Reasons for Optimism re: Salmons at SG Next Year
by fundamentallysound on Sep 18, 2009 11:38 PM CDT
93 comments
I have been making it a habit to absolutely kill John Salmons 'round these parts. I have made it a point to say that he's not Ben Gordon and shouldn't be looked to to replace Ben, because he's simply not good enough. In recent days, though, I've tempered my position on that.
My previous criticism of Salmons was primarily that his defense was overrated and he was a ball-stopper on offense, and he was too slow to play effectively at the two guard, and with Deng returning and Gordon departing that's where we are going to need him. I also relied rather heavily on adjusted plus minus numbers in calling Salmons basically fool's gold. Well, adjusted plus minus is not the be-all-end-all statistic and I've come across some new numbers that should give Bulls fans cause for optimism with respect to Salmons's role in sliding in for Ben Gordon at the SG, while Deng replaces Salmons at the small forward position.
I linked to these numbers earlier in a fanshot, but here they are again. The pertinent stats for the purpose of this post are the opponent numbers. The opponent numbers are unique and different from 82games's similar numbers because it shows: defensive performance compared to a weighted average of what opponents did on offense elsewhere. And this is from constructed from play by play, not a rough game level match-up by assumed opponent based on starter or sub status. So, now that I've set things up, let's take a look at what the numbers say about John Salmons. In his minutes as a Bull at the SG v. SF positions, Salmons's opponent production versus expected production, look like this:
| Opponent Stats for John Salmons | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Points/ 40 mins | Off Rebs/ 40 mins | Def Rebs/ 40 mins | Assists/ 40 mins | Turnovers/ 40 mins | Steals/ 40 mins | Blocks/ 40 mins | WinScore/ Min | PER |
| SG | 10.5 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | -0.192 | -5.64 |
| Expected | 15.2 | 0.8 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.111 | 12.23 |
| Net | 4.7 | 0.8 | 0 | 3.2 | -2 | 1 | 0.4 | 0.303 | 17.87 |
| SF | 16.1 | 1.4 | 4.3 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.192 | 15.31 |
| Expected | 16.3 | 1.6 | 5.3 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.197 | 15.42 |
| Net | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0 | -0.1 | 0.005 | 0.11 |
| Opponent Stats and Rates for John Salmons | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Points/ 100 Team Poss | FG% | TS% | FTA/ FGA | Off Reb Rate | Def Reb Rate | Assist Rate | Turnover Rate |
| SG | 13.8 | 25.0 | 31.1 | 0.100 | 0.0 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 19.3 |
| Expected | 19.9 | 43.3 | 54.5 | 0.211 | 2.2 | 9.5 | 13.0 | 12.8 |
| Net | 6.1 | 18.3 | 23.4 | 0.111 | 2.2 | -1 | 13 | 6.5 |
| SF | 20.9 | 49.1 | 57.8 | 0.208 | 4.2 | 12.7 | 10.5 | 11.5 |
| Expected | 21.3 | 45.5 | 54.9 | 0.346 | 4.6 | 15.6 | 12.7 | 12.1 |
| Net | 0.4 | -3.6 | -2.9 | 0.138 | 0.4 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 0.6 |
These stats are eye-opening, but then the obvious criticism is that Salmons played very, very few SG minutes during his time in a Bulls uniform during his time here thus far, due to Ben Gordon's presence. It's a fair criticism as Salmons played a shade under 50 minutes at SG so far as a Bull, whereas he played 885 minutes at SF. So, what about his time playing in Sacramento? Here are the numbers from his time in Sactown (he played 295 minutes at SG in Sacramento, verus 1500 at SF, so still not a great sample size of numbers for his time as a SG, but it helps to have the extra data):
| Opponent Stats for John Salmons | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Points/ 40 mins | Off Rebs/ 40 mins | Def Rebs/ 40 mins | Assists/ 40 mins | Turnovers/ 40 mins | Steals/ 40 mins | Blocks/ 40 mins | WinScore/ Min | PER |
| SG | 19.1 | 0.9 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.190 | 17.08 |
| Expected | 21.6 | 1.1 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.167 | 17.45 |
| Net | 2.5 | 0.2 | -0.1 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | -0.023 | 0.37 |
| SF | 18.4 | 1.6 | 4.6 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.207 | 16.99 |
| Expected | 17.6 | 1.4 | 4.8 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.171 | 14.95 |
| Net | -0.8 | -0.2 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.1 | -0.2 | -0.2 | -0.036 | -2.04 |
| Opponent Stats and Rates for John Salmons | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Points/ 100 Team Poss | FG% | TS% | FTA/ FGA | Off Reb Rate | Def Reb Rate | Assist Rate | Turnover Rate |
