Q12543 wrote:I think what I really don't like about the Tank vs. Not Tank debate is the false premise that a team can't develop talent and try to win games at the same time. That's simply not true and there are countless examples of great players that weren't immediately gifted big minutes or an out-sized role. So this idea that we MUST see the G league guys play big minutes in the NBA otherwise "we won't know what we've got" is flat out false.
Also, the "must contend or bust" crowd should appreciate that yes, there are actually fans out there that want to see good, competitive basketball where you are more likely than not to see the home team win. That means perhaps 53 wins and a division title would be considered a success, even if we're booted in the conference Semis. That may not be YOUR definition of success, but please appreciate that lots of "regular" fans simply want to go to the game, be entertained, and see the home team win.
And this goes ESPECIALLY to season ticket holders. Lip is his own man on this topic, but I can tell you that my parents are about ready to drop their season tickets because they are flat out tired of all the losing and rebuilds. They have been loyal fans for 20+ years and all they want to see is a competitive, winning product.
Playing in real NBA games far surpasses as much G league action or practice though. You really don't know how players are going to be until they prove it on the main level. So not playing experienced players is a major benefit for sure. Those players themselves don't know how good they will be. I just know from playing in competitive sports myself. You can only do so much in practice or against inferior competition. That's why I didn't like seeing Culver get so little minutes some games. You can't get better from the bench. You need to make mistakes or make progression by doing it on the court. Then you can do film work, see what you did wrong, etc. Work more one on one with coaches, instead of having others taking up the practice reps. The list goes on. Opportunity to succeed is half the battle for these lower tiered players.
Ok. Let's say that's true... which is debatable. But that's the approach that the Wolves have taken for nearly 15 years.
It hasn't worked. At all.
What's remained is an organization steeped in losing. Maybe try a new approach. Maybe try to actually win games as much as possible for a change. After all, with two #1 picks and max guys on the team*, maybe they need to buy in to that strategy for more than one season out of their first 5 or 6 in the league.
* Yes. I keep mentioning the two #1 max guys. The fact that we're expected to sit through another rebuild built around the failed players from the last rebuild cannot be overstated.
"Here's proof that this strategy doesn't work... but nevermind that/them. THIS time... THIS time... we know what we're doing."
Q12543 wrote:I think what I really don't like about the Tank vs. Not Tank debate is the false premise that a team can't develop talent and try to win games at the same time. That's simply not true and there are countless examples of great players that weren't immediately gifted big minutes or an out-sized role. So this idea that we MUST see the G league guys play big minutes in the NBA otherwise "we won't know what we've got" is flat out false.
Also, the "must contend or bust" crowd should appreciate that yes, there are actually fans out there that want to see good, competitive basketball where you are more likely than not to see the home team win. That means perhaps 53 wins and a division title would be considered a success, even if we're booted in the conference Semis. That may not be YOUR definition of success, but please appreciate that lots of "regular" fans simply want to go to the game, be entertained, and see the home team win.
And this goes ESPECIALLY to season ticket holders. Lip is his own man on this topic, but I can tell you that my parents are about ready to drop their season tickets because they are flat out tired of all the losing and rebuilds. They have been loyal fans for 20+ years and all they want to see is a competitive, winning product.
Playing in real NBA games far surpasses as much G league action or practice though. You really don't know how players are going to be until they prove it on the main level. So not playing experienced players is a major benefit for sure. Those players themselves don't know how good they will be. I just know from playing in competitive sports myself. You can only do so much in practice or against inferior competition. That's why I didn't like seeing Culver get so little minutes some games. You can't get better from the bench. You need to make mistakes or make progression by doing it on the court. Then you can do film work, see what you did wrong, etc. Work more one on one with coaches, instead of having others taking up the practice reps. The list goes on. Opportunity to succeed is half the battle for these lower tiered players.
Your view is too simplistic, sorry. Culver is a perfect example in fact. How exactly has he improved this season with all these minutes? In fact, I could argue that he'd benefit more from NOT playing and spending a few months completely re-building his shot motion and then gradually using it in competition that doesn't matter - pickup games, G-league, summer league, etc. Instead, he's playing big minutes and every time he takes a shot, he's just reinforcing the brokenness of it.
Now in reality I'm not suggesting Culver gets zero playing time. I just think he's a perfect example of someone whose primary area for development will happen almost 100% outside of real NBA games, and if anything, the NBA schedule is hindering, not helping, that development. Him playing 25 MPG versus 12 MPG just isn't going to make a big difference.
Q12543 wrote:I think what I really don't like about the Tank vs. Not Tank debate is the false premise that a team can't develop talent and try to win games at the same time. That's simply not true and there are countless examples of great players that weren't immediately gifted big minutes or an out-sized role. So this idea that we MUST see the G league guys play big minutes in the NBA otherwise "we won't know what we've got" is flat out false.
Also, the "must contend or bust" crowd should appreciate that yes, there are actually fans out there that want to see good, competitive basketball where you are more likely than not to see the home team win. That means perhaps 53 wins and a division title would be considered a success, even if we're booted in the conference Semis. That may not be YOUR definition of success, but please appreciate that lots of "regular" fans simply want to go to the game, be entertained, and see the home team win.
And this goes ESPECIALLY to season ticket holders. Lip is his own man on this topic, but I can tell you that my parents are about ready to drop their season tickets because they are flat out tired of all the losing and rebuilds. They have been loyal fans for 20+ years and all they want to see is a competitive, winning product.
Playing in real NBA games far surpasses as much G league action or practice though. You really don't know how players are going to be until they prove it on the main level. So not playing experienced players is a major benefit for sure. Those players themselves don't know how good they will be. I just know from playing in competitive sports myself. You can only do so much in practice or against inferior competition. That's why I didn't like seeing Culver get so little minutes some games. You can't get better from the bench. You need to make mistakes or make progression by doing it on the court. Then you can do film work, see what you did wrong, etc. Work more one on one with coaches, instead of having others taking up the practice reps. The list goes on. Opportunity to succeed is half the battle for these lower tiered players.
Ok. Let's say that's true... which is debatable. But that's the approach that the Wolves have taken for nearly 15 years.
It hasn't worked. At all.
What's remained is an organization steeped in losing. Maybe try a new approach. Maybe try to actually win games as much as possible for a change. After all, with two #1 picks and max guys on the team*, maybe they need to buy in to that strategy for more than one season out of their first 5 or 6 in the league.
* Yes. I keep mentioning the two #1 max guys. The fact that we're expected to sit through another rebuild built around the failed players from the last rebuild cannot be overstated.
"Here's proof that this strategy doesn't work... but nevermind that/them. THIS time... THIS time... we know what we're doing."
You bring up two max players but only one actually is. The other which we both agree on isn't. At the same time this management isn't the ones who signed him did they? You can't keep bringing up the past, it doesn't matter. It's only relevant because Taylor and some players have been held over, other then that it's irrelevant.
Q12543 wrote:I think what I really don't like about the Tank vs. Not Tank debate is the false premise that a team can't develop talent and try to win games at the same time. That's simply not true and there are countless examples of great players that weren't immediately gifted big minutes or an out-sized role. So this idea that we MUST see the G league guys play big minutes in the NBA otherwise "we won't know what we've got" is flat out false.
Also, the "must contend or bust" crowd should appreciate that yes, there are actually fans out there that want to see good, competitive basketball where you are more likely than not to see the home team win. That means perhaps 53 wins and a division title would be considered a success, even if we're booted in the conference Semis. That may not be YOUR definition of success, but please appreciate that lots of "regular" fans simply want to go to the game, be entertained, and see the home team win.
And this goes ESPECIALLY to season ticket holders. Lip is his own man on this topic, but I can tell you that my parents are about ready to drop their season tickets because they are flat out tired of all the losing and rebuilds. They have been loyal fans for 20+ years and all they want to see is a competitive, winning product.
Playing in real NBA games far surpasses as much G league action or practice though. You really don't know how players are going to be until they prove it on the main level. So not playing experienced players is a major benefit for sure. Those players themselves don't know how good they will be. I just know from playing in competitive sports myself. You can only do so much in practice or against inferior competition. That's why I didn't like seeing Culver get so little minutes some games. You can't get better from the bench. You need to make mistakes or make progression by doing it on the court. Then you can do film work, see what you did wrong, etc. Work more one on one with coaches, instead of having others taking up the practice reps. The list goes on. Opportunity to succeed is half the battle for these lower tiered players.
Ok. Let's say that's true... which is debatable. But that's the approach that the Wolves have taken for nearly 15 years.
It hasn't worked. At all.
What's remained is an organization steeped in losing. Maybe try a new approach. Maybe try to actually win games as much as possible for a change. After all, with two #1 picks and max guys on the team*, maybe they need to buy in to that strategy for more than one season out of their first 5 or 6 in the league.
* Yes. I keep mentioning the two #1 max guys. The fact that we're expected to sit through another rebuild built around the failed players from the last rebuild cannot be overstated.
"Here's proof that this strategy doesn't work... but nevermind that/them. THIS time... THIS time... we know what we're doing."
You bring up two max players but only one actually is. The other which we both agree on isn't. At the same time this management isn't the ones who signed him did they? You can't keep bringing up the past, it doesn't matter. It's only relevant because Taylor and some players have been held over, other then that it's irrelevant.
For fans... yes, it's relevant. I mean we could go with the "It's ok Glen that you've helped put out the worst product in the history of the NBA. Don't worry, it's all in the past. You get a restart."
Each new regime doesn't get a free pass "just because"... because there's one guy who's ultimately responsible for regime after regime after regime failing...
Glen Taylor hired the new regime. Rosas might be great. But Taylor doesn't have the decision-making track record to get a pass YET AGAIN. He was there to make Wiggins "promise" to try hard. And he's still in charge.
So there you have it. It's perfectly fine for the fans who've paid money to watch this team flail ... rip the team for its perpetual failures.
Q12543 wrote:I think what I really don't like about the Tank vs. Not Tank debate is the false premise that a team can't develop talent and try to win games at the same time. That's simply not true and there are countless examples of great players that weren't immediately gifted big minutes or an out-sized role. So this idea that we MUST see the G league guys play big minutes in the NBA otherwise "we won't know what we've got" is flat out false.
Also, the "must contend or bust" crowd should appreciate that yes, there are actually fans out there that want to see good, competitive basketball where you are more likely than not to see the home team win. That means perhaps 53 wins and a division title would be considered a success, even if we're booted in the conference Semis. That may not be YOUR definition of success, but please appreciate that lots of "regular" fans simply want to go to the game, be entertained, and see the home team win.
And this goes ESPECIALLY to season ticket holders. Lip is his own man on this topic, but I can tell you that my parents are about ready to drop their season tickets because they are flat out tired of all the losing and rebuilds. They have been loyal fans for 20+ years and all they want to see is a competitive, winning product.
Playing in real NBA games far surpasses as much G league action or practice though. You really don't know how players are going to be until they prove it on the main level. So not playing experienced players is a major benefit for sure. Those players themselves don't know how good they will be. I just know from playing in competitive sports myself. You can only do so much in practice or against inferior competition. That's why I didn't like seeing Culver get so little minutes some games. You can't get better from the bench. You need to make mistakes or make progression by doing it on the court. Then you can do film work, see what you did wrong, etc. Work more one on one with coaches, instead of having others taking up the practice reps. The list goes on. Opportunity to succeed is half the battle for these lower tiered players.
Your view is too simplistic, sorry. Culver is a perfect example in fact. How exactly has he improved this season with all these minutes? In fact, I could argue that he'd benefit more from NOT playing and spending a few months completely re-building his shot motion and then gradually using it in competition that doesn't matter - pickup games, G-league, summer league, etc. Instead, he's playing big minutes and every time he takes a shot, he's just reinforcing the brokenness of it.
Now in reality I'm not suggesting Culver gets zero playing time. I just think he's a perfect example of someone whose primary area for development will happen almost 100% outside of real NBA games, and if anything, the NBA schedule is hindering, not helping, that development. Him playing 25 MPG versus 12 MPG just isn't going to make a big difference.
You make a point in regards to Culver but shouldn't he have had all summer to rework any shot mechanics? So while I agree on that one point, he still is getting reps doing everything else. Shooting is just one area which he is struggling, but he has shown already some elite defensive chops, some nice ball handling and finishing around the rim. I don't think you can hold a guy out for a year so he can rework his shot. Mechanics take a long time, but if done right can be done in a month or two. Not a year. Tiger Woods changed his golf swing several times in his career for instance. I've read it generally takes 21 days and 100 reps a day to ingrain a new habit.
I still think actually playing is the most important part. If not you're simply never going to give some of these guys a chance to prove it on the big stage.
Q12543 wrote:I think what I really don't like about the Tank vs. Not Tank debate is the false premise that a team can't develop talent and try to win games at the same time. That's simply not true and there are countless examples of great players that weren't immediately gifted big minutes or an out-sized role. So this idea that we MUST see the G league guys play big minutes in the NBA otherwise "we won't know what we've got" is flat out false.
Also, the "must contend or bust" crowd should appreciate that yes, there are actually fans out there that want to see good, competitive basketball where you are more likely than not to see the home team win. That means perhaps 53 wins and a division title would be considered a success, even if we're booted in the conference Semis. That may not be YOUR definition of success, but please appreciate that lots of "regular" fans simply want to go to the game, be entertained, and see the home team win.
And this goes ESPECIALLY to season ticket holders. Lip is his own man on this topic, but I can tell you that my parents are about ready to drop their season tickets because they are flat out tired of all the losing and rebuilds. They have been loyal fans for 20+ years and all they want to see is a competitive, winning product.
Playing in real NBA games far surpasses as much G league action or practice though. You really don't know how players are going to be until they prove it on the main level. So not playing experienced players is a major benefit for sure. Those players themselves don't know how good they will be. I just know from playing in competitive sports myself. You can only do so much in practice or against inferior competition. That's why I didn't like seeing Culver get so little minutes some games. You can't get better from the bench. You need to make mistakes or make progression by doing it on the court. Then you can do film work, see what you did wrong, etc. Work more one on one with coaches, instead of having others taking up the practice reps. The list goes on. Opportunity to succeed is half the battle for these lower tiered players.
Ok. Let's say that's true... which is debatable. But that's the approach that the Wolves have taken for nearly 15 years.
It hasn't worked. At all.
What's remained is an organization steeped in losing. Maybe try a new approach. Maybe try to actually win games as much as possible for a change. After all, with two #1 picks and max guys on the team*, maybe they need to buy in to that strategy for more than one season out of their first 5 or 6 in the league.
* Yes. I keep mentioning the two #1 max guys. The fact that we're expected to sit through another rebuild built around the failed players from the last rebuild cannot be overstated.
"Here's proof that this strategy doesn't work... but nevermind that/them. THIS time... THIS time... we know what we're doing."
You bring up two max players but only one actually is. The other which we both agree on isn't. At the same time this management isn't the ones who signed him did they? You can't keep bringing up the past, it doesn't matter. It's only relevant because Taylor and some players have been held over, other then that it's irrelevant.
For fans... yes, it's relevant. I mean we could go with the "It's ok Glen that you've helped put out the worst product in the history of the NBA. Don't worry, it's all in the past. You get a restart."
Each new regime doesn't get a free pass "just because"... because there's one guy who's ultimately responsible for regime after regime after regime failing...
Glen Taylor hired the new regime. Rosas might be great. But Taylor doesn't have the decision-making track record to get a pass YET AGAIN. He was there to make Wiggins "promise" to try hard. And he's still in charge.
So there you have it. It's perfectly fine for the fans who've paid money to watch this team flail ... rip the team for its perpetual failures.
If you are specific in directing your vitriol then I think it's perfectly fine. I mean the next head coach in Cleveland (Browns) shouldn't be held accountable because of the past should he? Or the next GM? Same here, did you actually expect this team to do really well this year? I was really optimistic when I thought a game over .500. But I didn't think they would use tank mode either. I would rather they use tank mode though, because it the smart strategy for the reasons I stated prior.
Towns was already having possible knee issues, do you not remember him having wraps on during games on the bench? If every player did it I could excuse it as nothing, so holding him out is no biggie. Wiggins doesn't necessarily need reps now either, he can learn a think or two watching too. I'm perfectly fine with the soft tank mode.
Are we just tanking to get a higher draft pick? What team outside of the 76ers built their team with constant tanking. I mean look at the teams in the NBA who are good what teams built on tanking.
Bucks- never tanked and drafted Giannis middle of the 1st round.
Raptors- never tanked once
Pacers- haven't missed the playoffs in like 15 years
Heat- Never tanked always competed
Nets- Havent tanked
Lakers- Tanked for ever and got bailed out by a top 2 player in NBA history decided to come (something that will never come to the Wolves)
Clippers- Tanked for years drafted Griffin, then drafted Jordan in the 2nd round and went all in before being good and got Paul. Created a winning culture even when Griffin, Jordan and Paul all left and was able to add 2 top 10 players in the NBA
Nuggets- had one bad year where they were able to draft Murray, found Jokic in the 2nd round, spent money on Millsap to build around them
Warriors- Never tanked, traded assets for Iggy and Bogut.
