ESPN Power Rankings
Bulls up to number four! Have they done enough to warrant such a jump??
over 1 year ago
Diz
23 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Absolutely..
we’re 14-8 after arguably one of the toughest stretches of our season. We’re looking good…we’d be looking real good if Brewer was starting in place of Bogans and/or we get a new shooting guard…
Games against Celtics and Magic come to mind...
I know it’s a weekly power ranking, and that was last week, but when you get blown out twice in a row – with one of those games at home – it’s pretty clear you’re not yet elite. To me, number 4 indicates elite status, and while a five game win streak including wins over the Lakers and Thunder is great, I just don’t think the Bulls are there yet.
My first thought was hell no
but then I looked below and it doesn’t sound that absurd. Still it’s hard to be ahead of the Magic when we were destroyed by them
No hot sauce?
But will the Bulls lose 4 in a row this season ?
and barely sneak by the Clips ? Magic is a bad matchup, but that doesn’t mean in the larger picture the Bulls shouldn’t be ranked higher.
by JockstrapNoah on Dec 13, 2010 3:01 PM CST up reply actions
Orlando bad streak was caused by injuries
No hot sauce?
by JustAnotherFan on Dec 14, 2010 6:01 AM CST up reply actions
We still have the toughest schedule so far, tho
and if you consider that
Heat 23rd
Orlando 27
Knicks 29
we may finish well the regular season
No hot sauce?
Damn, I thought it was the Hollinger rankings
I like Marc Stein, but I can personally give a shit where he has our team ranked.
(Don’t really give a shit about Hollinger either, but at least he has a little something to back it up)
Until Keith Bogans is taken out of the starting lineup, it's Tom Del Thibodeau
Isn't this Hollinger guy the one who said Rose is not elite yet?
And puts Tyrus over Rose in his beloved PER rank?
No hot sauce?
by JustAnotherFan on Dec 13, 2010 2:33 PM CST up reply actions
Yep, that would be the guy
I’m not crazy about a lot of stuff he writes, but he definitely has some substance behind them
Until Keith Bogans is taken out of the starting lineup, it's Tom Del Thibodeau
by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 13, 2010 2:40 PM CST up reply actions
I like Hollinger most of the time, but
sometimes he’s way too into PER. PER is a nice stat, but it’s not the be-all, end-all. For example, go look at his column on MVP candidates today. The entire thing is based on PER. As you can imagine, he doesn’t even mention Rose as a possible candidate. He lays it on way too thick for PER, but I guess that’s expected since he created it.
Deng/Boozer/Noah: All your rebound are belong to us.
That's exactly what I just wrote below
It would be nice if he showed some humility instead of taking a “PER is almighty” approach. There is not a direct link between PER and games won, so it’s irritating to hear him act like he’s captured the exact statistical formulla that shows a player’s contribution to winning..
He can't ignore his own creations
He operates from the box. Everything he says is premised on the box. He will never leave the box.
I can predict the future using Norm Van Lier's crystal balls.
"Sam has a tendency to denigrate reports coming from any reporter who didn’t also cover the day Naismith first put up the peach baskets." - snley
by NBA Observer on Dec 13, 2010 2:53 PM CST up reply actions
He wrote the Rose beef last week
If Rose gets to the line, he will rise in Hollinger’s garbage rankings.
I can predict the future using Norm Van Lier's crystal balls.
"Sam has a tendency to denigrate reports coming from any reporter who didn’t also cover the day Naismith first put up the peach baskets." - snley
by NBA Observer on Dec 13, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions
He doesn't put Tyrus over Rose in PER
His formula that was created over a decade ago did. Why do people insist on acting as if Hollinger is sitting at a chalkboard giving people arbitrary numbers?
I do blame him for acting as if PER is the end of the story when he talks about who the best players are. I’ve never heard him acknowledge that his system might be overvaluing or undervaluing a particular player.
by runningman on Dec 13, 2010 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
isnt that what he did with his rose article though? ignore PER? PER has rose as the 5th best PG in the league.
how is that not elite?
'David Lee is better than Taj Gibson, that is a fact. Consequently, Dorell Wright can shut down Deng.'
Can’t argue with that logic…
- Sleepy Freud
don't be so literal
what I mean is that his so “perfect” calculus often leads to this aberrations. And if you ask me this aberrations are too big to make it worth it. Right now Kevin Martin has joined TT above Rose and Amir Johnson is ahead of Noah.
No hot sauce?
by JustAnotherFan on Dec 14, 2010 6:07 AM CST up reply actions
Why not?
With our record, against this schedule, with Bogans starting at the 2, and without Boozer for most of these games, we’re pretty darn good.
I can predict the future using Norm Van Lier's crystal balls.
"Sam has a tendency to denigrate reports coming from any reporter who didn’t also cover the day Naismith first put up the peach baskets." - snley
A little high there
It looks like the Bulls benefitted from other top teams going on losing streaks at the same time they went on a winning streak. When you’re doing a weekly power ranking, you have to react to changes like that, even though the Bulls still have a worse record than LA, for instance. It’s definitely an over reaction, and the Bulls should be closer to 7th than 4th.
That’s why Hollinger’s power rankings are superior, even if they’re not perfect. At least every team is judged by the same criteria.
how do you know they were disinterested?
cuz they lost? ill use that excuse everytime we lose now, we were disinterested that game
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
