It’s still too early to say what exactly the Bulls direction is this offseason, but I’m sure that they’re not going into the luxury tax to do it. It’s going to be very hard to tank this season since the bottom of the east is going to be really terrible this year. Out of the six teams that finished below the Bulls last year (Pistons, Wizards, Hornets, Raptors, Nets and Hawks), the Nets and Wizards are already looking worse and I don’t see the others doing much to improve with the exception of maybe the Hawks. The 10 seed could have 32 or so wins.
KC may be right (broken alarm clocks, etc.) but they were all-in on being "competitive" until about two months ago and their last two draft picks were Dalen Terry and Julian Phililps, guys that played 214 and 323 minutes in their rookie years. So if he's divining the direction of the franchise from a draft pick, he'll have to explain how the selection of a guy who isn't expected to play much is somehow different than the last two guys who haven't played much.
I don't feel as strongly about this as I do about Giddey, but this was the one highly projected player I wanted to avoid lol. Also wanted Topic so it was great to see Sam Presti grab him.
I should just become a Thunder fan. Only thing holding me back is Shai grifts too much
Legitimate question, I pay close to zero attention basketball that's not the NBA. Why avoid this kid? All the draft grades that I've read are really high on the pick with a few calling it one of the steals of the draft.
First is that gleague ignite has close to 100% failure rate. Scoot was supposed to be generational and he doesn't look like he belongs in the NBA. Dyson Daniels might be the best player they produced and he's just a backup.
Second is the lack of shooting. To me, in the modern NBA, shooting and defense are the most important things. If you have those, you'll stick around.
Finally, all his highlights are athletic marvels but not really hard things to do if you can jump. Not a lot of dunks over defenders, not a lot of contested layups etc.
Draft is such a crap shoot, it's not strongly held position like I said. More just funny to me AK is working hard to do everything I dislike haha
Kind of hard to make an analysis based off of just 4 years of G-league Ignite players. Jalen Green and Kuminga were both Ignite players and both have been underwhelming but certainly decent players in the league.
I do agree his game is pretty theoretical and rough right now. He has a decent stroke, but hasn't consistently made them. He has some handles and playmaking ability but also has a high dribble and makes a lot of turnovers. He is tall and athletic but also has a narrow/slim frame and may not be able to fill it out as needed.
The biggest plus that I can gather (besides his height, athleticism/agility) is his basketball IQ. Which is at least something if you are trying to fill out a roster.
I forgot about kuminga. He's pretty nice. I actually really dislike Green. I think he's a ball hog with empty stats who sometimes gets really hot and it works but mostly doesn't
Bingo. As with discussing whether or not the Bulls are actually doing their developmental job or not, you need to compare to a cohort that's similar enough but went to college instead. Considering that going the GLI route says something innate about you (what, I dk) it's totally possible you really can't even put together a useful counterfactual estimate. Like, as a guy who followed Isaiah Todd somewhat closely bc Michigan pursued him, I'd guess dude was pretty fundamentally different than guys in his class who went to college in a meaningful way. Maybe he's representative. Maybe he isn't, I really don't know. It's something to think about though.
Anyway, a decent starting place would be to look at what guys ranked similarly to RSCI did. And then ofc admit that you're talking about n = 6? 10? dudes who were plausible one and dones who went the GLI route?
Thanks. I get it. He does seem slight, but he's only 19, so he could probably fill out a bit. Shooting can be developed. The G League might as well be professional Jai Alai to me. I watched some highlights of him yesterday afternoon after hearing he has tendency to say funny things with a mic in his face. Had no idea what his draft projection was, woke up this morning and was like, "cool, they drafted the dude I watched on YouTube." But, I did read 5 or 6 draft grade sites and none of them had the pick graded lower than a B. Totally understand it's a crapshoot but in weak draft, from what I've read, he seems like a solid prospect to roll the dice on. Again, I've watched a grand total of 8 minutes of him playing.
Right? These kids are so young. Hard to tell what theyll develop into with NBA coaching. I was all in on Patrick Williams a few years ago and he's been...fine. The NBA is unusual in that it seems, moreso than other leagues, like you're just betting on potential/ body after the first 3-5 picks or so.
I do think the whole Ignite program was shaky and I do distrust their graduates. I'd also add that I think it is probably bad to have been a major contributor on maybe the worst American pro basketball team ever.
It's better than being a scrub on that team. I didn't know the Ignite were so bad until they drafted Buzelis. I noticed in many of his highlights that he was going up against guys we'd all recognize from the NBA. I believe there was a Shaq Harrison appearance among others. Not sure who all was on the Ignite but if it was a team full of guys who would otherwise be freshmen then I'm not surprised they got their ass kicked by teams with NBA vets.
You didnt have him as a lottery pick in this years draft? That seems a bit extreme. In other years yeah he probably wouldn't be going this high, but this year is a historically bad draft.
All the "historically bad draft" stuff is irrelevant.
What matters to whether he should have been a lottery pick is whether there are 12 guys in THIS draft who should have been picked ahead of him.
