IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> How much better will our D be than last year, what do u think?
Bullies4Ever
post Jul 18 2006, 05:31 PM
Post #1


12th Man
****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 28-April 06
Member No.: 117



ok guys.. there's a lot of reasons to think we willl improve by adding Wallace in our team.. but how much better will we be?

-we were already the best team in the league to hold our opponents to the lowest fg%. But heres the key, we allowed 97.2 points. Considering the fact the we now have Thabo, Tyrus, and now Ben Wallace (all known for defensive guys) how good can this Bulls team be? how many points will we allow this year? Detroit allowed 90.2 points last year and Spurs allowed 88.8. u guys think we can match that? Will we be known as those elite defensive teams like detroit and Spurs from last year? discuss fellas bringit.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZoomSlowik
post Jul 18 2006, 05:54 PM
Post #2


All-Star
**********

Group: Administrator

Posts: 2,704
Joined: 14-March 06
Member No.: 43



We will not match the Pistons or Spurs from last year because they employ an extremely conservative offense that slows the pace and limits points, both theirs and their opponents. We don't do that, so I doubt we even get close. Our defense was already very efficient, so the only way we'd improve is rebounding and forcing turnovers. Our new guys will help with that, but not that much. Wallace basically adds 2 boards and a block over Chandler, and Thabo and Tyrus might add a steal and a block respectively off the bench. Their playing time will be somewhat limited, which also hurts their potential impact.

I'd be surprised if we got under 93 PPG. 3 or 4 points is still a pretty solid improvement though.

As Thabo and Thomas start to see more playing time in the future, that will continue to get better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chicago Bulls Fr...
post Jul 18 2006, 06:22 PM
Post #3


Superstar
***********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,150
Joined: 20-March 06
Member No.: 73



QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 18 2006, 06:47 PM) *
We will not match the Pistons or Spurs from last year because they employ an extremely conservative offense that slows the pace and limits points, both theirs and their opponents. We don't do that, so I doubt we even get close. Our defense was already very efficient, so the only way we'd improve is rebounding and forcing turnovers. Our new guys will help with that, but not that much. Wallace basically adds 2 boards and a block over Chandler, and Thabo and Tyrus might add a steal and a block respectively off the bench. Their playing time will be somewhat limited, which also hurts their potential impact.

I'd be surprised if we got under 93 PPG. 3 or 4 points is still a pretty solid improvement though.

As Thabo and Thomas start to see more playing time in the future, that will continue to get better.


That is a great observation. Right on the money, nothing else I can add to that. Great post Zoom, my thoughts exactly Drinking.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bullies4Life
post Jul 18 2006, 07:14 PM
Post #4


Starter
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 844
Joined: 28-April 06
Member No.: 118



QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 18 2006, 06:47 PM) *
We will not match the Pistons or Spurs from last year because they employ an extremely conservative offense that slows the pace and limits points, both theirs and their opponents. We don't do that, so I doubt we even get close. Our defense was already very efficient, so the only way we'd improve is rebounding and forcing turnovers. Our new guys will help with that, but not that much. Wallace basically adds 2 boards and a block over Chandler, and Thabo and Tyrus might add a steal and a block respectively off the bench. Their playing time will be somewhat limited, which also hurts their potential impact.

I'd be surprised if we got under 93 PPG. 3 or 4 points is still a pretty solid improvement though.

As Thabo and Thomas start to see more playing time in the future, that will continue to get better.



The Pistons and Spurs play conservative offense... And i guess i do agree with that. But then again... What is "Conservative offense?" Is it when a team doesnt run that much fast-breaks and instead they tend to slow it down to a half-court game? If thats the case, why arent the Bulls known as playing conservative offense too then? Is it because we are short, and people tend to think that we run a lot?

Correct if if im wrong guys.. But the Bulls didnt really have any true "wing players" to run many fast breaks. However, i do remember Scott Skiles yelling at the team to hurry up and get across the half-court quickly. That was probably so that the PG would set up the offense quickly. (save like 2 or 3 seconds off the 24 second shot clock violation) But does this really mean that we run a fast up-tempo game?

That being said, the only time i really remember seeing the Bulls run a lot was during the playoffs against Miami. And that was probably becaue every1 knows how slow Shaq is getting to the other end. biggrin.gif

To answer Bullies4Ever question, Our defense should slightly improve just by adding the defending DPOY to our side, and adding 2 taller 2 guards which we lacked last season. However, as far as talking about points per game.... This will mostly change on how much the Bulls allow their opponents to get to the line. Huge difference between how much the Bulls and the Spurs and Pistons allowed. And by adding veteran players such as Pj and Wallace, i think we shouldnt get as many of those ticky-tack fouls called against us.

