You didn't mention his improved turnover stats. That was a problem last season, along with getting his shot blocked ... while falling to the floor like a wet dishrag. During the offseason he might have studied tape or strolled into weight room. What'ya think?
Giddey has career-highs in *checks notes* pretty much everything he's ever done in the NBA up until this point. Points, rebounds, assists, 3P makes, shooting percentages, doubled his FT rate. TO rate is down.
It is pretty much incomprehensible to me how well he is currently playing. I've never been happier to be wrong.
Same feeling. I questioned his march performance, and I think he has one of the worst fan bases out there (like him for his looks or because he's Australian and don't give a fuck about the bulls), but if he can keep up this play, I'll take it. His game is weird as well, like shit works but I don't know how much is an effect of him and how much is the effect of things just....working. I don't know
another great benefit of leaving Twitter is that I don't really engage with #SEERED nation anymore. And just follow the official PR accounts (including KCJHoop) for video clips.
I mentioned this morning on the last article that Giddey seems to finally understand he usually has a huge height/size advantage over his defender and he's regularly using that to his advantage. He also plays incredibly hard, at least on offense. He seems to just wear down his defender.
I've always thought Giddey was pretty meh. I thought he was a solid floor raiser but ceiling capper. If his offense is truly legit - something we'll need a lot more than 7 games to determine - he could be a genuine All-Star.
Overall, I'd love for Giddey to somehow turn himself into a star because that would be good for the Bulls. With that being said, I'm already sick of seeing all the meatheads say AK actually made a brilliant trade for Giddey. Even if Giddey turns himself into a star, that doesn't mean AK wasn't absolutely ripped off at the time of that trade.
Giddey is almost certainly tracking to be an All-Star this season and I'm definitely eating crow. He deserves a lot of credit for improving, as Dogfishead noted above, literally just about everything. The shooting improvement seems pretty real even with the lower volume, but he's still hitting open looks at an incredibly high rate. The free throw rate basically tripling from his Thunder days is a huge deal, he's using his size and strength as a major weapon and the defensive effort is noticeably better (the bar was low). To turn all those weaknesses around like he has so quickly given his athletic limitations is pretty impressive.
As for the trade itself, it's turning into a win-win but the Bulls 100% still should've gotten more out of it. The Thunder immediately won a title with Caruso as like their 3rd-best player in the playoffs lol they will always come out on top of that trade but the Bulls can be winners too, and it's looking like they will be. But it was still a missed opportunity given the Thunder's situation with Giddey and their available draft capital.
I have been hating the see-red narrative that the people who say the bulls should have gotten more from the Caruso trade should just shut the fuck up now. Like no, the bulls traded an all defensive team player on one of the best contracts in the league in his prime for an unproven raw defensive liability with a downward trajectory in optimism
Just because giddey is looking like an all star now doesn't mean that the trade was a good trade when it was made. It's like stupid hindsight narrative but giving akme some credit of foresight.
They solved two huge problems for a team that's kinda been giving away assets when pressed, and also delivered them a title. F infinite minus, AK. Then they turned around and only locked Giddey up for 4 years instead of 5. F infinite minus, AK.
While I'm enjoying this team, it very much feels like the skiles era (2006-2007). Like yea everything feels great and on track....but also decisions have to be made on trades and contracts and we're still like a good piece away.
I hope this time they pull the trade on Kobe I guess
I watched every minute and night's comeback wasn't lucky at all. The Bulls were actually pretty unlucky for most of the game (after the 1st quarter where the Sixers totally took it to us), and we outplayed Philly for long stretches that were thwarted by bad luck and terrible officiating (Jalen Smith had two clear shooting fouls bizarrely called "on the floor"). We squandered a lot of fast break points and open drives that we (and most teams) usually convert, partly because the refs swallowed their whistles and partly from underestimating Philly's ability to block shots. (We also had Dalen Terry playing Ayo's typical minutes and Ayo is that guy who finishes for us on the break). It was a travesty that things came down to that last Vuc shot, as we definitely should have been winning by then if one of several bad breaks had gone our way.
A few other notes:
1. Josh Giddey, I'm 100% sure will be an All-Star selection. Not just because he is good, but because the Bulls (even if they come back to Earth) will be looked at as a success story and he is clearly the only "star" on the team. I'm not sure why people keep saying the 3pt shooting is "not sustainable" as he's gotten better every year in his career. I mean maybe he won't shoot over 40% but he can obviously shoot the ball now. His defense isn't really "bad" either, as he's active, knows where to be, and can use his height to compensate for his relative slow-footedness against quicker guys (that's not even counting his rebounding as a defensive asset). Note: I understand being an All-Star isn't the end-all, be-all of NBA success, as we know that the Bulls rolled out a team with three current/former All-Stars for a few recent years and that didn't help much. Just saying that it's gonna happen.