After listening to people and conducting a little bit of research, I guess I think that's debatable. I'm looking at a guy with a 97.3 ORtg in the G-League on pretty average usage. It's not at all encouraging.
The stats aren't great but I tend to discount G-League Ignite performance since it's essentially a bunch of college freshman playing against pros. I wonder if they shut down Ignite in part because there was really no way for its players to produce great stats.
And the bad draft stuff is relevant and it relates to "12 guys in THIS draft." In this years draft he is lottery pick (based on the fact there are not 12 guys right now who are seen as better or project as better NBA prospects). And what draft site didnt have him as a top 14 pick in this year's draft? Put him in another class and he definitely drops.
And yeah he definitely has flaws, but at 11 he is worth the risk, especially over some of the also very flawed players drafted after him who might have a higher floor but lower ceiling.
They need to get a coked up former pro-wrestler to just get up there and cut promos. You sell tickets for Reinsdorf and for fans it’s way more entertaining than watching AK with his shriveled up heart wishing he was dead.
I'm ok with Buzelis at #11 in this draft year. Doesn't mean AKME knows what they are doing but the feel with this selection is nice and that does not happen often with them.
It seems that he will need to gain some weight and improve the shooting from 3-pt range, but it also seems that he knows how to use its height when he has that advantage (ejem, Giddey...).
The only sure thing, the shooting coach is gonna have a busy season with him and Giddey.
I continue to be impressed with the commitment the organization has to players who may or may not be able to shoot the ball. Though, Buzelis is intriguing insomuch as I didn't think he'd be available at #11. I think that's all that can be said about my personal level of intrigue, having watched exactly 0 minutes of G League Ignite basketball. The biggest advice I'd have for this kid is to eat a sandwich and we can think about him again in a couple of years.
More broadly though, adding him to a mix of Ayo, Carter, Phillips, Terry, Giddey and Williams continues the trend of drafting and acquiring players who simply have not shown the ability to shoot the basketball consistently with volume or do multiple things on a basketball court particularly well for that matter. And for the life of me, I don't understand the fixation on this archetype. Someone is going to have to score the basketball on this team, and I suppose that's where LaVine is ready to dust off his cape and score 30 PPG in mostly losing efforts.
I don't see how this rehabs any of LaVine's value, but if you're in the camp (like the rest of the NBA apparently) that LaVine is a sunk cost that's neither here nor there.
In sum total, if DDR isn't on this team by the start of mini-camp--and he should not be IMO--I see no scenario in which this team does not field one of the least efficient offenses in the league. But that evaluation wouldn't have changed on the basis of this pick. It just becomes more apparent.
this is off hazy memory, but I do think one of AK's monotone ramblings last night included insight into his philosophy that shooting is a skill developed over time in the NBA
That was the sketchiest part. He said it like it was a certainty for all players. It reduced shooting to a talentless learned skill, which it is clearly not.
I think within reason I can get that point. Like, you can't assume you're just going to teach Rudy Gobert to shoot or whatever. But among guys that have shown they have the skillset, there's a pretty decent sample who improve with NBA coaching.
Buzelis' shooting being as bad as it was in GLeague was a big surprise. It's also not an enormous sample. I can kind of see how an NBA front office could look at that guy and think you can make a shooter out of him. And if he can shoot, he could be a really good two-way player.
In all fairness, he is coming (back) to one of the great sandwich towns anywhere. I mean, a gym shoe from Sun Subs has to be pushing 1200 calories and it's only 6 miles from the United Center. Clearly he'll be built like Jonas Valanciunas by camp.
Like the Bulls, I've done very little homework on this draft. What I do know:
1. He was chosen because he's was on the board, consensus to go higher, from Chicago, and clannishly connected to AK.
2. I heard Givoney talk about him as a workout warrior who is less good in games. Reading the transcript wouldn't give you the right impression about how dismissive he was. It's just one guy, but it was interesting. And it's a guy who's well plugged in.
3. He weirdly kept talking shit about Risacher.
4. By being a workout warrior who is less obviously good in games (Pat Williams) and who can't (Terry, Phillips, Ayo, Giddey) or won't (Williams) shoot, he's in line with the Bulls philosophy of drafting guys who are athletic but not necessarily good basketball players and definitely not good shooters.
I heard Givony with Zach Lowe today, was emphatic that Buzelis "can shoot, just has had some bad shooting seasons" versus (I think) Ron Holland who was airballing in workouts
Yeah, I remember him saying Holland's workouts were often terrible and he was airmailing stuff. I'm a little confused by him thinking Buzelis has had good shooting seasons. He's only had one season.
1) I love the Buzelis pick. He has good upside, he’ll be an immediate fan favorite, and it’s great value.
2) I agree that this basically accidentally worked out for the Bulls, but I’ll take it. As I’ve been saying for a while now, most good things only happen to this team by accident. “Oops, we won the Rose lottery!” “Oops, Jimmy Butler has an insane work ethic and developed into a star instead of just the defensive specialist we thought he would be!” Now we can add to the list “Oops, a near consensus top-6 pick fell to #11!”