Utah- Didn't tank once
Trailblazers- Never tanked once
Mavs- Had one bad year and drafted Doncic, never fully tanked.
Thunder- Still not tanking.
Teams that consistently tank:
Wolves
Knicks
Kings
Suns
Hawks
Bulls the last 3 years
Not many teams that tank consistently can create a winning culture. Outside of the 76ers it is really hard to consistently tank and create a winner. Im curious in recent NBA history what teams are tanking that really worked. I mean the wolves tanked and got 2 #1 picks what more are we tanking for.
I would love to see if KAT can bounce back from one of the worst 1st time playoff performances in the history of the NBA for a star player.
I would love to see how teams guard Okogie and/or Culver and see how Ryan adjusts to it. Also see if Okogie can be a player that is playable in the playoff series.
I would love to see if Wiggins plays solid in the playoffs again, when he is fully motivated, and to see if he could be a top 3 piece on a solid NBA team.
I would love to see if Naz, Martin, Nowell, KBD, Culver step up to the challenge of playoff basketball when they are scouted to the NBA and figure what they really have to work on instead of a quick gameplan they are seeing now.
kekgeek1 wrote:Are we just tanking to get a higher draft pick? What team outside of the 76ers built their team with constant tanking. I mean look at the teams in the NBA who are good what teams built on tanking.
Bucks- never tanked and drafted Giannis middle of the 1st round.
Raptors- never tanked once
Pacers- haven't missed the playoffs in like 15 years
Heat- Never tanked always competed
Nets- Havent tanked
Lakers- Tanked for ever and got bailed out by a top 2 player in NBA history decided to come (something that will never come to the Wolves)
Clippers- Tanked for years drafted Griffin, then drafted Jordan in the 2nd round and went all in before being good and got Paul. Created a winning culture even when Griffin, Jordan and Paul all left and was able to add 2 top 10 players in the NBA
Nuggets- had one bad year where they were able to draft Murray, found Jokic in the 2nd round, spent money on Millsap to build around them
Warriors- Never tanked, traded assets for Iggy and Bogut.
Utah- Didn't tank once
Trailblazers- Never tanked once
Mavs- Had one bad year and drafted Doncic, never fully tanked.
Thunder- Still not tanking.
Teams that consistently tank:
Wolves
Knicks
Kings
Suns
Hawks
Bulls the last 3 years
Not many teams that tank consistently can create a winning culture. Outside of the 76ers it is really hard to consistently tank and create a winner. Im curious in recent NBA history what teams are tanking that really worked. I mean the wolves tanked and got 2 #1 picks what more are we tanking for.
I would love to see if KAT can bounce back from one of the worst 1st time playoff performances in the history of the NBA for a star player.
I would love to see how teams guard Okogie and/or Culver and see how Ryan adjusts to it. Also see if Okogie can be a player that is playable in the playoff series.
I would love to see if Wiggins plays solid in the playoffs again, when he is fully motivated, and to see if he could be a top 3 piece on a solid NBA team.
I would love to see if Naz, Martin, Nowell, KBD, Culver step up to the challenge of playoff basketball when they are scouted to the NBA and figure what they really have to work on instead of a quick gameplan they are seeing now.
Great summary. It's mostly a shitty strategy unless you go absolutely extreme like the 76ers and still it's high risk. The team it really worked for was the Spurs though they still wont admit it.
kekgeek1 wrote:Are we just tanking to get a higher draft pick? What team outside of the 76ers built their team with constant tanking. I mean look at the teams in the NBA who are good what teams built on tanking.
Bucks- never tanked and drafted Giannis middle of the 1st round.
Raptors- never tanked once
Pacers- haven't missed the playoffs in like 15 years
Heat- Never tanked always competed
Nets- Havent tanked
Lakers- Tanked for ever and got bailed out by a top 2 player in NBA history decided to come (something that will never come to the Wolves)
Clippers- Tanked for years drafted Griffin, then drafted Jordan in the 2nd round and went all in before being good and got Paul. Created a winning culture even when Griffin, Jordan and Paul all left and was able to add 2 top 10 players in the NBA
Nuggets- had one bad year where they were able to draft Murray, found Jokic in the 2nd round, spent money on Millsap to build around them
Warriors- Never tanked, traded assets for Iggy and Bogut.