2. I shared this community's skepticism of the post-ASB break Bulls last year - mainly because of how terribly unprepared we were to match the physicality and intensity of the Heat in the play-in decider. But looking back, it's important to realize that Tre Jones, Ayo Dosunmu, and Lonzo Ball were all out for that one. We had Dalen Terry and THT play a combined 29 minutes in that game...yuck (A bad/hobbled version of PWill played 15). And the way our team is constructed, we need quick, intense, solid defenders to compensate for guys like Giddey and Huerter (and even Coby) who aren't going to slow down another team's guards. With Okoro and Jones we have some ability in that department, with Ayo coming off the bench as another dude who can give strong/quick guards trouble. So while "D" may not ultimately be our team's strength, we can certainly give teams like the Heat a more comptetitive effort than we showed in that game.
3. I still don't think we're built for the playoffs at all, but I've evolved from feeling we're an average regular season team with no real chance in the playoffs, to thinking we may be a pretty good regular season team with only a slight chance to do any damage in the playoffs.
I'm pretty much fully onboard the this-team-is-a-good-regular-season-team train. By that I basically mean I think they'll make the playoffs without the need for the play-in. But that's more down to the East sucking this year than anything.
Anyway, I'm also still fully onboard the this-team-is-going-to-get-obliterated-in-the-playoffs train. They're just not built to beat teams when everything gets ratcheted up a few notches. Luckily I don't think this front office actually cares if the Bulls are competitive in the playoffs.
Yeah, I think we're in agreement. Though I guess, if I really think about it, there are potential matchups that would be somewhat favorable in an opening round playoff series (like I wouldn't be all THAT scared if we played the Magic, Hawks, or Pistons in a hypothetical 4/5 matchup). And of course, we could play a team that's hobbling into the playoffs -- like if the Bucks get a high seed but Giannis is hurt. But even if we miraculously sneak into the 2nd round, we'll get obliterated eventually before sniffing any shot at the conference finals.
Who exactly is going to be doing the obliterating here? There's literally one scary team in the league. And if you face them as an East team, you've done really really well in the playoffs.
I think the Bucks, Knicks, and Cavs would all likely obliterate the Bulls in an intense, physical, playoff series where the pace slows and refs allow a lot of contact. And despite last night, I think the 76ers would too, if Embiid is semi-healthy (even limping along last night and jacking up casual 3's, he still scored pretty easily and defensively had 3 steals and 4 blocks in 26 minutes), or if Paul George makes a contribution. The Magic definitely could if they're healthy and gel as a unit (they were terribly selfish and undisciplined when they played us). The Celtics and Pacers are injury-riddled, but still have enough playoff-seasoned talent that they could make us look bad.
But not many of those teams are really "scary," to your point. I think the idea the Bulls would get obliterated is probably based on the assumption that they will face a 1, 2, or 3 seed in the first round. If we were to get a 5 seed or better I don't think we'd face true obliteration until a potential round 2.
Ok interesting. So you're not just saying they'd lose to the Bucks, Knicks, and Cavs (and possibly the Sixers). You are specifically really confident that they would lose AND be physically obviously mismatched?
I mean, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. I watched a ton of playoff basketball last year and almost every game was a grind-it-out slugfest. I don't see these Bulls thriving in that paradigm, when other teams are well prepared, don't sleepwalk through quarters, and hunt matchups. Our depth is also going to be less of an advantage against deeper teams (and starters will be playing heavier minutes).
I would be thrilled if I end up being wrong, though! I'm delighted by what I've seen with this group and if they take the next step I'll be the first to tip my hat and cheer them on.
I think Jerry wants as many home playoff games as he can get. And I think Karnisovas has a bonus built in his salary for playoff wins. So I have no clue why you think what you do.
I also expect the Bulls to be just as competitive in the post-season season as they are now. If we make it to the 6th seed, which I hope they do, I fully expect a 7 game series. I think Donovan is a very good coach and we will be able to "ratchet up" our game as well as anyone team we play.
One other question. How does one get in touch with the production team for Bulls TV broadcasts? I am beyond frustrated at how much game action I miss when, after each Bulls bucket, we cut to a closeup shot of the guy who scored, running back down the court on "D", for 3-4 seconds. By the time they cut back to the on-ball action we're often in the middle of the next play -- or heaven forbid there's a steal or foul on the inbounds play after a made basket, as there was at least once last night. We'll never see that play, ever. Why in God's name do they do this? It makes no logical sense whatsoever and it's irritating beyond belief.
I know nobody's going to believe this, but Vuc had (and has been having) solid defensive performances this year. He defended 26 shots last night and was at or below (good!) the team averages in every category. If you look at the anatomy of this win defensively, the credit goes to:
1. Vuc soaking lots of shot attempts from the Sixers guards. He contested 61% of 2s and 75% of 3s against him and had 6 deflections.
2. Matas defending the rim really well. With Embiid kind of floating around, the Bulls invert things a lot and have their 4 defend the rim. Matas did a good job of this but it won't appear that way.