At the end, i definately see the Bulls allowing around 92-94 points per game as the season comes to an end.... But i also wouldnt be surprised if we allowed somewhere under 90 points per game. I really think that Scott Skiles is a great defensive coach.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZoomSlowik
post Jul 18 2006, 07:22 PM
Post #5


All-Star
**********

Group: Administrator

Posts: 2,704
Joined: 14-March 06
Member No.: 43



QUOTE (Bullies4Life @ Jul 18 2006, 08:07 PM) *
The Pistons and Spurs play conservative offense... And i guess i do agree with that. But then again... What is "Conservative offense?" Is it when a team doesnt run that much fast-breaks and instead they tend to slow it down to a half-court game? If thats the case, why arent the Bulls known as playing conservative offense too then? Is it because we are short, and people tend to think that we run a lot?

Correct if if im wrong guys.. But the Bulls didnt really have any true "wing players" to run many fast breaks. However, i do remember Scott Skiles yelling at the team to hurry up and get across the half-court quickly. That was probably so that the PG would set up the offense quickly. (save like 2 or 3 seconds off the 24 second shot clock violation) But does this really mean that we run a fast up-tempo game?

That being said, the only time i really remember seeing the Bulls run a lot was during the playoffs against Miami. And that was probably becaue every1 knows how slow Shaq is getting to the other end. biggrin.gif

To answer Bullies4Ever question, Our defense should slightly improve just by adding the defending DPOY to our side, and adding 2 taller 2 guards which we lacked last season. However, as far as talking about points per game.... This will mostly change on how much the Bulls allow their opponents to get to the line. Huge difference between how much the Bulls and the Spurs and Pistons allowed. And by adding veteran players such as Pj and Wallace, i think we shouldnt get as many of those ticky-tack fouls called against us.

At the end, i definately see the Bulls allowing around 92-94 points per game as the season comes to an end.... But i also wouldnt be surprised if we allowed somewhere under 90 points per game. I really think that Scott Skiles is a great defensive coach.


Just about everyone is an aggressive offensive team when compared with those two and the other leaders in fewest points allowed. We averaged 2.2 more shots per game than Detroit and 4.9 more shots per game than San Antonio. The other top 3 in fewest points allowed (Memphis, Houston, and Indiana) averaged even fewer shots per game than San Antonio. In fact, only 3 teams averaged more shots per game than us last year. We might not run like Phoenix, but obviously we move faster than most of the league. Plus it isn't all running, it depends on how long we take in our sets. Those teams generally milk most of the clock, whereas our perimeter players tend to take an open shot if they get it.

Unless we slow our offense down even more, it'll be hard to get our points allowed total that far down.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bullies4Life
post Jul 18 2006, 07:27 PM
Post #6


Starter
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 844
Joined: 28-April 06
Member No.: 118



QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 18 2006, 08:15 PM) *
Just about everyone is an aggressive offensive team when compared with those two and the other leaders in fewest points allowed. We averaged 2.2 more shots per game than Detroit and 4.9 more shots per game than San Antonio. The other top 3 in fewest points allowed (Memphis, Houston, and Indiana) averaged even fewer shots per game than San Antonio. In fact, only 3 teams averaged more shots per game than us last year. We might not run like Phoenix, but obviously we move faster than most of the league. Plus it isn't all running, it depends on how long we take in our sets. Those teams generally milk most of the clock, whereas our perimeter players tend to take an open shot if they get it.

Unless we slow our offense down even more, it'll be hard to get our points allowed total that far down.


I agree with most of what you said Zoom... And yeah we did take more shots than other teams... But dont you think that thats because our team didnt really get to the line that consistently compared to other teams? Instead we settled for jump shots and stuff like that....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZoomSlowik
post Jul 18 2006, 07:36 PM
Post #7


All-Star
**********

Group: Administrator

Posts: 2,704
Joined: 14-March 06
Member No.: 43



QUOTE (Bullies4Life @ Jul 18 2006, 08:20 PM) *
I agree with most of what you said Zoom... And yeah we did take more shots than other teams... But dont you think that thats because our team didnt really get to the line that consistently compared to other teams? Instead we settled for jump shots and stuff like that....


Well, that's partially a factor of how we run our offense. A lot of teams don't settle for jumpshots as often as we do, they run the clock more to try to get a better shot closer to the basket. That's also affected by our personnel, since pretty much all of our guys are better at shooting jumpers than attacking the basket.

Free throws do probably affect it a bit, but I don't think it explains the 5-shot difference between us and most of the other top teams, and Detroit actually attempted fewer FT's than we did.

It certainly isn't a deciding factor, because New York and Washington had brutal points allowed totals despite being the top 2 teams in FT's attempted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Balta1701-B
post Jul 18 2006, 11:58 PM
Post #8


Superstar
***********

Group: Administrator

Posts: 3,914
Joined: 13-March 06
Member No.: 23



Well, there are stats that take into account how fast of an offense teams run, specifically, you can look at points given up per 100 possessions (I believe they call this defensive efficiency). Basically, it winds up taking steals, team defense, FG%age, and the whole pie into account.

