NBA Trade Rumors

#28
#28
Kingston Vol said:
I know I do.

The front office may feel differently, though...
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would want to get rid of Boozer. The Bulls were the #1 seed because they were by far the best rebounding team in the NBA. Boozer is a big part of that.

What they need is to have Rose watch some film of D-Will to see how he helped make Booze so damn productive offensively.
 
#29
#29
from what i've heard the bulls' front office think that while being an obvious asset, boozer brings a loser, 'about me' attitude that hurt them vs mia. there were questions about him well before he got to chicago.
 
#30
#30
nbakerld said:
That's 28th among PF's who get 20 mpg. Pretty awful.
Click to expand...

How many of those guys are older than 22? All of them? I'm sorry but I have to laugh at that if you're not taking age into account. Last season would have been Hickson's senior year in college.


Second of all...

Let's assume they aren't shooting 3's in this scenario.

10 attempts at 45% = 9.0 points
10 attempts at 50% = 10.0 points

20 attempts at 45% = 18.0 points
20 attempts at 50% = 20.0 points

You're that worried about 1 or 2 points a game on the same amount of shot attempts?

We will just have to agree to disagree on basketball completely at this point. I don't agree with your view of players based on stats and neither of us are going to budge on our views.
 
#31
#31
nbakerld said:
I don't know why you would want to get rid of Boozer. The Bulls were the #1 seed because they were by far the best rebounding team in the NBA. Boozer is a big part of that.

What they need is to have Rose watch some film of D-Will to see how he helped make Booze so damn productive offensively.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. What happened to using stats?

Stats would suggest the T'wolves were the #1 rebounding team in the NBA and Bulls were the #2 rebounding team. How can they be the best by far if they weren't even the best statistically? :p
 
#32
#32
The_Orange_Pearl said:
I'm confused. What happened to using stats?

Stats would suggest the T'wolves were the #1 rebounding team in the NBA and Bulls were the #2 rebounding team. How can they be the best by far if they weren't even the best statistically? :p
Click to expand...

T-Wolves had the most total rebounds because they had the most opportunities. Rebound % tells you who the best rebounding team is. Bulls were #1 in the league in rebound %*, by a long shot, so with their average shooting they were a very good team. T-Wolves were #7 in rebound %. So the T-Wolves were still a good rebounding team, but not good enough to overcome their horrible shooting.

2010-11 Regular Season NBA Team Stats and League Leaders - Rebounds Per Game - National Basketball Association - ESPN

*Bulls got .535 of all rebound opportunities this year (T-Wolves got .511). The 2nd ranked team in rebounds got .521 (Orlando). To put Chicago's dominance in perspective, last year the top rebounding team did .524 and the 5th ranked team got .519 of rebounds.
 
#33
#33
nbakerld said:
I don't know why you would want to get rid of Boozer. The Bulls were the #1 seed because they were by far the best rebounding team in the NBA. Boozer is a big part of that.

What they need is to have Rose watch some film of D-Will to see how he helped make Booze so damn productive offensively.
Click to expand...

Because he doesn't play any defense but isn't really that great on offense either.

You really love these people, don't you? If you like Love and Boozer, you should check out Al Jefferson.
 
#35
#35
VKAman said:
Because he doesn't play any defense but isn't really that great on offense either.

You really love these people, don't you? If you like Love and Boozer, you should check out Al Jefferson.
Click to expand...

Jefferson shoots below league average. He's not very good.

Actually I am a Jazz fan and I don't really like Boozer. I'll admit all day that he is good, but I hate his game. He is boring and he lacks effort (and this is exactly why people undervalue him). He's still productive. If his defense is so bad, how in the hell were the Bulls the best defensive team in the league? They added Booze and got better defensively. He can't possibly be as bad defensively as people say.
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
nbakerld said:
Jefferson shoots below league average. He's not very good.

Actually I am a Jazz fan and I don't really like Boozer. I'll admit all day that he is good, but I hate his game. He is boring and he lacks effort (and this is exactly why people undervalue him). He's still productive. If his defense is so bad, how in the hell were the Bulls the best defensive team in the league? They added Booze and got better defensively. He can't possibly be as bad defensively as people say.
Click to expand...

The coach.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
GahLee said:
The coach.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

But that's what I don't understand. If they are the #1 D with Boozer, why is his supposed lack of D so troubling to people? They have the #1 D!!!

And Thibs probably isn't the reason for their superior D. They were already great defensively, and an aging Boston team got better defensively in Thibs absence.
 
#38
#38
nbakerld said:
But that's what I don't understand. If they are the #1 D with Boozer, why is his supposed lack of D so troubling to people? They have the #1 D!!!
Click to expand...

Because Miami outplayed them on D and they got eaten up by Bosh.

12.8 PPG against KG and Boston, 23.2 PPG against Boozer...
 
#39
#39
VKAman said:
Because Miami outplayed them on D and they got eaten up by Bosh.

12.8 PPG against KG and Boston, 23.2 PPG against Boozer...
Click to expand...

Chicago won by 20 when Bosh scored 30 and lost by 10 when Bosh scored 10. Plus Booze was keeping him off the boards. Only 6.6 rebounds per 36 minutes*.

Miami averaged 102.1 ppg this season. They never met that mark in the series. The Heat scored 85 or less 3 times in the series. The Bulls problem wasn't the D. I assure you.

*Bosh got 8.3 rebounds per 36 minutes in the regular season.
 
#40
#40
Bottom line, Boozer has been a bust in his tenure with the Bulls.

