Comments on: Richard Hamilton, Chicago Bulls’ missing piece

By: tarsier

tarsier — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:29:48 +0000

That’s fair. Perhaps I overrate him, but I still see Hamilton as an average defender at the 2. So perhaps slightly worse than Bogans. Perhaps even slightly better. But not a huge difference there.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:28:01 +0000

I’m not saying they will be. Just that it is all quite possible. I think the only players on this team unlikely to leave in the near future are Monroe, Daye, and Jerebko. Monroe because goo young big guys don’t get traded too often and the other two because I think Dumars thinks they are better than probably every other GM in the league.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:25:40 +0000

I’m not saying they are. They definitely are not. I am saying they were. And there are a lot more things that go into the number of wins you get than just how good the players are. I am a strong proponent of luck being the most understated variable in sports.

By: neutes

neutes — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:08:33 +0000

I can’t believe you would say that Butler, Jamison, and Haywood are remotely close to as good as Deng, Boozer, and Noah. Rose’s supporting cast is much much better than what Arenas had. It’s the entire difference between 42 wins and 62 wins. All things being equal there is no way Rose simply willed his team to 20 more wins despite putting up almost the exact same season statistically as Arenas. It’s jut not possible.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:54:45 +0000

But for all we know, slightly above average could be significantly better than Hamilton defensively.

There have been great debates in the comments here about whether the slippage in Hamilton's game has been a product of age and a natural decline or if he's just simply been abused by the incompetence of the coaches here and he'll return close to his old form.

I tend to think it's more a result of his game declining, but I'm also somewhat intrigued by the prospect of seeing him surrounded by better talent.

But anyway, to the point, Hamilton or most anyone is surely an offensive upgrade over Bogans. But Bogans is pretty good defensively, and based on the last two years, I can't describe Hamilton that way.

By: Jodi Jezz

Jodi Jezz — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:00:12 +0000

@tarsier what in the world makes you think that?? We could make plenty of trades without including those three!

By: tarsier

tarsier — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:00:10 +0000

The flaw in your logic there is that even if Gordon isn’t traded, it is possible that Stuckey or Knight is.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:58:58 +0000

1st season luck? I think almost everyone who knows anything about the NBA agreed that the Heat had major first season struggles. They didn’t even have that much luck in terms of health. Not terrible since their big 3 were usually available. But their next two best players missed virtually the entire season.
By the way, if you’re making this guarantee, is there any way we could manage to put some money down on it? Since you are guaranteeing, you must be pretty confident, at least 3:1 odds. I would happily put down half my savings on that.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:53:56 +0000

Most critics agreed that the Bulls were playing to nearly the maximum of their talent and that the Heat weren’t particularly close. Now I won’t hold the playoff series too much against the Bulls because while winning in 5 sounds dominant, they were mostly very close games. But the Heat have the two most talented players in the league. The only team that can challenge them on a pure talent level is the Lakers (I’m not sure which of those I would say has more). The Bulls have a nice team. But the Heat have one of the top trios to ever play together in sports.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:49:32 +0000

I never said that his threes were helping his efg% or his ts%. just that they arent really hurting it either when he is shooting twos at about 50% and threes at about 33%. and his getting his 3pt% up really does help. Odds are that next to Wade, Rose still takes plenty of bad shots. But I don’t see how you can debate the point that when the Bulls couldn’t get a good shot, it was almost always Rose who was forced to take the tough shot. Of course his ts% and efg% arent great.
As for the statistical comparison to Arenas, that’s hardly an insult to Rose. Arenas at the top of his game was fantastic. He was a legitimate MVP candidate for the first half of the 2006-07 season (it was then a tight race between him, Nash, Dirk, and Kobe). And his teammates, Butler and Jamison were actually really good then. Butler easily made the all-star game and Jamison was a fringe all-star. Haywood was pretty decent too and Stevenson had his moments. In all, the supporting cast was slightly weaker than Rose’s this year. Maybe about equal when you take the Boozer and Noah injuries into consideration. Yet Arenas couldn’t lead those Wizards to nearly as many wins as Rose did his Bulls. So Rose posted fantastic numbers and got a ton of wins out of his team. I think his playing the way he does is nothing to complain about.