarters and steadily knocking down his open looks. But when Tyrus plays with the type of controlled fury he unleashed during that 12-minute span last night, he becomes something like a turbo booster that launches the Bulls ahead of their opponents. Rather than see him average 20 pts. and 10 rebs. a game (which to me is a line suggestive of a measured, methodical player), I think I'd prefer regularly seeing Tyrus go bonkers in a single quarter.

We have plenty of consistent players on this team--Hinrich, Deng, Salmons, Miller, and even, perhaps, Taj, who impressed me despite not shooting the ball particularly well. What we don’t have, besides Rose, is another dynamo, and if Ty can provide that (even if it’s only for a quarter), this team could be very good.

One other thought: Since I haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere, I think Noah’s interior passing really deserves to be lauded. The pass he threw to Deng curling underneath the basket for an easy layup was perhaps my favorite play of the night (the anticipation and the execution were so, so lovely). And it’s a nice change-up to have the offense initiated by Noah (or Miller, who seems to have had a fantastic impact on Noah’s game) at the top of the key. As good as Rose is on the ball, he can be equally effective off it (I think it’s why he and Kirk play so well together) and having such a fine-passing big man really helps the Bulls utilize that aspect of Rose’s game.

Two (Kinda Related) Thoughts

2009-09-30T13:29:00.002-05:00

1. Since it's on True Hoop, everyone's going to see it and talk about it, but it's worth quoting anyway:

My prediction is that the Bulls are going to stink this year. Ben Gordon and Brad Miller were there best players. They let Ben Gordon go to the team they need to beat for the playoffs? Why'd they do that?

He wanted a lot of money.
Well, he's worth it.

Letting him go is just beyond stupid. It's ridiculous. And who'd they pick up to replace him? Jannero Pargo?

Exactly.

2. The big talk thus far in training camp is that this year the Bulls are going to focus on defense. How are they going to replace Gordon? Defense. How are they going to improve on last season? Defense. Defense, defense, defense.

Now, I'm not opposed to improving defense. It's half the game, and the Bulls were terrible at it last year. But, since I haven't seen it elsewhere, I think it's worth pointing out that they were, um, just as awful on the offensive end last year. And that they lost arguably their most potent offensive player from that team. And that during their best stretch of ball last season (the 12-6 run at the end of the year), they were a team that won by outscoring their opponents, not out-defending them.

Now, again, this isn't to say that the Bulls can't win through defense or that they don't need to improve it. But I'm a bit concerned. It's kinda the opposite of the old saw about how when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like nail. My fear is the Bulls don't have a full hammer (i.e., an offense and defense), so they're telling themselves they can drive in a nail with just a handle, and no peen. It could still work, but it will not be easy.

"...but when I was growing up, I played outside at a park."

2009-08-28T09:23:00.001-05:00

Derrick, on his goals for the upcoming season:

DR: To be the best player in the league at my position, and hopefully be the best player in the NBA. There's no point of playing basketball if you don't want to be the best -- or doing anything if you don't want to be the best. So that's my goal for next season.

(via http://blogs.suntimes.com/sportsprose/2009/08/derrick_rose_talks_nba_2k10_dr.html)

Let's hope Chris Paul doesn't read the Sun-Times.

Reinsdorf Owns Bulls, Lots of Money, No Responsibility for Anything

2009-07-21T10:03:00.004-05:00

There's much to yell and scream about when it comes to this interview with Reinsdorf (it really has to be read to be believed), but I just want to focus on one aspect of Jerry's astonishing self-regard. W/r/t the Ben Wallace signing, Jerry sez:

Was Ben Wallace a mistake? Probably. What we didn't think about was Ben needs to play alongside somebody who can score a lot of points. But it's not the thought of Ben Wallace that makes us be careful. It's just the thought of when you make a mistake, you own that mistake.

