Bulls so far are giving up the most 2-point shots per game, and the fewest 3-point attempts. Guard the 3 point line, and count on Vuc to protect the paint!
Yes, hopefully the narrative moves to “young team on the rise.” And not, “another 39 win mediocre season.” We’ve gotten rid of the old guys (except for Vooch), and we have a very young team. So 39-40+ games is a good trend.
The Bulls are actually not a very young team. They're pretty much an average team by age (11th), minutes (12th), and usage (13th).
So, not sure what sort of credit you get for being an average age team on the bubble for the Eastern Conference play-in, but that's the correct narrative.
I think 12th in age by minutes is about right. The half dozen worst teams are all younger of course. So of the 26 "competitive" teams, we are 6th or 7th youngest.
This isn't the final makeup of this team but the current level of play is decent and the set-up is much better. Pelicans keep losing I think skinny Zion is a perfect fit. Vuc+PW+2 of 3 of Noah E. and/or + lightly protected firsts gets it done and leaves the team largely whole (and if you say that's not enough to get Zion I'd be willing to pay more, and current assets make it possible). That's a very nice *path* out of years of pain.
I would love for that to be the benefit of this style+roster: to raise trade value and get better players
but there are fundamental problems with this course of action that pretty quickly ruins my enthusiasm
1) AKME sees this team playing well (or at least winning games) and doesn't say "think how much better we'd be with a star" but "we don't need a star"
2) AKME sucks at trades so badly, and has no confidence in their drafting and development filling in the roster, that they're totally gunshy about this kind of trade and for good reason
Not specific to the Zion trade idea, but generally I would add a third problem in that this Bulls team is built for regular season "success". We have several guys who might really benefit a team who was trying to take a step out of the lottery and into the playoff conversation (like AKME was doing with the original Vuc trade). But there aren't really many (any?) GMs out there executing that strategy. However, I don't think we have that many guys who contending teams would see making meaningful contributions in deep 2026 playoff runs, which is where GMs might be willing to give up long-term assets for short-term help.
Then again, very few would have predicted guys like Cameron Payne, DJJ, Daniel Gafford, Luke Kornet, Bobby Portis, etc., would be making meaningful contributions in critical games deep in the playoffs/Finals, so what do I know...?
This is probably right. I think Tre Jones and Ayo could help a contender. And Vuc and a few others would maybe not be useful in playoffs but be innings eaters to help contenders down the stretch
And thus you maybe aren't going to get first rounders, but I think trading these guys is functionally useful even for lower assets and flexibility in that it actually does the 'building while competitive' thing in forcing younger players in sink or swim roles.
This is true, but combined with your point #2 above, it's extremely unlikely that any kind of trade like this will happen -- because even a good GM would struggle to "win" a trade involving these guys, and AKME is certainly gun-shy about any trades that make the team worse on paper.
I think you subtract Vuc+PW+some assets and add Zion you are a very interesting team for right now, and can always build on that.
The idea that AKME are total incompetents incapable of anything useful is certainly the prevailing wisdom. And for good reason. But this team is set up to do the kind of deal I described and such a deal into our current roster is how you start to build a playoff team, which because it is legitimately young and interestingly talented, can grow into a real contender.
I know this place is a hurt locker, but maybe too much sometimes :)
Vuc, Jones, Dosunmu, Huerter, Phillips and Williams all have advanced stats well above career averages, unless this is due to sustainable outstanding team play, I can't see this lasting.
Each team they've played has been 1 superstar + Defense - 3pt shooting. Maybe the bulls roster is suited to beat these teams. Knicks, @Knicks, PHI, @MIL, @CLE, is going to be a different story for sure. Next up is SAC though and a loss to them would be a substantial disappointment.
as to all those players early starts, I think even if sustainable it's not that encouraging
because what are we hoping for, that Pat will be a solid 7th man? He's no longer the PF of the future with Matas here. They clearly don't believe in him or Terry or Phillips or else they'd stop bringing in guys to take their jobs.
and having Pat, or Ayo if an extension is worked out, signed long term and theoretically having high trade value does not help because we suck at trades. The vaunted Lonzo extension got us a player the Cavs were looking to dump.
