Hollinger on "Abomina-Bulls": Free ESPN Insider

by NBA Observer on Nov 29, 2007 1:43 PM CST

ESPN is giving away Hollinger's analysis of the Bulls right now.

And here's where our story takes another turn. As I mentioned above, usually when a team struggles you can blame it on one or two obvious differences. Similarly, when a team struggles offensively you can usually isolate it to subpar performances from one or two players. But this is why Chicago's performance is so perplexing. Break down the Bulls' offensive results and you'll discover the reason for the bad start is poor performances by ...
Everybody.
I mean, this is flabbergasting. It's not just that one or two guys are off to poor starts. Literally every key player is performing vastly below his career norms with the exception of Joe Smith. It's so bad that not a single Bull has a true shooting percentage that can match the league average of 53.4, not even the guys at the end of the bench who have played five minutes. Let's go through the carnage:

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Oh. My. God.

Thanks for the heads up on this free Hollinger article. It is very, very depressing. I like what he says about Noah because not only does he lead the team in PER but he also brings energy, hustle, passing, smarts, hight, and he sets by far the best picks on the team. In fact to me, his picks were the number one reason that our offense opened up in the second half against hot-lanta.

As for Gordon, last year was the only year in his career that he had more free throw attempts than three point attempts. This year he is "upside down" again, attempting more three pointers than free throws. He needs to go to the hole. Getting Wallace out and Noah and Smith in will aid in this endevor.

Kirk, I would love to see if he was this bad during last years "funk" period. How long did it last? does anyone know?

by joemoses on Nov 29, 2007 2:15 PM CST 0 recs

BG to the line

Ben has been going to the rim. Not as much as I would prefer, but he is going to it. The problem is that he's in that Iverson category that requires the extended marketing of the fouls received. Ben's trying to sell the fouls throwing his arms up, but the defenders are getting a lot of body, but enough of the ball for the officials to hold the whistles.

Our other guards have the same problem.

What Ben needs to work on is getting by his man, flashing into the paint, and trying to draw his original defender into his body forcing contact from behind. This is an easy call.

Ben's other option is to increase his elevation on the penetration. He can try to jump higher, but this is very taxing on a player after exerting energy to get around your defender.

Ben may also be able to attempt more reverse layups, but since he goes right so often he'll have to reverse with his left hand.

by NBA Observer on Nov 29, 2007 2:42 PM CST up 0 recs

Hollinger's main thesis is correct...

I have been saying this throughout the first phase of the season:

"That has to be keeping Skiles up at night despite the win, especially since there isn't much of a Plan B in the backcourt. If Hinrich and Gordon can't regain their strokes, there's almost no amount of other tinkering that can get this train back on the tracks.

So regardless of whether you think Skiles is motivating his troops or not, you have to admit he's in a rough predicament at the moment. Essentially, his job security depends on his guards starting to make shots that they've spent the whole season missing. And you wondered why NBA coaches don't have long shelf lives."

Exactly. It's Hinrich and Gordon. They are killing the team. They have been useless thus far. Either they play better and the Bulls regain some momentum, or they don't and the Bulls continue to lose. If they don't improve, trade one or both of them.

SUCK IT SABAN!

by 1958ChiTown on Nov 29, 2007 2:16 PM CST 0 recs

The problem with trading one or both of them

is that neither of them has much trade value at all. I'd rather hold on to them and see if they can pull through this and not trade them for pennies on the dollar.

by upther on Nov 29, 2007 2:26 PM CST up 0 recs

To be clear, I was talking about trading them

after the season. I don't think they can be accurately judged until the season is over.

However, assuming that they play poorly throughout the year, then I would advocate trading them. You certainly don't want to sign Gordon to a long term deal after a horrendous season (unless you get a compelling, ludicrous discount). I suppose you could let him play through his contract and reassess when he becomes a free agent, but then he could leave for absolutely nothing in return.

