Chicago Bulls: What Does History Tell Us About Their Postseason Potential?
The Chicago Bulls keep moving closer to securing the top-seed for the Eastern Conference in the playoffs. Since losing to the Orlando Magic in Carlos Boozer's second game and dropping to 9-8, the Bulls have gone 44-11, a win percentage of .800. That's two games better than any team in the NBA.
Rather than tapering off though, the Bulls appear to be stepping things up as the season ends its final stretch.
They've won their last ten games against top teams and 17-of-20 against teams with winning records. They are 15-3 since the All-Star break. They have outscored their opponents on average 99-87. Per 100 possessions, they have outscored their opponents by 14.
They haven't been good, they've been dominant. In fact, for the last two thirds of the season they've been the most dominant team in the NBA. But that hasn't kept detractors from theorizing why the Bulls regular season success won't translate into postseason success.
Primarily the criticisms fall into three roughly hewn categories.
- They don't have enough playoff experience.
- They rely too much on Derrick Rose.
- Championships by teams with point guards as their primary scorer are rare and far between.
They Don't Have Enough Playoff Experience
Of the criticisms this one is the most valid, so I'll begin with it. There's something to be said about playoff experience, as the game does change in the playoffs. It tends to slow down. Defense matters more. Most importantly, between games there's always at least one full day's break.
This gives teams an opportunity to adapt and adjust. If a team employs a specific strategy to win one game, it's less likely to work the next game and likely to be used against them in a third. Because of this, coaching and experience matter in the playoffs. Simply, the best teams might win in the regular season but teams that adjust the best succeed in the postseason.
Of the Bulls four key players, only one, Carlos Boozer, has ever played beyond into the finals. Luol Deng has made it to the second round. Derrick Rose, and Joakim Noah have never been out of the first round. It's rare for a team without much deep postseason experience to go deep into the playoffs, particularly one that has been newly assembled.
The 2008 Boston Celtics were a newly assembled team. Their starting five had a collective 121 playoff games between them and they won the NBA Championship. The present Chicago Bulls team have 108 playoff games between them. That's not a whole lot of difference.
There are some issues though. All three of Boston's big three were older and more experienced generally than even Carlos Boozer is right now. Also, all three had made it past the first round at least once. Pierce was in the second round twice and to the Eastern Conference finals once. Garnett had made it to the conference finals once, but only out of the first round once. Allen had made it to the conference finals once, and past the first round twice.
On the other hand, Rajon Rondo and Kendrick Perkins had never been to the playoffs at all.
All five Bulls starters have been in the playoffs and played at least 10 games in the postseason, but only Boozer has made it past the first round. Additionally, while they may not have won the series, their historic 2008 series with the Celtics is widely regarded as the best first round series in NBA history and certainly had all the intensity and feel of the latter rounds.
They also have the fact that Tom Thibodeau is their coach, working in their favor. While he's a rookie head coach, he's been to the finals three times as an assistant. Losing twice and winning once. He's using the times he lost, particularly with the Knicks, as a teaching tool.
He hasn't been completely independent of the reason they've made it to the finals either. His defensive schemes and adjustments have stifled some of the games best players including Dwyane Wade, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. In terms of the game-to-game adjustments, this is a coach that knows how to make those adjustments.
Additionally, the key players have had plenty of deep experience in the NCAA tournament. Keith Bogans made it to the Elite Eight. Luol Deng went to the Final Four with Duke. Derrick Rose went to the NCAA Finals. Carlos Boozer won a national championship. Joakim Noah won two.
While all of this is not at all the same as NBA playoff basketball, it does speak to the character and inner fortitude of the players. These are not players who falter when things are more difficult. In fact, in each of their cases their post season spits have been consistently higher than their regular season splits
There's ample reason to suggest that while this team will be hindered by a lack of experience of playing deep into the playoffs as an entire unit, they can still succeed in spite of that. It's also fair to say that while it would be rare, in light of the similarities to the 2007 Boston Celtics, going the distance would not be entirely unprecedented.
They Rely too Much on Derrick Rose
This argument tends to revolve around the fact that Derrick Rose is their leading scorer and that they don't have "anyone else" who can score. There normally tends to be some talk about the shooting guard situation in this argument, and most of the time in that argument only Keith Bogans is mentioned.
The argument is made, if Derrick Rose is stopped, the Bulls aren't going to be able to win. Now, when making that argument the assumption first needs to be challenged. When Rose has been stopped have the Bulls been able to win so far?
First, I think we need a definition for "stopped". Does "stopped" mean he's unable to score or does "stopped" mean he's forced to shoot at a low percentage, but is still jacking up shots? I put both of these definitions to the test using basketball-references Play Index.
Using the "unable to score" definition, I checked to see what the Bulls record was when Rose was held to 20 points or under. In such scenarios, the Bulls are 13-6 at a win rate of .684. That's not quite at their season rate, but it's hard to say they "can't win" when they do it better than two-thirds of the time.
In games where Rose has taken 20 or more shots and made them at a clip below .425, the Bulls are 15-5. In games where he's taken at least 20 shots or more and shot below .400, the Bulls are 13-4.
Whichever way you define it, the fact is that the Bulls have shown they can find a way to win when Rose is not at his best. Luol Deng and Carlos Boozer both score over 17 points a game and Joakim Noah averages over 12. Deng is the second best third scorer in the NBA, and Joakim Noah is the fourth best. Only Miami's four man grouping of James, Wade, Bosh, and Chalmers are better.
