# Ben Gordon will bust out



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

While Gordon has struggled to find his shot, he's learned to get to the line at a fairly prolific rate. In 29 minutes per game he's taken 4.8 FTs, and increase from 3.2 FTA over 31 MPG last season. As a consequence, he's scoring at a slightly better points/FGA ratio, despite shooting 29% from 3. If you assume that he'll end up hitting threes like he did last season, that adds three points to his scoring per game and elevates him to 20PPG scorer. And Gordon's shooting always starts slow, so it is not unreasonable to expect him to improve.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I honestly don't know if he's going to 'bust out', but I still think Ben Gordon is going to survive the early season onslaught of negative/speculative media attention he's gotten at the beginning of the season.

Despite the hullabaloo over how inconsistent he's been, his stats are about on par with last season,
and since being moved to the bench, his production has actually been fairly consistent, and his all around game seems to have gotten a little better. His FTA and assists are up a bit, and his usage rate is actually the highest on the team, so I think he's handling the ball a little more than some people on this board are giving him credit for. 

From the games I've seen, he's doing a much better job of mixing up his outside shooting with his drive, which I think will eventually help him a lot. 

I honestly think his most effective role is coming off the bench. In that role, he's a complete stud, and gives us a favorable matchup against pretty much any other team. The trick is just finding someone that can justifiably start over him.........and Duhon isn't it.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

In fact, I just went and checked, and since moving to the bench, Ben's averaging about 19 points a game, on 45% shooting, with 3.5 assists a game. And in that same span he's averaged a little over 6 FTA's per game, which would put him in the same area as guys like Ron Artest, Tracy McGrady, Rip Hamilton, Mike Bibby, and Ray Allen. 

I'm still not too sure about Ben's ultimate future with the team, but I think he'll be okay this season.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

If Duhon, Deng, Nocioni & Hinrich keep shooting well opposing teams will be more reluctant to put their best defenders on Gordon and very reluctant to double team him. The gelling of the team will also help Ben's scoring.

For example last night against the Knicks, Ben had trouble getting the ball to an open man a few times when he drove to the basket and was double teamed by big men. More team experience should fix that problem eventually, and make Ben's drives all that more effective. The more effective his drives are, the more times he will find himself open on the outside.

I'm not sure what "breaking out" is, but I'd be surprised if he's not averaging more than 20 ppg at the end of the year. He's a great shooter, and the Bulls are looking for him to score. In the meantime, I like the energy he is showing on defense, his improved ball-handling and passing.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> I honestly don't know if he's going to 'bust out', but I still think Ben Gordon is going to survive the early season onslaught of negative/speculative media attention he's gotten at the beginning of the season.
> 
> Despite the hullabaloo over how inconsistent he's been, his stats are about on par with last season,
> and since being moved to the bench, his production has actually been fairly consistent, and his all around game seems to have gotten a little better. His FTA and assists are up a bit, and *his usage rate is actually the highest on the team*, so I think he's handling the ball a little more than some people on this board are giving him credit for.
> ...


What is that stat and where can I find it ?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Gordon's been frustrating so far, but I get the feeling that he'll bust out soon. Why? Well, because that's his style. 

Work hard in the off-season, have a great training camp, stink it up for the first month or two, and then gradually become more consistent and explosive by the season's stretch run.

I prefer the consistency more, as Hinrich and Deng have given us (the variance/standard deviation of Gordon's scoring has been obsurdly large). But I think now that the horrible circus trip is behind us, our team will stabilize and it's essentially up from here.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ben Gordon will bust out with some other team, the reason why hes not averaging 20 ppg is because hes actually handled the ball less this season as compared to last season. Kirk Hinrich is the teams primary ball handler and untill that changes we will continue to see Ben Gordon be the Rex Grossman of the NBA.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> What is that stat and where can I find it ?


Usage rate is the amount of possessions a player uses per 40 minutes. It's a pace adjusted, per minute metric that incorporates shot attempts, free throw attempts, assists and turnovers.

It doesn't directly measure how much a player actually has the ball in his hands, but it does measure all the offensive statistics that require you to have the ball in your possession one way or the other, as a means to measure how big of a role offensively you play for your team when you are on the court. 

Here's a link with a players' usage rates: http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_USG.htm.

Ben Gordon is ranked #14 in the NBA. Ahead of Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker, Dirk Nowitzki, and Steve Nash.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Ben Gordon will bust out with some other team, the reason why hes not averaging 20 ppg is because hes actually handled the ball less this season as compared to last season. Kirk Hinrich is the teams primary ball handler and untill that changes we will continue to see Ben Gordon be the Rex Grossman of the NBA.


Gordon has brought the ball up and handled the ball a lot more the past few games. I think part of his inconsistency is due to being defended by large, all-league defenders -- Kobe, Larry Hughes, Bruce Bowen, etc. have all been really effective against him. 

Another reason Gordon pairs up well with Thabo is that the opposing team's larger guard has to guard Thabo, leaving Ben to take advantage of a smaller player.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I forgot to mention, that Skiles' love affair with Duhon seems to be at an all-time high, and it's really getting under my skin. Because frankly, Duhon has not been very good this year. The quicker Gordon busts out, the better. Duhon needs to be playing 15 min/game off the bench, not 30-35 minutes as a starter.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Ben Gordon will bust out with some other team, the reason why hes not averaging 20 ppg is because hes actually handled the ball less this season as compared to last season. Kirk Hinrich is the teams primary ball handler and untill that changes we will continue to see Ben Gordon be the Rex Grossman of the NBA.


If you will, check my post addressed to 6Ft on Ben's usage rate, which is surprisingly high.

I've never really agreed with the notion that this team represents a bad situation for Ben.

