How to become the Sports Guy's new favorite blog

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 25, 2007 6:50 PM CDT in News Comment 23 comments

A week after getting the big rub from Bill Simmons as his new favorite Celtics blog, The Shamrock Headband pays homage by being generally uninformed and unnaturally indignant.

And I kind of gag when I say Chicago is the favorite in the East. That basically sums up everything that is wrong with the conference. The Bulls are a nice team - they have lots of young talent and some veteran help. But that should not be enough to get you into the Finals. To win the championship you basically need a superstar - something the Bulls severely lack. The one exception in the last 25 years was Detroit in '04. I suspect that John Paxson is trying to mimic that Detroit team. I would suggest he try to mimic all those other championship teams instead.

So trade for Kobe. I know Luol Deng could become a superstar, but that's a huge gamble. At 22 he certainly can't be qualified as near that stratosphere yet. Meanwhile he and Gentle Ben are about to become expensive, and all of a sudden the Bulls are going to be in luxury tax limbo. What I'm saying is simple - go for it now! I have little faith that Paxson will pull the trigger, ever, because he didn't go after Gasol last year and strikes me along with Rod Thorn as the most gutless GM in basketball. Maybe Paxson's plan will work, maybe Ty Thomas will turn into Amare Stoudemire, but I am sick of Chicago as they are constituted.

As you can see there's a link back to Simmons' trade deadline piece, a column that (in the case of the Bulls) he later half-assedly backtracked on.

And naturally, there's no actual plan to 'go for Kobe', nor an explanation as to how the Bulls didn't go after Gasol (let alone how far to go, for that matter), nor how Gasol fills the need to 'basically need a superstar' exactly. At least he didn't quote the windbag theory of championship-building, but since he can't look up salary cap rules maybe that's asking too much.

As sad as the top of the conference may be (and I think it's actually far better top-to-bottom compared to last year, thanks Celtics!) compared to the West, this reeks of nervousness over his Celtics being challenged. And in this post he cites bad coaching to be the 'more talented' C's undoing, but maybe Paxson has built the better team, despite lack of 'guts'.

Hey, I'm nervous about the Celtics too, so I consider it fair motivation. But if they turn out better than the Bulls I wouldn't expect their fans to feel guilty about their team manifesting what's wrong with the conference with their 'star'-laden team, as we won't if this 'nice' team does the same.

(Man I hope the Bulls pound the crap out of those guys again.)

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

fav quote

I'm getting tired of always having to stay up late to watch fantastic basketball.

Move or get a DVR. Is this guy Phil Mushnick?

by hscs on Sep 25, 2007 7:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

All those Celtics fans

are going to be so disappointed when the Celtics don't advance in the playoffs.

I love this:

The Bulls are a nice team - they have lots of young talent and some veteran help. But that should not be enough to get you into the Finals.

Why shouldn't that be enough? Hmmm?

by KT on Sep 25, 2007 9:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The most hilarious thing is...

...Ainge's "gutsy" trades will make the Celtics (possibly) relevant for 2, maybe 3 years tops. Meanwhile, Paxson has assembled a roster that should contend year in and year out for a championship for the next decade. The Celtics' short-sighed trades were the desperate acts of a desperate man, kind of like Bush's surge. We all know how well that's turned out.

by BenGo07 on Sep 25, 2007 10:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Also,

did this frickin' jag-off watch what Luol Deng did against the Heat in the playoffs? If that performance wasn't stratospheric, then I don't know what is.

by BenGo07 on Sep 25, 2007 10:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

you didn't see much of the early jordan

if you think what Deng did against Miami was stratospheric. Deng had a nice series, but it wasn't that super.

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Sep 26, 2007 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to see a scientific study...

...on the SuperDuperStar Theory. Not just the "Big Names Win!" "Aaacckkk! No they don't!" "Yes, they do. Look." "They don't. Aaacck!"

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Sep 26, 2007 8:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

you do that

Don't forget to count all-star votes and divide by shoe contracts.

by hscs on Sep 26, 2007 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly, it's not science.

the actual 'study' (if I remember, I don't want to read it again) is classifying superduperstars was by all-nba voting and getting selected to an olympic team. Those are both subjective, and especially in the case of postseason voting where players are usually rewarded for how their team does, it sends the argument in circles.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 26, 2007 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um...

...that's why I said I'd like a scientific study and didn't even refer to the one you linked. It's a stupid-ass point. And when you guys are content to put down because it is so stupid.

Your disdain for the theory aside, O'Neal, Duncan and Jordan are, inarguably, among the three best at their positions of all-time (I'd say Top 2, but that might be arguable), regardless of post-season success.

They've won 14 of the past 17 titles. That's a strong correlation. It doesn't prove anything. But simply dismissing it just because you don't like it (after all, you'd offer evidence for it if you had it, right?) is pretty lame.