3. Okoro and Jones' contributions were much more in takeaways than in actually locking down the Sixers (very good) guards. Okoro had 4 deflections, a charge drawn, recovered a lose ball, and had 2 steals. Jones had 3 steals and 5 deflections. Rather than employ Okoro as a lock-down defender, they really just let him run around and be disruptive. That was interesting, and it worked.
4. Huerter and Giddey will never get credit for being good defenders as tall, awkward looking white guys, but neither of them were really negatives defensively.
5. Pat was the biggest negative defensively. He gave up 7 baskets on 7 shots, all at the rim, and only effectively contested 1 of them. He has the opposite of Matas' skill defending the rim. I think this was evident to the coaches too, since Pat got a short shift in the second half.
I've been playing around with developing a formula like win shares and if I were going to divide up last night's win, it'd be
Vooch has looked rejuvenated this year. It's kind of weird. Is he playing extra hard for one more decent contract? I expected him to mail it in this year, but that hasn't been the case at all so far. He looks more engaged than I can ever really remember him since he's been in Chicago. Maybe he's just happy to no longer be playing with Zach and DeMar?
Vooch has been playing out of his mind this season: currently shooting 58% from the field and 48% from 3. Even if he is more motivated there's no way he sustains this rate. My Christmas wish this year is that Vooch stays hot long enough for some team to trade for him.
he's currently shooting 68% from 3-10 feet, which is 18 percentage points above his career number. 63.8% on 2-pointers overall, plus that ridiculous 3-point percentage. I do think some of it is getting set up nicely by Giddey/Jones and picking his spots, but it's still just ridiculous to be doing this at this point of his career given his track record.
I think they're using him better than he's been used at any point in his career. They've massively reduced that 80s style post up play where the guard takes the ball up the court, flares to the wing, and dumps an entry pass to Vuch, who isos while everyone watches. He's made a career of that and it sucks.
Instead, it's mostly been about mismatches. Some size. Others, spatial. But they're not asking Vuch to create his own advantages often anymore. Is his 3-10 ft % entirely sustainable? No clue. But if they keep using him like this, I'd expect it to be above his career norm.
I think there's a lot to be said for the Zach/DeMar factor. Not just the offensive style of play, but having a defense with poor, low-IQ defenders funneling everything to him at the rim, which isn't the modality that suits his skill set and athletic profile.
And perhaps most importantly what we're not seeing is the pouting and "checking out" that we really only saw in the Zach years. The "I got switched onto a 6'3" guard in the post and you chucked up a step-back 3 with 14 seconds on the shot clock" look is no more. When that happened over and over, Vuc would eventually try to do too much when he did get a touch, and maybe barrel toward the rim in frustration, and then not get a call from the ref, and he'd be MIA for the rest of the game.
Quite possibly depending on how you analyze. There may be many negative on-court "tangibles" but they're hard to measure. And the paradoxical element here is that he's really not a "clubhouse cancer" by any definition. I've constantly heard about how well he's liked by his teammates, and still involved in their lives. And no player has been more vexing to Billy Donovan's coaching career than Zach, yet Billy greeted and hugged him like a long-lost son after Zach's return to the UC last week. Truly an enigma!
The league has been in a fascinating place the last few years. Ever since Durant left the Warriors, we’ve been in a “post superteam” era. This era has coincided with a constant influx of talent. Those two factors combined have created a sense of parity that the league hasn’t seen in DECADES.
Like most historical occurrences in sports, we won’t know how to fully analyze it until it’s over, but one thing that’s certain is that the days of feeling like only 4-5 teams in the league truly matter are currently over. This year alone, it feels like there are at least 15 teams that need to be taken seriously, and that includes the Bulls.
What’s funny is that this clearly wasn’t a result of some intricate plan from Arturas Karnisovas. Detailed planning is not his thing. His thing is to see how the season plays out and then reverse engineer a plan from the results. Hence why his talking points last year became about a fast playing style and a roster full of good players. It was clearly not his long term plan (if it was he wouldn’t have recently given LaVine the max). It’s what he realized he had AFTER he made trades, so he acted like that was his plan from the start.
Credit to Billy and the players for the success of this team. No credit to AK who couldn’t even set expectations for this year.
It's chaos. I think you suggest exactly the inflection point, the end of the last dynasty. There's all sorts of thinking that people still rely on that is clearly out the window. 82 game vs 16 game players? Yeah, that's out as a meaningful framework for evaluating players. It was a reasonable thing to say when everyone's attention was trained on one team. Now, it's more about matchups. And these things have played out in very unexpected ways. Just check out the major contributors to the final four over the last 5 years. All sorts of dudes who would absolutely not have been considered 16 game players in 2017.
