Randomness and Personnel Changes

On twitter (follow me @brianmccormick), I saw a link to True Hoops' Daily Bullets which linked an article by Dave Berri about randomness. I agree with Berri's rationalization of the Cleveland vs. Orlando series.

I am one who believes that we should recognize the regular season champion more formally as a Champion, not as the team that choked in the play-offs.

I devised a plan to fix the NBA.

1) Get rid of the play-offs.
2) Crown a regular season champion.
3) Shorten the season so each team plays every other team home and away (58 games)

To make the league more exciting and to elevate the intensity each and every game, a shortened season makes sense. One early season loss ultimately could determine the champion, because there is no play-off for a team to make up for a sub-par record.

I believe that the team who makes it through the regular season with the best record is probably the best team. As Berri writes, a league deals with randomness in a play-off series of any length:

“…if one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this.

Unfortunately, the public enjoys the randomness, as it provides good theater, and the NBA is more about entertainment than crowning a true champion.

The problem occurs when organizations allow the post-season to determine their personnel decisions as opposed to the regular season.

Several years ago, the Bulls lost a close series to the eventual champion Miami Heat, and the Bulls felt they were on the cusp on greatness. They traded Tyson Chandler (and J.R. Smith) in order to sign Ben Wallace.

The problem, as I wrote at the time, was that the Bulls peaked in that series. They played as well as the collective group of players could play. Adding Ben Wallace, an older, shorter version of Chandler was not going to help them make the leap.

The experts sound as if the Bulls were one shot blocker away from a championship. Defense was not their problem. And, Tyson Chandler was an effective defensive player, rebounder and shot blocker. Chandler's problem was his inability to score. Now, the Bulls have a shorter, yet stronger Chandler who is 10 years older and even more expensive, and still have nobody to play PF who is a legit interior presence on the offensive end.

And, during the season, I wrote:

The Bulls are struggling and people seem not to know why. First, they struggled last season at this point. Second, they continue not to address their biggest weakness (a consistent scoring presence beyond mid-range jump shooters). Third, their big acquisitions over the past two years have been an aging rebounding machine known for his energy and defense (Wallace) and two first round picks who do almost the same thing (Thomas and Noah). Finally, the Bulls have peaked with their personnel. In the past two seasons, the Bulls maximized their potential.

While others look at their youth and see the potential, is it realistic to expect a team of jump shooters and role players to elevate into a championship contender?...They are what they are: a jump shooting team that plays hard and defends well, but who is now a bottom-level Eastern Conference play-off team.

I wonder if the Bulls will make the same mistakes this year after surprising people with their close play-off series against the undermanned Celtics.

Will they give in to Ben Gordon's contract demands to keep the team together and make another run? Or, will they finally a make a move to put the Bulls over the top rather than maintaining?

Two years ago, their reluctance to part with Luol Deng cost them Pau Gasol. Are they willing to part with Deng or another young player not named Rose to acquire the type of offensive inside presence that they have lacked since they traded Elton Brand? Will they spend their money to keep an undersized jump shooting SG or make a splash for a difference maker?

Ben Gordon has some phenomenal battles with Ray Allen in the play-offs. However, I don't see him as the lead dog on a championship contender and he apparently wants lead dog-type cash. If the Bulls give him that type of money, they tie their hands and likely lose the ability to sign or acquire another big-time player, meaning any improvement depends on the development of Rose, Thomas, Noah and this year's 1st Round pick. So, how much better will Rose, Noah and Thomas get? Will their improvement alone be enough to overtake Cleveland, Boston and Orlando, while also holding off Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington, Miami, Atlanta and others?

Or, does Chicago need to make a change to take the next step? What would it take to acquire Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire to pair with Derrick Rose for the next 10 years? Or, how much value does Kirk Hinrich have? Would a trade of Hinrich allow the Bulls the financial flexibility to re-sign Gordon and acquire another player? Does John Salmons presence make Gordon redundant? Since Thomas and Noah play the same role, could the Bulls use one of them to acquire a different piece?

The Bulls are just one team that cannot allow the randomness of one play-off series to affect its off-season moves too greatly. While Cleveland likely will make a move to show its desire to winning to LeBron James, do they need to? Can they afford to make a move? Can they afford not to make a move?

How will Denver's near finals appearance affect its decision-making? With their salaries, how can they afford to improve their roster? On the other hand, how long is their window open? Are they one minor addition away or do they need another significant move, like acquiring Chauncey Billups, that may cost it one of its core players?