Who cares about a toxic locker room? That is talk show folly. If that is the case the Bulls second 3 peat had the same thing and so did the Lakers with Kobe/Shaq . Also Kobe/Rape case.

The Timberwolves have been one of the biggest disappointments in the league this year. You cite a few stats to show that they areally getting bether which only makes your point worse. They were almost .500 over their last 30 last season.

Nate Silver currently has them on pace to win 30 games. They will be 1 game better than last season despite paying the almighty Thibs 8-10 mil a year.

Oh yeah let's mention again how He wanted Draemond Green which demonstrates his scouting acumen. Well when finally gets his chance he drafts Dunn who looks like an absolute bust.

_________________

You mean their mark of 104 Pts Per 100 Possessions over the last month, 6th-best in the NBA?

They have all of these improvements yet their record is still the same.

As far as toxic locker room goes LeBron James did the exact same thing that Wade and Butler did yet no one thought it was Ty Lue's fault. There is too much inconsistency in this for there to be credibility.

If the Wolves are so improved and the Bulls not so improved then why is the Bulls record 6 games better?

_________________

They have lost 5 of their last 6th and were down 20 to the lowly Pelicans just last night. Guess that counts as improvement in your book. Stellar defense also gave up a 120 points. I'm sure you can find an advanced stat which demonstrates how it wasn't really a 120 points that they gave up either.

The Bulls defense is so terrible yet their rating is 10 spots better than Minnesota's.

Hollinger's NBA Team Stats - ESPN Insider - National Basketball Association - ESPN
http://www.espn.com/nba/hollinger/teams ... fensiveEff

_________________

Well, since the beginning of the defensive turnaround until a little more than a week ago (roughly games 24 through 48)--when, you know, Zach LaVine tore his ACL--they are in the top-10 in the league in DRtg, and are playing .520 (that would be winning) basketball. So yes, they are improving, and their winning percentage has vastly increased (through their first 24 games, their W% was .261). Thanks for playing!



When did he do that with Lue? He certainly did it with David Blatt, and do you remember what happened to him?



From games 24-48, the Bulls played worse defensively and had a .400 W%. Thanks for playing!

Dude, the Bulls lost to the Suns last night...bad. Do you really want to start going bad loss for bad loss?

Dude the Bulls are 6 games better and are currently on pace to make the playoffs while the TWOLVES are on pace to have another top 5 pick. Do you really want to debate the fallacy of comparing playoff teams with non playoff teams?

_________________

This doesn't mean aaannnyyyything. You just throw words together that you think make you sound like an incredibly deep basketball mind.

All of your glossy stats are designed to accomplish what exactly? The Wolves are on pace to win 1 more game than last season after hiring everyone's favorite coach. That is the only star that really matters. All of this improvement sounds stupid. Sam Mitchell over his last 30 had them playing nearly .500. How has Thibs improved on that? Answer is simple. He hasn't.

_________________

One team is a playoff team with minimal talent yet the coach stinks according to the majority on here. Another coach is great yet is on pace to have another top 5 pick despite habing best collection of young talent in the league. Sounds pretty fallacious to me.

You throw silly stats around for the purpose of what exactly? They have lost 5 of 6 games and are one of the worst defensive teams in the league.

You are running aroind parsing statistics to fit your narrative but I am the deep thinking basketball mind? You can't even support the crap you're spewing with anything substantial.

_________________

To show that they had been improving, markedly, over their early-season performance.

Can you show how they have improved over their last 30 of last season? Their record doesn't demonstrate anything close. One guy had them close to .500 the other has them 14 under.

They also have lost 5 of 6 and have a tough part of their schedule coming up. This could get ugly yet again.

_________________

I like talking to brick walls.



Zach LaVine has torn his ACL, you realize that, right? He did it on the 3rd of this month, right at the beginning of this 6 game stretch you're talking about.