3) If the Bulls do end up rebuilding, it actually makes the Caruso trade even worse. If AK knows DeRozan might be gone and he knows he wants to trade LaVine, how is he not prioritizing draft picks?!?! It’s maddening.
I don't think this works unless it's for like an injury concern or something weird like that:
“Oops, a near consensus top-6 pick fell to #11!”
Like, unless there's some kind of non-basketball reason he fell, it's clear he wasn't close to a near consensus top-6 pick among people who make the picks.
That's the problem, isn't it? The people who make the picks aren't the people making draft predictions. So a consensus pick amongst draft analysts could vary greatly from what front offices think.
There's a story (which I only half remember) that Richard Feynman used to tell about scientific verification, where various groups of scientists attempting to replicate someone's experiment found they couldn't do it, but rather than call the results into question just hedged them slightly over time toward the true reading. So if the original paper said the output was 10 and everyone kept coming up with 0, they would show results which showed it was actually 9, then 8, and then another group would be bold and point out it was 5, etc.
That is basically NBA draft analysis. Certain things are based on legitimate if indirect evidence (players worked out for Team X, Team Y tried to trade up but was rebuffed, etc.) Anything that relies on things that you can infer would only come from direct conversation is most likely bullshit. I think most of them are reading each other's shit and adjusting their boards slowly so they're in accord with each other. If they really have insider information, they should quit their pinched jobs at ESPN and gamble on it.
True but NBA executives don't exactly have a track record here they can hang their hat on either. I always think about Steph going 7th when he was a superstar at Davidson
Right, but if the argument is that a player has a lofty evaluation, then he probably should have actually had that lofty evaluation. Doesn't seem like that happened here since he didn't drop for non-basketball reasons.
We are talking here about dropping 5 spots? Is that unusual? No. Especially in a draft where all these players have really significant flaws to their game.
lol...Dude. We are simply talking about draft evaluations and consensus. It's okay to disagree. Sorry if my post came across as overly critical..(and btw I have a PhD and I'm faculty at an R1...so stop it with the "too complex" BS).
The thing I don't get about "value" in drafts is that it's a comparative measure against consensus thought, not a fixed price. I understand the value of one share of APPL stock. I do not understand the value of all the shares of Matas Buzelis.
What I do is Take their averages against other players. I've done this in a variety of ways over the years, and this time I didn't do it at all.
To compensate for that, I did a quick and dirty version to think about offense.
Inputs: What is each player's:
PER, Usage, TS%, FTA Rate, 3PA Rate
In each case, higher is better.
Then I take the average and compute the standard deviation.
Using the average and standard deviation, I normalize the values and sum them up. So if a guy is right in the middle of the sample for Usage or PER, he gets 0. If he's a standard deviation below the mean, he gets -1. If he's a standard deviation above the mean, he gets +1.
I was shocked, after doing this, to find the Buzelis was the worst guy in the sample by a pretty substantial margin. He was at least a standard deviation or more below the other guys in Usage, PER, ORTG, TS%, and FT Rate.
The 3PA rate is the only place he's kind of average, but measured against the full sample that includes a lot of big dudes that don't shoot at all. Compared to other wings, he is pretty far down the list as far as taking 3s. Like, closer to Holland or Castle, who are guys who are considered to have pretty sketchy shots.
> 1) I love the Buzelis pick. He has good upside, he’ll be an immediate fan favorite, and it’s great value.
I have serious doubts he'll play enough for anyone to even know who he is before November 2025, much less immediately. Terry and Phillips played 200 and 300 minutes as rookies. From what I see of this guy (and I have no more than anyone else but probably much less), he does not have a great wingspan (6'10", at a listed height of 6'9") which means he can't simply be plugged in on defense. That's the cheat for rookies and playing time. If you can keep your man in front of you, you can usually get some minutes and having a huge wingspan helps (Luol Deng is the classic example).
I agree with the rest of what you say but I expect we'll see this guy about 1% more than we would have seen Nikola Topic play for the next year.
Good points. For me, it comes down to the context of the situation.
Terry was drafted onto a veteran-led team that just came off a playoff appearance and was trying to take the next step. Phillips was a second round pick and they’re always crapshoots when it comes to minutes.
I don’t believe either of those situations are comparable to what Buzelis has been drafted into. If DeRozan is gone next season (and I’m starting to believe the smoke that he really could be), then we’re talking about a 39-win team that lost their best defensive player and best offensive player in the same offseason. That is not a team that should be wasting the rookie season of the #11 overall pick.
It's because he cannot think of or do more than one thing at a time. There was reportage this week that contract discussions with DeRozan are tabled because they are too busy trying to trade LaVine. AK was too busy trying to find an exact replacement for Lonzo Ball to think about the draft, which was a whole 10 days in the future.
Yeah that report is crazy! Those two exact things (negotiating DeRozan, trading LaVine) have been the biggest things on his plate since the LAST offseason. So not only has he made zero progress on these things after a YEAR, he’s also letting that hamstring him from doing anything else because he “won’t know what the team will look like in a week or two.” The fuck are you paid for, AK?