| SG | 25.1 | 42.7 | 54.3 | 0.248 | 2.7 | 12.0 | 14.2 | 3.7 |
| Expected | 27.9 | 44.8 | 54.9 | 0.264 | 3.1 | 11.6 | 17.6 | 10.4 |
| Net | 2.8 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 0.016 | 0.4 | -0.4 | 3.4 | 6.7 |
| SF | 23.3 | 49.0 | 57.9 | 0.329 | 4.8 | 13.8 | 11.4 | 11.1 |
| Expected | 22.8 | 45.0 | 54.5 | 0.286 | 4.0 | 14.0 | 12.9 | 11.9 |
| Net | -0.5 | -4 | -3.4 | -0.043 | -0.8 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.8 |
Again, the same trend holds up, although slightly less stark, that Salmons seeming plays better on defense at the SG slot than at the SF. This is very good news. It appears that part of the reason Salmons looks bad on D is that he plays too often at the SF, where he is actually undersized, rather than playing at the SG, where he has a size advantage and, in limited minutes, plays much better defense. Okay, so those are the defensive numbers. What about the offensive numbers? First, his numbers on offense from his time as a Bull, by position:
| Position Stats for John Salmons | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Points/ 40 mins | Off Rebs/ 40 mins | Def Rebs/ 40 mins | Assists/ 40 mins | Turnovers/ 40 mins | Steals/ 40 mins | Blocks/ 40 mins | WinScore/ Min | PER |
| SG | 18.6 | 0.8 | 4.9 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.213 | 15.46 |
| SF | 19.1 | 0.6 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.162 | 15.69 |
| Position Stats and Rates for John Salmons | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Points/ 100 Team Poss | FG% | TS% | FTA/ FGA | Off Reb Rate | Def Reb Rate | Assist Rate | Turnover Rate |
| SG | 24.7 | 52.9 | 64.3 | 0.118 | 2.6 | 11.8 | 3.4 | 5.3 |
| SF | 24.7 | 46.5 | 58.7 | 0.320 | 1.9 | 10.8 | 9.3 | 9.8 |
It appears that it's a bit of a mixed bag. He scores more efficiently at SG, but doesn't pass at all. He turns it over less, though. He also rebounds better at the SG, which makes intuitive sense given his size advantage at the two spot that is lost when he's playing SF. Again, though, there's the problem of small sample size with his Bulls minutes at SG, so let's again look to his time in Sacramento for a slightly richer picture.
| Position Stats for John Salmons | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Points/ 40 mins | Off Rebs/ 40 mins | Def Rebs/ 40 mins | Assists/ 40 mins | Turnovers/ 40 mins | Steals/ 40 mins | Blocks/ 40 mins | WinScore/ Min | PER |
| SG | 21.9 | 0.4 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.168 | 17.19 |
| SF | 19.3 | 0.8 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.147 | 15.56 |
| Position Stats and Rates for John Salmons | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Points/ 100 Team Poss | FG% | TS% | FTA/ FGA | Off Reb Rate | Def Reb Rate | Assist Rate | Turnover Rate |
| SG | 28.4 | 52.0 | 59.2 | 0.216 | 1.2 | 10.7 | 14.1 | 12.2 |
| SF | 24.5 | 46.5 | 56.8 | 0.322 | 2.5 | 10.4 | 17.3 | 12.7 |
Most of the same trends hold up in his time in Sacramento as we saw in his Bulls numbers. He's a better, more efficient scorer at the off guard versus the small forward slot, he gets to the line less and his assist and turnover rates dip (though less drastically than in a Bulls uniform). The rebounding advantage disappears in the Sactown numbers, though (too bad, we could use some extra boards).
All in all, these numbers lead me to believe that Salmons should be more effective next year than he was this year, as he will be playing the two guard where he is, apparently, better suited and that I may have been overly harsh and too quick to close the book on Salmons. Or I could just be reaching. Let me know what you think in the comments.
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
12 recs |
93 comments
Email
Print
Comments
good stats..interesting analysis
"I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it."
"Go ahead, make my day"
"We boil at different degrees"
"A good man always knows his limitations"
"You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"
by exult463 on Sep 19, 2009 12:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He played the 2 spot back at Sacramento when Artest was still there
so he can play the SG. There’s no need to worry cause he ain’t our go to scorer and there are plenty of other options like Deng and Rose, not to mention the good Kirk.
D ROSE D WADE DESTINY DYNASTY
by Juan dela Cruz on Sep 19, 2009 1:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Cool site
One possible reason for the difference between his SG/SF numbers though…
When he played SF in Sactown, the SG was Kevin Martin. When he played SF in Chicago, the SG was Ben Gordon. Both horrible defenders. When he played SG in Sactown, he had Francisco Garcia helping out, or a 3-center lineup with Thompson playing the SF.