Okay, first of all: "Probably":???? Ben Wallace is out of the league, and the final year of his contract money is now going to two guys (Tim Thomas and Jerome James) who will not play one minute for the Bulls this year. I think we can safely change this to "Certainly." And I love that the lesson Jerry's taken away from this signing is not "Don't give large, long-term contracts to under-sized overachievers whose number have begun declining and who are on the far side of their prime," but rather that "Ben needs to play alongside somebody who can score a lot of points." Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

But it's not even that that astonishes. Rather, it's his sentiment, "when you make a mistake, you own that mistake," which, considering the context of the rest of the interview, in which Jerry runs, hides, prevaricates, and outright lies to avoid any responsibility for or ownership of the wayward direction of the Bulls franchise in recent years, that is absolutely gobsmacking.

To wit: "I wasn't talking about Vinny that day [when he called the season a "disaster" and an "embarrassment"]. It got totally misinterpreted." This is simply bullshit. In that interview, Jerry praised Pax to the heavens, and so North and Jiggets followed up with the question on whether this meant he was specifically disappointed in Del Negro. His response? "I have a lot of thoughts on that, but they're nothing I can really say publicly."

On Ben Gordon: "Actually, we made a decision a year ago not to commit long term to Ben. ... We have [John] Salmons and a hell of a three-guard rotation with Salmons, [Kirk] Hinrich and Derrick [Rose]. Ben wasn't going to get a whole lot of playing time. His time was going to be diminished." I love this. No reckoning or reasoning as to why Kirk might be a better fit than Gordon; no, rather he chooses to slag Ben Gordon as a player, the dude who led this team in scoring for the past four years and who was nothing but professional during his time here. Stay classy, Jerry; I'm sure the 2010 free agents are going to be running over themselves to play under someone like you.

He does the same thing when responding to why the team didn't pull the trigger on the Gasol deal: "Gasol made sense for the Lakers because, what is he, their third best player probably?" Again, Jerry could simply explain that Pax believed Memphis wanted too much for him, or that the Bulls didn't want Brian Cardinal's contract. But no, he has to diminish Gasol the player, calling him the Lakers' "third best player." (Obviously, he is their second best, and in a lot of ways, he is really the straw that stirs the Lakers' drink.)

There's a lot more fatuous, complacent babble to shred in this interview, but it's hard to work up the energy to do so. I love the city of Chicago, and I love basketball, and so, ergo, I love the Bulls. But loving something owned by Reinsdorf manages to suck away a significant amount of one's passion.

Ugh...

2009-07-02T10:00:00.002-05:00

What Matt said.

I don't have much else to add, particularly about a team that could have re-signed a 20 ppg player for almost $1.5 mil. per year less than his market value (indeed, would've basically gotten a free year out of him) last summer, except that doing so would've meant backtracking from their own arbitrary bullshit deadline. So Jerry got to keep his pride, and the Bulls' best offensive player goes to their longtime rival, where he will undoubtedly torch us a couple of times each season.

Any talk that this is all part of the Bulls' master plan to get Wade needs to keep in mind that this is the Bulls, and there is no master plan. So far as I can tell, there are Jerry's whims ("I like Ben Wallace (and his agent, Arn Tellem)!", "I like Luol Deng!", "I like Kirk Hinrich!", "I don't like Mike D'Antoni!", "I don't like Ben Gordon!", "I don't like Tyrus Thomas!"), and that's about it. There are a ton of teams that are going to have salary cap space next year, and why any of the top free agents would choose to play for a franchise this fucked up and screwy is beyond my ken.

Think I'll be taking a break from the blog for a while, because at this point, what's the fucking point?

I'll Make MinceMeat Out of That Tweet, Mouse

2009-06-29T10:18:00.002-05:00

A Word of Advice For Late-First Round Picks: When there's a better than average chance that you're hardly going to see the floor this year, it might be a good idea to swallow your pride and keep the bragging about the toughness of your fuckin' college conference to yourself.

(That said, TYI approves of Taj's taste in films.)

Who Should the Bulls Draft?

2009-06-22T16:52:00.004-05:00

Honestly, I have no frickin’ idea.

It’s not that there aren’t players I like or identifiable needs for this current Bulls team. But, at the same time, possible trades/Gordon’s free agency has left this Bulls team in such potential flux that those needs could change in an instant. Out of the eight core players on this team (Rose, Gordon, Hinrich, Salmons, Deng, Tyrus, Noah, and Miller), only Rose and Noah seem to be absolute locks to be here by the start of the season. (And, probably, Miller, though a team eager for cap space might be looking to snatch him up ‘round the next trading deadline.)