Also, as I have demonstrated multiple times for you: for 24 games leading up until LaVine tore his ACL, and after their first 24 games, they were a top-10 defensive team and had a better record than the Bulls in the same stretch. They were/are improving at an incredible rate. Nobody denies that they were atrocious to begin the season, but what you seem incapable of grasping is that they were in the top 1/3rd of the league defensively for about half of the season played thus far, and during that time they were better than the Bulls in terms of wins.

Over their final 30 games last season, they were the 3rd-worst defense in the NBA over the same stretch, and the 10th-best offense. and posted at .453 W%. Thibs' recent run, again as I have painstakingly spelled out for you, has that beat.

When you get past all of the excuse making they are 14 games under with a relatively healthy team. They weren't playing all that well with Lavine anyway. The Lakers have had more injuries less talent and are 1 game worse with a rookie coach taboot.

The Wolves were everyone's darling prior to the start of the season and now their record is 3rd worst in the conference. Thibs to hear you tell it has them playing lights out yet nothing about their record shows it. Mind you Hoiberg is 6 games better with team turmoil. Something doesn't quite jive with this.


Just took a sneak peek at their upcoming schedule. By the time they play the Bucks on March 11 I'm guaranteeing that they will be at least 20 games under .500 bookit.

This place will really be like a ghost town on the subject of Thibs.

_________________

Except for being a better defensive team than the Bulls with a better W% during the 25 games leading up to LaVine's injury, and with him shooting 43% from behind the arc on almost 160 attempts during the same time frame, yeah.



Except their overall performance (decidedly better than the Bulls offensively and defensively, with more wins) for the 25 games leading up to the guy 3rd on the team in total minutes blowing up his knee, yeah.

They havent been less than 10 games under since passing the 10 game under mark. Their "improved" play had a lot to do with playing garbage teams. They haven't been within 5 games of the Bulls for who knows how long and even the biggest Wolves boosters on this board have long since stop commenting on them.

You are cherry picking meaningless stats since the only thing that counts is wins and losses. You also claimed that the Bulls defense is garbage even though the stats clearly demonstrate that it is the Wolves that are garbage. When called on it you choose to point to a period which supports your premise. That is pretty weak.

Also I like Lavine but he is nowhere near the difference maker that you are currently making him out to be. He is universally regarded as the 3rd best player on a team 14 games under .500

You also never wrote anything which cut Hoi berg slack for all the injuries incurred by the Bulls last season. Not one post. Another example of rank hypocrisy.

_________________

Spoken like a true scout, LTG, just like I thought. You consistently fail to acknowledge the link between toxic work environments (lack of accountability, lack of communication, unclear role definition, etc.) and performance on the court, like a myopic scout would. If Hoiberg were better at his job then yeah the Bulls would have a slightly better record because professionalism on the sidelines and during practices produces tangible results. They wouldn't be contenders but they wouldn't be the laughingstock they currently are. Coaching matters.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

You know, I can't tell whether you actually are incapable of understanding the significance of trends in sub-sets of data that are part of a larger set (say, an array of 25 games coming on the heels of another 25 games that were particularly bad in a certain aspect of the game), or are just a delusional ass so in love with your own pontificating that you refuse to accept such a simple premise as "they sucked at the beginning of the season, but most recently, which is about half of their season, they appeared to have turned it around" and have to deal in your own cherry-picked absolutes (last 6 games, overall season record, etc.) to preserve your own ego.



Then why was Thibs fired in favor of Fred Hoiberg, who had exactly 0 NBA wins?



I chose a timeframe that equally divided the season that had been played up until one of the Wolves' best players was hurt, yes, under the premise that a team can get better over a season. Are you saying a team cannot get better over a season and the results from Game 1 to Game 82 are essentially random?



That's because I've only been talking about Hoiberg this season.

firing thibs and replacing him with a real sex doll was the worst decision the bulls have made since ben wallace.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.