That said, I don’t think the issue has ever been Salmons’ man-defense. Scotter led the charge on being critical of Salmons in the playoffs against Pierce. Salmons contained Pierce, but Scotter felt he wasn’t playing enough help defense, and the Bulls as a whole were hurt as a result. The good news is, when Salmons is playing SG he won’t have to play help defense as much.
by YaoPau on Sep 19, 2009 10:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But, YaoPau, next year, when he's playing SG, he'll have Deng out there helping him out
and I don’t think there’s anyone who would argue that Francisco Garcia is a better defender than Deng. So, he should still look better at SG than at SF.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 19, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's how I look at it
I remember one of the big caveats my man TZ at SactownRoyalty had about Salmons was his help defense.
Whether he’s worse off being ‘too slow’ instead of ‘two small’ by changing positions, SG defense is not as much of a priority, thus why I’d been dismissing BG-defense criticisms for years :-D
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 21, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another reason for being a bit critical of Salmons
is that last year was not a typical year for him. He played better than he has at any point in his career. I’m hopeful that he can at least do it one more time given that he has plenty of opportunity here and is in the last year of his contract.
"I've missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty six times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."- Michael Jordan
by bigballa10 on Sep 19, 2009 10:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The thing with Salmons is that every year he's gotten better. He's had an extremely rare
career arc. He’s just never had a year where he got worse. At some point, presumably, that has to change, but being that he’s only 30, I’d expect him to be more or less the same this year as he was last year. Even last year, he got better as the year went along. He was better in his time with the Bulls than he was with the Kings and his time with the Kings was the best ball he’s ever played in his life. I see no reason to expect him to all of a sudden discontinue his trend of improvement. Maybe in a couple years he’ll drop off, but I don’t see why it would all of a sudden happen next year.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 19, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm worried about a drop-off from 3-point range
He went from being a so-so shooter from the arc most of his career, to 41.7% last season with both Sacramento and Chicago. He’s going to get a lot of chances to take 3s with the Bulls “offense”, and isn’t someone who is going to stop taking shots because he’s not making them. With Deng in the lineup instead of BG, how much is he going to penetrate instead of just sagging off and waiting for the ball to come to him?
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Sep 19, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's one of the numbers that is a little disconcerting from the above numbers,
when Salmons is at SG versus SF, his FTA/FGA drops off by a pretty good margin, which implies less attacking.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 19, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It also implies that he doesn't have the quickness advantage at the 2 compared to the 3
That being said, I’m not too worried about his 3FG%. Yes, there are plenty of 1 year flukes in this league. But these flukes generally happen in a per-game type of stat, not a percentage stat. You don’t ever see a guy who’s consistently been at 50-55% in FT% go up to 75% one year then back down the next. If someone shoots a consistent percentage over the course of 82 games, typically there was an offseason improvement that is here to stay.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Sep 22, 2009 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salmons is still a crappy team defender…which is critical. We need to step up the team D. And he should be getting like 5 boards a game.
Overall he’s still fool’s gold to me, but I can deal with rolling with him as starting SG.
by C Smoove on Sep 19, 2009 11:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
John Salmons sucks.
I’m taking a wait-and-see approach.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Sep 19, 2009 12:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"John Salmons sucks"?
Isn’t that exactly the kind of comments you’re against especially when someone uses a well thought out stat backed argument?
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!
by piccolomair on Sep 19, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
Get bent and grasp a sense of irony.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Sep 19, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if you act dumb
its just ironic… and i should just accept the irony? What?
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!
by piccolomair on Sep 20, 2009 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Owned...
And in only two comments! I do believe that’s a record against Tyger.
"When a hyper-intense guy looks for ways to fire himself up, yeah, it pretty much comes out as wild eyed psycho lunacy." - Jeff Clark from C's blog on KG
by Khalid El-Amin on Sep 20, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
meh, if you think piccolomair and PORCH1 are the ones making good points..
Well… heh. Yeah.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Sep 21, 2009 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
being as I posted these exact three words in this exact order....
about 50,000 (that’s exaggeration, by the way) since Salmons has been on the team, yes. There’s a lot of things you don’t understand. I guess by this point I should just accept that.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Sep 21, 2009 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
Posting it 50,000 times (thats exaggeration, of course) wouldnt make it more ironic, but actually less ironic (for something to be ironic it has to be the opposite of what normall happens) So if there were irony (which you suggest i should get) it would have to be the stupidness of your comment (since i would suppose that you usually post smart comments) and if thats the case, then i go back to my comment, if you act dumb then its just ironic…and i should just accept the irony?? WHAT!?
And yea you should know that simply posting “‘enter player’s name’ sucks” is pretty dumb, ESPECIALLY given the fact that you are posting it as a comment under a post that uses a well thought out argument…at the very least you couldve qualified it with some rational thought right? Isnt this the exact thing you hate when others (me) do this on this blog?
Also my original comment wasnt even malicious, at that point it really was ironic to me, you couldve written “meh” or “heh” or “eh” or nothing at all and i couldnt have cared less… but you chose a different path, the ad-hominem path…
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!
by piccolomair on Sep 21, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I generally agree with this, that's why this post is tempered optimism. I'm still skeptical of
Salmons, but at least there’s some data out there that (1) suggests he’s better on offense and defense at SG than SF and (2) he’s not as bad as I’ve been saying. I’m not saying this information is correct, but it’s worth considering in the overall picture.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 19, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something to think about
With ben gordon gone all the other players ont he bulls roster will have to play better than they did last season on offence. But lets take a look on defence…the bulls last season were one of the more offensive sides in the east but on defence didnt do so well. For this season do you guys think that the bulls will be a good defensive team again? Do they have the peices together to do it? I think its possible and the keys for this are Deng and Salmons. If salmons plays at SG then he will be defending mostly players that are smaller, so i think its an advantage there. Deng also good height for a SF. in saying this most of the SG’s in the NBA are not very solid defenders and salmons will score alot when he takes them one on one to the rim and i back his ability to do so..what you people think?
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 19, 2009 8:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that Salmons’ size should give us an upgrade at D from the 2 guard spot. I’m a ittle concerned about his foot speed and lateral movement. But ultimately team D comes down to attitude, effort, and pride. Given that Noah is a huste/energy player, Kirk is a defensive minded player, and TT is athletic and can block shots, its somewhat mind boggling that we were so mediocre as a team defensively last year. Not really sure what’s going on in practice?!? Deng is rangey with long arms so his presence should help. But teams usually don’t make huge improvements defensively without a change in coaching/phiosophy or unless they inherit a game changing type defensive player. Will Deng be that player?
by Rosenscrubs on Sep 19, 2009 10:30 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Deng was that good defensively at one point.
A better defensive backcourt, plus Deng, and Miller who is the right kind of crappy defender for this team should add up to at least some improvement on that side of the ball.
by Scotter on Sep 19, 2009 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defense in the NBA is a little more than that
It’s more about the team concept and strategy than individuals when it comes to a good defensive team. That’s why the Bulls were good a few years back despite BG’s shortcomings (no pun intended) and the Celtics are good despite the fact that individually Pierce has never been known much for defense. In the team concept though, he knows his role and he does what he needs to do. I didn’t see much of a defensive concept for the Bulls other than switching on everything and hoping Tyrus or Noah can clean up the mistakes.
"I've missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty six times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."- Michael Jordan
by bigballa10 on Sep 20, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as they stop playing Big 10 defense half the time, I'll consider it a success.
I’ve never watched a NBA team play so much damn zone defense.
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Sep 20, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pierce, though not known for it, has been a good defender for almost all of his career.
The real surprise with that defense was that they were able to hide Ray Allen, who previously sucked on defense, and now looks competent.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 20, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to mention Ray too but you get the point.
"I've missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty six times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."- Michael Jordan
by bigballa10 on Sep 21, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate Salmons, but I also don't buy
the argument that he’s going to be too slow at SG. I believe he’ll be a better defender at SG because there are fewer help defense and defensive rebounding responsibilities. And I don’t really care if his offense is slightly negative by playing SG, but I think that’s overstated as well.
by Scotter on Sep 19, 2009 11:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well,
It’s good to have you back.
I do hope you’re wrong.
by hlac on Sep 19, 2009 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You hope Salmons really is terrible at SG, and has to play SF?
by Scotter on Sep 19, 2009 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No...
I meant to comment on your dislike of Salmons, which, now that I think of it, doesn’t imply that you think he will be bad at SG.
Refresh my memory please. Why do you dislike Salmons?
by hlac on Sep 20, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The biggest reason is that he's a complete ball stopper on offense. I'm not a fan of watching any player fake five times before
doing something with the ball. I’m a fan of ball movement. I’m the fool agreeing with Tex Winter whenever he ran on the court to bitch at MIchael or Kobe for stopping the ball and going 1 on 1 too much. The secondary reason is that he’s a completely disinterested help defender.
I don’t think he’s really bad or that he’s going to be worse than last year. He’s a solid stop gag for one year, but I really don’t want him around long term.
by Scotter on Sep 20, 2009 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
This was just idiotic, Kobe and MJ are 2 of the Greats of NBA HISTORY! dont ever compare them to fish. Going back on my point about deng and about salmons if they are scoring 20pg or around those number with a good percentage, then i dont give a rats ass how the ball goes inside the hoop! i dont care if he does 7 fakes and shoots and im sure that MOST people understand this.
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 20, 2009 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure MOST people understand Scotter's point, not your inane blabbering..
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Sep 20, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If u actually read what i have said u will understand
Its not all about how the ball is shot, its all about if it goes in or not…there u go, retard
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 20, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Congratualtions! You're capable of binary thinking.
That gives me hope for the future.
by Scotter on Sep 20, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, he's capable of binary thinking. He's just an angrybot, afterall.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 20, 2009 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apologies for shitting on the thread, but I hate stupid people.
It’s only going to get 100000x times worse during the season.
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Sep 21, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
y'all need to flag more
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 21, 2009 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can we get "stupid post", "failure to use real words" and "incomprehensible" added
to the flagging categories?
"Whoever was responsible for pulling that offer [to Ben Gordon] off the table...bring him before me and I'll punch him right in the face " - Frederick Pfeiffer
by Granny Waiters on Sep 21, 2009 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
ROFL
I keep geting warnings cause i use the word retard too much…sorry if ive offended some peoples intelligence!! Although i do feel like sometimes they need to know about how rediculous some of the things they have said on this blog site…I also have come to learn that most blogs on this site are mostly about ripping into people’s grammer and also some of the specific words they use….and always goes off track to what the blog is about haha…i also make a note that when ever i own an admin they send me warnings, i mean when u lose why cant you just accept it!?!?
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 21, 2009 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, why can't you?
YOU’RE the retard, don’t you get it?
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 22, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
^ ^
fAIL
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 22, 2009 12:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You suck at this game.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 22, 2009 3:18 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry PORCH1, but after reading your posts
I feel a little dumber. I have to agree with Ozzie, ’sound and yfBB on this one.
It’s important to use proper grammar on a blog site to convey your ability to think rationally and back up your opinions. If you don’t understand that, I don’t know what to tell you. Also, using the word “retard” just makes you look even worse.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Sep 22, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
lol
thanks for emphasizing my point lol…All u guys like sheep..but its all good, i find it funny lmaoo!!
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 22, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's like if you were speaking, say, Latin.
We would go “Hey! Why are you speaking Latin? Stop! We can’t understand you, and it looks kind of dumb.”
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Sep 24, 2009 4:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are an idiot…understand?
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 25, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Usually
When 10 reputable people say you’re an idiot…it’s because you are one.
by Stacey_Is_King on Sep 25, 2009 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand the content.
I disagree with it. But, while you didn’t capitalize your words, you spelled them correctly! And you didn’t rape the English language doing so!
Progress!!
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Sep 27, 2009 2:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is why I said dont start him and Deng
They’re both ball stoppers. Put Kirk in and let him add to the ball movement. Start Salmons at 3. Bring Deng in to sub Kirk or Salmons. But playing these two together and neither of them are great shooters is trouble.
by Mr Rhythm on Sep 23, 2009 2:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really doubt the Bulls paid Loul 71 million to back up the SG and SF spot. You pretty much have to start him, Deng isn’t really a blackhole on offense. He actually works decently off the ball.
by C Smoove on Sep 23, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Deng is the total opposite of a ball stopper. He gets all of his looks off of cuts
to the basket and floating out in the mid range. He almost never goes iso. This is so far off it hurts.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 23, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
I second that!
In fact, I would argue that he is only an average iso guy. The coaches have tried each year to develop his 1 on 1 game, with mediocre results.
by 72-10 on Sep 24, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you really meant “stop gag”, that’s brilliant!
by El Toro de Goro on Sep 26, 2009 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was really just trying to say that hopefully his groin injury healed and isn’t a problem this year. It would suck to chase 2 guards around with that type of pain. He does seem to fall in love with that jab step move a lot when he gets the ball.
by Rosenscrubs on Sep 20, 2009 9:26 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
This whole thread makes me laugh
How many people will bet odds that Salmons opts out at the end of the season? Odds are every fan here at BaB is hoping such.
My question rolls like this: Let’s say Salmons replicates his season as it was done last season?
Who will want to pay Salmons big money at 31 years of age with many other options, including younger cheaper available options, than paying Salmons what he thinks he’s worth?
I’ll be shocked if Salmons opts out of his contract for the 10-11 season, and he’s not likely to find a monetary or long term deal that equates to 5.8 mil again. (He was pretty lucky that Toronto and Sacramento were greatly interested him back in 06.)
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Sep 21, 2009 1:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He's not going to opt out, what does that have to do with us thinking he might be good?