Anyway, I’m just going to sketch out some possible team scenarios and suggest draft picks according to those. Let’s begin with:

A) The Bulls trade Hinrich for Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw (Ignoring the part about swapping picks, which would obviously be madness.)

I like this trade for a number of reasons: It gives the Bulls a perfectly competent backup veteran PG for one year at half the cost of Hinrich; the addition of Outlaw means that should the Bulls need to package either Deng or Salmons with (say) Tyrus in a supposed blockbuster deal for Bosh or Stoudemire, they’ll have a viable backup at the 3; and it frees the Bulls from the last two years of Kirk’s contract.

But this trade doesn’t end the need for a relatively cheap, long-term backup for Rose, and I think it obviously makes a lot of sense to use one of the 1st rounders in this year’s draft to do just that. Though I don’t mind the due dilligence, reaching for Wake’s Jeff Teague, VCU’s Eric Maynor, or UNC’s Ty Lawson with the 16th pick (as Sam Smith hints at here) doesn’t make much sense to me. Much preferable is Smith’s other suggestion: Florida’s Nick Calathes with the 26th pick.

Calathes will play in Greece next year, but that works perfectly in tandem with this proposed deal; we get Blake’s more polished services for one year, then bring in a much cheaper (and somewhat more seasoned) Calathes after that. As far as Calathes’ game goes, I like it. Offensively, he’s a very creative passer who has good 3-pt. range and can really finish inside at the hoop. He’s not as quick as Hinrich, and I don’t see him being a good NBA defender at all, but for a backup swing guard playing 15 min. a game or so, he should be fine.

Assuming this trade doesn’t happen for whatever reason, and the Bulls ultimately trade Hinrich for a player who can’t spell Rose, I’d be cool with taking UCLA’s Darren Collison with the 26 pick, who I think will be a perfectly adequate backup NBA point guard.

SCENARIO B) The Bulls fail to re-sign Ben Gordon
This scenario appears increasingly likely, and, quite frankly, it freaks me out. I wouldn’t be so concerned if the Bulls had a coach with an actual offensive scheme, but since VDN’s “scheme” appears to consist of the high pick-and-roll and “let guys play one-on-one,” then it’s kinda a big problem to lose perhaps our best one-on-one offensive player (as well as our best three point shooter).

In any event, by this point, the Bulls should have a pretty decent notion of whether they’re going to be able to re-sign Ben. And if they don’t think they are, they need “insurance” in this draft, and no, contra Chad Ford, FSU’s Toney Douglas will not suffice. To believe he can in any way replace Gordon’s production goes beyond wishful thinking, and lands firmly in the realm of magical thinking. (Although considering Pax appeared to have similar ideas w/r/t Jameson Curry, we cannot rest assured that Bulls execs reside do not reside in that realm.)

Real insurance (in asmuch as one might be able to acquire such in this pretty weak draft) comes from one of three players: James Harden, Stephon Curry, and, to a lesser extent, Gerald Henderson. At their current position, the Bulls have no chance at the first two and only an outside shot (at best) at Henderson. That’s why, if the Wiz would bite, I like the idea of sending Kirk and the 16 pick to Washington for the 5, Etan Thomas, and Javaris Crittendon.

It’s no guarantee Harden will be there at the 5, but I think Stephon Curry might be a better (or at least more apt) replacement for Gordon than Harden. Indeed, I believe he’ll be similar to Gordon as far as being a hard-to-characterize offensive force, but he’ll probably have the same trouble guarding a lot 2s that Gordon has. Harden has the physical tools to be a good defender, but, as this post notes, his shooting is somewhat worrisome, and, with Rose, the Bulls don’t really need an off-guard who can initiate the offense. As for Henderson, I don’t think he’ll be a great offensive player, but his game could evolve into a foul-drawing slasher’s (like Corey Magette’s), and he has the length to be a terrific defender at the 2. Much different than Gordon, but adequate in his own way.