I'm happy with the pick. Basically chose the player with the highest upside that was still on the board. With that being said, AK's presser after was maddening. As yfbb pointed out in his article, AK basically said he doesn't have a plan for this team at the moment. How do you not have a plan yet??
Also, AK saying (and shrugging) multiple times that he basically doesn't care about draft picks should be enough to get any FO member fired from a serious basketball team. I said last night that I'd rather see this team rebuild simply because it's easier to get lucky in a rebuild. While I do stand by that, this man is out of his mind and the rebuild is likely going to be terrible.
I want to push back on a narrative that’s become pretty popular amongst NBA fans: the idea that the Bulls can’t develop players.
I think that’s an oversimplified way to look at a more complex problem. If the issue were that simple, then Coby and Ayo wouldn’t have become the valuable players that they are now.
The real issue is that AK is a poor big-picture strategic thinker, which often results in avoidable negative impacts on young players. He’s been insistent on having a team that can be competitive immediately and constantly, so he looks at every player through the lens of “how can this guy help me win 42 games this year?” Yet, he keeps trying to complete his 42-win roster with young players who are projects. “Williams will be our 3 and D wing.” “Terry will be our passer and defender like Lonzo was.” “Phillips will be our athletic defender like DJJ was.”
So it’s not that the Bulls CAN’T develop players. They’re not trying to develop players often enough to come to that conclusion. The issue is that the Bulls have such a big misunderstanding of team building that they don’t always recognize when a player needs to be developed.
Boylen couldn't develop players. We've been way better with Billy and especially after hiring a shooting coach. AK might suck but he has at least given us a professional development system. We're probably normal/middle of the pack in that department now.
Yfbb showed me a quote last summer where they said they don't see development as their job. So I guess I also agree that they aren't bad, but only because they would have to try first in order to be bad.
> If the issue were that simple, then Coby and Ayo wouldn’t have become the valuable players that they are now.
Most players are going to develop along a given path. Getting credit for "good" development, I think, has to mean changing that path for the better. "Development" in general, is just improving along that path. Which the Bulls do.
For example, Coby projected as a plus shooter coming out of college who was probably good enough to make it in other phases of the game.
That's still what he is. The Bulls didn't do anything special here.
Ayo... same thing. Good all-around skills but a weak shooter. He's made linear improvement, but not really taken a jump to being a threat.
Pat... same. Low volume shooter with a weak handle is still a low volume shooter with a weak handle
Terry... same. Inefficient at low-usage offensive player in college is still an inefficient low-usage offensive player as a pro.
The Bulls aren't developing guys, but they aren't holding them back from anything either. It's just fan service to pretend these dudes would magically become better if they were allowed to do whatever it is you think would "develop them" on the court that is somehow at odds with "winning basketball games".
Right what would be better to do would be to look at the development paths of Bulls relative to other draft picks. Improvement of some kind is more or less a given. What matters is if it’s better or worse than that baseline.
If they're rebuilding, choosing the best pick available was absolutely the right decision. If they're not, I agree that those other guys probably would have been better.
Trying not to live in the past too much, but just keep thinking about how much I'd rather have Wendell Carter Jr as the center for this team right now than Nikola Vucevic.
makes me not stand LBJ even more. I liked JJ but after LAL have fired good coaches, I hope this whole thing explodes. Lakers let LBJ get his kid to appease him.
Think about how the other guys taken in this draft feel. Bronny is going to have a target on his back. If he ever sees the floor (doubtful), guys are going to try to embarrass him.
It’s still too early to say what exactly the Bulls direction is this offseason, but I’m sure that they’re not going into the luxury tax to do it. It’s going to be very hard to tank this season since the bottom of the east is going to be really terrible this year. Out of the six teams that finished below the Bulls last year (Pistons, Wizards, Hornets, Raptors, Nets and Hawks), the Nets and Wizards are already looking worse and I don’t see the others doing much to improve with the exception of maybe the Hawks. The 10 seed could have 32 or so wins.
Hawks just traded Murray and got a decent haul but definitely an immediate talent downgrade.
KC may be right (broken alarm clocks, etc.) but they were all-in on being "competitive" until about two months ago and their last two draft picks were Dalen Terry and Julian Phililps, guys that played 214 and 323 minutes in their rookie years. So if he's divining the direction of the franchise from a draft pick, he'll have to explain how the selection of a guy who isn't expected to play much is somehow different than the last two guys who haven't played much.
I don't feel as strongly about this as I do about Giddey, but this was the one highly projected player I wanted to avoid lol. Also wanted Topic so it was great to see Sam Presti grab him.
I should just become a Thunder fan. Only thing holding me back is Shai grifts too much
Legitimate question, I pay close to zero attention basketball that's not the NBA. Why avoid this kid? All the draft grades that I've read are really high on the pick with a few calling it one of the steals of the draft.
First is that gleague ignite has close to 100% failure rate. Scoot was supposed to be generational and he doesn't look like he belongs in the NBA. Dyson Daniels might be the best player they produced and he's just a backup.
Second is the lack of shooting. To me, in the modern NBA, shooting and defense are the most important things. If you have those, you'll stick around.