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Sep 21, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm okay you have thought about it
Then, nevermind.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Sep 21, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But to answer your question Ozzie
Nothing at all.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Sep 21, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This thread doesn't have anything to do with him opting out
This is about how he will do this season. Did you mean to post this in another thread?
"I'm in the Hall already, on the wall already, I'm a work of art I'm a Warhol already"-Jay Z
by bigballa10 on Sep 21, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Sep 21, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They dont' have to pay him big money, just guaranteed years.
His salary drops for 2010-2011, too; it doesn’t go up, making it easier to come close to it. When Salmons has the choice of making $5.8 million for one year or making $5.0-5.5 million/yr over 4 years, I know which I’d take.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Sep 28, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post.
rec’d. Salmons is MUCH better than most give him credit for. He did nothing but provide a solid scoring and defensive presence during his stint with us last year. I look forward to seeing him more next year.
The Dude Abides
by Savage23 on Sep 21, 2009 3:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think he gets more than enough credit. He is a okay man to man defender and a crappy team defender. He is 6’6…most SGs are between 6’4 to 6’6 so he really has no true height advantage unless he’s playing teams with shorter SGs like the Cavs….
His lack of lateral movement will hurt him defending SGs…plus having a good defensive team is predicated on help defense so even if yer man burns you, someone can step up and protect the paint.
Bulls improving on D means nothing if we are switching on every screen and giving the opponent easy mismatches to burn us with.
Salmons is a stop-gap nothing more, he played alright last year but isn’t and shouldn’t be in our long term plans.
Plain and simple.
by C Smoove on Sep 21, 2009 3:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Where are you getting this
“lack of lateral movement” from? There’s no way you can be a good man to man defender like Salmons is, and be bad at lateral movement.
Plus the whole original post was about how Salmons does do well defending SGs based on the evidence we have.
by runningman on Sep 21, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s not that good of a man to man defender…at best he is average. He’s simply ok at guarding his man. Loul is a slightly above average defender who is lacking in lateral movement. You can still have enough to keep your man in front of you.
I don’t know, stats are important but I base my opinions off watching the games. All this APM, PER stuff gets a little over the top and too clinical.
by C Smoove on Sep 23, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah I see
you get your facts from your gut, who cares what any numbers or any experts say. Im sure it’s also meaningless to you that when Sacramento had both Artest and Salmons, they would put Salmons on players like Kobe.
After all they’re just his coaches and didn’t watch on tv like you did.
by runningman on Sep 23, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Negative on that ghost rider.
Im sorry you are wrong here. Last two years he has been VERY under-rated. I am glad the Bulls have him and that he will be playing a lot of minutes for us. He brings scoring and heart to the team. If you don’t like Salmons then you won’t want to watch too many games because he will get his minutes and he deserves them. Your argument on lack of lateral movement does not hold a lot of weight with me. He looks quick enough to get the job done. Like I mentioned above Roy will not blow you away with his speed or lateral movement but he is a baller.
The Dude Abides
by Savage23 on Sep 23, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy>Salmons. Roy is good now in his prime not a total late bloomer. How does Salmons have heart? He did play thru a groin injury. Salmons is a good player, I’m not saying he sucks, but I’m not totally sold on him. Is that so wrong? Numbers mean something but they aren’t the end-all/be-all on everything. Salmons is ok but he’s not all that…that’s all I’m saying.
by C Smoove on Sep 23, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You used the reply button!
There might be hope for you after all.
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on Sep 23, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
it's the first success of BaB training camp.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 24, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope all is well in the world with you know, jackass.
by C Smoove on Sep 24, 2009 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh come on
It’s all in good humor.
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on Sep 24, 2009 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
i love this blog
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 25, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so sad you have to go!
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 26, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
aww.
But he was learning!
…
Uh, maybe.
…
I’m optimistic.
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Sep 27, 2009 2:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it is sad! :( wa wa wa
Maybe i can go away with TT and we can work on both of our flaws
by PORCH2 on Sep 27, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
So this is your fool-proof plan to stay? Seriously? Nobody’s going to figure out with your still-idiotic talking or the fact that your username is PORCH2? This is sad yet hilarious.
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on Sep 27, 2009 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't follow?
Why are you attacking this new and obviously upstanding member of our name-switching community?
I mean, bulls-loving community?
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Sep 28, 2009 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We will see C Smoove
His stats last year were great and I think with time this year his stats will once again be really good. Time will tell. I think it will tell I am correct in this assessment playn and simple J/K. Branden Roy also lacks somewhat lateral movement and he can still ball. Not saying Salmons is on Roys level just an example. I
The Dude Abides
by Savage23 on Sep 21, 2009 4:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This was an excellent post. Rec'd.