SCENARIO 3: The Bulls Stand Pat
I think this is unlikely, but I suppose it’s possible they bring roughly the same team back that they had last year. In this case, I really like DaJuan Blair, whose phenomenal college rebounding projects nicely for the pros. However, most mock drafts have him gone by 16, so I guess I could settle for (gack!) Tyler Hansborough, who, despite being one of the most annoying dudes on the planet, I think will probably turn out to be a semi-decent frontcourt rotation player, a la Glen Davis. His jumper looked to be improving last year, and I like how he can score inside w/out really jumping (i.e., by shooting with either hand from almost any odd angle). If you’re unathletic, you at least need to be skilled, and I think Hansborough is that (as well as—yay!—a hard worker).

I suppose I also wouldn’t care too much if the Bulls went in the entirely different direction and, instead of going for Hansborough’s high floor/low ceiling, took B.J. Mullens, who in three years could be either Brook Lopez or Patrick O’Bryant.

One dude I’m not enamoured with is James Johnson, one of the fattest players in the draft, who strikes me as an unathletic Tyrus Thomas. (And, of course, he’s the name being thrown around as someone the Bulls might be willing to trade up to get.) I suppose if you’re ultimately looking to swap Tyrus in a deal for Bosh or (perhaps) Stoudemire, then I’d be okay with this pick, but as the roster is currently constructed, Johnson seems redundant to me.

time for Pax to earn his keep

2009-05-20T17:06:00.003-05:00

1. Hinrich for Camby

2. Brad Miller and #16 for Vince Carter.

3. Collison with #26

4. Unless you can dump Deng, don't resign Gordon.

Assuming Bulls get a medical waiver for Jerome James this should put them right at the luxury cap. If not, considering how much money Reinsdorf has made from the Bulls, going over the cap once a decade should be doable.

Camby, Noah and Ty at the 4 and 5.

Deng, Carter and Salmons at the swing.

Rose, Collison and Carter at the 1 and 2.

Rose, Carter, Salmons, Deng and Ty as Bill Simmons' ultimate 2010 Eastern conference playoff small-ball team.

2nd Pick 2nd Overall

2009-05-15T13:43:00.002-05:00

Everyone else is going to post something nice. Guitar Center Olympian below.

OK, this might stir things up a bit - I'm sure some snobs will stick their noses in here somehow but...

I'm coming around to the opinion that Wayman Tisdale does NOT play bass. Oh, he plays a large, long scale, extended range, multi string instrument, but in his band, he's not playing bass. Nope, there's some guy in the back playing bass - nice groove, good tone, just what you'd expect. But out front there's Wayman. Big ol' Wayman. And he's choppin' and lickin' all over the place. Uh-uh, Wayman isn't playing bass... :scowl:

...he's playing the only guit*r that fits him! :D

The Year of Daily Orgasms From the American Heartland

2009-05-01T13:28:00.002-05:00

You know that video in Infinite Jest that's so entertaining and enthralling that people will just go on watching it forever, shitting themselves and withering away happily without food or drink?

I think it's real:

Wow!

2009-04-30T23:22:00.004-05:00

Brad Miller (or, as I've taken to shouting his name upon his hitting of an open three, Brad Mill-AH!)...WOW!!

Joakim Noah...WOW!!! (AND FUCK YEAH!!!)

John Salmons...WOW!

Looking at the box score, it's hard to figure out how they won. The Bulls were out-rebounded (by seven on the offensive end), had four more turnovers, and were outscored by three at the charity stripe. I did the math, and efficiency-wise, the Celts actually outscored them per 100 possessions, 111.4 to 109.4. But ultimately, Boston had Ray Allen, Glen Davis...and that was it. Remove Ray from the equation, and they shot 2 for 13 from 3 pt. land. Meanwhile, Salmons and Miller combined to go 7/11 from long-distance. (Just imagine if this team still had Nocioni and Gooden...shudder!)

I know it won't happen, but if someone could explain to me why Rondo shouldn't be suspended for Game 7 for his cheap-shot (and then sucker-punch) against Kirk, I'd appreciate it. I'm still trying to figure out how he stayed in this game. I'd say there was no justice on this earth, except tonight, there was. Now come on, Karma Police...arrest that man.

UPDATE: By the way, if the Bulls are up by three points in Game 7 with less than 24 seconds left and VDN chooses not to foul, I am going to figure out a way to murder him. If that's not justifiable homicide, then nothing is.

Vinny out for game 6 with Swine Flu?

2009-04-30T16:16:00.001-05:00

One could only hope.

Brad Miller...

2009-04-28T21:38:00.001-05:00

...we still love ya, big fella.

Now let's go take these motherfuckers out in seven.

Game 4: Bulls Overcome Celtics, Del Negro

2009-04-26T17:49:00.003-05:00

Don't have too much to say about the game, other than that Vinny better be kissing Ben Gordon's ass the rest of the week. That big-balled shot probably made it possible for most of the media to overlook his a) playing John Salmons at the 4 during crunchtime and b) at the end of regulation, failing to put Ray Allen in the "fifth row with the popcorn man." (And the same goes with Rondo at the end of double OT; that he wasn't fouled before passing the ball to Pierce is unbelievably egregious.)

Aside from that, Hinrich, Miller and Noah all had nice games, and, turnovers aside, it was absolutely a brilliant game by Derrick, who not only fucked around and nearly got a triple double, but also answered my prayers on the glass. Indeed, overall, it was a much tidier job by the Bulls on the glass; if they can limit Boston's O rebounds even somewhat, they're going to knock this tired, whiny, old-ass team out of the playoffs. It just sucks they have to overcome their coach, as well.

Oh, and I can't find it online yet, but when it hits YouTube, I promise to embed Gordon's OT game-tying shot and his "check out my huge nuts" reaction to it on national TV. That pretty much made my weekend.

Derrick Rose Has To Do A Lot of Things

2009-04-21T12:08:00.005-05:00

For full-on post-mortems, read Matt (who's right about everything except John Salmons) and KD (who's right about everything.)

Derrick Rose has to do a lot of things on this team. He has to be the primary ball-handler, he has to run the break (and know when to run it), he has to initiate the offense (such as it is). He has to be a big-time scorer, and a big-time facilitator. He has to get into the lane, he has to finish in the lane, he has to get to the line, he has to knock down the mid-range jumper. This is a lot of stuff to make a 20-year-old rookie do, and he's pretty much done it all with an almost eerie nonchalance.

But, I'm sorry to say, there's one more thing Derrick Rose has to do: He has to keep Rajon Rondo off the mother fuckin' offensive glass! Everybody and their mother could see that the Bulls got killed on the offensive boards last night, but what I didn't notice until today was that Rondo got 1/3 of Boston's offensive boards. And yes, Perkins got another third, but if we all agree that Noah has to do a better job on the defensive glass, the fact remains that it's even more important for Derrick to do a better job as well. Because (though I'm coming to totally loathe him) Kendrick Perkins is a helluva lot bigger than Noah and one of his main jobs out on the court is to attack the glass. If dude gets some O-boards, it may be frustrating, but it's at least understandable. Whereas with Rose, there's absolutely no reason he should be allowing Rondo to get seven offensive boards; he's bigger than him, he's stronger than him, he can leap higher than him, and he's just as lightning-quick.

Anyway, I don't have much else to say about Game 2, other than I found Boston's (and Kevin Garnett's) trash-talking throughout the game pretty fucking ridiculous, considering they needed a miraculous three to win one game against a .500 team on their own homecourt. To me, it looked like so much raging against the dying of the light, and I'm fully expecting things to get pretty frickin' dim for Boston at the UC. But we'll see.

UPDATE: It went without saying, but for posterity's sake, I should add that Ben Gordon is a motherfucking g.

Derrick Rose Is A Mother Fuckin' G

2009-04-18T19:01:00.001-05:00

(And so is Tyrus.)

That is all.

Obligatory Bulls Playoff Post

2009-04-17T12:46:00.003-05:00

Not sure if we have any readers left since I've been treating this poor blog like a leprous, red-headed stepchild, but seeing as the Bulls summoned the energy to make the postseason, I should summon enough to make some comments/observations/predictions. So in no particular order, here are some jumbled thoughts.