If I were to attempt to do this, how would you two, Ryan and Matt, attempt to rank players all-time? If you could help me with that, I might actually try to do it. But I'm not going to spend time on just so you can say, "That's a dumb way to rank players."

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Sep 26, 2007 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well there's no problem with correlations

but the whole point of the 'theory' was to try and prove there's only one sound way to win a championship, and that way is defined by retroactively and subjectively ranking players on a criteria influenced by team success in the first place.

A better study (and one that's been done) is finding what types of teams win championships based on what they do, not on what players they have.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 26, 2007 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The way I understand science...

..."trying to prove" any preconceived idea is not scientific study. So I certainly wouldn't call that scientific. But I could be wrong. All I wanted to know was if you guys had a method of ranking players--current, past 30 years, all-time. And it was some way that was statistical and as free from subjective bias as possible.

No one addressed that. Apparently, you guys think it's "bad" so as not to hurt players' feelings or something. So no one player is really better than another except for subjective analysis? Convenient, I suppose.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Sep 26, 2007 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're not a scientist

having a hypothesis and trying to find evidence to support or refute is absolutely scientific. The study that correlated All-NBAers to championships was very scientific, and it's about as scientific as you are going to get around here. And if you don't know what you are talking about, maybe you should ask instead of throwing your half-baked opinion out there like it has some weight.

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Sep 27, 2007 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

On that point...

...I'd feel pretty confident applying the term "SuperDuperStar" to Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams, and I'm fairly certain they didn't have shoe deals. But keep attacking your (somewhat) straw man; it's not like it gets old or anything.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Sep 26, 2007 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ah, the stiff 'whites only' competition

I don't see the point of bringing old-timey baseball players into it. All those guys you mentioned most definitely had lucrative endorsement deals too.

"Big names" generally means "well marketed." Really good at basketball isn't necessarily part of the equation (see Johnson, Larry).

by hscs on Sep 26, 2007 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're hilarious.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Sep 26, 2007 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

its not overly in-depth

but this is an actual intellectual discussion on the matter...

http://www.sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=1498

by peterbredenberg on Sep 26, 2007 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ancient Wisdom

Soon the Celtics will prove the time-honored adage that all you need to win a championship is three over-the-hill "superstars" with little historical playoff success, one decent bench player, and eight steaming piles of basketball-playing crap.

by Petor on Sep 26, 2007 9:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Tyrus comes out

I hate to admit, but that Bulls-Celtic romp last March was the first Bulls game I attended in a very long time. I was pleased to witness Tyrus's coming out party in person. I also recall Deng had a fabulous 1st quarter as well.

This year I bought an 11-game plan, so I'll make up for lost time.

Wrecked 'em? Damn near killed 'em!

by mdmnd9294 on Sep 26, 2007 9:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

that game was awesome

I was at that one too, and it was such a pleasure to see Tyrus (and Wallace who played phenomenal) completely pants the much lauded (by the neverending stream of Celtics blogs) young talent of Jefferson and Perkins. The latter two looked like they were glued to the floor in that game.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 26, 2007 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

pile on

A similar rant from brother site BulletsForever.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 26, 2007 10:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Let's see how

the Celtics play before he can crown them anything. They might look good on paper but until they prove themselves on the floor it's all speculation.

by sue369 on Sep 26, 2007 12:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the team with the shoe contracts

Tough to imagine the Bulls being a big part of ESPN's commercial campaign. So those Celtics have us on that, damn them.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 26, 2007 4:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

a new definiton of deserve

"lamerock headbland" (hahahaha!) has more.

The fact that I hate watching the current Chicago team does not mean Paxson is doing a lousy job. It was grossly unfair for me to lump his work on par with Rod Thorn's the past few years. Paxson does have a vision - it's just a painstakingly slow process to watch it play out. If all the pieces fall correctly (resigning Deng and Gordon, having Noah and Thomas develop nicely, no major injuries) the Bulls might be the favorite for the 2010 championship.

But my point in the post was that in no shape or form does Chicago deserve getting to the Finals yet, just like Cleveland did not deserve to go last year. It is an indictment on the Eastern Conference that Chicago is my tentative favorite. In short, Paxson's vision for the future could pay off immediately, and he doesn't deserve that. My calling for Kobe was rather glib, it would take some kind of crazy dubious trade like this, but nonetheless I think Paxson should go hard after a bona fide star. It's just too hard to win a championship without a top five player. I respect his developmental ideas intellectually, but hate seeing the baby steps year after year.

Baby steps? We've seen 4 seasons of the Paxson regime, and 3 of 'em in the playoffs. The team had only won 96 games in the previous 5 seasons, and the Bulls recent success was largely based on the contributions of players with 4 season or less experience. Leaps!

by hscs on Sep 27, 2007 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs