UMFan83

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-2023-start-of-spring-zips-projected-standings-national-league/ ZiPs has them at 78 wins here Aren't zips projections typically more conservative for teams that focus on defense and run prevention? Or is that just something I'm making up in my head?

The Bulls one hope for the future is that Michael Reinsdorf is waiting for his dad to kick it before making changes to how the organization is run, ala the Blackhawks and Bill Wirtz. I mean all indications are its basically his show already. In any case I don't think the AKME-Donovan run was a poor process. Where they go from here though is :dontknow: . But unless MR is moving on now, which would hobestly be very soon, it's on AKME to still figure it out. I know its his show, but its one thing to run the org and another thing to radically change how the org is run out of respect for his 86 year old still present father who still technically owns the team and benefits from their profits. It's a little different with the Wirtz's because I believe Dollar Bill was running the show until he died, but when Rocky took over he literally transformed the organization overnight...within days of Bill's death he had worked out agreements with CSN to start airing home games for the first time in decades. It was like the entire organization was in stasis waiting for him to pass on. I know I'm gasping at straws but its really all we can do as Bulls fans because the other scenario is grim

The Bulls one hope for the future is that Michael Reinsdorf is waiting for his dad to kick it before making changes to how the organization is run, ala the Blackhawks and Bill Wirtz.

Maybe they don't win in 95 like how they didn't win in 95 with Jordan. LBJ is an absolute freak in terms of production for the number of miles he has on him. Kobe was broken down at 35. Jordan saw a clear drop-off in his final Bulls season, and at the age Lebron is now was a volume scorer with the Wizards. An I chalk 95 up to Bulls shifting to a post-Jordan era and Jordan clearly not being in full basketball shape that season. His numbers (particularly shooting percentage) were way down in that partial season and all went back up the next year. The 94 team was still the first 3 peat Bulls minus Jordan and plus Kukoc and Kerr, but after that year Horace, Pax, Cartwright all walked among other guys. Horace left in part because JR is a cheapass, but also stated that he thought there was a better chance to win in Orlando. Do they keep Horace if Jordan is still there and they've won 4 in a row? Then again, do they trade for Rodman if they still have Horace? We can play the hypothetical game all day long but the fact is that they won 3 championships, Jordan retired for the better part of 2 years (calling it 1.5 is very generous, he returned in mid-March), and then they immediately won 3 more starting his first full season back. Jordan's numbers dropped off in 1998 but silly to pretend he wasn't still a top 3 player in the league that season, and the numbers back it up (for instance was slightly behind Malone for #1 in win shares, 3rd behind Robinson and Malone for WS/48, still had the highest usage rate in the NBA, 3rd in PER, won the scoring title, etc.) We'll never know if that was a permanent decline or whether Pippen missing half the season and being limited in the time he did play affected some of his efficiency numbers. LeBron is a freak in terms of wear and tear and I said that it should absolutely be a consideration in the GOAT debate. But Jordan was pretty much an iron man himself when he wasn't off playing baseball, playing 912 of a possible 919 games in his career excluding the broken foot year (yes I know LeBron never had an injury that kept him out 60+ games, but that was literally Jordan's only injury in his career that caused him to miss more than a game or two a season). There's nothing to suggest that he wouldn't have kept that up if he didn't retire to play baseball or gained additional years by leaving UNC early for the draft. I started off saying I don't both with the GOAT debate and here I am responding to the board's resident Bulls hater lol. But what I said before is true, I am fine if people want to say Jordan and LeBron are 1 and 1a, or LeBron and Jordan are 1 and 1a. As the years have gone on LeBron has won me over for a variety of reasons. I just don't think there's any way he will be able to convince me that he is the GOAT over Jordan, but again I'm biased.

I’m not even upset and I can’t tell if it’s because they’ve been telegraphing this for a month or if it’s just complete apathy for the Bulls organization.

I'm guessing this is Hester not making the HOF because they are supposed to announce today, but who knows.