As this Unbelieva-Bull season continues, I have to apologize to Josh Giddy, I had little faith that he could be the engine that makes this team go, but like many I am presently surprised. This team reminds me of the 2014-15 Atlanta Hawks, no superstars... (Al Horford, Paul Millsap, Jeff Teague, and Kyle Korver were All-Star reserves that season.) under the radar, played like a cohesive unit, ended up winning 60 games and got to the conference finals, where they were swept by The Cavs. To coin a phrase from a famous Chicago sports personality... I`ll "Take that!".
I don`t necessarily think this team will end up winning 60 games, but considering everyone including myself picked this team to be late lottery at best, I`m just gonna sit back and enjoy the ride, while it last`s. And ignore the fact that we have The Bucks & Spurs coming up this week... GO Bull`s!!!
This team has been a nice surprise but I'm still iffy on whether this is real. Coby hasn't even come back yet and who knows how that'll turn out. I'm not drinking the kool-aid yet but it's starting to whisper to me like its the green goblin mask.
Just a friendly PSA for the surreal world we're living in -- if the 2026 NBA draft were held today, the Bulls would hold two 1st-rounders: the 29th pick, as well as a pick somewhere between 19 and 23 (pending coin flips).
The last 1st round pick we made that was lower than #22 was Marquis Teague.
When AK traded away Lavine, Caruso, and Ball there was a lot of (fair) belly aching over the fact that he got limited draft assets back. Looking at the Thunder, the assumption is that the best way to build a team is through the piling of draft picks until you hit on a few elite players.
But AK has bucked the trend and traded for undervalued players on other teams, and it appears to be paying off. Some stats:
Kevin Huerter's PER: 2024 with SAC - 10.6, 2024 with CHI - 12.0, 2025 with CHI - 16.2.
Josh Giddey's PER: 2023 with OKC - 16.6, 2024 with CHI - 18.1, 2025 with CHI - 22.6.
Now, Isaac Okoro has not had a better PER so far with the Bulls, as he has dropped from a 10.7 to a 6.4 this season. Despite that not fitting my narrative, I still see a guy who is providing a lot more value to this team than a post injury Lonzo Ball was. He had a slow start in the first few games of the season, but has logged his best offensive games in his last two and his best defensive ratings in two of the last three games.
I still think there is a lot of reason to criticize AK for his acceptance of mediocrity in the last few years, but I am curious if anyone else sees his current trend of trading for undervalued NBA talent as being successful or just a flash in the pan?
I think your hypothesis has some truth to it in today's NBA, but with the caveat that the Bulls are one of the few teams whose business strategy is to simply maintain a baseline of basic competitiveness. Most teams are in "boom, build, or tank" mentality and draft picks are considered valuable - but in the way that real-world lottery or raffle tickets hold value. So players like the ones you mentioned are undervalued to some extent (though look up Kevin Huerter's salary and it's not so clear that's true).
If anything, I might say that a guy like Josh Giddey (the way he's playing now in this scheme) can have the effect of making players like Huerter more effective, as he's savvy at cutting and moving to open spots where Giddey finds him, and driving against scrambling defenses (vs. just standing around like he did on the Kings). Credit to AK I guess, for getting and investing in Giddey, and pairing him with guys he could make better than they were in worse situations.
But in a lot of ways AK Is just doing what Krause did with the Jordan-era Bulls and GarPax did with the Rose-era Bulls. Guys like Craig Hodges, Bobby Hansen, Trent Tucker, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, Jud Buechler, etc. weren't in demand in the 90s. Bill Cartwright, Dennis Rodman, and Ron Harper were guys whose best days seemed behind them. Everyone above is a household name now in Chicago, and had moments that made them look like true champions.
Ronnie Brewer, CJ Watson, Keith Bogans, Kyle Korver, etc. (maybe even Pau and Rondo) were similar in the Thibs/Rose era.
But that's different, right, because those acquisitions were building around a core of stars?? Yes and no! AK, since the Vuc/DeMar/Caruso/Ball assemblage, has basically been in the "build around a core" mindset. And the market inefficiency is that teams who don't have strong cores never really behave that way! The only way AK is truly vindicated here is if Josh and Matas (and maybe Coby) prove that they ARE a championship-contending core. Because "too good to get lottery picks but never good enough for the conference finals" is just a nicer way to describe NBA Hell.
Joel Embiid retire bitch
Embiid is coooooked. He is like a mummy out there...he could still put numbers offensively on occassion but he is a part time player at this point
You didn't mention his improved turnover stats. That was a problem last season, along with getting his shot blocked ... while falling to the floor like a wet dishrag. During the offseason he might have studied tape or strolled into weight room. What'ya think?
TO% improved over last year but in line with prior years
Giddey has career-highs in *checks notes* pretty much everything he's ever done in the NBA up until this point. Points, rebounds, assists, 3P makes, shooting percentages, doubled his FT rate. TO rate is down.
It is pretty much incomprehensible to me how well he is currently playing. I've never been happier to be wrong.
Same feeling. I questioned his march performance, and I think he has one of the worst fan bases out there (like him for his looks or because he's Australian and don't give a fuck about the bulls), but if he can keep up this play, I'll take it. His game is weird as well, like shit works but I don't know how much is an effect of him and how much is the effect of things just....working. I don't know
another great benefit of leaving Twitter is that I don't really engage with #SEERED nation anymore. And just follow the official PR accounts (including KCJHoop) for video clips.
I mentioned this morning on the last article that Giddey seems to finally understand he usually has a huge height/size advantage over his defender and he's regularly using that to his advantage. He also plays incredibly hard, at least on offense. He seems to just wear down his defender.
I've always thought Giddey was pretty meh. I thought he was a solid floor raiser but ceiling capper. If his offense is truly legit - something we'll need a lot more than 7 games to determine - he could be a genuine All-Star.
Overall, I'd love for Giddey to somehow turn himself into a star because that would be good for the Bulls. With that being said, I'm already sick of seeing all the meatheads say AK actually made a brilliant trade for Giddey. Even if Giddey turns himself into a star, that doesn't mean AK wasn't absolutely ripped off at the time of that trade.
Giddey is almost certainly tracking to be an All-Star this season and I'm definitely eating crow. He deserves a lot of credit for improving, as Dogfishead noted above, literally just about everything. The shooting improvement seems pretty real even with the lower volume, but he's still hitting open looks at an incredibly high rate. The free throw rate basically tripling from his Thunder days is a huge deal, he's using his size and strength as a major weapon and the defensive effort is noticeably better (the bar was low). To turn all those weaknesses around like he has so quickly given his athletic limitations is pretty impressive.
As for the trade itself, it's turning into a win-win but the Bulls 100% still should've gotten more out of it. The Thunder immediately won a title with Caruso as like their 3rd-best player in the playoffs lol they will always come out on top of that trade but the Bulls can be winners too, and it's looking like they will be. But it was still a missed opportunity given the Thunder's situation with Giddey and their available draft capital.
AK didn't want to squeeze the Thunder because he believes small market teams should work together.
Yep, completely agree on all of that. I'll happily accept Giddey proving me wrong if he's making the team better.
I have been hating the see-red narrative that the people who say the bulls should have gotten more from the Caruso trade should just shut the fuck up now. Like no, the bulls traded an all defensive team player on one of the best contracts in the league in his prime for an unproven raw defensive liability with a downward trajectory in optimism
Just because giddey is looking like an all star now doesn't mean that the trade was a good trade when it was made. It's like stupid hindsight narrative but giving akme some credit of foresight.
They solved two huge problems for a team that's kinda been giving away assets when pressed, and also delivered them a title. F infinite minus, AK. Then they turned around and only locked Giddey up for 4 years instead of 5. F infinite minus, AK.
Vuc and Giddey going full Jamie Taco on those defensive rebounds, all while being dead-bolted to the Earth, is a thing of mysterious beauty.
While I'm enjoying this team, it very much feels like the skiles era (2006-2007). Like yea everything feels great and on track....but also decisions have to be made on trades and contracts and we're still like a good piece away.
I hope this time they pull the trade on Kobe I guess
I watched every minute and night's comeback wasn't lucky at all. The Bulls were actually pretty unlucky for most of the game (after the 1st quarter where the Sixers totally took it to us), and we outplayed Philly for long stretches that were thwarted by bad luck and terrible officiating (Jalen Smith had two clear shooting fouls bizarrely called "on the floor"). We squandered a lot of fast break points and open drives that we (and most teams) usually convert, partly because the refs swallowed their whistles and partly from underestimating Philly's ability to block shots. (We also had Dalen Terry playing Ayo's typical minutes and Ayo is that guy who finishes for us on the break). It was a travesty that things came down to that last Vuc shot, as we definitely should have been winning by then if one of several bad breaks had gone our way.
A few other notes:
1. Josh Giddey, I'm 100% sure will be an All-Star selection. Not just because he is good, but because the Bulls (even if they come back to Earth) will be looked at as a success story and he is clearly the only "star" on the team. I'm not sure why people keep saying the 3pt shooting is "not sustainable" as he's gotten better every year in his career. I mean maybe he won't shoot over 40% but he can obviously shoot the ball now. His defense isn't really "bad" either, as he's active, knows where to be, and can use his height to compensate for his relative slow-footedness against quicker guys (that's not even counting his rebounding as a defensive asset). Note: I understand being an All-Star isn't the end-all, be-all of NBA success, as we know that the Bulls rolled out a team with three current/former All-Stars for a few recent years and that didn't help much. Just saying that it's gonna happen.