Finally, all his highlights are athletic marvels but not really hard things to do if you can jump. Not a lot of dunks over defenders, not a lot of contested layups etc.
Draft is such a crap shoot, it's not strongly held position like I said. More just funny to me AK is working hard to do everything I dislike haha
Kind of hard to make an analysis based off of just 4 years of G-league Ignite players. Jalen Green and Kuminga were both Ignite players and both have been underwhelming but certainly decent players in the league.
I do agree his game is pretty theoretical and rough right now. He has a decent stroke, but hasn't consistently made them. He has some handles and playmaking ability but also has a high dribble and makes a lot of turnovers. He is tall and athletic but also has a narrow/slim frame and may not be able to fill it out as needed.
The biggest plus that I can gather (besides his height, athleticism/agility) is his basketball IQ. Which is at least something if you are trying to fill out a roster.
Seems like a decent pick at 11 in this draft.
I forgot about kuminga. He's pretty nice. I actually really dislike Green. I think he's a ball hog with empty stats who sometimes gets really hot and it works but mostly doesn't
Do you think he'd be different if he spent a year at Duke?
Bingo. As with discussing whether or not the Bulls are actually doing their developmental job or not, you need to compare to a cohort that's similar enough but went to college instead. Considering that going the GLI route says something innate about you (what, I dk) it's totally possible you really can't even put together a useful counterfactual estimate. Like, as a guy who followed Isaiah Todd somewhat closely bc Michigan pursued him, I'd guess dude was pretty fundamentally different than guys in his class who went to college in a meaningful way. Maybe he's representative. Maybe he isn't, I really don't know. It's something to think about though.
Anyway, a decent starting place would be to look at what guys ranked similarly to RSCI did. And then ofc admit that you're talking about n = 6? 10? dudes who were plausible one and dones who went the GLI route?
Thanks. I get it. He does seem slight, but he's only 19, so he could probably fill out a bit. Shooting can be developed. The G League might as well be professional Jai Alai to me. I watched some highlights of him yesterday afternoon after hearing he has tendency to say funny things with a mic in his face. Had no idea what his draft projection was, woke up this morning and was like, "cool, they drafted the dude I watched on YouTube." But, I did read 5 or 6 draft grade sites and none of them had the pick graded lower than a B. Totally understand it's a crapshoot but in weak draft, from what I've read, he seems like a solid prospect to roll the dice on. Again, I've watched a grand total of 8 minutes of him playing.
I'm prepared to be totally wrong on this too. Draft evaluation is so hard
Right? These kids are so young. Hard to tell what theyll develop into with NBA coaching. I was all in on Patrick Williams a few years ago and he's been...fine. The NBA is unusual in that it seems, moreso than other leagues, like you're just betting on potential/ body after the first 3-5 picks or so.
I do think the whole Ignite program was shaky and I do distrust their graduates. I'd also add that I think it is probably bad to have been a major contributor on maybe the worst American pro basketball team ever.
taking that title from Brent Barry and the '98-'99 Bulls
It's better than being a scrub on that team. I didn't know the Ignite were so bad until they drafted Buzelis. I noticed in many of his highlights that he was going up against guys we'd all recognize from the NBA. I believe there was a Shaq Harrison appearance among others. Not sure who all was on the Ignite but if it was a team full of guys who would otherwise be freshmen then I'm not surprised they got their ass kicked by teams with NBA vets.
I do get why people are interested in him. But for the record, I did not have Buzelis as a lottery pick.
You didnt have him as a lottery pick in this years draft? That seems a bit extreme. In other years yeah he probably wouldn't be going this high, but this year is a historically bad draft.
All the "historically bad draft" stuff is irrelevant.
What matters to whether he should have been a lottery pick is whether there are 12 guys in THIS draft who should have been picked ahead of him.
After listening to people and conducting a little bit of research, I guess I think that's debatable. I'm looking at a guy with a 97.3 ORtg in the G-League on pretty average usage. It's not at all encouraging.
The stats aren't great but I tend to discount G-League Ignite performance since it's essentially a bunch of college freshman playing against pros. I wonder if they shut down Ignite in part because there was really no way for its players to produce great stats.
In the average draft, only half of the actual lottery picks will ultimately become one of the top 14 players in the draft.
Kind of stating the obvious.
And the bad draft stuff is relevant and it relates to "12 guys in THIS draft." In this years draft he is lottery pick (based on the fact there are not 12 guys right now who are seen as better or project as better NBA prospects). And what draft site didnt have him as a top 14 pick in this year's draft? Put him in another class and he definitely drops.
And yeah he definitely has flaws, but at 11 he is worth the risk, especially over some of the also very flawed players drafted after him who might have a higher floor but lower ceiling.
Obvious, I agree. And yet you somehow don't get it.
AK's pressers make me pine for the Pax days. Worst guy on the mic since Asher Roth.
They need to get a coked up former pro-wrestler to just get up there and cut promos. You sell tickets for Reinsdorf and for fans it’s way more entertaining than watching AK with his shriveled up heart wishing he was dead.
Marty Jannetty, your table is ready.
