ESPN: Bulls defensive/offensive efficiency season tracker: Defense #1, Offense #12

[ChiSoxJuan]

Your PG is your best handler/distributor of the ball & that's Rose. He may very well be the best in the NBA in the near future in that role alone. But like Wade, Rose also possesses all of the qualities of a SG & even some qualities of a SF. As Rose gets older, you would like to transition him from PG to a Wade like role so that he can roam the court more & use his speed to get open more.

[Iggz53]

DLee speaks the truth

[D1RoseJM]

So that's an issue of the supporting cast on our team not an issue of our leading scorer happening to play point guard. If you swap Rose for Kobe right now you can type your exact paragraph above and replace "Rose" with "Kobe" and it will ring true. Right now we need Boozer healthy and we need our other guys to step up. It's not an issue of Rose being our point guard and our top scorer, it's an issue of guys not playing well the first few games. Don't forget we are in a new system with new players and a new coach. There will be growing pains.

I know it's too early in the season and I don't have no problem with rose getting his points. Also, I never said Its impossible to win a championship with a pg being the leading scorer, just rare. Its just frustrates the hell out if me that Deng can't step it up a notch so we have to keep rose in for the majority of the time. Who would of thought that Noah through two games is our second leading scorer

[DLeeicious]

You guys are really funny ganging up on this guy for stating the same facts that you hear and have heard on radio, television and seen in print. Many basketball minds greater than anyone hear on this forum have stated the same things publicly and to this point, in the last 15 years, have been correct. So how can you argue against that?

History is proof enough.. You cant win the big dance with your pg leading the team in scoring during the regular season. If you think about it, it does make sense. If your team is used to a pg that dominants the ball in that manner, how can you possible have other teammates get better at taking over the game when its needed and counts. it is really that simple.

Until thibs forces deng to score more, he wont and until Rose forces deng to score more (and when i say force, I mean put him in the positions to score and live with the results so he gets used to scoring consistantly) it wont happen. They will have to force him into that role because he does not have the stones to take it.


And another thing, bird was not a point foward, he was a great passing foward with great vision. They did not play him at the 1 nor did they let him bring the ball up, nor did they let him defend the one amongst other things that a point foward does. There is a difference between a point foward and a great passing foward. Pippen, Hill, James, etc.. are point fowards. Bird was not. Bird did not dribble the ball all over the place and was a great half court playmaker, but that does not make you a point foward. I dont know where that came from and Im more surprised that others here did not correct that statement.

15 years is an enormous sample size for proving a statistic to be accurate or true. Especially since there have been like 6 different teams to win it in in that span.

You say it makes sense but the opposite side of your argument is true. If you most dominant ball handler is your biggest scoring threat then he also requires the most attention from the opposing defense which in turn allows his teammates more scoring opportunities. So why exactly can't an efficient scoring point guard who happens to be his teams leading scorer win a title? There is not one good reason that can't be countered.

More accurately I will buy that no one player can win a title without a supporting cast. That I'll buy.

[jtsunami]

I just don't understand why people think there is a template for winning a championship. The Lakers did it with Kobe and Shaq then Kobe and Gasol. The Pistons did it with a smorgasbord of players. The Bulls did it with Jordan, Pippen, and no low post game. Spurs with a great PF and good PG and SF.

I could go on and on. There's many ways to build a championship. It'd not like we NEED a traditional PG like Nash paired with a low post presence. It has failed many times with Nash-Amare, DWill-Boozer, on and on.

Rose is a great player and a great PG. Just because he won't be John Stockton doesn't mean he won't lead his team to greatness.

[*-THE REAL GM-*]

Yeah this is the thing. The league is contantly evolving. Something that may have been true even 5 years ago could be completely irrelevant today. To say something like "A team can't win with their point guard as their leading scorer" is beyond absurd. So Duncan edged out Parker by a little over a point per game in 2007 - Phewwww otherwise they couldn't have won the title that year. I'm sure if Parker was ahead with a few games left he would have been forced to tank and not score to ensure Duncan led the team in ppg because again a team can't win the title if their point guard is their leading scorer.

My point is, throw out rules of thumb in basketball because they are useless and arbitrary 99.9% of the time.

The game has not changed enough in the past 15 years to "throw out" historic proofs in basketball. Much greater basketball minds have recognized this fact (its just as much a fact as the sun is going to rise in the morning - while you really have no proof, the world has not changed enough to for anyone to think that the sun wont rise - this has been the same sort of fact, one inwhich the chances are so slim that they are vurtually negligible).

Guys have a bunch of ifs, what if Rose was kobe, what if parker had this, what if.. Well what ifs and a penny can only buy you penny candy. The truth is in the history - and the history has shown the sun will rise and that with the way the game has been for the last 15 years - pgs that lead their teams in scoring cant go all the way.

I dont think it accurate calling historic fact arbitrary (even in basketball) and I know you dont live and plan your life discounting history. So how can you apply this stance now, in this regard.

Yes the sample size is statistically small, but it is indicitive of the a certain formula of requirements needed to even seriously compete for a ring in the last 15 years. The proof of such formula has been consistant, thus the make up of champion ship teams have been quite similar if you ponder the last 15 champions.

Oh yeah .. IMHO .. Scoring lead + pg = Allen iverson, or undersized 2 gaurd. Where are these type of player? 6th men or turkey or at home watching the playoffs? If your PG dominantes the ball that much, he should be playing off the ball because that type of consistant play out of your pg leads to shoot outs and short term consistancy - sometimes (see philly, portland in the mid 90's). If you pg is playing of the ball, who is he gaurding? THis is still a team game and if your pg is more gun then playmaker you can forget it. history has proved this over and over again.

[DLeeicious]

The game has not changed enough in the past 15 years to "throw out" historic proofs in basketball. Much greater basketball minds have recognized this fact (its just as much a fact as the sun is going to rise in the morning - while you really have no proof, the world has not changed enough to for anyone to think that the sun wont rise - this has been the same sort of fact, one inwhich the chances are so slim that they are vurtually negligible).

Guys have a bunch of ifs, what if Rose was kobe, what if parker had this, what if.. Well what ifs and a penny can only buy you penny candy. The truth is in the history - and the history has shown the sun will rise and that with the way the game has been for the last 15 years - pgs that lead their teams in scoring cant go all the way.

I dont think it accurate calling historic fact arbitrary (even in basketball) and I know you dont live and plan your life discounting history. So how can you apply this stance now, in this regard.

My point is the sample size involved here. You claim it's as much a fact as the sun rising. The sun has risen for millions of years, there have been 6 (maybe 7?) championship teams in the last 15 years who have happened to not have their point guard lead them in scoring. So does that timespan make it a fact? I'm sure you can come up with about 100 other "facts" that all those teams had in common and add those to the list of rules in building a team because if it's happened the last 15 years it must be true.

It's like when watching Monday Night Football they put a stat on the board, "The Colts have never won a game on a Monday when the temperature is below 47 degrees.".

[Bowski]

This is a retarded argument. Why does it matter if you're a PG or SG or SF? There are two types of offenses primarily: Slashers and big men

Offenses are run through your star player. Are you telling me if the Bulls played Jordan at PG (basically meaning he brings the ball up with nobody defending him) they wouldn't have won. I mean christ, it saves the Bulls offense one pass because the PG's job was to pass the ball to MJ.

When the Heat won what did they do? They got the ball to Wade and he ran the offense. Lakers got the ball to Kobe. Would you feel better if we called Rose a SG and Bogans the PG? Rose would still be playing the same role on offense that Kobe and Wade play for there teams. Bogans can bring the ball up, pass the ball to Rose and then he can do what he needs to do with the ball. Who brings up the ball for Miami this year? LeBron or Wade probably... I guess they can't win either.

Rose plays a near identical game as all those guys mentioned above (Jordan, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Magic, Isiah) but has a PG label next to him. His job is to dominate the ball and create offense for himself and his teammates just like all those other guys. What makes a leading scoring of any position relevant to winning championships? You should be looking at how the offense is run and not by the position played. I bet if you did a correlation of all 5 positions to championships won you wouldn't find anything specific and like someone said before the game is always evolving so how useful would that data be...

[thescore53]

do my eyes decieve me toronto 3rd in defensive efficiency. i know its early but damn.

[DeyAce]

The Bulls offense would be ranked higher than this if Carmelo is here instead of Deng.

This

[*-THE REAL GM-*]

My point is the sample size involved here. You claim it's as much a fact as the sun rising. The sun has risen for millions of years, there have been 6 (maybe 7?) championship teams in the last 15 years who have happened to not have their point guard lead them in scoring. So does that timespan make it a fact? I'm sure you can come up with about 100 other "facts" that all those teams had in common and add those to the list of rules in building a team because if it's happened the last 15 years it must be true.

It's like when watching Monday Night Football they put a stat on the board, "The Colts have never won a game on a Monday when the temperature is below 47 degrees.".

Yes the sample size is statistically small, but it is indicitive of the a certain formula of requirements needed to even seriously compete for a ring in the last 15 years. The proof of such formula has been consistant, thus the make up of champion ship teams have been quite similar if you ponder the last 15 champions.

Oh yeah .. IMHO .. Scoring lead + pg = Allen iverson, or undersized 2 gaurd. Where are these type of player? 6th men or turkey or at home watching the playoffs? If your PG dominantes the ball that much, he should be playing off the ball because that type of consistant play out of your pg leads to shoot outs and short term consistancy - sometimes (see philly, portland in the mid 90's). If you pg is playing of the ball, who is he gaurding? THis is still a team game and if your pg is more gun then playmaker you can forget it. history has proved this over and over again.

ANd yeah the colts? If you had to bet your house on the next colts monday night game below 47 degrees, how would you bet (considering it is a real monday night game worthy of monday night)? Yeah see, thats what i figured, you seem reasonable so I would guess you would go with what history has told you dispite the sample size. I would imagine that you would not deviate from the normal standard curve history has provided you.

You can call it a trend if you want to, call the sample size what you want, but to ignore it would be foolish. The league is not going to change enough for a scoring leading pg to win a champioship in the near future - there is no need for it to change in that manner and I cant forsee the need presenting itself in the short term (2-5yr) future.

[rand3h]

this is great to hear. obviously the offense could use some work but #23 is what I expected with Boozer being out. This team will really start to find out who they are once Boozer is back and settled in.

[JordansBulls]

Our offense went to #24 after yesterday's games.

[D1RoseJM]

Our offense went to #24 after yesterday's games.

You should just keep this thread open through out the season. It would be cool to see how we get better or worse on both ends in comparison to the rest of the nba.

[D1RoseJM]

Also, another thing to add is that we gave up 47 free throws against okc and they converted 38 of those. Against detroit we gave up 35 and they converted 24.