SUCK IT SABAN!

by 1958ChiTown on Nov 29, 2007 2:36 PM CST up 0 recs

Gotcha

That makes more sense for me. I'd be all for trying to trade them in the offseason if they don't improve this season.

by upther on Nov 29, 2007 2:39 PM CST up 0 recs

is there a Plan B on any team?

Really, short of a good rookie behind a mediocre veteran on a depth chart, there's no such thing as a Plan B in the NBA. Unless you consider Plan B firing the coach.

Officially a hater on Ballhype!

by hscs on Nov 29, 2007 2:30 PM CST up 0 recs

I had no idea there were phases in a season.

Let us prepare for glory! --Michael Redd

by tyger1147 on Nov 29, 2007 6:20 PM CST up 0 recs

It's actually a little encouraging

It's encouraging in the sense that there's no way the entire team is going to continue to play this badly. Sure, one or two players can have a bad season, but what are the chances that all of the top 8 players on the team are going to be worse than they were last year? Eventually, some of them are going to start playing better. The Bulls are not going to end the season as the worst offensive team in the history of the NBA. Of course, the problem is that the inevitable improvement might only be enough to get them back to .500, which would be terribly disappointing for this team.

by Big D on Nov 29, 2007 3:10 PM CST 0 recs

Terribly disapponting unless

they get back to .500 on a remarkable run and start playing like they should be playing...then perhaps this lull will help them in the long run.

If we continue to struggle and go (I sure hope not) something like 5-20 and then turn it on and finish at or just above.500 for the year, I think we'd be happy come playoff time.

I think all the Bulls struggles stem from Kirk and to a lesser extent Duhon's struggles this year. A jump shooting team like the Bulls needs to have solid PG play, and our PG's been awful (which has caused our SG and everyone else to force the offense).....if Kirk gets back to form, we'll be ok.....

I do remember Kirk having a funk last year early on that lasted at least through most of the circus trip and early Dec....he wasn't anything like this bad, but he wasn't himself either, and then he started to play really well in January throughout most of the rest of the year.....but that wasn't as glaringly bad as he's doing right now....he wasn't turning the ball over like he is now, but he was in a lot of foul trouble and having issues not forcing his game....right now he can't do anything...

by majoyenrac on Nov 29, 2007 3:26 PM CST up 0 recs

Good article

I'm not an insider so I don't get to read Hollinger often; that was good analysis.

I do find it funny that you basically can come to the same conclusion simply by watching them play.

You don't have the numbers to back it up, but your eyes can still tell you they all suck right now.

Wrecked 'em? Damn near killed 'em!

by mdmnd9294 on Nov 29, 2007 4:27 PM CST 0 recs

Hollinger

I think while this analysis this time was right on pat, Hollinger tends to get too bogged down in his calculations which don't always tell the full story.....

I think he's a bit overrated and would much rather hear from other analysts who watch the games rather than just calculate things they thing are worth calculating.....

I'm a finance guy and know how to read numbers as well as the next guy, and I think guys like Hollinger get a bit too rapped up in stats sometimes that they don't always see the full picture.

by majoyenrac on Nov 30, 2007 7:47 AM CST up 0 recs

A couple of questions

What makes you think Hollinger doesn't actually watch the NBA? This perception that the stat guys don't watch games is largely false, and it's certainly true in Hollinger's case. 2nd, who are these great analysts that actually watch the games that are superior to Hollinger? I'd be happy to read or listen them. Hollinger isn't perfect, but he's better than just about everything else in the mainstream media.

by Scotter on Nov 30, 2007 11:02 AM CST up 0 recs

I wasn't

trying to imply that he doesn't watch the games, he's paid as an analyst so of course he watches the games, I was just trying to say that for my money (and ESPN insider got my money all of last year when I read Hollinger often) I started to get the opinion that while he watched the games, he analyzed 85-95% purely on stats and only 5-15% on what he actually saw in the game.

I think he has a tendency to use a statistic to stear his opinions too much, and that's what I find a bit annoyng with him.