Lately Luol Deng has really stepped up when the Bulls need him to. No sooner does Bull announcer Stacey King say, "We need to someone to step up and do...." than Deng is stepping up. He's doing what the Bulls need, when they need it (for which I've been recently thinking of him as "Glue All Deng") and that includes scoring.
This argument is just wrong. Not only have the Bulls not shown they can't win when Rose struggles, they've shown that they can win when Rose is struggling.
Championships With Point Guards as Their Primary Scorer are Few and Far Between
The argument which has come up recently is that teams with point guard as their primary scorer rarely win the championship. They point to players like Allen Iverson (who actually wasn't a point guard), Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis and argue that if they couldn't win with a point guard scoring, neither can the Bulls.
If you look at the last twenty years the leading scorer on six teams has been Michael Jordan, four each Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan, twice Kobe Bryant, twice Hakeem Olajuwon, and once each Richard Hamilton and Paul Pierce. In terms of position that's nine shooting guards, six centers, four power forwards, and one small forward. So there you have it—teams with scoring point guards don't win NBA championships
There's a Latin expression, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" which translated means, "After this, therefore because of this." It's when you point to similarities between things and assume causation.
I am a huge Cardinals fan. In Game 6 of the 2006 National League Championship Series, I ate two hot dogs with mustard and ketchup prior to the game. Yadier Molina hit a dramatic, ninth inning game winning two-run homer to win the game and send the Cardinals to the World Series.
Of course I did the responsible thing. I ate my two hot dogs with mustard and catchup before Game 1 of the World Series. The Cardinals won again. Game 2 I was out of hot dogs and had to make the choice between watching the game and going to the store and getting hot dogs.
Considering my superstition silly, I chose to watch the game. Watch the game I did, and the Cardinals lost. For the duration of the series I ate two mustard-ed, ketchup-ed, hot dogs, and the Cards won the rest of the way. The Cardinals owe me a ring.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Needless to say that my hot dog methodology did not stand up to the rigors of a 162 game schedule, and it's a good thing for my heart that it didn't.
There are a host of factors that play into winning a championship and there's no evidence of a causal relationship between scoring point guards and losing in the playoffs. In fact, teams with scoring point guards don't seem to fare any better or worse on percentages than any other position.
There are far more pronounced criteria with a much larger historical sample size, which explain the lack of success of teams relative to winning a championship than what position their leading scorer played. In the shot clock era all but one team, the 1993 Rockets, had at least two players in the top 50 in PER.
Both Derrick Rose and Carlos Boozer are in the top 50 in PER. Now granted, you can argue with the merits of PER, but you can't argue with the merits of something happening 97 percent of the time.
None of those teams had a scoring big man. The only team to win an NBA championship without a scoring big man was the Chicago Bulls dynasty, who didn't need one because Jordan scored the majority of his points in the paint, effectively giving him the offensive production of a big man.
Nearly half, 16, of the NBA team who have won a ring in the last 33 years have finished in the top three in defensive rating. Of those scoring point guards normally referenced, only Allen Iverson's '01 76ers finished in the top five, and they were fifth.
The problem with the "other teams around the point guard scorers weren't able to win" scenario is that the other teams around those point guards weren't the same. Either they weren't very good defensive teams, or they didn't have the complimentary scorers, and they specifically didn't have inside scorers.
Of point guards who have scored 24 points and averaged seven assists during the regular season in the three point era, there just hasn't been one who was on the top rated defensive team. It's hard to configure how Rose would measure historically because he's historically unique.
There are two players that come to mind, one that should be worth considering and one that shouldn't. People point to Allen Iverson as one. His situation was very different.
While the 76ers did play on the fifth best defense in terms of per 100 possessions, he also did not have other scorers to play alongside him. The Ratliff was second in scoring for Philadelphia that year, with all of 12.1 points per game. That would put him as the fourth best scorer on Chicago.
The more accurate example would be the '89 and '90 Detroit Pistons who were led in scoring by Isiah Thomas. The Pistons that won the championships in '89 and '90 were a defensive oriented team, with multiple scorers that emphasized defense and their go-to fourth quarter scorer was their point guard, Isaiah Thomas.
Over those two years Thomas averaged 18.3 points shooting and eFG percentage of .465, had 8.9 assists and 3.6 rebounds per games. Rose is averaging 24.9 points, 7.9 assists, 4.2 rebounds and has an eFG percentage of .478. Thomas got 51.2 points from the rest of his starters, Rose gets 52.0.
The Pistons were seven in offensive rating the first year, and third in defensive rating. The next year they were tenth in offensive rating and second defensive rating. The Bulls are presently first in defensive rating and 12th in offensive rating, and have been working their way up for the last couple of months. They will probably finish in the Top 10.
The Pistons had scoring from James Edwards and Bill Lambier who combined for a bit over 25 points per game. Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer combine for about 30 points per game.
In short, an argument can be made that the Bulls are actually a better version of the 1989 and 1990 champion Pistons. There's certainly a much greater similarity to them than there is to the '01 Philadelphia 76ers.
What does history tell us about the Bulls future?
It tells us that there is a team that is very consistent with past champions.
It tells us that there is some chance, but not a great chance, that they can win this year.
It certainly tells us that there is a great chance they will win one in the next two or three if they fall short this year.