This is with an eye to the future, which is fair. Maybe a sustainably good PWill is at least a trade candidate for a team willing to overpay for an essential rotation piece. PWill moving from untradable to tradable is significant.
With an eye on the present, a sustainably good PWill (along with the others) means the ceiling is pushing into 46 or 47 wins which is sixth seed territory.
Pat as a solid 3rd big for us would be great at this point. He doesn't even need to be worth his contract, just not be an $18M hole. And his first three games have been encouraging. He looks competent, except for the few wild threes.
I agree it's a great improvement if he can just get to neutral, but given they drafted two power forwards past two years there's little chance it's a bargain contract
Well, Williams and Phillips should have "career years" this year, because their careers haven't been much so far. Huerter and Jones are still young enough to get better, a career year for either of them wouldn't be surprising. But I will go out on a limb and say Vuc will not match his 20/21 stats.
Jones was always a decent backup but the degree to which he has suddenly become massively more impactful basically all over the court with the Bulls is really striking. Over 50% from 3 going back to the trade (albeit on small volume) after being a legit bad shooter before, running the offense in crunch time and making it work, all these steals. His WS/48 and BPM are legit at All-Star levels in this small sample size. He’s certainly not THIS good but looks like a legit steal.
Huerter has been interesting too because he’s shooting like shit from 3 but making a ridiculous percentage of 2s and also been getting to the line a bit, something he has never done. That will be something to watch if he sustains.
Believe these 2 have highest plus/minus on team, and then you have Ayo looking like a 6MOY candidate. Huerter and Ayo combining for almost 30ish off the bench is a pretty big weapon for them.
Might get in trouble here by seeming to give AKME credit for anything, but time to re-evaluate the Zach LaVine trade? It was perceived by many an okay-at-best return for an ostensible "star" getting their contract dumped, and the flawed narrative around "we just got back our own draft pick" made it seem worse. (Yes, we shouldn't have given that pick to the Spurs in the first place, but it was a valuable asset outside of that context.)
But right now Zach is doing Zach things -- earning his max contract putting up points, and not much else, while playing bad defense for a not-good team.
Meanwhile Jones and Huerter look like key contributors vs. salary matching fillers, and I think there are some hopeful signs around what Zach Collins did last spring and in the preseason. And that pick (Essengue) looks intriguing.
Was it the right strategy to pursue a "stay competitive" strategy with that trade? Maybe not. But assuming that strategy is baked into the Bulls operational goals, getting Jones, Huerter, Collins, and Essengue for Zach (whose flaws were well known and aren't changing) was a pretty good return?
I was thinking this too, but it might be more that the Kings fucked up. But that's still a good thing that it wasn't the Bulls fucking up (like they did in the DeRozan trade with these same 3 teams)
The Kings definitely did. They're stuck with Zach and their "3 firsts" were kind of a mirage, as one is converting to two 2nd rounders and the others are likely to be in the 25 to 30 range.
It's stunning to think LaVine is such a loser it would be better for Sacramento to take Collins+Jones and Bulls first (and have to pay Huerter this year) but Bulls fans would be the ones to suspect it
Zach L for Noa, Tre, Kevin H and Zach C? That's a lay your cards down and rake in the pot great trade. A year ago the bkb influencers were saying we'd have to throw in a first to move Lavine. Yet we rehabbed him and turned him into a great prospect and three good players.
And yet just Googled again and I can't find a single site/analyst that graded the Bulls any higher than a "C" at the time, with some D's and an F mixed in. The prevailing wisdom was that the Bulls had this incredible asset in LaVine and got way less than they should have, just a few marginally useful journeymen and cast-offs along with reclaiming a pick that should have been theirs all along.
I'm not going to claim I was over the moon about the trade, but I soured on Zach pretty early and understood why there was never really a market for him (it's not like other GMs can't see what we see!)
To be fair, at the time, Tre was basically a nondescript backup with a more famous brother, Collins was an injury-prone top-10 bust and Huerter was playing the worst ball of his career. All 3 guys have just been miles better than expected with the Bulls. And in that case credit to the FO (yes I can do it!) and Billy for identifying these guys as reclamation projects they could get the most out of in this system.
Not sure I gave a grade but I would've had it a C. Jones is a find but expiring, the real savvy move was resigning him. Collins and Huerter were seen as negative salary at the time and that is still true.