Typically astute and in-depth analysis from fundamentallysound. Keep up the good work.
I’m pretty optimistic about Salmons this year. His APM numbers are really bad, but that doesn’t always indicate a bad player. Rose had a -1.7 APM last year, and he was the biggest reason we made the playoffs (arguably I suppose). Sometimes APM is skewed by situations, team changes (Salmons) and level of competition (Salmons was often guarding the other team’s best player). Either way, I think he’s going to have a pretty similar year to last year and the same can be probably be said for the Bulls as a whole.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Sep 22, 2009 1:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Aaron gray
has a good APM number, enough said?
"One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others"
by PORCH1 on Sep 22, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basically, yes.
Not that APM doesn’t hold some merit — it does. I just don’t find it to be the end-all-be-all advanced basketball statistic.
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Sep 23, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Level of competition wouldn't matter
It’s a regression, so if he plays better competition, his lineups can have a worse-than-average rating and still be positive overall.
I ran APM numbers from ‘07-’09, and if you do one big ol’ average instead of skewing recent years like the PhD guys do, Salmons is a -1.75 offensively and -3.47 defensively, with really low standard errors because he’s played on a bunch of different rosters over the past three years.
In cases like Salmons’ where the standard error is low, the chances are that APM isn’t lying. Part of Salmons’ low offensive rating is that he just wasn’t all that good in 07 and 08, so I’d think we can expect a neutral/positive number offensively this year. But -3.47 defensively is really bad, and it’s not like moving to SG is going to change that. In 2008, 60% of his minutes came at SG, in 2007 50% of his minutes were at SG. He was bad then, and now that he’s nearly 30 I wouldn’t expect an improvement.
He’s a good player to have for one year at $5-$6 mil, especially because we have such a big use for his scoring abilities. But I don’t think this is a case of APM numbers lying.
by YaoPau on Sep 24, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you were rather casual in your dismissal here:
But -3.47 defensively is really bad, and it’s not like moving to SG is going to change that.
If he’s better defensively at SG [which these numbers slightly indicate might be the case], then the fact that he’s played a large chunk of his minutes at SF for the last three years has some bearing on his APM numbers, and switching him to SG should matter. I’m not saying it all of a sudden makes him a positive defensive contributor, but it might make him less of a sinkhole than his APM numbers suggest at first glance.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 25, 2009 3:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he could be a little better this season than -3.47, but
1) The SG vs SF numbers you posted make a case, but they are just one small section of the defensive resume. I wrote earlier in this thread that when he’s played SF the last couple years, he’s had Kevin Martin or Ben Gordon playing SG, which could be a cause of the dropoff at SF. Even if his opponent numbers are good this year playing alongside Deng, that wouldn’t necessarily make his defensive APM any better.
2) Salmons will still play plenty of SF this year. With Kirk and Pargo aboard, I could see a case where he plays 18mpg at SG and 13 at SF. So it’s not like his minutes are being shifted from purely SF to purely SG. He was about 60/40 SF the last three years, and I think he’ll be 60/40 SG this year.
Back in May I had Salmons at -.12 offensively and -1 defensively, but I arrived at that number using a defensive statistical APM, a crappy way to do it. I’d guess around -2 to -2.5 defensively now.
by YaoPau on Sep 25, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, fair enough. I'm just trying to be optimistic. At worst, he's a solid stopgap.
I’m just hoping Rose takes the leap this year. Like LeBron did after his first year. It’s not entirely fair to hope for that, given one plays SF and Rose plays PG, but if he’s to be a top 10 star in the league, that leap has to come sooner rather than later.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Sep 25, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
John Salmons is NOT going to be the problem with any thing Bulls realted next year
unless he gets hurt.
let me say that again…Salmons is not the problem.
BULLet points…assuming the Bulls remain healthy…
1. defensively, he is a good physical defender at either SG or SF. team defense seems to be pointed out a lot. For starters…in sactown he had no one behind him any good save Brad who is average at protecting the rim. His SF, Artest was injured for much of the season, Garcia is average, Thompson is an athlete but like tyrus, young and immature and not a force back there and who ever else they had I cant even remember. That was a bad team that gave up on themselves in November.
At either wing position i would put salmons somewhere just below the battier level of defending his own player. help defense can be fixed and it will be much improved with a healthy deng and even better Noah behind him allowing him to get tighter on the wing when isolated and longer players providing help. Tyrus coul dbe a huge factor in helping a player like Salmons play tighter on the wing if he, Joker, Brad, and Luol can rotate and help when he gets beat(its the NBA 2009-you cant grab or hold anymore so everyone gets beat).