He might say enough crazy shit to get even the Reinsdorfs in trouble!
I'm ok with Buzelis at #11 in this draft year. Doesn't mean AKME knows what they are doing but the feel with this selection is nice and that does not happen often with them.
It seems that he will need to gain some weight and improve the shooting from 3-pt range, but it also seems that he knows how to use its height when he has that advantage (ejem, Giddey...).
The only sure thing, the shooting coach is gonna have a busy season with him and Giddey.
I continue to be impressed with the commitment the organization has to players who may or may not be able to shoot the ball. Though, Buzelis is intriguing insomuch as I didn't think he'd be available at #11. I think that's all that can be said about my personal level of intrigue, having watched exactly 0 minutes of G League Ignite basketball. The biggest advice I'd have for this kid is to eat a sandwich and we can think about him again in a couple of years.
More broadly though, adding him to a mix of Ayo, Carter, Phillips, Terry, Giddey and Williams continues the trend of drafting and acquiring players who simply have not shown the ability to shoot the basketball consistently with volume or do multiple things on a basketball court particularly well for that matter. And for the life of me, I don't understand the fixation on this archetype. Someone is going to have to score the basketball on this team, and I suppose that's where LaVine is ready to dust off his cape and score 30 PPG in mostly losing efforts.
I don't see how this rehabs any of LaVine's value, but if you're in the camp (like the rest of the NBA apparently) that LaVine is a sunk cost that's neither here nor there.
In sum total, if DDR isn't on this team by the start of mini-camp--and he should not be IMO--I see no scenario in which this team does not field one of the least efficient offenses in the league. But that evaluation wouldn't have changed on the basis of this pick. It just becomes more apparent.
this is off hazy memory, but I do think one of AK's monotone ramblings last night included insight into his philosophy that shooting is a skill developed over time in the NBA
The best thing I can say about that philosophy given his current roster is he's damned determined to test it.
That was the sketchiest part. He said it like it was a certainty for all players. It reduced shooting to a talentless learned skill, which it is clearly not.
Per his statistics it wasn't even true for Arturas Karnisovas himself. He shot the 3 better at the beginning of his career than at the end.
I know I haven't been around in awhile. I had to log in just to reply to this. If it is true...
That is one of the most ignorant things AK has ever said. And the list is long!
I think within reason I can get that point. Like, you can't assume you're just going to teach Rudy Gobert to shoot or whatever. But among guys that have shown they have the skillset, there's a pretty decent sample who improve with NBA coaching.
Buzelis' shooting being as bad as it was in GLeague was a big surprise. It's also not an enormous sample. I can kind of see how an NBA front office could look at that guy and think you can make a shooter out of him. And if he can shoot, he could be a really good two-way player.
In all fairness, he is coming (back) to one of the great sandwich towns anywhere. I mean, a gym shoe from Sun Subs has to be pushing 1200 calories and it's only 6 miles from the United Center. Clearly he'll be built like Jonas Valanciunas by camp.
If I can gain 20 lbs in a year off 12” Fontano’s Big L’s then so can Buzelis
Like the Bulls, I've done very little homework on this draft. What I do know:
1. He was chosen because he's was on the board, consensus to go higher, from Chicago, and clannishly connected to AK.
2. I heard Givoney talk about him as a workout warrior who is less good in games. Reading the transcript wouldn't give you the right impression about how dismissive he was. It's just one guy, but it was interesting. And it's a guy who's well plugged in.
3. He weirdly kept talking shit about Risacher.
4. By being a workout warrior who is less obviously good in games (Pat Williams) and who can't (Terry, Phillips, Ayo, Giddey) or won't (Williams) shoot, he's in line with the Bulls philosophy of drafting guys who are athletic but not necessarily good basketball players and definitely not good shooters.
I heard Givony with Zach Lowe today, was emphatic that Buzelis "can shoot, just has had some bad shooting seasons" versus (I think) Ron Holland who was airballing in workouts
Yeah, I remember him saying Holland's workouts were often terrible and he was airmailing stuff. I'm a little confused by him thinking Buzelis has had good shooting seasons. He's only had one season.
A few thoughts:
1) I love the Buzelis pick. He has good upside, he’ll be an immediate fan favorite, and it’s great value.
2) I agree that this basically accidentally worked out for the Bulls, but I’ll take it. As I’ve been saying for a while now, most good things only happen to this team by accident. “Oops, we won the Rose lottery!” “Oops, Jimmy Butler has an insane work ethic and developed into a star instead of just the defensive specialist we thought he would be!” Now we can add to the list “Oops, a near consensus top-6 pick fell to #11!”
3) If the Bulls do end up rebuilding, it actually makes the Caruso trade even worse. If AK knows DeRozan might be gone and he knows he wants to trade LaVine, how is he not prioritizing draft picks?!?! It’s maddening.
I don't think this works unless it's for like an injury concern or something weird like that:
“Oops, a near consensus top-6 pick fell to #11!”
Like, unless there's some kind of non-basketball reason he fell, it's clear he wasn't close to a near consensus top-6 pick among people who make the picks.