Personally, I expect us to dominate this category. I'm not sure how the offense will flow with BWall in it and another year of experience on the young guys, and I'm not sure how many breaks we'll be able to pull off of steals, but I just can't see teams being able to break down and score effectively against the combinations of BWall, Hinrich, Deng, and Nocioni, put together in Skiles' system. That's a hell of a defensive lineup, and it's just going to drive people crazy. Especially if Thabo can come in on occasion and slow down the other team's big guards better than Gordon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZoomSlowik
post Jul 19 2006, 12:15 AM
Post #9


All-Star
**********

Group: Administrator

Posts: 2,704
Joined: 14-March 06
Member No.: 43



QUOTE (Balta1701-B @ Jul 19 2006, 12:51 AM) *
Well, there are stats that take into account how fast of an offense teams run, specifically, you can look at points given up per 100 possessions (I believe they call this defensive efficiency). Basically, it winds up taking steals, team defense, FG%age, and the whole pie into account.

Personally, I expect us to dominate this category. I'm not sure how the offense will flow with BWall in it and another year of experience on the young guys, and I'm not sure how many breaks we'll be able to pull off of steals, but I just can't see teams being able to break down and score effectively against the combinations of BWall, Hinrich, Deng, and Nocioni, put together in Skiles' system. That's a hell of a defensive lineup, and it's just going to drive people crazy. Especially if Thabo can come in on occasion and slow down the other team's big guards better than Gordon.


Defensive efficiency is another story. I'm not sure where we ranked previously, but they'll definitely be among the better teams this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iguana
post Jul 19 2006, 07:38 AM
Post #10


Rookie
***

Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 28-March 06
Member No.: 91



QUOTE (Bullies4Ever @ Jul 18 2006, 06:24 PM) *
ok guys.. there's a lot of reasons to think we willl improve by adding Wallace in our team.. but how much better will we be?

-we were already the best team in the league to hold our opponents to the lowest fg%. But heres the key, we allowed 97.2 points. Considering the fact the we now have Thabo, Tyrus, and now Ben Wallace (all known for defensive guys) how good can this Bulls team be? how many points will we allow this year? Detroit allowed 90.2 points last year and Spurs allowed 88.8. u guys think we can match that? Will we be known as those elite defensive teams like detroit and Spurs from last year? discuss fellas bringit.gif


I think the main problem with allowing those points was giving up so many FTs. with the human foul maching gone, that should decrease. i can see the points give up to be low 90s at least.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hammerhead johns...
post Jul 19 2006, 11:30 AM
Post #11


Bench
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Joined: 13-March 06
From: Cook County
Member No.: 22



QUOTE (Bullies4Life @ Jul 18 2006, 07:07 PM) *
The Pistons and Spurs play conservative offense... And i guess i do agree with that. But then again... What is "Conservative offense?" Is it when a team doesnt run that much fast-breaks and instead they tend to slow it down to a half-court game? If thats the case, why arent the Bulls known as playing conservative offense too then? Is it because we are short, and people tend to think that we run a lot?


Conservative offense is often referred to as trying to use up as much of the 24 second shot clock as possible.

But if that were accurate, then the flipside would be a liberal offense, which basically means that you're throwing up stupid shots left and right, so conservative would mean that you're getting the highest percentage shots possible. You could theoretically get the highest percentage shot available as soon as you enter into your half-court offense, though, so it has a lot less to do with tempo than it has to do with the proper personnel.

The Miami Heat just won a championship almost entirely on the strength of conservative offense:

1. Feed the ball to your primary scoring option in the paint (Shaq) for the highest percentage shots available, and get the other team in foul trouble.
2. Penetrate and get to the free throw line with your primary scoring option from the perimiter (Wade), and get the other team in foul trouble while getting free points more than 70% of the time.

Conservative = smart. You can let the shot clock wind down every single time and still get stupid shots, so while the masses may view that as conservative, that definition has major flaws.

And also, if the flipside of conservative is aggressive, then penetrating and getting to the line as often as possible would seemingly be the complete opposite of conservatism, when in reality, you are trying to get the highest percentage shot possible and/or get to the line, which is basically the definition of conservativism.

If a team is trying to use up as much of the shot clock as possible, just call it a slow-tempo offense. Conservatism is about getting the highest percentage shot available, and that does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with a slow-tempo offense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZoomSlowik
post Jul 19 2006, 11:42 AM
Post #12


All-Star
**********

Group: Administrator

Posts: 2,704
Joined: 14-March 06
Member No.: 43



QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Jul 19 2006, 12:23 PM) *
Conservative offense is often referred to as trying to use up as much of the 24 second shot clock as possible.

But if that were accurate, then the flipside would be a liberal offense, which basically means that you're throwing up stupid shots left and right, so conservative would mean that you're getting the highest percentage shots possible. You could theoretically get the highest percentage shot available as soon as you enter into your half-court offense, though, so it has a lot less to do with tempo than it has to do with the proper personnel.

The Miami Heat just won a championship almost entirely on the strength of conservative offense:

1. Feed the ball to your primary scoring option in the paint (Shaq) for the highest percentage shots available, and get the other team in foul trouble.
2. Penetrate and get to the free throw line with your primary scoring option from the perimiter (Wade), and get the other team in foul trouble while getting free points more than 70% of the time.

Conservative = smart. You can let the shot clock wind down every single time and still get stupid shots, so while the masses may view that as conservative, that definition has major flaws.

And also, if the flipside of conservative is aggressive, then penetrating and getting to the line as often as possible would seemingly be the complete opposite of conservatism, when in reality, you are trying to get the highest percentage shot possible and/or get to the line, which is basically the definition of conservativism.

If a team is trying to use up as much of the shot clock as possible, just call it a slow-tempo offense. Conservatism is about getting the highest percentage shot available, and that does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with a slow-tempo offense.


Good point Hammer. I was basically referring to it as the pacing and how much they run. You can take that either way.

I also never said conservative was dumb, it makes a lot of sense if you have the personnel to do it and play solid defense. On the other side, I'd call Phoenix aggressive but not necessarily that dumb. Yeah, they jack up a lot of shots, but they make an awful lot of them too (they did lead the NBA in FG%). That also helps cover for their often poor defense a bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hammerhead johns...
post Jul 19 2006, 01:04 PM
Post #13


Bench
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Joined: 13-March 06
From: Cook County
Member No.: 22



QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 19 2006, 11:35 AM) *
I also never said conservative was dumb, it makes a lot of sense if you have the personnel to do it and play solid defense. On the other side, I'd call Phoenix aggressive but not necessarily that dumb. Yeah, they jack up a lot of shots, but they make an awful lot of them too (they did lead the NBA in FG%). That also helps cover for their often poor defense a bit.


Phoenix is kind of an exception, I'd say. They're definitely a liberal offense, but they score a shitload of points in the paint, particularly when Amare Stoudamire is in there.

But without Amare, they could pretty much only rely on Nash in half-court sets if we're talking about setting up plays to attack the basket & get the opposition in foul trouble. Marion and Diaw can certainly score, but you can't rely on them to put the opposition in foul trouble. They just don't have that type of ability. Marion scores the majority of his points on improvisational spiff that you can't draw up & three-point shots that the opposition is not willing to aggressively defend (and therefore risk three free throws).

If you're looking for that three-pointer more often than not, you're not forcing the issue and making teams foul you, and by definition, a three-point shot is a low-percentage shot, even when you're wide open. Why not get as close as possible to the basket for a much easier two? Not that I'm asking, I'm just saying.

The 80s Lakers were a high-flying act, but it's also worth noting that they dominated in half-court sets with those two major components of conservative offense:

1) Feed the ball to your big man (Kareem) and get to the line
2) Get penetration from the perimiter (Magic) and get to the line

Much like the Suns, they were not a strong defensive team by any means, but they got high-percentage shots in half-court sets, which is what playoff basketball is all about unless you're the 90s Bulls, who could both dominate teams in offensive transition and suffocate teams in defensive half-court sets. The Bulls were a mediocre offensive team in half-court sets. It was basically a bunch of guys standing around and watching Jordan, and while we got penetration, there was no post presence that we could depend on. Luckily, we more than made up for it with brilliant transition offense and a legendary defense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bullies4Life
post Jul 19 2006, 01:10 PM
Post #14


Starter
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 844
Joined: 28-April 06
Member No.: 118



The Bulls gave around 30 Free shots from the free throw line per game this past season, while only shooting around 24 themselves... With another year under their belt, if we dont foul as much, then i look for our points per game allowed numbers to go down from last season. And if our players keep on attacking the rim consistently, then i think our points per game numbers should go up just a tad slightly. Go Bulls! bullssmilie1.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madisonsmadhouse
post Jul 19 2006, 02:22 PM
Post #15


All-Star
**********

Group: Administrator

Posts: 2,568
Joined: 13-March 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 21



I think the PPG total with take a big drop this season, if for no other reason than we won't be giving up nearly as many free throws this season. It seemed we didn't get a long of respect, combined with a lot of playing defense with their hands. Add in guys like Wallace, Brown, and Griffin, and I bet that number will drop pretty big.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 08:35 AM
Home | Home | Home | Home | Home