So defensively I like salmons for the part. the stats provided show a good defender while on the Bulls and since Derrick and gordon were on th ecourt with him I expect the team stats to go way up with derrick in his 2nd year and Luol and kirk replacing gordon. As i said, hopefully Joker and tyrus show some improvement protecting the rim.
2. Offensively, Salmons is no Gordon. but Gordon is no salmons either. 2 completely different players. But both can just as easily score 18 ppg on 45% shooting…Gordon being the better 3 pt shooter…which brings me to th ereal problem the Bulls will have this season.
3. The chicago Bulls should improve dramtically (by NBA standards) from last season in:
A. opp FG% by virtue of better defenders at the 1 and 2. And Kirk getting back up minutes at PG.
B. def rebounding by having deng at the 3 and salmons at the 2.
BUT the Bulls will only win about 45 games this year because they still probably dont have a legit full time PF unless JJ is that guy (and I think he might be by mid season) and mostly because they dont have the 3 point shooting they ha dlast season.
Rose is still not a 3 point shooter (it seems).
Salmons is not a go to 3 pt shooter…he is a scottie pippen type 3 pt shooter…defenses will give it to him form time to time and he will make some…last year he made 41%. even if he does it again its not your reggie miller, ben Gordon, ray allen type shooting where the whole defense must react and adjust therefore opening up the court for others. he is just not that kind of shooter Gordon was where it opened up the court for others. That said…Salmons…at around 40% is doing his job…serving his purpose.
The real problem is that we have derrick and Luol and Tyrus who cant shoot the 3 to save their lives…heck…jump shooting just aint this groups thing save deng’s one year wonder.
If the Bulls can package deng (who looks like he will never have a 3 pt shot) and tyrus for a PF like dirk, then the Bulls would be able to step forward and become one of the 55-60 win teams.
I like Salmons in the post occaisionally at 2 guard. and the fact that he can hit a spot up 3 if a player like dirk is in the post and kicks it out to salmons.
I love JJ’s skill set at the 3. his passing, rebounding, ability to attack and like salmons…it looks like JJ will be a decent 3 pt shooter at some point if not sooner.
I know it might be impossible to “get” Dirk…but a player like him will do at PF. And JJ might also be the answer there.
The 2009 Bulls are in desperate need of 3 pt shooting more than anything else.
This team has the athletes and size and skill to defend. Kirk, Salmons, Noah and deng are all above average defenders…not elite…but somewhere between elite and above average. And most of them will be on the floor together often.
This team will be a good rebounding team as well! there are stong athletes with tenacity and length at every position. The worst rebounder per position is prolly Tyrus and he just is not that bad…and he should improve as should rose.
Our defense improvement will lead to more fast breaks! this will offset our lack of 3 pt shooting somewhat especially against weaker teams. Good teams that execute will not be phased too much by deng, salmons, kirk, and Noah. and lack of 3 pt shooting will hurt us against them…so i see us as 1 and done in the playoffs once again.
With Rose at PG we should be honored at having an SG like salmons in the backcourt. Rose needs the ball and anyone better than Salmons will want the ball a ton. My hope is that we make a big trade mid season…send out: deng as he never developed a 3 pt shot or the abilty to create his own offense and perhaps Tyrus and or kirk if necessary to get a player like dirk would be ideal.
I’m also hopeful that JJ begins to stand out soon with his all aroiund game Deng and Tyrus both lack. If JJ beats out tyrus and he and deng are the forward along with some Brad at the C then our 3 pt shooting should be decent…given JJ is as advertised and can hit around 33% of his 3 pointers. then the dirk trade is less necessary and we can try to trade for a Joe Johnson or Boozer or Amare or Bosh…or Lebron…we can dream right?
But again…John salmons is not the problem at all for this team…not one single iota of the problem.
the problems are Rose’s shooting, dengs lack of range and inability to create for himself or others. tyrus possible contunued lack of development. and noah lack and most offensive skill altogether.
make Rose a 40% 3 pt shooter and we win 55 games or more.
make Deng a 40% 3 pt shooter and we win 55 game or more.
make Noah a shooter and scorer like horace grant and we win 60 game or more.
give tyrus even a clue as to how to defend both man and team and we win 60 games or more.
But John Salmons? he all good. no real worries at SG…its easily our 2nd strongest position with kirk and Pargo backing him. C not too far behind with Noah and brad.
We have the huge question mark at PF.
An "ok"" sf…if anything…Deng is the stop gap…until he can hit 3’s and create a little offense…he is nothing more than a glorified role player and waaaaaayyyy overpaid.
And rose still needs to learn to shoot open jumpers and make teams pay for doubling off of him.
by SD20 on Sep 30, 2009 5:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