Where else is Ben Gordon going to be the primary scoring option on a team? Or play with a better combo guard than Kirk Hinrich?

The only teams I can think of that could offer him the same level of individual prominence and winning basketball would be Miami and Houston, where he could play off other combo guards (who are both better than Kirk) and have the benefit of playing with a dominant post player, where he could probably be the recipient of more uncontested shots. And even in those situations, he'd be relegated to 3rd banana.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I forgot to mention, that Skiles' love affair with Duhon seems to be at an all-time high, and it's really getting under my skin. Because frankly, Duhon has not been very good this year. The quicker Gordon busts out, the better. Duhon needs to be playing 15 min/game off the bench, not 30-35 minutes as a starter.


100% agree, I have no idea why Duhon is playing starters minutes when hes clearly a role player at best. 

Ben Gordon does have the ball in his hands alot during games, but the problem is that he usually only has it in his hands for like 3 seconds before he takes a spot up shot. The offense is set up for him where he has to come off of curls or screens and take the quick jumpshot when the ball is passed to him. He is a much much much better player when hes playing the dominant guard position and taking it to the rim or breaking his man down off the drible for an easier at his own pace shot. If you look at all the highscoring players in this league they have the luxury of getting the ball whenever they want it and taking their own created shot. The only person i think who doesnt do that is maybe Micheal Redd.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Gordon is handling the ball a lot more, and I think we can attribute the team's winning streak (yay!) to that. 

Last night he had 6 assists even though Hinrich, Nocioni, and Deng each shot 4-11.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> 100% agree, I have no idea why Duhon is playing starters minutes when hes clearly a role player at best.


I think Skiles started Duhon with the intention of helping Ben Gordon find his game. BG was stinking it up as a starter, and I'm pretty sure he moved Ben to the bench with the hope that it'd help him get his game off the ground a little bit. 

I agree that he's playing too many minutes right now.



thebizkit69u said:


> Ben Gordon does have the ball in his hands alot during games, but the problem is that he usually only has it in his hands for like 3 seconds before he takes a spot up shot. The offense is set up for him where he has to come off of curls or screens and take the quick jumpshot when the ball is passed to him. He is a much much much better player when hes playing the dominant guard position and taking it to the rim or breaking his man down off the drible for an easier at his own pace shot. *If you look at all the highscoring players in this league they have the luxury of getting the ball whenever they want it and taking their own created shot.* The only person i think who doesnt do that is maybe Micheal Redd.


Is Ben Gordon really good enough to justify that kind of treatment? Right now he's the third leading scorer on our team. I don't mean that as a slight to Ben, but I don't think he's good enough to justify that kind of offensive freedom. I think there are maybe 9 or 10 guys that are justified in having that type of free reign, and Ben Gordon isn't one of them.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> I think Skiles started Duhon with the intention of helping Ben Gordon find his game. BG was stinking it up as a starter, and I'm pretty sure he moved Ben to the bench with the hope that it'd help him get his game off the ground a little bit.
> 
> I agree that he's playing too many minutes right now.
> 
> ...


Its very hard for a team to consistanly win games running a strict offensive set and shoot offense like say the Jazz and Pistons, most NBA teams who make the playoffs are teams like the Mavs, Heat, Cavs, etc who allow a more open creative offenses. Yes I do think that Ben Gordon is talented enough to be that type of player, not all the time but hes got the talent to do it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> I think Skiles started Duhon with the intention of helping Ben Gordon find his game. BG was stinking it up as a starter, and I'm pretty sure he moved Ben to the bench with the hope that it'd help him get his game off the ground a little bit.
> 
> I agree that he's playing too many minutes right now.
> 
> ...


Wow. 

Take Gilbert Arenas or Iverson and put him on the bulls and let hinrich dribble away the shot clock and see how they do.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Gordon is handling the ball a lot more, and I think we can attribute the team's winning streak (yay!) to that.


Actually, he's very obviously playing off the ball this season more than ever before - especially last night. 

I'd chalk the wins up to playing one of the 5 most miserable teams in the league more than anything else. I didn't think the Bulls looked particularly good at all last night.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Wow.
> 
> Take Gilbert Arenas or Iverson and put him on the bulls and let hinrich dribble away the shot clock and see how they do.


Ben Gordon isn't as good as Gilbert Arenas or Allen Iverson.......by a decent margin. I'm pretty sure if either of them were on the Bulls, our offensive sets would change accordingly, and the ballhandling responsibilities would be a little more evenly distributed. Comparing BG to two guys who are probably the best scoring PG's in the league, and perhaps some of the best ever seems a little disingenuous.

And again, how would you explain Ben Gordon's usage rate? It's pretty damn high, especially relative to other players ranked near him. 

Considering Ben's offensive ability, and his ability relative to the rest of the players on our team, I don't have huge complaints about how he's being used. I agree that he probably didn't have the ball in his hands enough to start the season, but that looks like it's starting to change now, and considering that Ben isn't a great passer or ball handler, I don't think I'd want him to handle the ball more than Kirk Hinrich.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Ben Gordon isn't as good as Gilbert Arenas or Allen Iverson.......by a decent margin. I'm pretty sure if either of them were on the Bulls, our offensive sets would change accordingly, and the ballhandling responsibilities would be a little more evenly distributed. Comparing BG to two guys who are probably the best scoring PG's in the league, and perhaps some of the best ever seems a little disingenuous.
> 
> And again, how would you explain Ben Gordon's usage rate? It's pretty damn high, especially relative to other players ranked near him.
> 
> Considering Ben's offensive ability, and his ability relative to the rest of the players on our team, I don't have huge complaints about how he's being used. I agree that he probably didn't have the ball in his hands enough to start the season, but that looks like it's starting to change now, and considering that Ben isn't a great passer or ball handler, I don't think I'd want him to handle the ball more than Kirk Hinrich.