Apparanetly you disagree as do many, but for me Hollinger wasn't worth it and Icanceled my insider subscription (though I do like his preseason discussions). I don't think he's the worst guy out there (I don't know who is, maybe Mark Stein in the regular guys I read (not local guys--Stein is so East Coast or big names it gets annoying).

I tend to prefer the guys at si.com to anyone writing for ESPN.COM often (though I like Greg Anthony a lot, he rarely writes for ESPN).

by majoyenrac on Nov 30, 2007 1:24 PM CST up 0 recs

Hollinger

was pointing out exactly how bad the Bulls are at the moment. How is that not the full picture?

Officially a hater on Ballhype!

by hscs on Nov 30, 2007 11:05 AM CST up 0 recs

did he mention Kirk got married?

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 30, 2007 11:19 AM CST up 0 recs

LOL

That excuse is such BS.

Please get this season turned around and play some great basketball.

by sue369 on Nov 30, 2007 11:42 AM CST up 0 recs

It's not a good excuse

but it DOES have some validity, Sue....
From a male point of view.... :-)

Is it spring training yet?

by Bluelou on Nov 30, 2007 12:01 PM CST up 0 recs

Not really.

Please get this season turned around and play some great basketball.

by sue369 on Nov 30, 2007 12:03 PM CST up 0 recs

Hey now

There was also the "gym rat who can't be a gym rat anymore" angle of it. Marriage or no...

Ok, ya got me. :^)

I thought the Bulls were back... turns out they're just a back end...

by bullhockey on Nov 30, 2007 3:24 PM CST up 0 recs

I was talking more in general

about Hollinger, not this specific article.

Anyone who's watched the Bulls knows they're historically bad right now. So I don't really know what value he added, but I did like some of his comments....hell I thought it was mostly 4-5 guys (Hinrich, Wallace, Gordon, Thabo, and Duhon)....

I do think Nocioni's played better overall than his stats because he was pulled with little minutes in a couple of games.

But yeah, there wasn't really any revelations in his argument and this time it was a nice argument because it did back up what we're seeing....

I'm saying in general throughout the year last year (the first year I had heavy exposure to him, I started to tune off his talk because he would overemphasize some teams--saying things basically like the Bulls were easily the best team in the East last year, where as a fan I'd love to hear that, but watching the games I could tell that the Bulls weaknesses were too strong to outlast a Pistons, Cavs or even Nets team unless everything fell into place....

But there was more to it, it's been 6+ months since then though so I'm going off of history.

Still it was enough between the annoying Stein and his adequate but not fabulous analysis that turned me off of insider (I hate that ESPN charges more than anyone in standard cable for cable/satellite rights, comes out with what has to be the worst magazine all time with ESPN the mag, and then the area where they have decent coverage ESPN.COM they charge you for it.

Hollinger and Stein are hardly my favorites, and that's what I was speaking to. Not this article per se.

by majoyenrac on Nov 30, 2007 1:30 PM CST up 0 recs

There is really no need to break this down

Everyone is giving these hardcore in depth breakdowns on why the Bulls suck right now.

Instead of writing a long ass story, they should just write . . .

"The Bulls are a jump shooting team. Right now, they can't hit a shot." If you're a jump shooting team and can't hit your shots, you're gonna lose."

by Option27 on Nov 29, 2007 4:44 PM CST 0 recs

Anyone else see....

The Sun Times has a story by Brian Hanley..."Skiles tuning it out". They talk about this ESPN report...

by Lt.Dan on Nov 30, 2007 12:50 PM CST 0 recs

im encouraged by the analysis

law of large numbers states that there is no way everyone can continue to be down....no one had a major injury, or began to decline due to age (exception being big ben). Thus, we are left with 2 solutions:

1. for whatever reasons, everyone is slumping, and we'll turn it around and everyone will ahve better games, we'll win some games we shouldn't and it will average out to a 47 - 51 win team like the numbers and observations clealry show they should

or the far more distressing idea that defenses have 'figured out' the bulls, and it's going to be a long season

by milesgmsu on Dec 3, 2007 10:48 AM CST 0 recs