Most of the reporters didn't take the time to understand the trade before grading it. They thought the pick we got was contingent just for the one year, and if it didn't convey it went away. At least that's the way they reported on it.
Also the three players we got in the trade were all having bad years and so were considered throw-ins. I was just hoping that one of them played well enough that he would have trade value. But Jones and Huerter have both played much better since we got them, and Collins could be an asset for us too.
Detroit, Orlando, and Atlanta is not a group of top tier teams, but they are three teams that were widely predicted to finish ahead of the Bulls, so I give them credit for winning all three games.
The sample size will have to grow, but I wonder if there’s a possible connection between the Bulls’ playing style and teams missing shots. Could the exhaustion of trying to keep up with their pace over an entire game lead to tired opposing players missing shots? I think that’s worth monitoring.
I have four big picture concerns about the team (in no particular order):
1) Giddey and Vuc is a bad combination defensively
2) Giddey’s flaws don’t seem like they will go away, which will limit his ceiling
3) Okoro gives you almost nothing on offense
4) The team president is a doofus who can’t be trusted
With that said, this team is now 21-14 since trading LaVine and embracing this playing style. That’s a large enough sample size where I can acknowledge there’s something to it. There’s still too many one way players and still too much work to do for me to presently argue that this is a top team that should be considered a serious threat. But do I think this is a team that could win more games than they lose and be fun to watch? Yes!
I think 2) and of course 4) are bigger concerns. Vuc and Okoro don't matter in the big picture. Or I suppose they do in that they personifiy the big picture of AKME: 9-10 replaceable slightly below average players
I’m starting to come around on the idea that the Bulls’ play style is forcing missed shots at a much higher rate than expected. The gap so far this year is comically large so far, but pretty growing sample size of this being a thing to help the Bulls punch way above their weight on defense.
Or maybe Billy Donovan just made a deal with the devil.
Having watched every minute of every game thus far, I think our team defense has something to do with it, as teams are shooting 3s under more duress than usual against us (late shot clock attempts, and attempts with solid close-outs). But another big factor has been the selfish and undisciplined play of our opponents. The Pistons and Magic, particularly, played so carelessly for so much of those games -- certainly with less focus and intensity than most of our preseason rivals showed. The Magic had 12 total assists...12!!!
Case in point: Tristan Da Silva. I wasn't very familiar with him, but man, was he embarrassing to watch for Orlando. The Bulls announcers were cracking up at the crazy shots he was heaving up at the rim, completely outside of the flow of the offense, early in the shot clock. None of them had a chance. (Also a good proof case for why plus/minus isn't the most valuable way to assess NBA performance, as he was a +5 in 24 putrid minutes).
I've been banging the drum for "not bad" all preseason, and it's good to see the team start out this way. I agree with this post that a key factor is that we can run out a 10-man rotation (maybe 12 next month?) of NBA pros who know how to play basketball, and play team basketball, and try hard for all/most of the game. Many other teams can't/don't do this.
Part of why I feel the Bulls have a chance to stay around .500 and compete for a playoff spot is that I hold the middle-of-the-pack teams in the East in such low regard -- the Eastern Conference this year may be one of the worst conferences in the history of the NBA (as compared against its own era). Teams like the Pistons and Hawks are considered "ascendant" by some experts, but while they have more raw talent and pseudo-star players than others, I just don't think they're that good. The Magic is maybe slightly better, but for a "contender" they don't do much for me...probably competing for the 3rd/4th seed in the East, but would be scrapping for a play-in spot in the West. Not saying we're "better" than those teams objectively, but as the last week has proven, we certainly have a chance to beat them on any given regular season evening.
The Bulls are going to play so many mediocre teams this year (not to mention the actual bad teams). Sure, watching some early season games with the Nuggets, Thunder, Warriors, T-Wolves, etc., makes me realize how far away we are from the tier of elite teams and true contenders, who'll maybe let us hang around for 3 quarters before making us look silly in the 4th. But the Bulls don't even have to be very talented to get to 40-ish wins, in the context of this 2025-2026 season.
The eastern conference looks worse by the day. If I were to pick the top ten teams in the NBA, it might be eight from the West, Cleveland and New York.
It's early but I would give Billy Donovan credit, and even put him up as early COTY candidate. His strategy and execution around pace is allowing this mediocre talent team to overachieve.
The pace maximizes what Giddey, Matas, Ayo, Tre, etc do best offensively, and minimizes the so so shooting talent on the team. I think it also helps defensively. Atlanta, Orlando and Detroit all looked out of sorts trying to keep up with the Bulls.
I don't think this is sustainable. The Bulls haven't faced a top 15 player year and they aren't talented enough to handle them. For example, I expect that Joel Embiid is sitting just waiting for that Bulls game so he can drop a 40 piece and then not play for a week after. And I think Tyrese and VJ can handle whatever pace we set.
When opponents stop the pace, the Bulls don't have the shooting or defensive talent and I think this will fall part.
There’s so much wildly unsustainable stuff driving this 3-0 start (Vucevic and Tre Jones are making superstar level impact, Ayo making every clutch 3 he takes, the opponent shooting disaster, etc.) BUT I’m enjoying watching how they play and I think there’s something to be said for their chemistry, depth and buy-in to Billy’s coaching that’s going to make them a regular-season menace given how things go in NBA regular seasons. And for whatever reason, they are just clutch monsters.
Given how much the East sucks, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they ride this to top 6 if they stay relatively healthy. And even some injuries can be overcome given this depth.
Of course, they’re probably also a team that has zero playoff upside given the lack of true high level two-way talent and how they can be scouted/schemed against in those settings. And good playoff teams that are locked in will not brick all their open shots.
But I’m not going to worry about that for now and will at least try to enjoy an entertaining product and hope the bozo front office can somehow get this right and get them to the next level.
Other stats that are wonky for early in the season:
The Bulls have allowed 42.7 shots at the rim per game (0-5ft). The next highest team (Wizards) has only allowed 35.7.
The Bulls are allowing only 58.6% on those shots, which is 6th best in the league.
Vuc (7.7 DFGA at 52.2% DFG%) is 5th in the league in shots defended at the rim and 12th in DFG% amongst centers on the leaderboard.
Out of 23 guards who have defended >5 DFGA/game at the rim, Josh Giddey has the best DFG% (50%). That'd also make him #2 behind all Guards+Forwards (because defensively he's much more of a forward.
Is the fact that opponents are shooting 26% on unguarded shots a function of good defensive technique or luck? I'd say 100% luck.
Is the fact that opponents are only taking ~27 3PA against the Bulls a function of good defensive technique or opponent quality? Some of both. Right now I'd say it's mostly due to (poor) opponent quality because we've played 2 teams that obviously suck at shooting 3 pointers and our numbers (27/game) are much lower than what normal "good" three point defending teams can do when trying to limit the number of 3s (usually around 35 per game last year).
The Bulls are also only contesting 12% of the threes opponents take, which is pretty close to the bottom of the league. Last year they contested 18.6% which was second best. Note that I don't think this actually means the Bulls aren'd willing to contest anymore. Rather I think it goes hand in hand with the Bulls knowing they're playing poor shooting teams and just deciding to let them shoot.
I think we've had pretty favorable matchups so far. We've got the Sixers (2nd), Knicks (6th), Bucks (8th) and Kings (14th) in the next 4 games and that'll tell us quite a bit more I think.
When we're a few games in and teams are making open/wide open shots against us at something like league average rates.
Right now, teams are shooting 46% against us on open 2s and under 30% on open/wide open 3s. League Averages for open 2s is something like 56.8% and 36.9% on open/wide open 3s.
The simple way to put this is that if our opponents were simply making their OPEN shots at league average rates, they'd be scoring an additional 11.2 points per game. And we'd be 0-3.
Bulls so far are giving up the most 2-point shots per game, and the fewest 3-point attempts. Guard the 3 point line, and count on Vuc to protect the paint!
Yes, hopefully the narrative moves to “young team on the rise.” And not, “another 39 win mediocre season.” We’ve gotten rid of the old guys (except for Vooch), and we have a very young team. So 39-40+ games is a good trend.
The Bulls are actually not a very young team. They're pretty much an average team by age (11th), minutes (12th), and usage (13th).
So, not sure what sort of credit you get for being an average age team on the bubble for the Eastern Conference play-in, but that's the correct narrative.
source: https://nbaage.com/
I think 12th in age by minutes is about right. The half dozen worst teams are all younger of course. So of the 26 "competitive" teams, we are 6th or 7th youngest.
This isn't the final makeup of this team but the current level of play is decent and the set-up is much better. Pelicans keep losing I think skinny Zion is a perfect fit. Vuc+PW+2 of 3 of Noah E. and/or + lightly protected firsts gets it done and leaves the team largely whole (and if you say that's not enough to get Zion I'd be willing to pay more, and current assets make it possible). That's a very nice *path* out of years of pain.
I would love for that to be the benefit of this style+roster: to raise trade value and get better players
but there are fundamental problems with this course of action that pretty quickly ruins my enthusiasm
1) AKME sees this team playing well (or at least winning games) and doesn't say "think how much better we'd be with a star" but "we don't need a star"
2) AKME sucks at trades so badly, and has no confidence in their drafting and development filling in the roster, that they're totally gunshy about this kind of trade and for good reason
Not specific to the Zion trade idea, but generally I would add a third problem in that this Bulls team is built for regular season "success". We have several guys who might really benefit a team who was trying to take a step out of the lottery and into the playoff conversation (like AKME was doing with the original Vuc trade). But there aren't really many (any?) GMs out there executing that strategy. However, I don't think we have that many guys who contending teams would see making meaningful contributions in deep 2026 playoff runs, which is where GMs might be willing to give up long-term assets for short-term help.
Then again, very few would have predicted guys like Cameron Payne, DJJ, Daniel Gafford, Luke Kornet, Bobby Portis, etc., would be making meaningful contributions in critical games deep in the playoffs/Finals, so what do I know...?
This is probably right. I think Tre Jones and Ayo could help a contender. And Vuc and a few others would maybe not be useful in playoffs but be innings eaters to help contenders down the stretch
And thus you maybe aren't going to get first rounders, but I think trading these guys is functionally useful even for lower assets and flexibility in that it actually does the 'building while competitive' thing in forcing younger players in sink or swim roles.
This is true, but combined with your point #2 above, it's extremely unlikely that any kind of trade like this will happen -- because even a good GM would struggle to "win" a trade involving these guys, and AKME is certainly gun-shy about any trades that make the team worse on paper.
I think you subtract Vuc+PW+some assets and add Zion you are a very interesting team for right now, and can always build on that.
The idea that AKME are total incompetents incapable of anything useful is certainly the prevailing wisdom. And for good reason. But this team is set up to do the kind of deal I described and such a deal into our current roster is how you start to build a playoff team, which because it is legitimately young and interestingly talented, can grow into a real contender.
I know this place is a hurt locker, but maybe too much sometimes :)
Vuc, Jones, Dosunmu, Huerter, Phillips and Williams all have advanced stats well above career averages, unless this is due to sustainable outstanding team play, I can't see this lasting.
Each team they've played has been 1 superstar + Defense - 3pt shooting. Maybe the bulls roster is suited to beat these teams. Knicks, @Knicks, PHI, @MIL, @CLE, is going to be a different story for sure. Next up is SAC though and a loss to them would be a substantial disappointment.
I will not be surprised if they lose to the Kings. It'll be a toss-up on paper, if they were in the East Sacramento would be far less derided
Ha but we get them on a b2b and they're flying in from OKC after getting smashed by OKC presumably. Schedule Win.
Ha I just came to this thread to say that after noticing they're playing now. They started Westbrook!
as to all those players early starts, I think even if sustainable it's not that encouraging
because what are we hoping for, that Pat will be a solid 7th man? He's no longer the PF of the future with Matas here. They clearly don't believe in him or Terry or Phillips or else they'd stop bringing in guys to take their jobs.
and having Pat, or Ayo if an extension is worked out, signed long term and theoretically having high trade value does not help because we suck at trades. The vaunted Lonzo extension got us a player the Cavs were looking to dump.
This is with an eye to the future, which is fair. Maybe a sustainably good PWill is at least a trade candidate for a team willing to overpay for an essential rotation piece. PWill moving from untradable to tradable is significant.
With an eye on the present, a sustainably good PWill (along with the others) means the ceiling is pushing into 46 or 47 wins which is sixth seed territory.
Pat as a solid 3rd big for us would be great at this point. He doesn't even need to be worth his contract, just not be an $18M hole. And his first three games have been encouraging. He looks competent, except for the few wild threes.
I agree it's a great improvement if he can just get to neutral, but given they drafted two power forwards past two years there's little chance it's a bargain contract
Also benefit to Pat being playable is he can fully take over Jalen Smith minutes when Collins comes back
Well, Williams and Phillips should have "career years" this year, because their careers haven't been much so far. Huerter and Jones are still young enough to get better, a career year for either of them wouldn't be surprising. But I will go out on a limb and say Vuc will not match his 20/21 stats.
Jones was always a decent backup but the degree to which he has suddenly become massively more impactful basically all over the court with the Bulls is really striking. Over 50% from 3 going back to the trade (albeit on small volume) after being a legit bad shooter before, running the offense in crunch time and making it work, all these steals. His WS/48 and BPM are legit at All-Star levels in this small sample size. He’s certainly not THIS good but looks like a legit steal.
Huerter has been interesting too because he’s shooting like shit from 3 but making a ridiculous percentage of 2s and also been getting to the line a bit, something he has never done. That will be something to watch if he sustains.
Believe these 2 have highest plus/minus on team, and then you have Ayo looking like a 6MOY candidate. Huerter and Ayo combining for almost 30ish off the bench is a pretty big weapon for them.
Might get in trouble here by seeming to give AKME credit for anything, but time to re-evaluate the Zach LaVine trade? It was perceived by many an okay-at-best return for an ostensible "star" getting their contract dumped, and the flawed narrative around "we just got back our own draft pick" made it seem worse. (Yes, we shouldn't have given that pick to the Spurs in the first place, but it was a valuable asset outside of that context.)
But right now Zach is doing Zach things -- earning his max contract putting up points, and not much else, while playing bad defense for a not-good team.
Meanwhile Jones and Huerter look like key contributors vs. salary matching fillers, and I think there are some hopeful signs around what Zach Collins did last spring and in the preseason. And that pick (Essengue) looks intriguing.
Was it the right strategy to pursue a "stay competitive" strategy with that trade? Maybe not. But assuming that strategy is baked into the Bulls operational goals, getting Jones, Huerter, Collins, and Essengue for Zach (whose flaws were well known and aren't changing) was a pretty good return?
I was thinking this too, but it might be more that the Kings fucked up. But that's still a good thing that it wasn't the Bulls fucking up (like they did in the DeRozan trade with these same 3 teams)
The Kings definitely did. They're stuck with Zach and their "3 firsts" were kind of a mirage, as one is converting to two 2nd rounders and the others are likely to be in the 25 to 30 range.
It's stunning to think LaVine is such a loser it would be better for Sacramento to take Collins+Jones and Bulls first (and have to pay Huerter this year) but Bulls fans would be the ones to suspect it
And especially Jones given their needs at PG
Zach L for Noa, Tre, Kevin H and Zach C? That's a lay your cards down and rake in the pot great trade. A year ago the bkb influencers were saying we'd have to throw in a first to move Lavine. Yet we rehabbed him and turned him into a great prospect and three good players.
And yet just Googled again and I can't find a single site/analyst that graded the Bulls any higher than a "C" at the time, with some D's and an F mixed in. The prevailing wisdom was that the Bulls had this incredible asset in LaVine and got way less than they should have, just a few marginally useful journeymen and cast-offs along with reclaiming a pick that should have been theirs all along.
I'm not going to claim I was over the moon about the trade, but I soured on Zach pretty early and understood why there was never really a market for him (it's not like other GMs can't see what we see!)
To be fair, at the time, Tre was basically a nondescript backup with a more famous brother, Collins was an injury-prone top-10 bust and Huerter was playing the worst ball of his career. All 3 guys have just been miles better than expected with the Bulls. And in that case credit to the FO (yes I can do it!) and Billy for identifying these guys as reclamation projects they could get the most out of in this system.
Not sure I gave a grade but I would've had it a C. Jones is a find but expiring, the real savvy move was resigning him. Collins and Huerter were seen as negative salary at the time and that is still true.