That's the problem, isn't it? The people who make the picks aren't the people making draft predictions. So a consensus pick amongst draft analysts could vary greatly from what front offices think.
There's a story (which I only half remember) that Richard Feynman used to tell about scientific verification, where various groups of scientists attempting to replicate someone's experiment found they couldn't do it, but rather than call the results into question just hedged them slightly over time toward the true reading. So if the original paper said the output was 10 and everyone kept coming up with 0, they would show results which showed it was actually 9, then 8, and then another group would be bold and point out it was 5, etc.
That is basically NBA draft analysis. Certain things are based on legitimate if indirect evidence (players worked out for Team X, Team Y tried to trade up but was rebuffed, etc.) Anything that relies on things that you can infer would only come from direct conversation is most likely bullshit. I think most of them are reading each other's shit and adjusting their boards slowly so they're in accord with each other. If they really have insider information, they should quit their pinched jobs at ESPN and gamble on it.
Only at BAB will you see Richard Feynman brought up to make a point about the draft
He would have approved!
True but NBA executives don't exactly have a track record here they can hang their hat on either. I always think about Steph going 7th when he was a superstar at Davidson
Or when the Hawks were so sure that Trae would be the next Steph, they traded down to 5th so Dallas could take Luka at 3.
Right, but if the argument is that a player has a lofty evaluation, then he probably should have actually had that lofty evaluation. Doesn't seem like that happened here since he didn't drop for non-basketball reasons.
We are talking here about dropping 5 spots? Is that unusual? No. Especially in a draft where all these players have really significant flaws to their game.
Dude this conversation is way too complex for you I'm sorry.
lol...Dude. We are simply talking about draft evaluations and consensus. It's okay to disagree. Sorry if my post came across as overly critical..(and btw I have a PhD and I'm faculty at an R1...so stop it with the "too complex" BS).
The thing I don't get about "value" in drafts is that it's a comparative measure against consensus thought, not a fixed price. I understand the value of one share of APPL stock. I do not understand the value of all the shares of Matas Buzelis.
What I do is Take their averages against other players. I've done this in a variety of ways over the years, and this time I didn't do it at all.
To compensate for that, I did a quick and dirty version to think about offense.
Inputs: What is each player's:
PER, Usage, TS%, FTA Rate, 3PA Rate
In each case, higher is better.
Then I take the average and compute the standard deviation.
Using the average and standard deviation, I normalize the values and sum them up. So if a guy is right in the middle of the sample for Usage or PER, he gets 0. If he's a standard deviation below the mean, he gets -1. If he's a standard deviation above the mean, he gets +1.
I was shocked, after doing this, to find the Buzelis was the worst guy in the sample by a pretty substantial margin. He was at least a standard deviation or more below the other guys in Usage, PER, ORTG, TS%, and FT Rate.
So we drafted a weed stonk.
Maybe. It was pretty depressing.
PER 13.7
ORTG 97.3
TS .553
FTA Rate .172
3PA Rate .288
The 3PA rate is the only place he's kind of average, but measured against the full sample that includes a lot of big dudes that don't shoot at all. Compared to other wings, he is pretty far down the list as far as taking 3s. Like, closer to Holland or Castle, who are guys who are considered to have pretty sketchy shots.
> 1) I love the Buzelis pick. He has good upside, he’ll be an immediate fan favorite, and it’s great value.
I have serious doubts he'll play enough for anyone to even know who he is before November 2025, much less immediately. Terry and Phillips played 200 and 300 minutes as rookies. From what I see of this guy (and I have no more than anyone else but probably much less), he does not have a great wingspan (6'10", at a listed height of 6'9") which means he can't simply be plugged in on defense. That's the cheat for rookies and playing time. If you can keep your man in front of you, you can usually get some minutes and having a huge wingspan helps (Luol Deng is the classic example).
I agree with the rest of what you say but I expect we'll see this guy about 1% more than we would have seen Nikola Topic play for the next year.
Nah, he's from Chicago and Lithuanian. AK will force Billy to play him.
"Lithuania" is Lithuanian for "Iowa State."
Good points. For me, it comes down to the context of the situation.
Terry was drafted onto a veteran-led team that just came off a playoff appearance and was trying to take the next step. Phillips was a second round pick and they’re always crapshoots when it comes to minutes.
I don’t believe either of those situations are comparable to what Buzelis has been drafted into. If DeRozan is gone next season (and I’m starting to believe the smoke that he really could be), then we’re talking about a 39-win team that lost their best defensive player and best offensive player in the same offseason. That is not a team that should be wasting the rookie season of the #11 overall pick.
It's because he cannot think of or do more than one thing at a time. There was reportage this week that contract discussions with DeRozan are tabled because they are too busy trying to trade LaVine. AK was too busy trying to find an exact replacement for Lonzo Ball to think about the draft, which was a whole 10 days in the future.
Yeah that report is crazy! Those two exact things (negotiating DeRozan, trading LaVine) have been the biggest things on his plate since the LAST offseason. So not only has he made zero progress on these things after a YEAR, he’s also letting that hamstring him from doing anything else because he “won’t know what the team will look like in a week or two.” The fuck are you paid for, AK?