 Usage rate? If your responsibility in the offense is to shoot pretty much every time you get the ball curling off a screen, I bet you have a high usage rate. What those of us who have a vision of Gordon at PG see is that this is an ineffective way to use a player who IS an Arenas kind of player (in the right situation). And that last sentence directly addresses whether Skiles would change his system if we did have Arenas (more of the same, not adjustments)


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> Usage rate is the amount of possessions a player uses per 40 minutes. It's a pace adjusted, per minute metric that incorporates shot attempts, free throw attempts, assists and turnovers.
> 
> It doesn't directly measure how much a player actually has the ball in his hands, but it does measure all the offensive statistics that require you to have the ball in your possession one way or the other, as a means to measure how big of a role offensively you play for your team when you are on the court.
> 
> ...


I'm confused.

Knickerblogger says it is an "Ability for Players to create on their own (35 best - 5 worst)", so according to this, he's one of the better creators in the league ? Just asking, cause that is much more consistent with what I usually observe, especially in his better games.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> And again, how would you explain Ben Gordon's *usage rate*? It's pretty damn high, especially relative to other players ranked near him.


only a fan would come up with such an "outhouse stat". gordon's a scoring pg, under-utilized, and who may not reach his potential with this team.

keep up with the trade ideas though, i'm sure pax is listening.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> only a fan would come up with such an "outhouse stat". gordon's a scoring pg, under-utilized, and who may not reach his potential with this team.
> 
> keep up with the trade ideas though, i'm sure pax is listening.


I like Ben Gordon. I hope he stays on the team. I've never wanted him traded, and at the beginning of the year, I was never one of the people calling for him to be shipped out, or how he had used up his time here, and had the opinion that he'd eventually right himself, and he'd start to fit in the offense, and it looked like he's starting too.

If you read my first post in the thread, I express a pretty positive opinion on him, and his play this season (at least that's how I intended it). 

I just think people are overstating how 'underutilized' he's been in the offense so far. I agree that he probably didn't have the ball in his hands enough to start the season, but over the past 6 or 7 games, that looks to be correcting itself somewhat, and I've been pretty pleased with the results so far. However, I don't think it's a good idea to go too far in the other direction, since Ben still has flaws in his game, and he's not a Kobe, AI, or Gilbert Arenas level player where he can dominate the ball.

I've probably overused the usage rate stat in this thread, to my own fault, but I just wanted to point it out to refute the notion that Ben's talents are being wasted to the extent that some people on this board like to imply.

I'll reply to the other posts in this thread eventually, but I have to go study for exams!!:curse:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Wow.
> 
> Take Gilbert Arenas or Iverson and put him on the bulls and let hinrich dribble away the shot clock and see how they do.


I'd argue that on a per-touch basis, Gordon dribbles as much as (or even more than) Hinrich does. But he doesn't create as many assists, and he turns the ball over A LOT more.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rosenthall said:


> And again, how would you explain Ben Gordon's usage rate? It's pretty damn high, especially relative to other players ranked near him.


Because Kirk Hinrich refuses to pass him the ball?










Remember that one from last year? That one was good.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Scott Skiles and his love affair with Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon are the reasons why Ben Gordon is inconsistent. He doesn't get the damn ball. He doesn't fit the offense. Gordon is a stud, and I hope he can survive here long enough until Skiles is fired.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

H.O.V.A. said:


> Scott Skiles and his love affair with Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon are the reasons why Ben Gordon is inconsistent. He doesn't get the damn ball.


Sorry, but this is an overplayed and completely baseless statement that completely ignores basic facts. Unfortunately, many people on this board still can't grasp the fact that Gordon _does_ in fact get the damn ball. It's downright shocking to some.

*FG per 48 minutes*

Carmelo: 29
Iverson: 28
Carter: 27 (SG), 21 (SG)
Arenas: 25
LeBron: 24
Allen: 24
Gordon: 23
Parker: 23
Pierce: 22 (SG), 26 (SF)
T-Mac: 22
Redd: 22 (SG), 26 (SF)
Wade: 22 (PG), 24 (SG)
Shaq: 21
Dirk: 21
Jermaine O'Neal: 21
Bibby: 20
Deron Williams: 20
Kobe: 19
Garnett: 19
Nash: 19
Chris Paul: 19
Bosh: 19
Deng: 19
Hinrich: 18 (PG), 16 (SG)
Noc: 17


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Sorry, but this is an overplayed and completely baseless statement that completely ignores basic facts. Unfortunately, many people on this board still can't grasp the fact that Gordon _does_ in fact get the damn ball. It's downright shocking to some.
> 
> *FG per 48 minutes*
> 
> ...


FGA doesnt tell the whole story. BG is a PG, and with Hinrich and Duhon dominating the ball, BG cant effectively create for himself and others. Say what you want about BG not fitting the offense as well as Hinrich and Duhon, but he hasn't been given the oppurtunity to play to his strengths. People complain about BG's turnovers, but are the Bulls that much better with Hinrich and Duhon overdribbling on the perimeter? The only people who look good with Hinrich and Duhon in the game are Hinrich and Duhon.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

H.O.V.A. said:


> FGA doesnt tell the whole story. BG is a PG, and with Hinrich and Duhon dominating the ball, BG cant effectively create for himself and others. Say what you want about BG not fitting the offense as well as Hinrich and Duhon, but he hasn't been given the oppurtunity to play to his strengths. People complain about BG's turnovers, but are the Bulls that much better with Hinrich and Duhon overdribbling on the perimeter? The only people who look good with Hinrich and Duhon in the game are Hinrich and Duhon.


Its MUCH WORSE than that, and last night was a prime example. Last night he scores 9 straight points in the span of about 2 minutes. And then doesn't get so much as another LOOK at the basket for 6:30.

The culprits? Nocioni, Allen, and to a lesser extent....Hinrich. While Hinrich didn't jack up a whole lot of shots, it was clear Gordon had the hot hand. Its the PG's responsibility to find said hot hand, and Hinrich has proven to be especially poor at doing it.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

H.O.V.A. said:


> FGA doesnt tell the whole story.


You're right. From the list of 25 players above, Gordon has the 3rd-lowest eFG%, as well as the worst PPR (pure point rating) _and_ AST-r (assist ratio) of all the PG and combo guards.



> BG is a PG,


No, he's not.



> The only people who look good with Hinrich and Duhon in the game are Hinrich and Duhon.


This is because they each have signed agreements with Skiles to not pass the ball to Gordon.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> Its MUCH WORSE than that, and last night was a prime example. Last night he scores 9 straight points in the span of about 2 minutes. And then doesn't get so much as another LOOK at the basket for 6:30.
> 
> The culprits? Nocioni, Allen, and to a lesser extent....Hinrich. While Hinrich didn't jack up a whole lot of shots, it was clear Gordon had the hot hand. Its the PG's responsibility to find said hot hand, and Hinrich has proven to be especially poor at doing it.


Gordon is at his best when's playing PG. He actually commands double teams. Not a single team in the league would ever worry about Hinrich on the offensive end. If Hinrich were ever doubled, he would marginalized on the offensive end. I'm just tired of the overrating of Hinrich when he isnt that as good as people make him out to be. He plays scrappy D, OH YEAH! Thats his strength. Otherwise, he isnt that great at doing what a true point guard should be doing, creating offense. He's terrific at playing catch with Duhon, overdribbling the clock, and then kicking it out to someone expecting someone to hit the J. People can run the Drive & Kick at the damn YMCA.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Its MUCH WORSE than that, and last night was a prime example. Last night he scores 9 straight points in the span of about 2 minutes. And then doesn't get so much as another LOOK at the basket for 6:30.
> 
> The culprits? Nocioni, Allen, and to a lesser extent....Hinrich. While Hinrich didn't jack up a whole lot of shots, it was clear Gordon had the hot hand. Its the PG's responsibility to find said hot hand, and Hinrich has proven to be especially poor at doing it.


*
Second quarter, last night*

10:56-8:48: Gordon scores 9 straight points
7:50: Gordon turnover
7:11: Hinrich enters the game for Duhon
6:20 Nocioni turnover
5:48: Nocioni 18' jumper (Gordon assist)
4:58: Wallace turnover
4:00: Thomas turnover
3:45: Hinrich misses 20' jumper
3:39: Wallace turnover
2:41: Gordon misses a three (6:07 after he last took a shot)
2:38-0:43: Hinrich scores 7 straight points

Again, as illustrated in my previous post, Gordon certainly gets his fair share of shots.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

H.O.V.A. said:


> Gordon is at his best when's playing PG. He actually commands double teams.


Commanding double teams is what _SGs_ should do, not supposed PGs prone to turnovers.



> Not a single team in the league would ever worry about Hinrich on the offensive end. If Hinrich were ever doubled, he would marginalized on the offensive end. I'm just tired of the overrating of Hinrich when he isnt that as good as people make him out to be. He plays scrappy D, OH YEAH! Thats his strength. Otherwise, he isnt that great at doing what a true point guard should be doing, creating offense. He's terrific at playing catch with Duhon, overdribbling the clock, and then kicking it out to someone expecting someone to hit the J. People can run the Drive & Kick at the damn YMCA.


You think Hinrich and Duhon are all smoke and mirrors. Shocking.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Commanding double teams is what _SGs_ should do, not players prone to turnovers.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to be rude, but I have to ask: how long have you been watching basketball? I'm being serious here.


You're not being rude. I'd have asked him the same thing, but my post would have been deleted.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> *
> Second quarter, last night*
> 
> 10:56-8:48: Gordon scores 9 straight points
> ...


And thanks for making my point. They went away from the hot hand.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

And I'm being serious with this statement: Intelligent NBA fans would NEVER support a player like Ben Gordon. His style of play is for the kiddies. Grown folks want to see smart, conservative basketball. Not streetball.

If I see a guy sporting a Ben Gordon jersey, I automatically assume that he's an idiot. Sorry, I'm just being honest.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Krakken, please tell me how many times during that stretch in the second quarter that A) Hinrich declined to pass to Gordon in favor of other players, and B) Gordon passed up a shot. Thanks in advance.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

hammer said:


> You're not being rude. I'd have asked him the same thing, but my post would have been deleted.


I wouldn't have deleted it. It's an honest question.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Krakken, please tell me how many times during that stretch in the second quarter that A) Hinrich declined to pass to Gordon in favor of other players, and B) Gordon passed up a shot. Thanks in advance.


Must have been zero, since there's no turnovers by Gordon. By the way you talk about his ability to handle the ball, he either shoots or turns it over.

Never mind the fact he had as many assists as our so-called PG and fewer turnovers (last night).


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

hammer said:


> You're not being rude. I'd have asked him the same thing, but my post would have been deleted.


only if you had followed it with a snide remark about the poster you were asking it of. :cheers:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Must have been zero, since there's no turnovers by Gordon.





> Second quarter, last night
> 
> 10:56-8:48: Gordon scores 9 straight points
> *7:50: Gordon turnover*
> ...


:biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> :biggrin:


Heh heh,

9 straight points and then commit a turnover and Skiles couldn't get Hinrich in there fast enough. Surprised he didn't bench Gordon right there - he's done that plenty. (But never Hinrich)


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

I think Gordon takes plenty of shots in most games (averaging 14 per game). The one thing I would say is that he creates most of his own shots. I'd estimate 65-75% are self created shots. Perhaps this is why Hammer thinks he plays "street ball". I know its a guards job to create shots, however, I would like to see the other 4 on the floor try to find Gordon more often in an immediate scoring position.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Must have been zero, since there's no turnovers by Gordon. By the way you talk about his ability to handle the ball, he either shoots or turns it over.
> 
> Never mind the fact he had as many assists as our so-called PG and fewer turnovers (last night).


DaBullz, there's no other way to cut it. Gordon shoots as much as (or more than) the true superstars of this league, and he does so at a lower percentage than almost all of them. He has a horrendous assist to turnover ratio for a guard -- even Gilbert Arenas and Paul Pierce, walking turnovers both of them, have superior career A/TO ratios. Gordon does indeed shoot the ball and turn it over at very high rates.

Look -- I'm not anti-Gordon. I like the guy. I think he's a very good, very inconsistent scorer, a poor man's Gilbert Arenas. That's not a bad thing. But it's not a great thing to have on a championship-caliber team as a main SG/primary scorer.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Heh heh,
> 
> 9 straight points and then commit a turnover and Skiles couldn't get Hinrich in there fast enough. Surprised he didn't bench Gordon right there - he's done that plenty. (But never Hinrich)


That's because Hinrich shoots a better percentage from the field, shoots a better percentage from three, distributes the ball better, turns the ball over less and defends two positions at a very high level.

How many times does this need to be reiterated?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> *
> Second quarter, last night*
> 
> 10:56-8:48: Gordon scores 9 straight points
> ...


Ya know, when I see these play by plays, I actually like to see the scoreboard along with it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=261128004&period=2

Bulls were down 23-21 at the start of Q2.
Bulls were UP 8 after Gordon's 9 straight points, at 8:48
 <table class="tablehead" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="evenrow"><td valign="top" width="50">8:48</td><td valign="top"> 
</td><td align="center" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">26-34</td><td valign="top">*Ben Gordon makes 21-foot jumper*</td></tr> <tr class="oddrow"><td valign="top" width="50">
 </td></tr></tbody></table> Bulls were up 4 when Kirk entered the game
 <table class="tablehead" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="oddrow"><td valign="top" width="50">7:11</td><td valign="top"> 
</td><td align="center" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">31-35</td><td valign="top">Kirk Hinrich enters the game for Chris Duhon</td></tr> <tr class="evenrow"><td valign="top" width="50">
 </td></tr></tbody></table>
By 2:41, and with Hinrich at PG and Gordon getting all those touches (sarcasm), the score was 
 <table class="tablehead" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="oddrow"><td valign="top" width="50">2:41</td><td valign="top"> 
</td><td align="center" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">41-37</td><td valign="top">Ben Gordon misses 26-foot three point jumper</td></tr> <tr class="evenrow"><td valign="top" width="50">
 </td></tr></tbody></table>So do tell:
1) was it Hinrich's added defense that we gave up 10 points (41 from 31) during that span?
2) was it his brilliant PG play that led to us scoring a whopping 2 points (37 from 35) during that span?
3) went away from Gordon just as many of us suggest, with awful results.

Also, Gordon had 2 assists in the quarter, none for Hinrich.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Look -- I'm not anti-Gordon. I like the guy. I think he's a very good, very inconsistent scorer, a poor man's Gilbert Arenas. That's not a bad thing. But it's not a great thing to have on a championship-caliber team as a main SG/primary scorer.


His increased skill in drawing fouls will help his consistancy over the season.

Compare Ben's numbers with this championship two guard's numbers:

35MPG	6.8FGM	15.0FGA	45.5FG% 3.8FTM	4.4FTA	86.8FT% 3.6Reb	4.0AST	2.7TOs 17.6PPG

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect better production than that out of Gordon this season.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sov82 said:


> I think Gordon takes plenty of shots in most games (averaging 14 per game). The one thing I would say is that he creates most of his own shots. I'd estimate 65-75% are self created shots. Perhaps this is why Hammer thinks he plays "street ball". I know its a guards job to create shots, however, I would like to see the other 4 on the floor try to find Gordon more often in an immediate scoring position.


*Hinrich*
47% of his jumpers are assisted (84% of his total shots)
18% of his inside shots are assisted (16% of his total shots)

*Gordon*
35% of his jumpers are assisted (82% of his total shots)
23% of his inside shots are assisted (18% of his total shots)

Gordon creates more on the outside, Hinrich creates more buckets inside the paint.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> His increased skill in drawing fouls will help his consistancy over the season.
> 
> Compare Ben's numbers with this championship two guard's numbers:
> 
> ...


The issue here though is that the past few championships have had balance in-side and out on the offensive end. Obviously, this is not the case for the Bulls. 

Like it or not, the Bulls will not be a contender if Ben Gordon isn't a consistent 20ppg scorer come play-off time this year or next. Without this, the best the Bulls can hope for is the 2nd round.

(and my assertion above goes for the "Trade Ben Gordon" fan club -- even if you trade Ben Gordon for a big, you're going to get a 12ppg big -- sorry, that won't get you out of the second round this year & while there are some intriguing prospects in this years draft, none of them are going to be impact scorers in year one)


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

sov82 said:


> The issue here though is that the past few championships have had balance in-side and out on the offensive end.


Rasheed Wallace and Memhet Okur are not inside scorers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

sov82 said:


> The issue here though is that the past few championships have had balance in-side and out on the offensive end. Obviously, this is not the case for the Bulls.
> 
> Like it or not, the Bulls will not be a contender if Ben Gordon isn't a consistent 20ppg scorer come play-off time this year or next. Without this, the best the Bulls can hope for is the 2nd round.
> 
> (and my assertion above goes for the "Trade Ben Gordon" fan club -- even if you trade Ben Gordon for a big, you're going to get a 12ppg big -- sorry, that won't get you out of the second round this year & while there are some intriguing prospects in this years draft, none of them are going to be impact scorers in year one)


FWIW, Gordon is 43rd in the league in FGA/game. Roughly the equivalent of being 3rd option on half the teams, 2nd on the other half.

There are no 20 PPG scorers getting below about 16 FGA/game.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=28

Hinrich is 18th in the league in APG, which is below the median of starting PGs in the league (more then 1/2 the starters on all teams do better).

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=27


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> *Hinrich*
> 47% of his jumpers are assisted (84% of his total shots)
> 18% of his inside shots are assisted (16% of his total shots)
> 
> ...


Great stats. Interesting as well. 42% of Hinrich's total shots are assisted versus only 33% of Gordon's. While I'm not sure what the league averages are, you'd think the spread between these two guys wouldn't be so large. Both guys work pretty hard off the ball though it seems like Hinrich is found open more often than Gordon this year (I think the stats above corroborate this as well). Is it because teams focus in on Gordon more than Hinrich or is it because more plays are run for Hinrich?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> So do tell:
> 1) was it Hinrich's added defense that we gave up 10 points (41 from 31) during that span?
> 2) was it his brilliant PG play that led to us scoring a whopping 2 points (37 from 35) during that span?
> 3) went away from Gordon just as many of us suggest, with awful results.
> ...


Are you still using +/- as a definitive indicator of player value?


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Rasheed Wallace and Memhet Okur are not inside scorers.


Wallace, McDyess, Billups and Prince all were capable of posting up at their position w/ Rip Hamilton being a tall 2 guard who has a highly efficient mid-range game. The Pistons were not a team that relied on jump shooters.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Are you still using +/- as a definitive indicator of player value?


Nah, but I do notice a lot of the time how Hinrich kills rallies and leads.

And the 2 assists vs none in the quarter is a +/- thing?

So how do your "useful" stats jive with the fact that Gordon is 43rd in the league in FGA/game? There's only so many FGA/game for the whole team, and you'd think you'd want your actually good shooters/scorers to take the most shots.

heck, by your measurements, I'm sure tyrus thomas ranks right up there with Redd, too.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW, Gordon is 43rd in the league in FGA/game.


When measured by the more indicative per-minute metric (which is much more accurate than per-game stat), where does Gordon stack up?



> Hinrich is 18th in the league in APG, which is below the median of starting PGs in the league (more then 1/2 the starters on all teams do better).


Hinrich only plays about half his minutes at PG. Additionally, he's started at PG in less than half of the games this season.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

My point is shots per minute played; Gordon is fine in that regard. I'd like to see the quality of his looks get better & improvements in his minutes per game


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

sov82 said:


> Wallace, McDyess, Billups and Prince all were capable of posting up at their position w/ Rip Hamilton being a tall 2 guard who has a highly efficient mid-range game. The Pistons were not a team that relied on jump shooters.


Wallace scores the majority of his points on the perimeter. McDyess was not on their championship team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> When measured by *the more indicative per-minute metric *(which is much more accurate than per-game stat), where does Gordon stack up?


laughable





> Hinrich only plays about half his minutes at PG. Additionally, he's started at PG in less than half of the games this season.


Good. Every time I see him dribble out the shot clock then dish to Ben WALLACE with little time on the clock, I want to throw something at the TV.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Nah, but I do notice a lot of the time how Hinrich kills rallies and leads.


Do you have any data to support this?



> And the 2 assists vs none in the quarter is a +/- thing?


No -- my comment wasn't in response to this. In the past you've brought up +/- as a reason to criticize a player (Hinrich) or laud a player (Gordon). I was just wondering if you still adhered to this logic.



> So how do your "useful" stats jive with the fact that Gordon is 43rd in the league in FGA/game?


Gordon ranks #12 in the NBA in Field-Goal Attempts Per 48 Minutes. _This_ is the stat you want to be using when trying to measure how often a player shoots the ball. Per-game stats are broad brushstrokes. Per-minute stats give a much more accurate representation of a player's value. Player A averaging 10 rpg in 40 mpg isn't as impressive as Player B averaging 8 rpg in 30 mpg. 



> There's only so many FGA/game for the whole team, and you'd think you'd want your actually good shooters/scorers to take the most shots.


Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni and Duhon all have a higher eFG%, TS% (True Shooting %) and 3PT% than Gordon. Gordon's eFG% is 3.5% less than the team average.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Good. Every time I see him dribble out the shot clock then dish to Ben WALLACE with little time on the clock, I want to throw something at the TV.


First it was Hinrich can't handle the ball. Then it was Hinrich can't shoot. Then it was Hinrich can't pass effectively. Then it was his fault for the team not doing well his rookie season. Then it was Hinrich isn't a good defender. Then it was Hinrich can't play PG. Then it _wasn't_ because of him that the team made the playoffs the last two seasons. Then it was Hinrich can't penetrate. Then it was Hinrich doesn't want to pass to Gordon. Now it's Hinrich dribbles too much.

Bravo.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> laughable


BG is clearly off to a bad start this year, but if you look at historic data, it clearly indicates that BG is the most potent offensive weapon on this team. If you used per minute stats, Pat Burke would look like a god. Don't worry about it. Once Gordon comes around all of these same Uncle Toms that wanted Ben Wallace and are now dogging him will be saying nothing but good things.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Do you have any data to support this?


You posted the data yourself. It's more evident when you see the teams' scores next to the events.




> No -- my comment wasn't in response to this. In the past you've brought up +/- as a reason to criticize a player (Hinrich) or laud a player (Gordon). I was just wondering if you still adhered to this logic.


LOL. You like to use obscure statistical methods to somehow show Hinrich is better than he is. If I adhered to that kind of logic, I'd point out that Gordon's net PER at PG is +39.9



> Gordon ranks #12 in the NBA in Field-Goal Attempts Per 48 Minutes. _This_ is the stat you want to be using when trying to measure how often a player shoots the ball. Per-game stats are broad brushstrokes. Per-minute stats give a much more accurate representation of a player's value. If Player A averaging 10 rpg in 40 mpg isn't as impressive as Player B averaging 8 rpg in 30 mpg.


No, you want to use the % of the team's FGA/game that the player takes, period. Like I said, Tyrus Thomas is probably way up there among the league leaders, too, in FGA/minute. Sweetney, too.

Gordon takes 14.1 out of the Bulls' 81.7 FGA/game (17.2%), while a guy like Redd takes 21.1 of the Bucks' 80.1 FGA/game (26%)



> Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni and Duhon all have a higher eFG%, TS% (True Shooting %) and 3PT% than Gordon. Gordon's eFG% is 3.5% less than the team average.


Be careful how you quote statistics. You said:


VincentVega said:


> Hinrich only plays about half his minutes at PG.


What's accurate is that he plays half *the team's *(not his) minutes at PG (and 28% of the team's minutes at SG) and gordon plays 2% of the team's minutes at PG.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> First it was Hinrich can't handle the ball. Then it was Hinrich can't shoot. Then it was Hinrich can't pass effectively. Then it was his fault for the team not doing well his rookie season. Then it was Hinrich isn't a good defender. Then it was Hinrich can't play PG. Then it _wasn't_ because of him that the team made the playoffs the last two seasons. Then it was Hinrich can't penetrate. Then it was Hinrich doesn't want to pass to Gordon. Now it's Hinrich dribbles too much.
> 
> Bravo.


LOL some more

First it was Skiles stuck with Hinrich while he was learning the position and turning the ball over. A benefit he hasn't given Gordon. Get it? You don't mind if I ask if you actually watch basketball games 

Everyone in the NBA can shoot, obviously. It's a matter of how he compares with the rest of the league and how many shots he takes. Given a small sample of 14 games, his shooting is fine and more than acceptable. However, he's still a career 40.6% shooter, and it would be more surprising that his shooting % stays up where it is vs. being close to his career % by the end of the season.

I don't remember anyone saying Kirk "can't play PG." The question is whether he's the best PG on the team, and he'd be MY 3rd choice (behind Gordon and Duhon). Another question is whether he should be the SG, which he should.

I absolutely do not see that Hinrich put the team on his back and carried us to the playoffs. As I've pointed out numerous times, the more he plays PG, the worse we play as a team. Period. I don't attribute us making the playoffs last season to any one thing, but I do attribute it to Songaila going out (and us getting more athletic by default) and Gordon playing PG FAR MORE than 2% of the time during our amazing streak of wins to make the playoffs.

I have ZERO issue with Hinrich trying to drive and score. the more he does this the better. What I see and I think many will agree with is that he dribbles the ball all the way to the hoop and keeps going and dribbles it back out of the lane. A lot. That's over dribbling. It's not drawing fouls. it's consuming the clock. And the ball isn't in Gordon's hands (or Deng's or Nocioni's). As well, I think most of us who pay attention to the games will agree that Duhon is probably our best finisher (near the basket) at guard with Gordon #2.

As for Hinrich passing the ball to Gordon... In that stretch of minutes you posted, he passed the ball to Gordon two times that I can see.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

H.O.V.A. said:


> BG is clearly off to a bad start this year, but if you look at historic data, it clearly indicates that BG is the most potent offensive weapon on this team. If you used per minute stats, Pat Burke would look like a god. Don't worry about it. Once Gordon comes around all of these same Uncle Toms that wanted Ben Wallace and are now dogging him will be saying nothing but good things.


Well, I had one foot on each side of the fence regarding Wallace. As *A* piece to add to the team, he's terrific. As *THE* major piece added to the team, I'm less impressed. He's old enough that you need to try to win now, but we were schizophrenic and drafted guys who aren't much help with the #2 and #16 picks in the draft. When I heard about the signing, I thought it was an indication that Pax had something else up his sleeve - like signing Peja or trading for KG - to go balls out to win now, "whatever it takes." Instead, he dumped Chandler for PJ Brown, who's not going to help us win now (or ever).


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Well, I had one foot on each side of the fence regarding Wallace. As *A* piece to add to the team, he's terrific. As *THE* major piece added to the team, I'm less impressed. He's old enough that you need to try to win now, but we were schizophrenic and drafted guys who aren't much help with the #2 and #16 picks in the draft. When I heard about the signing, I thought it was an indication that Pax had something else up his sleeve - like signing Peja or trading for KG - to go balls out to win now, "whatever it takes." Instead, he dumped Chandler for PJ Brown, who's not going to help us win now (or ever).


I'm talking about the people who pushed the Wallace signing as some divinely ordained move that landed Paxson amoung the top tier of GMs. Same people are now dogging him for the headband, while I'm just laughing along. Wallace will obviously help the team, but not to the tune of 16 Mil, and not nearly as much as people said he was going to. Everyday over the summer, it was Wallace this, Hinrich that, simply because they were in favor with Pax/Skiles at the time. Once someone falls out of favor with Pax/Skiles, the gripes start. JR Smith? Oh no! He's a serial killer! Why? B/c Byron Scott said so, and Pax believed him. Its the gospel truth!

I'm tired of it.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Kirk is not going anywhere whether you like him or not. That much is pretty clear.

His stat this years clearly shows that he improves (slightly) in almost all categories, which is good. But there are some other things I notice (at least to my eyes).