Sure and Moses Malone and a few others did too: I suppose Jordan could have applied for hardship or whatever the requirement was but it was simply not common as 99.9% of players went to college for at least 2-3 years before going pro until KG kicked off the trend in 1995. I'm not using it as a knock against LeBron just pointing out that the trend of going from HS to pro allowed him 3 additional years in the NBA to accumulate stats. I'm not giving Jordan 4 more championships. He currently has 2 more championships than LeBron. If the Bulls win in 94 and 95 (or heck 99 if they kept it together), he could have 2 additional championships, thus having 4 more than LeBron. You can argue that Jordan's sabbatical allowed him to take a break from the rigors of basketball after winning 3 straight titles, which helped him in the next 3 peat. Maybe they don't win in 96, 97, 98 if he plays in 94 and 95 who knows. Maybe there was just no way the Bulls win in 99 after playing on fumes in 1998. My point wasn't to award hypothetical championships because I said so, just pointing out that Jordan's resume looks even better if he has the additional 4.5 years of games.

Just another day in the NBA

I get what you are saying from a longevity perspective, but Manning/Brady probably isn't the best comparison. Jordan still has more titles than LeBron....when I think of Manning I think of a guy who was probably the best QB in the league in many of the years that he played but never the unquestioned best QB (mostly bc of Brady). And then the next thing I think about is how the only Super Bowls he ever won were against Rex Grossman and in the final year of his career with a defense that almost literally carried him and what was left of his noodle arm to a championship. The thing that makes the GOAT comparison difficult is 1) they played in much different eras and 2) they were different types of players, similar in some ways but you can't do an apples-to-apples statistical comparison. I absolutely think that LeBron's longevity should be a factor in his GOAT case, but not THE factor. Jordan had a long sustained peak that lasted as long as many careers, however Jordan didn't have the option of joining the NBA out of high school, or after his freshman year, or after his sophomore year. Not to say Jordan was ready for the NBA out of high school like LeBron was, but those are 3 years LeBron had to accumulate stats that Jordan didn't have as an option. Also he literally retired to try to play another sport in the middle of his prime which is still bizarre to me. Give him those 4.5 seasons and he still has more points than LeBron and probably 4 more championships than him instead of 2 more.

laaaaammmmmmmmmmmmme, one less thing to complain about

I've stopped weighing in on the GOAT debate. My opinion, even if correct, is biased. A huge chunk of the people chiming in either weren't around for most or all of MJ's career or are old enough that MJ was more of their generation so they remember it fondly. I supposed I would be in the age range of someone qualified to comment as the Bulls dynasty years were basically my teens and the LeBron years were my 20s and 30s, but being a Bulls fan gives me bias. I honestly don't mind people calling Jordan and LeBron 1 and 1a. I think Jordan was better but if you get into those arguments there are numerous statistics and things you can point out that can make either side look better. All I know is that even LeBron was gawking when MJ showed up at the ASG last year for the 50 greatest players thing. Jordan's mere presence freezes everyone in the room in a way that no other past or present NBA player has. He carries himself like he knows he's the GOAT and doesn't care what you think (though surely he does care). Does that alone make him the greatest? Not at all of course. But I do think it keeps him in the conversation with LeBron for the rest of his life at least.

Not sure if this is better here or in the general baseball thread but BA introduced some new defensive metrics today and they're quite interesting. The article linked here is free: They have Dansby as the 2nd best defensive SS last season, but his range wasn't great (as I believe was suspected before this). His ability to make outs on plays within his range was exceptional though. Nico was a bit farther below but in the top 10.

I got the show instantly but it took me a second to make the connection

Pretty cool stat about Sampson:

horsefeathers give me Keenan Allen ASAP

Yeah, Colts are an ideal trade partner. It makes so much sense. Division foe that needs a QB is sitting at 2. Years of vet QBs who haven't worked out. Likely going with an offensive coach (thinking Eagles OC gets the job, hence why no hire yet). They really need an identity as a franchise. And they have had good luck (pun intended) with drafting QBs at #1. Plus from the Bears perspective, they could be top 10 bad again next year. Also, as you said, if the Bears really like Carter and/or Anderson it gives them a shot to get either with a trade back. That being said, I think Carolina has close to the same level of desperation. Even down to a division foe potentially getting the QB they want as Tampa and Atlanta could trade up as well (NO has no 1st). Less obvious path to their division foe getting their guy, but also less obvious path to actually sit still and get their guy than the Colts. And if moving down from 1 to 9, you're talking potentially getting an absolute mint for the pick. Poles said he wants value, and if he's not sold on the top guys in this draft, this could be a more desirable trade. I've thought about this and wondering how much less Poles might take to stay at 4 with Indy versus trading further down. Similar idea to Houston. The only reason I wondered this is because of teams not being in love enough with a clear top QB to pay up for the trade. But, as they say, it just takes one, so they'll likely be able to make some kind of trade. If they can get firsts in 24 and 25 with some other picks I think you just have to do it. Carter and Anderson are still prospects who have to pan out and I don't think you can give up that opportunity for either of them. I'm not convinced that Houston is going to make a play for #1 overall unless they have absolute conviction in one of the QBs and are concerned another team is going to take them at #1. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus between Young and Stroud (and some Levis chatter), so I don't think they'd hate staying at 2 and taking the 2nd guy rather than giving up significant assets to move up a spot. We'll see. I'm torn between the idea of taking less to only move down to 4 and picking an Anderson/Carter, and trading down a little farther for more and going after OT or WR. I mentioned this before but I really don't hate the idea of taking the top WR and pushing Claypool and Mooney down one spot to have an actual strong WR group for Fields. FA decisions might push me in one way or the other. The idea of trading down twice and getting a haul seems logical on the surface but I'll believe it when I see it. Just seems too good to be true.

Without actually studying the stats I would say he’s not even top 5. Definite HOFer but peak was too short. Maybe the fantasy football GOAT RB

Not a terrible trade but I can totally see Luka leaving after Kyrie implodes in a year or two

Sure know how to pick ‘em don’t I? hey, look, the blind squirrel found a nut! Weird ass team lol

I don't hate a scenario that forces us into a position to draft the best WR available. To be clear its not my preference and obviously the Bears need multiple playmakers on the DLine and OLine, but I keep thinking about the Bengals WR trio of Chase, Higgins and Boyd with a solid TE option and meh line and then think about how good the Bears projected WRs would be if everyone slid down a spot...Chase as a Z wide receiver and Mooney in the slot with a true X in JSN or Reed or whoever the best WR is projected to be. I'd prefer a no doubt game changing pass rusher like Anderson, but if we can get the top WR and pick up a 2nd plus 2 more first round picks, I'd consider it.

Who TF was positing that he became the guy yesterday? Greg Gabriel? I don't know if it was Gabriel or someone else, but there was a tweet going around that made it seem like the Bears had decided recently to keep Fields and not draft a QB

Assuming he assessed his options, realized he wasn't getting a MLB deal and came crawling back to the Cubs?

Do you mean 2024 1st? I wouldn't value a 1st round pick 2 years from now very much at all. But if you mean 2024 1st round pick, it's tougher. In general, I'd prefer the proverbial "bird in the hand" that is the current year's pick (high 2nd). But when you compare potential draft classes, next year probably looks better. I'd still take the current year pick, but it's much closer. I did mean 2025. I'd definitely prefer a 2024 1st over a high 2023 2nd. It's closer and its probably a little easier to project a team 1 year out rather than 2 years out. I'm just thinking about trades where its like 2023 1st, 2024 1st, 2025 1st vs. 2023 1st, 2023 2nd, 2024 1st. It would be awesome to have multiple first round picks the next 2 seasons, but having a high 2nd now helps immediately.