Exactly what I took from the presser. AK still has no plan on what lane to choose. Are we tanking or shooting for the play in tournament.
I'm happy with the pick. Basically chose the player with the highest upside that was still on the board. With that being said, AK's presser after was maddening. As yfbb pointed out in his article, AK basically said he doesn't have a plan for this team at the moment. How do you not have a plan yet??
Also, AK saying (and shrugging) multiple times that he basically doesn't care about draft picks should be enough to get any FO member fired from a serious basketball team. I said last night that I'd rather see this team rebuild simply because it's easier to get lucky in a rebuild. While I do stand by that, this man is out of his mind and the rebuild is likely going to be terrible.
He's on record now indicating that a team can't be improved through trades and now draft picks. He's all-in on wishing and luck.
AK and Dominic Torretto would be best friends. "What are they planning on racing with? Hopes and dreams?"
Would you rather have Alex Caruso and Nikola Topic or Josh Giddey?
It's Josh Giddey and Buzelis. And I'd honestly rather have Buzelis and Giddey.
I want to push back on a narrative that’s become pretty popular amongst NBA fans: the idea that the Bulls can’t develop players.
I think that’s an oversimplified way to look at a more complex problem. If the issue were that simple, then Coby and Ayo wouldn’t have become the valuable players that they are now.
The real issue is that AK is a poor big-picture strategic thinker, which often results in avoidable negative impacts on young players. He’s been insistent on having a team that can be competitive immediately and constantly, so he looks at every player through the lens of “how can this guy help me win 42 games this year?” Yet, he keeps trying to complete his 42-win roster with young players who are projects. “Williams will be our 3 and D wing.” “Terry will be our passer and defender like Lonzo was.” “Phillips will be our athletic defender like DJJ was.”
So it’s not that the Bulls CAN’T develop players. They’re not trying to develop players often enough to come to that conclusion. The issue is that the Bulls have such a big misunderstanding of team building that they don’t always recognize when a player needs to be developed.
Boylen couldn't develop players. We've been way better with Billy and especially after hiring a shooting coach. AK might suck but he has at least given us a professional development system. We're probably normal/middle of the pack in that department now.
Yfbb showed me a quote last summer where they said they don't see development as their job. So I guess I also agree that they aren't bad, but only because they would have to try first in order to be bad.
More specifically it was something done in the offseason. So it's Julian Phillips job to "show Billy what he can do"
> If the issue were that simple, then Coby and Ayo wouldn’t have become the valuable players that they are now.
Most players are going to develop along a given path. Getting credit for "good" development, I think, has to mean changing that path for the better. "Development" in general, is just improving along that path. Which the Bulls do.
For example, Coby projected as a plus shooter coming out of college who was probably good enough to make it in other phases of the game.
That's still what he is. The Bulls didn't do anything special here.
Ayo... same thing. Good all-around skills but a weak shooter. He's made linear improvement, but not really taken a jump to being a threat.
Pat... same. Low volume shooter with a weak handle is still a low volume shooter with a weak handle
Terry... same. Inefficient at low-usage offensive player in college is still an inefficient low-usage offensive player as a pro.
The Bulls aren't developing guys, but they aren't holding them back from anything either. It's just fan service to pretend these dudes would magically become better if they were allowed to do whatever it is you think would "develop them" on the court that is somehow at odds with "winning basketball games".
Right what would be better to do would be to look at the development paths of Bulls relative to other draft picks. Improvement of some kind is more or less a given. What matters is if it’s better or worse than that baseline.
Meh....another wing that can't shoot.
Would have rather had Dalton Knecht or Kel el Ware as an eventual Vuc replacement
So we plan to have Coby,Ayo and possibly PW be the only guys shooting 3s next year?
If they're rebuilding, choosing the best pick available was absolutely the right decision. If they're not, I agree that those other guys probably would have been better.
This guy named Lex Luthor was talking mad shit about Kel El though, glad we passed on him.
Trying not to live in the past too much, but just keep thinking about how much I'd rather have Wendell Carter Jr as the center for this team right now than Nikola Vucevic.
Bronny trying to pull a Eli manning
and succeeded...if you're not following Paul told everyone they were going to AUS dont draft him...all a ploy to go to LAL
idk, seems like he overthought this one.
He could have sent Bronny to play in Australia for a year
Or he could have just waited for whatever NBA team that drafted Bronny to release him because he's terrible.
Beware an old all-star in a hurry I guess.
makes me not stand LBJ even more. I liked JJ but after LAL have fired good coaches, I hope this whole thing explodes. Lakers let LBJ get his kid to appease him.
Hopefully they take Zach for some sweet unprotected firsts in the next decade before that happens!
I don't think they would have really sent him to Australia because he would have been terrible there.
Honestly it's infuriating that even Lebron's son gets more fucking coverage than anyone else. WTF
Think about how the other guys taken in this draft feel. Bronny is going to have a target on his back. If he ever sees the floor (doubtful), guys are going to try to embarrass him.