Most of the reporters didn't take the time to understand the trade before grading it. They thought the pick we got was contingent just for the one year, and if it didn't convey it went away. At least that's the way they reported on it.
Also the three players we got in the trade were all having bad years and so were considered throw-ins. I was just hoping that one of them played well enough that he would have trade value. But Jones and Huerter have both played much better since we got them, and Collins could be an asset for us too.
Detroit, Orlando, and Atlanta is not a group of top tier teams, but they are three teams that were widely predicted to finish ahead of the Bulls, so I give them credit for winning all three games.
The sample size will have to grow, but I wonder if there’s a possible connection between the Bulls’ playing style and teams missing shots. Could the exhaustion of trying to keep up with their pace over an entire game lead to tired opposing players missing shots? I think that’s worth monitoring.
I have four big picture concerns about the team (in no particular order):
1) Giddey and Vuc is a bad combination defensively
2) Giddey’s flaws don’t seem like they will go away, which will limit his ceiling
3) Okoro gives you almost nothing on offense
4) The team president is a doofus who can’t be trusted
With that said, this team is now 21-14 since trading LaVine and embracing this playing style. That’s a large enough sample size where I can acknowledge there’s something to it. There’s still too many one way players and still too much work to do for me to presently argue that this is a top team that should be considered a serious threat. But do I think this is a team that could win more games than they lose and be fun to watch? Yes!
Watching Isaac Okoro play offense is like watching Zach LaVine play defense.
I think 2) and of course 4) are bigger concerns. Vuc and Okoro don't matter in the big picture. Or I suppose they do in that they personifiy the big picture of AKME: 9-10 replaceable slightly below average players
I’m starting to come around on the idea that the Bulls’ play style is forcing missed shots at a much higher rate than expected. The gap so far this year is comically large so far, but pretty growing sample size of this being a thing to help the Bulls punch way above their weight on defense.
Or maybe Billy Donovan just made a deal with the devil.
Having watched every minute of every game thus far, I think our team defense has something to do with it, as teams are shooting 3s under more duress than usual against us (late shot clock attempts, and attempts with solid close-outs). But another big factor has been the selfish and undisciplined play of our opponents. The Pistons and Magic, particularly, played so carelessly for so much of those games -- certainly with less focus and intensity than most of our preseason rivals showed. The Magic had 12 total assists...12!!!
Case in point: Tristan Da Silva. I wasn't very familiar with him, but man, was he embarrassing to watch for Orlando. The Bulls announcers were cracking up at the crazy shots he was heaving up at the rim, completely outside of the flow of the offense, early in the shot clock. None of them had a chance. (Also a good proof case for why plus/minus isn't the most valuable way to assess NBA performance, as he was a +5 in 24 putrid minutes).
I've been banging the drum for "not bad" all preseason, and it's good to see the team start out this way. I agree with this post that a key factor is that we can run out a 10-man rotation (maybe 12 next month?) of NBA pros who know how to play basketball, and play team basketball, and try hard for all/most of the game. Many other teams can't/don't do this.
Part of why I feel the Bulls have a chance to stay around .500 and compete for a playoff spot is that I hold the middle-of-the-pack teams in the East in such low regard -- the Eastern Conference this year may be one of the worst conferences in the history of the NBA (as compared against its own era). Teams like the Pistons and Hawks are considered "ascendant" by some experts, but while they have more raw talent and pseudo-star players than others, I just don't think they're that good. The Magic is maybe slightly better, but for a "contender" they don't do much for me...probably competing for the 3rd/4th seed in the East, but would be scrapping for a play-in spot in the West. Not saying we're "better" than those teams objectively, but as the last week has proven, we certainly have a chance to beat them on any given regular season evening.
The Bulls are going to play so many mediocre teams this year (not to mention the actual bad teams). Sure, watching some early season games with the Nuggets, Thunder, Warriors, T-Wolves, etc., makes me realize how far away we are from the tier of elite teams and true contenders, who'll maybe let us hang around for 3 quarters before making us look silly in the 4th. But the Bulls don't even have to be very talented to get to 40-ish wins, in the context of this 2025-2026 season.