2. I shared this community's skepticism of the post-ASB break Bulls last year - mainly because of how terribly unprepared we were to match the physicality and intensity of the Heat in the play-in decider. But looking back, it's important to realize that Tre Jones, Ayo Dosunmu, and Lonzo Ball were all out for that one. We had Dalen Terry and THT play a combined 29 minutes in that game...yuck (A bad/hobbled version of PWill played 15). And the way our team is constructed, we need quick, intense, solid defenders to compensate for guys like Giddey and Huerter (and even Coby) who aren't going to slow down another team's guards. With Okoro and Jones we have some ability in that department, with Ayo coming off the bench as another dude who can give strong/quick guards trouble. So while "D" may not ultimately be our team's strength, we can certainly give teams like the Heat a more comptetitive effort than we showed in that game.
3. I still don't think we're built for the playoffs at all, but I've evolved from feeling we're an average regular season team with no real chance in the playoffs, to thinking we may be a pretty good regular season team with only a slight chance to do any damage in the playoffs.
I'm pretty much fully onboard the this-team-is-a-good-regular-season-team train. By that I basically mean I think they'll make the playoffs without the need for the play-in. But that's more down to the East sucking this year than anything.
Anyway, I'm also still fully onboard the this-team-is-going-to-get-obliterated-in-the-playoffs train. They're just not built to beat teams when everything gets ratcheted up a few notches. Luckily I don't think this front office actually cares if the Bulls are competitive in the playoffs.
Yeah, I think we're in agreement. Though I guess, if I really think about it, there are potential matchups that would be somewhat favorable in an opening round playoff series (like I wouldn't be all THAT scared if we played the Magic, Hawks, or Pistons in a hypothetical 4/5 matchup). And of course, we could play a team that's hobbling into the playoffs -- like if the Bucks get a high seed but Giannis is hurt. But even if we miraculously sneak into the 2nd round, we'll get obliterated eventually before sniffing any shot at the conference finals.
Who exactly is going to be doing the obliterating here? There's literally one scary team in the league. And if you face them as an East team, you've done really really well in the playoffs.
I think the Bucks, Knicks, and Cavs would all likely obliterate the Bulls in an intense, physical, playoff series where the pace slows and refs allow a lot of contact. And despite last night, I think the 76ers would too, if Embiid is semi-healthy (even limping along last night and jacking up casual 3's, he still scored pretty easily and defensively had 3 steals and 4 blocks in 26 minutes), or if Paul George makes a contribution. The Magic definitely could if they're healthy and gel as a unit (they were terribly selfish and undisciplined when they played us). The Celtics and Pacers are injury-riddled, but still have enough playoff-seasoned talent that they could make us look bad.
But not many of those teams are really "scary," to your point. I think the idea the Bulls would get obliterated is probably based on the assumption that they will face a 1, 2, or 3 seed in the first round. If we were to get a 5 seed or better I don't think we'd face true obliteration until a potential round 2.
Ok interesting. So you're not just saying they'd lose to the Bucks, Knicks, and Cavs (and possibly the Sixers). You are specifically really confident that they would lose AND be physically obviously mismatched?
I mean, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. I watched a ton of playoff basketball last year and almost every game was a grind-it-out slugfest. I don't see these Bulls thriving in that paradigm, when other teams are well prepared, don't sleepwalk through quarters, and hunt matchups. Our depth is also going to be less of an advantage against deeper teams (and starters will be playing heavier minutes).
I would be thrilled if I end up being wrong, though! I'm delighted by what I've seen with this group and if they take the next step I'll be the first to tip my hat and cheer them on.
I think Jerry wants as many home playoff games as he can get. And I think Karnisovas has a bonus built in his salary for playoff wins. So I have no clue why you think what you do.
I also expect the Bulls to be just as competitive in the post-season season as they are now. If we make it to the 6th seed, which I hope they do, I fully expect a 7 game series. I think Donovan is a very good coach and we will be able to "ratchet up" our game as well as anyone team we play.
One other question. How does one get in touch with the production team for Bulls TV broadcasts? I am beyond frustrated at how much game action I miss when, after each Bulls bucket, we cut to a closeup shot of the guy who scored, running back down the court on "D", for 3-4 seconds. By the time they cut back to the on-ball action we're often in the middle of the next play -- or heaven forbid there's a steal or foul on the inbounds play after a made basket, as there was at least once last night. We'll never see that play, ever. Why in God's name do they do this? It makes no logical sense whatsoever and it's irritating beyond belief.
I think all suggestions have to be sent in the memo line of a check
I know nobody's going to believe this, but Vuc had (and has been having) solid defensive performances this year. He defended 26 shots last night and was at or below (good!) the team averages in every category. If you look at the anatomy of this win defensively, the credit goes to:
1. Vuc soaking lots of shot attempts from the Sixers guards. He contested 61% of 2s and 75% of 3s against him and had 6 deflections.
2. Matas defending the rim really well. With Embiid kind of floating around, the Bulls invert things a lot and have their 4 defend the rim. Matas did a good job of this but it won't appear that way.
3. Okoro and Jones' contributions were much more in takeaways than in actually locking down the Sixers (very good) guards. Okoro had 4 deflections, a charge drawn, recovered a lose ball, and had 2 steals. Jones had 3 steals and 5 deflections. Rather than employ Okoro as a lock-down defender, they really just let him run around and be disruptive. That was interesting, and it worked.
4. Huerter and Giddey will never get credit for being good defenders as tall, awkward looking white guys, but neither of them were really negatives defensively.
5. Pat was the biggest negative defensively. He gave up 7 baskets on 7 shots, all at the rim, and only effectively contested 1 of them. He has the opposite of Matas' skill defending the rim. I think this was evident to the coaches too, since Pat got a short shift in the second half.
I've been playing around with developing a formula like win shares and if I were going to divide up last night's win, it'd be
26% Giddey
20% Vuc
17% Okoro
12% Huerter
09% Matas
08% Tre
08% Smith
02% Terry
00% Phillips
-2% Pat
Vooch has looked rejuvenated this year. It's kind of weird. Is he playing extra hard for one more decent contract? I expected him to mail it in this year, but that hasn't been the case at all so far. He looks more engaged than I can ever really remember him since he's been in Chicago. Maybe he's just happy to no longer be playing with Zach and DeMar?
Vooch has been playing out of his mind this season: currently shooting 58% from the field and 48% from 3. Even if he is more motivated there's no way he sustains this rate. My Christmas wish this year is that Vooch stays hot long enough for some team to trade for him.
he's currently shooting 68% from 3-10 feet, which is 18 percentage points above his career number. 63.8% on 2-pointers overall, plus that ridiculous 3-point percentage. I do think some of it is getting set up nicely by Giddey/Jones and picking his spots, but it's still just ridiculous to be doing this at this point of his career given his track record.
I think they're using him better than he's been used at any point in his career. They've massively reduced that 80s style post up play where the guard takes the ball up the court, flares to the wing, and dumps an entry pass to Vuch, who isos while everyone watches. He's made a career of that and it sucks.
Instead, it's mostly been about mismatches. Some size. Others, spatial. But they're not asking Vuch to create his own advantages often anymore. Is his 3-10 ft % entirely sustainable? No clue. But if they keep using him like this, I'd expect it to be above his career norm.
you're telling me you didn't like 2nd half career chuck barkley.
I think there's a lot to be said for the Zach/DeMar factor. Not just the offensive style of play, but having a defense with poor, low-IQ defenders funneling everything to him at the rim, which isn't the modality that suits his skill set and athletic profile.
And perhaps most importantly what we're not seeing is the pouting and "checking out" that we really only saw in the Zach years. The "I got switched onto a 6'3" guard in the post and you chucked up a step-back 3 with 14 seconds on the shot clock" look is no more. When that happened over and over, Vuc would eventually try to do too much when he did get a touch, and maybe barrel toward the rim in frustration, and then not get a call from the ref, and he'd be MIA for the rest of the game.
is Zach the worst player in the league based on intangibles
Quite possibly depending on how you analyze. There may be many negative on-court "tangibles" but they're hard to measure. And the paradoxical element here is that he's really not a "clubhouse cancer" by any definition. I've constantly heard about how well he's liked by his teammates, and still involved in their lives. And no player has been more vexing to Billy Donovan's coaching career than Zach, yet Billy greeted and hugged him like a long-lost son after Zach's return to the UC last week. Truly an enigma!
the switch mismatch on vuc stuck out to me, you saying it really cemented it in my mind about his whole deal
Most important line in the Jamal Collier write up:
"Chicago improves to 6-1, which matches the best start for the franchise since the 2021-22 season, the last time they made the playoffs."
The league has been in a fascinating place the last few years. Ever since Durant left the Warriors, we’ve been in a “post superteam” era. This era has coincided with a constant influx of talent. Those two factors combined have created a sense of parity that the league hasn’t seen in DECADES.
Like most historical occurrences in sports, we won’t know how to fully analyze it until it’s over, but one thing that’s certain is that the days of feeling like only 4-5 teams in the league truly matter are currently over. This year alone, it feels like there are at least 15 teams that need to be taken seriously, and that includes the Bulls.
What’s funny is that this clearly wasn’t a result of some intricate plan from Arturas Karnisovas. Detailed planning is not his thing. His thing is to see how the season plays out and then reverse engineer a plan from the results. Hence why his talking points last year became about a fast playing style and a roster full of good players. It was clearly not his long term plan (if it was he wouldn’t have recently given LaVine the max). It’s what he realized he had AFTER he made trades, so he acted like that was his plan from the start.
Credit to Billy and the players for the success of this team. No credit to AK who couldn’t even set expectations for this year.
It's chaos. I think you suggest exactly the inflection point, the end of the last dynasty. There's all sorts of thinking that people still rely on that is clearly out the window. 82 game vs 16 game players? Yeah, that's out as a meaningful framework for evaluating players. It was a reasonable thing to say when everyone's attention was trained on one team. Now, it's more about matchups. And these things have played out in very unexpected ways. Just check out the major contributors to the final four over the last 5 years. All sorts of dudes who would absolutely not have been considered 16 game players in 2017.