How is this for a subset. I just stated that they will be 20 games under by March 11. No doubt in my mind about it. What say you?

I can cherry pick stats also to demonstrate lack of improvement but I choose not to because I happen to be a big picture kind of guy. You're are sitting here chest thumping about improvement all while they are they posting the worst winning percentage of their season. Do you realize how dumb that sounds. At no point have they been 14 games under .500 Lavine has only been out for about 3 or 4 games. They also posted their most significant win of the season without him. He isn't that much of a difference maker. I like him but he is their 3rd best player and he was that when they were 12-13 games under.

Again 20 games under by March 11. You and other Thibs supporters What say you?


In the immortal words of the legendary Terry "Bam Bam" Gordy I'm calling you out.

_________________

I'll try this again, LTG: Are you saying a team cannot get better over a season and the results from Game 1 to Game 82 are essentially random?

Yes Teams can get better but you have to clarify what better happens to be. There can be incremental improvement, no improvement, or significant improvement. There are teams that have shown significant improvement during the season i.e. Miami Heat and Washington Wizards. Some have only shown incremental improvement Philadelphia. Timberwolves have shown a little to no improvement. It isn't enough to justify the euphoria you're displaying. They are 14 games under .500. Instead of getting blownout on a regular they are now taking teams to the 4 minute mark before losing. That isn't anything to write home about.


They surely aren't a team on the rise. At least they haven't demonstrated it. Dunn looks like a bust. Their top young guys are already playing at a high level. I don't know how much better they can get.

_________________

Let's say a team plays the first 24 games of the season as the worst defensive team in the league (30th) and the 10th-ranked offensive team in the league (sounds a lot like that "improvement" you talked about from Sam Mitchell last year, doesn't it?) with a .250 W% ranked 27th in the league. Then, in the next 26 games, the team plays as the 11th-best defense in the league, the 13th-best offense, and has the 12th-best W% in the league (.500%). Has the team improved?

Remember, that overall from games 1 to 50 the team is 25th in the league in W%, has the 23rd-ranked defense, and the 11th-ranked offense. The question still remains: have they improved, despite their overall rankings, from how they started?

It hasn't translated into winning. I don't care about a little statistical improvement. Mitchell had tangible improvement. They have the 3rd Worst record in the West. You know which teams have improved much more in that span:


1. Dallas

2. New Orleans

3. Denver

Those three teams "improvement" has translated into actual wins.

Sacramento also is showing signs of "improvement". While you are focusing on Offensive and Defensive rankings I'm concentrating on wins and losses.

Minnesota was beaten pretty shitty teams during their "improvement". While you are harping on statistical improvements they are 14 games under.500

What you can't seem to comprehend is that by every metric imaginable they have been a disappointment. They are going to have to scuffle to get to 30 wins. How many people predicted that?

I'm thoroughly convinced that this team won't contend for anything in 3 years. Absolutely convinced. Thibs has been a flop thus far.

_________________

You know, LTG, for a guy that says "only wins and losses matter", you certainly don't seem to care a lot about an incredible up-swing in Winning Percentage for a team from one half of the season to another. Why might that be? Because "only wins and losses matter" when those wins and losses don't make you look the fool?

YES IT HAS. I JUST TOLD YOU IT HAS. THAT'S WHAT WINNING PERCENTAGE IS!

I predicted that they would play better. But what does better constitute? At the end of the day they are only two games from having the worst record in the conf. Their improvement was only accomplished by beating cappy teams.

This team stinks.

_________________

They have lost 5 of 6 and you're talking about numerous improcements that they have made.

_________________

This again. Just stop, dude. You look like an idiot.

LTG: Only wins and losses matter!

JLN: Well what about a near 200% increase in Winning% over two 25-game samples?

LTG: THEY'VE LOST 5 OF 6!! [after losing their #3 in minutes shooting guard who has shot 43% from 3 over their best run of the season]

You're so bad at this.