The eastern conference looks worse by the day. If I were to pick the top ten teams in the NBA, it might be eight from the West, Cleveland and New York.
You make some good points. But the thing is we don't have to be better than anyone. We just need to score more points than they do when we play them.
Don't need to outrun the bear innit
It's early but I would give Billy Donovan credit, and even put him up as early COTY candidate. His strategy and execution around pace is allowing this mediocre talent team to overachieve.
The pace maximizes what Giddey, Matas, Ayo, Tre, etc do best offensively, and minimizes the so so shooting talent on the team. I think it also helps defensively. Atlanta, Orlando and Detroit all looked out of sorts trying to keep up with the Bulls.
I don't think this is sustainable. The Bulls haven't faced a top 15 player year and they aren't talented enough to handle them. For example, I expect that Joel Embiid is sitting just waiting for that Bulls game so he can drop a 40 piece and then not play for a week after. And I think Tyrese and VJ can handle whatever pace we set.
When opponents stop the pace, the Bulls don't have the shooting or defensive talent and I think this will fall part.
ESPN player ranking has Cade #12, Paolo #17.
I do agree we are light on shooters (and scorers in general). But overall so far we are shooting I think 37% from 3, so that should be sustainable.
There’s so much wildly unsustainable stuff driving this 3-0 start (Vucevic and Tre Jones are making superstar level impact, Ayo making every clutch 3 he takes, the opponent shooting disaster, etc.) BUT I’m enjoying watching how they play and I think there’s something to be said for their chemistry, depth and buy-in to Billy’s coaching that’s going to make them a regular-season menace given how things go in NBA regular seasons. And for whatever reason, they are just clutch monsters.
Given how much the East sucks, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they ride this to top 6 if they stay relatively healthy. And even some injuries can be overcome given this depth.
Of course, they’re probably also a team that has zero playoff upside given the lack of true high level two-way talent and how they can be scouted/schemed against in those settings. And good playoff teams that are locked in will not brick all their open shots.
But I’m not going to worry about that for now and will at least try to enjoy an entertaining product and hope the bozo front office can somehow get this right and get them to the next level.
this is the correct take on the season thus far
one thing is for sure. Trae young has always sucked
Other stats that are wonky for early in the season:
The Bulls have allowed 42.7 shots at the rim per game (0-5ft). The next highest team (Wizards) has only allowed 35.7.
The Bulls are allowing only 58.6% on those shots, which is 6th best in the league.
Vuc (7.7 DFGA at 52.2% DFG%) is 5th in the league in shots defended at the rim and 12th in DFG% amongst centers on the leaderboard.
Out of 23 guards who have defended >5 DFGA/game at the rim, Josh Giddey has the best DFG% (50%). That'd also make him #2 behind all Guards+Forwards (because defensively he's much more of a forward.
Is the fact that opponents are shooting 26% on unguarded shots a function of good defensive technique or luck? I'd say 100% luck.
Is the fact that opponents are only taking ~27 3PA against the Bulls a function of good defensive technique or opponent quality? Some of both. Right now I'd say it's mostly due to (poor) opponent quality because we've played 2 teams that obviously suck at shooting 3 pointers and our numbers (27/game) are much lower than what normal "good" three point defending teams can do when trying to limit the number of 3s (usually around 35 per game last year).
The Bulls are also only contesting 12% of the threes opponents take, which is pretty close to the bottom of the league. Last year they contested 18.6% which was second best. Note that I don't think this actually means the Bulls aren'd willing to contest anymore. Rather I think it goes hand in hand with the Bulls knowing they're playing poor shooting teams and just deciding to let them shoot.
I think we've had pretty favorable matchups so far. We've got the Sixers (2nd), Knicks (6th), Bucks (8th) and Kings (14th) in the next 4 games and that'll tell us quite a bit more I think.
When we're a few games in and teams are making open/wide open shots against us at something like league average rates.
Right now, teams are shooting 46% against us on open 2s and under 30% on open/wide open 3s. League Averages for open 2s is something like 56.8% and 36.9% on open/wide open 3s.
The simple way to put this is that if our opponents were simply making their OPEN shots at league average rates, they'd be scoring an additional 11.2 points per game. And we'd be 0-3.
I'm buying like a caffeinated mom at Target.