1) I've got to say, there's a part of me that likes what the Bulls have done over the past month or so, aside from the fact that they went 12-6 in their last 18 games. Rather than accept their status as a middling offensive team (they finished 19th in the NBA in Offensive Efficency) and a middling defensive team (they finished 18th in Defensive Efficiency), the Bulls went to the extremes in their last 18 games. By my calculations, during that span, their Offensive Efficiency shot up to 109.5 pts. per 100 possessions, which, over the course of the full season, would've ranked them 5th in the NBA, between Cleveland and Dallas. (Before the last two sub-par offensive games, they'd reached as high as 110.7, which would've ranked them second in the league.) In other words, they became an elite offensive squad, which, y'know, is exciting and fun to watch.

At the same time, though, they became one of the worst defensive teams in the league, allowing their opponents to score at a clip (again, by my perhaps-dodgy calculations) of 109.9 pts. per 100 possessions, which would've ranked them fourth-to-last in the NBA, not quite as porous as Golden State, but not as staunch and lockdown as the fearsome Minnesota Timberwolves.

On just a cursory examination, what accounts for much of this (on both ends) is another statistical extremity: offensive rebounding. Again, the Bulls are one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the league, ranking 6th overall. But as good as they are on the offensive boards, they're equally bad at rebounding on the defensive end.

None of this portends well against Boston, which is third in the league in defensive rebounding and just behind the Bulls (tied for 7th) in offensive rebounding. Garnett's absence will definitely help the Bulls' offensive rebounding (he's one of the best defensive rebounders in the league) but defensively, the Bulls are really going to have to keep an eye on Leon Powe, who, with all apologies to Kendrick Perkins, is in fact the the true beast on the boards. (Although Perk is no slouch himself, on either end.) On the plus side, at least we don't have to worry about Dwight Howard.

2) It's probably been talked about a bunch already in a bunch of places, but the thought of a gimpy John Salmons trying to stop Paul Pierce is pretty terrifying. What's worse, you know the absence of KG is going to motivate Pierce to prove he can put the team on his back, and I just don't see the Bulls having any answer for him. (By the way, with all the Deng-hating going on in this city, I'll note it would be very helpful to have him healthy right about now.) I give Salmons props for gutting it out the past month, but I fear he's going to be completely overmatched against Pierce. It might be interesting to see what Tyrus could do on him, but if he wasn't doing so while playing on a frontline alongside Miller and Noah, that switch would cause all sorts of other problems down low. And that would leave no room at the inn for Tim Thomas, which might just about break poor Vinny's heart.

3) I heard on the radio today that Big Baby had been playing real well for Boston lately, so I was a bit surprised to see Matt pooh-pooh him in this post. I looked into it a little more, and it turns out Matt is pretty much correct. Yeah, his minutes have gone up and his shooting % has improved somewhat, but he's still a terrible overall rebounder (though pretty good on the offensive boards), a sub-par free throw shooter, and a non-entity as a shot blocker. But what shocked me was when I compared him with Tyrus. At first glance, nothing's too surprising, but check out their career minutes per game: 17.8 for Big Baby vs. 19.9 for Tyrus. (And that factors in Tyrus' 27.5 mpg this season.) In other words, a team that starts Kevin Garnett has somehow found a way to get almost equal minutes for a young, early 2nd-round player as the team that has started Drew Gooden, Joe Smith and P.J. Brown has managed to get for the second overall pick in the draft. I know, I know, it's crying over spilled milk, but my God, what a fucking waste.

4) Anyway, the only hope I see for the Bulls in this series lies in three possibilities: 1) Ben Gordon shoots the lights out; 2) Tyrus, seeing no KG, goes bonkers; and c) Derrick Rose says, "Fuck it, I'm winning this series." It's that last possibility I'm most intrigued by. Defensively, Derrick could have plenty of trouble with Rondo, but potentially, there's nothing this kid can't do. Bouncing the defending champs almost single-handedly is certainly too much to ask of a rookie (any rookie), but at times, Rose makes me think anything is possible.

So fuck it: Bulls in 6.