Trying to ship him out after one year may be a little knee-jerk though.
 
#41
#41
nbakerld said:
Chicago won by 20 when Bosh scored 30 and lost by 10 when Bosh scored 10. Plus Booze was keeping him off the boards. Only 6.6 rebounds per 36 minutes*.

Miami averaged 102.1 ppg this season. They never met that mark in the series. The Heat scored 85 or less 3 times in the series. The Bulls problem wasn't the D. I assure you.

*Bosh got 8.3 rebounds per 36 minutes in the regular season.
Click to expand...

Ehh.

As far as the rebounding numbers go, that is a team thing. Bosh isn't a beast on the boards in the first place.

And the difference between 6.6 and 8.3 is nothing to write about, especially when Wade and James are pulling down more than they normally do.
 
#42
#42
nbakerld said:
Chicago won by 20 when Bosh scored 30 and lost by 10 when Bosh scored 10.
Click to expand...

What happened in the most important game of the series?

Chicago's biggest problem was its lack of offense, but Boozer really wasn't doing jack on that end either.
 
#43
#43
GahLee said:
Ehh.

As far as the rebounding numbers go, that is a team thing. Bosh isn't a beast on the boards in the first place.

And the difference between 6.6 and 8.3 is nothing to write about, especially when Wade and James are pulling down more than they normally do.
Click to expand...

19th in the entire league. Not a beast, but that's still very good. There is a big difference between 6.6 and 8.3...6.6 rpg would've made him 43rd in the NBA. To me there is a big difference being the 19th best and the 43rd best.

Rebounding being a team thing is debatable. In a 5 game series his rebounding numbers being down might be because he let a few he could've grabbed go to teammates. Those kinds of things will average out over a season, but not necessarily in a 5 game series, so you have a point.

Bottom line is Chicago couldn't score. Boozer's (and Chicago's) D wasn't the problem. It was their offense (where Boozer, Deng, and Rose are usually productive). Yeah Miami has great D, but Chicago's offense looked mostly bad against Atlanta and Indiana, too.
 
#44
#44
VKAman said:
What happened in the most important game of the series?

Chicago's biggest problem was its lack of offense, but Boozer really wasn't doing jack on that end either.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But nobody for Chicago looked real good offensively for Chicago. They rely on Deng, Boozer, and Rose to do the bulk of their scoring and none of them came through.
 
#45
#45
nbakerld said:
Agreed. But nobody for Chicago looked real good offensively for Chicago. They rely on Deng, Boozer, and Rose to do the bulk of their scoring and none of them came through.
Click to expand...

Boozer shot less than 41%. Deng had LeBron on him, and isn't a PF, and still did better than that. Your favorite TS% shows even more of a gap I'm sure.
 
#46
#46
VKAman said:
Boozer shot less than 41%. Deng had LeBron on him, and isn't a PF, and still did better than that. Your favorite TS% shows even more of a gap I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Playoff TS%

Deng: .525
Rose: .499
Boozer: .494

.540 is league average in regular season, but defense is better in the playoffs, so .525 is actually probably a decent %. I'm not sure. I'll have to check on that.
 
#47
#47
nbakerld said:
Playoff TS%

Deng: .525
Rose: .499
Boozer: .494

.540 is league average in regular season, but defense is better in the playoffs, so .525 is actually probably a decent %. I'm not sure. I'll have to check on that.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Deng was good by any measure, just highlighting how bad Boozer's %s were -- especially for a power forward.
 
#48
#48
VKAman said:
I'm not saying Deng was good by any measure, just highlighting how bad Boozer's %s were -- especially for a power forward.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the reason I like TS% is it doesn't matter what position you play. FG% penalizes you for taking 3's and ignores FT's. TS% accounts for that. As you can see, the top 20 in TS% come from a variety of positions:

1. Tyson Chandler-DAL .697
2. Nene Hilario-DEN .656
3. Arron Afflalo-DEN .620
4. Paul Pierce-BOS .620
5. Chauncey Billups-TOT .617
6. Dwight Howard-ORL .616
7. Ray Allen-BOS .615
8. Richard Jefferson-SAS .612
9. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL .612
10. Kevin Martin-HOU .601
11. Steve Nash-PHO .601
12. Jodie Meeks-PHI .600
13. Jared Dudley-PHO .598
14. James Harden-OKC .598
15. Landry Fields-NYK .598
16. Danilo Gallinari-TOT .597
17. Stephen Curry-GSW .596
18. LeBron James-MIA .594
19. Marcin Gortat-TOT .594
20. Ty Lawson-DEN .593
 
#49
#49
nbakerld said:
Yeah, the reason I like TS% is it doesn't matter what position you play. FG% penalizes you for taking 3's and ignores FT's. TS% accounts for that. As you can see, the top 20 in TS% come from a variety of positions:
Click to expand...

I realize that, but most of the leaders are post players or 3-point shooters (which makes sense because shooters are obviously good at FTs). Since Derrick Rose is neither, there's no real reason for Boozer to be behind him.
 
#50
#50
VKAman said:
I realize that, but most of the leaders are post players or 3-point shooters (which makes sense because shooters are obviously good at FTs). Since Derrick Rose is neither, there's no real reason for Boozer to be behind him.
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't really get this logic. It has nothing to do with position or role. TS% tells you how efficiently you put the ball in the basket.

Derrick Rose thinks he's a 3-point shooter. He led the Bulls in attempts (385). Deng (who is actually a good 3-point shooter) only took 333.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top