As this Unbelieva-Bull season continues, I have to apologize to Josh Giddy, I had little faith that he could be the engine that makes this team go, but like many I am presently surprised. This team reminds me of the 2014-15 Atlanta Hawks, no superstars... (Al Horford, Paul Millsap, Jeff Teague, and Kyle Korver were All-Star reserves that season.) under the radar, played like a cohesive unit, ended up winning 60 games and got to the conference finals, where they were swept by The Cavs. To coin a phrase from a famous Chicago sports personality... I`ll "Take that!".
I don`t necessarily think this team will end up winning 60 games, but considering everyone including myself picked this team to be late lottery at best, I`m just gonna sit back and enjoy the ride, while it last`s. And ignore the fact that we have The Bucks & Spurs coming up this week... GO Bull`s!!!
I'm still angry about Kyle getting traded for a trade exception that they never even used
Agreed, thats Gar/Pax for you
This team has been a nice surprise but I'm still iffy on whether this is real. Coby hasn't even come back yet and who knows how that'll turn out. I'm not drinking the kool-aid yet but it's starting to whisper to me like its the green goblin mask.
Just a friendly PSA for the surreal world we're living in -- if the 2026 NBA draft were held today, the Bulls would hold two 1st-rounders: the 29th pick, as well as a pick somewhere between 19 and 23 (pending coin flips).
The last 1st round pick we made that was lower than #22 was Marquis Teague.
I have a genuine question.
Has AK found a market deficiency?
When AK traded away Lavine, Caruso, and Ball there was a lot of (fair) belly aching over the fact that he got limited draft assets back. Looking at the Thunder, the assumption is that the best way to build a team is through the piling of draft picks until you hit on a few elite players.
But AK has bucked the trend and traded for undervalued players on other teams, and it appears to be paying off. Some stats:
Kevin Huerter's PER: 2024 with SAC - 10.6, 2024 with CHI - 12.0, 2025 with CHI - 16.2.
Josh Giddey's PER: 2023 with OKC - 16.6, 2024 with CHI - 18.1, 2025 with CHI - 22.6.
Now, Isaac Okoro has not had a better PER so far with the Bulls, as he has dropped from a 10.7 to a 6.4 this season. Despite that not fitting my narrative, I still see a guy who is providing a lot more value to this team than a post injury Lonzo Ball was. He had a slow start in the first few games of the season, but has logged his best offensive games in his last two and his best defensive ratings in two of the last three games.
I still think there is a lot of reason to criticize AK for his acceptance of mediocrity in the last few years, but I am curious if anyone else sees his current trend of trading for undervalued NBA talent as being successful or just a flash in the pan?
I think your hypothesis has some truth to it in today's NBA, but with the caveat that the Bulls are one of the few teams whose business strategy is to simply maintain a baseline of basic competitiveness. Most teams are in "boom, build, or tank" mentality and draft picks are considered valuable - but in the way that real-world lottery or raffle tickets hold value. So players like the ones you mentioned are undervalued to some extent (though look up Kevin Huerter's salary and it's not so clear that's true).
If anything, I might say that a guy like Josh Giddey (the way he's playing now in this scheme) can have the effect of making players like Huerter more effective, as he's savvy at cutting and moving to open spots where Giddey finds him, and driving against scrambling defenses (vs. just standing around like he did on the Kings). Credit to AK I guess, for getting and investing in Giddey, and pairing him with guys he could make better than they were in worse situations.
But in a lot of ways AK Is just doing what Krause did with the Jordan-era Bulls and GarPax did with the Rose-era Bulls. Guys like Craig Hodges, Bobby Hansen, Trent Tucker, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, Jud Buechler, etc. weren't in demand in the 90s. Bill Cartwright, Dennis Rodman, and Ron Harper were guys whose best days seemed behind them. Everyone above is a household name now in Chicago, and had moments that made them look like true champions.
Ronnie Brewer, CJ Watson, Keith Bogans, Kyle Korver, etc. (maybe even Pau and Rondo) were similar in the Thibs/Rose era.
But that's different, right, because those acquisitions were building around a core of stars?? Yes and no! AK, since the Vuc/DeMar/Caruso/Ball assemblage, has basically been in the "build around a core" mindset. And the market inefficiency is that teams who don't have strong cores never really behave that way! The only way AK is truly vindicated here is if Josh and Matas (and maybe Coby) prove that they ARE a championship-contending core. Because "too good to get lottery picks but never good enough for the conference finals" is just a nicer way to describe NBA Hell.
Sixers game thread - > https://open.substack.com/chat/posts/8ef89463-4b30-4f5c-bda2-60a77f7498ac?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2bo
Whoops I mean Bucks!
your brotherly bulls blogger ^^