Utah- Didn't tank once
Trailblazers- Never tanked once
Mavs- Had one bad year and drafted Doncic, never fully tanked.
Thunder- Still not tanking.
Teams that consistently tank:
Wolves
Knicks
Kings
Suns
Hawks
Bulls the last 3 years
Not many teams that tank consistently can create a winning culture. Outside of the 76ers it is really hard to consistently tank and create a winner. Im curious in recent NBA history what teams are tanking that really worked. I mean the wolves tanked and got 2 #1 picks what more are we tanking for.
I would love to see if KAT can bounce back from one of the worst 1st time playoff performances in the history of the NBA for a star player.
I would love to see how teams guard Okogie and/or Culver and see how Ryan adjusts to it. Also see if Okogie can be a player that is playable in the playoff series.
I would love to see if Wiggins plays solid in the playoffs again, when he is fully motivated, and to see if he could be a top 3 piece on a solid NBA team.
I would love to see if Naz, Martin, Nowell, KBD, Culver step up to the challenge of playoff basketball when they are scouted to the NBA and figure what they really have to work on instead of a quick gameplan they are seeing now.
Cleveland tanked and got LeBron.
Mavs tanked and got Doncic.
Thunder tanked and got Durant and Westbrook.
You can say they were "just bad" but really it's hard to prove it either way.
Tanking doesn't mean, trying to lose. It simply means playing players who may not normally ever see the floor. Treat the season as a preseason. You still play to win but you won't play your starters every game or as many minutes either.
kekgeek1 wrote:Are we just tanking to get a higher draft pick? What team outside of the 76ers built their team with constant tanking. I mean look at the teams in the NBA who are good what teams built on tanking.
Bucks- never tanked and drafted Giannis middle of the 1st round.
Raptors- never tanked once
Pacers- haven't missed the playoffs in like 15 years
Heat- Never tanked always competed
Nets- Havent tanked
Lakers- Tanked for ever and got bailed out by a top 2 player in NBA history decided to come (something that will never come to the Wolves)
Clippers- Tanked for years drafted Griffin, then drafted Jordan in the 2nd round and went all in before being good and got Paul. Created a winning culture even when Griffin, Jordan and Paul all left and was able to add 2 top 10 players in the NBA
Nuggets- had one bad year where they were able to draft Murray, found Jokic in the 2nd round, spent money on Millsap to build around them
Warriors- Never tanked, traded assets for Iggy and Bogut.
Utah- Didn't tank once
Trailblazers- Never tanked once
Mavs- Had one bad year and drafted Doncic, never fully tanked.
Thunder- Still not tanking.
Teams that consistently tank:
Wolves
Knicks
Kings
Suns
Hawks
Bulls the last 3 years
Not many teams that tank consistently can create a winning culture. Outside of the 76ers it is really hard to consistently tank and create a winner. Im curious in recent NBA history what teams are tanking that really worked. I mean the wolves tanked and got 2 #1 picks what more are we tanking for.
I would love to see if KAT can bounce back from one of the worst 1st time playoff performances in the history of the NBA for a star player.
I would love to see how teams guard Okogie and/or Culver and see how Ryan adjusts to it. Also see if Okogie can be a player that is playable in the playoff series.
I would love to see if Wiggins plays solid in the playoffs again, when he is fully motivated, and to see if he could be a top 3 piece on a solid NBA team.
I would love to see if Naz, Martin, Nowell, KBD, Culver step up to the challenge of playoff basketball when they are scouted to the NBA and figure what they really have to work on instead of a quick gameplan they are seeing now.
Great summary. It's mostly a shitty strategy unless you go absolutely extreme like the 76ers and still it's high risk. The team it really worked for was the Spurs though they still wont admit it.
Sometimes, it's as easy as getting the RIGHT #1 draft pick when those infrequent opportunities present themselves. A bit of luck, sometimes.
Anyway... good timing for this article I'm currently reading: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/1/2/21043951/baby-bulls-chicago-michael-jordan
This quote jumped out at me... "What I remember more than any main problem is how impressed I was with the defiance of such young players. Gordon and Duhon and Deng and Hinrich--they were pissed about losing. They were like, "We're not used to this." I was impressed by their refusal to accept losing. It signified a big change from the Bulls teams of the few previous seasons."