1. Kirk's defense is overrated. Except his rookie year, his defense has not been that good. Actually I would say his defense regress year by year (although effort was always there)

2. Every time he has a lousy first half, he starts to shoot volume of his shots during the second half. ( i would say it "makeup shots") Not really interested in creating open shots or finding open man when Kirk is in mode of making up his shots quota. When his shot falls, the damage isn't showing but when his shot is off, he tend to lender game to 1 to 5 (for strech of time in the course of the game)

3. When Kirk is playing PG and Ben a SG, ball usually goes to BG once about 3 to 4 trip. I am not saying BG's shot attemp once about 3 or 4 trip. No, ball literally goes to BG's way only about once in every 4 trip when Kirk is playing PG. (Don't look at BG shot attemp when Kirk is playing PG. Look at the ball movement, how many touch BG has in that period of time). What happens then is that because BG only gets the ball that often (?), he tend to shoot it no matter it is good shot or not.

4. Oh, and he overdribbles. Not like Kevin Ollie did during his short tenure as a Bull but enough to drive me crazy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Kirk is not going anywhere whether you like him or not. That much is pretty clear.
> 
> His stat this years clearly shows that he improves (slightly) in almost all categories, which is good. But there are some other things I notice (at least to my eyes).
> 
> ...


I bet that inflates his FGA/minute stat


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You posted the data yourself. It's more evident when you see the teams' scores next to the events.


Weak.



> LOL. You like to use obscure statistical methods to somehow show Hinrich is better than he is. If I adhered to that kind of logic, I'd point out that Gordon's net PER at PG is +39.9


Which stats that I use are obscure? Gordon's net PER at PG is based on an extremely small sample size (6% of his minutes thus far).



> No, you want to use the % of the team's FGA/game that the player takes, period. Like I said, Tyrus Thomas is probably way up there among the league leaders, too, in FGA/minute. Sweetney, too.


*FGA per 48 minutes*
Thomas: 16
Sweetney: 19
Gordon: 23



> Gordon takes 14.1 out of the Bulls' 81.7 FGA/game (17.2%), while a guy like Redd takes 21.1 of the Bucks' 80.1 FGA/game (26%)


Talk about misleading statistics. Gordon averages 29.2 mpg. Redd averages 41.0 mpg.



> What's accurate is that he plays half *the team's *(not his) minutes at PG (and 28% of the team's minutes at SG) and gordon plays 2% of the team's minutes at PG.


Now this is kind of dumb. Half the team's PG minutes is 24 minutes. I don't think any starting PG plays less than 24 minutes a game at that position. Only 5 of the 17 players who average more assists than Hinrich actually play a position other than PG (and they're all superstars).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

H.O.V.A. said:


> I'm talking about the people who pushed the Wallace signing as some divinely ordained move that landed Paxson amoung the top tier of GMs. Same people are now dogging him for the headband, while I'm just laughing along. Wallace will obviously help the team, but not to the tune of 16 Mil, and not nearly as much as people said he was going to. Everyday over the summer, it was Wallace this, Hinrich that, simply because they were in favor with Pax/Skiles at the time. Once someone falls out of favor with Pax/Skiles, the gripes start. JR Smith? Oh no! He's a serial killer! Why? B/c Byron Scott said so, and Pax believed him. Its the gospel truth!
> 
> I'm tired of it.


PJ Brown had a good game finally. Better eat our words. Pax did trade for him, after all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Weak.
> 
> 
> 
> Which stats that I use are obscure? Gordon's net PER at PG is based on an extremely small sample size (6% of his minutes thus far).


funnier still. EVERY stat you use is based on an extremely small sample size if it makes Hinrich look better than he is. However, what the small sample shows is that Gordon is as amazing at PG as many of us are telling you over and over again and we want to see more of it.

This is the result when you play him at PG (Kirk sat much of the game in foul trouble):
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=ApN15yUsGPhUSjxqB_pAdF6kvLYF?gid=2006110604



> Talk about misleading statistics. Gordon averages 29.2 mpg. Redd averages 41.0 mpg.


There ya go, boy. You are now considering more than one statistic and taking in their (stats') entire meaning. Get this: *Skiles should play Gordon 41.0 mpg.* If he plays Hinrich 41.0 mpg at SG alongside him, it wouldn't be a bad thing. The effect would be less shots for Malik Allen, which is a good thing.



> Now this is kind of dumb. Half the team's PG minutes is 24 minutes. I don't think any starting PG plays less than 24 minutes a game at that position. Only 5 of the 17 players who average more assists than Hinrich actually play a position other than PG (and they're all superstars).


Dude, go look at 82games.com again. He plays 43% of the team's minutes at PG, 28% of the team's minutes at SG, and < 1% of the team's minutes at SF. If you notice, his %minutes don't add up to 100% because it's the team's minutes and not HIS.

And, they're not explicit about who's playing PG on offense and who's playing PG on defense. That is, if Hinrich plays PG on offense and guards the SG on defense, are his minutes at SG or PG? (I suspect they're at SG according to 82games.com).

http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI3C.HTM

If you also look at 82games.com, you'll find out that Gordon takes 18% of his shots inside, while Hinrich takes 16% of his shots inside.

http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI3A.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI4A.HTM


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> LOL some more
> 
> First it was Skiles stuck with Hinrich while he was learning the position and turning the ball over. A benefit he hasn't given Gordon. Get it? You don't mind if I ask if you actually watch basketball games


Hinrich's turnover woes lasted his first handful of NBA games as a rookie and were quickly remedied. Gordon has a horrific 1.13 A/TO ratio for his career.



> What I see and I think many will agree with is that he dribbles the ball all the way to the hoop and keeps going and dribbles it back out of the lane. A lot. That's over dribbling. It's not drawing fouls. it's consuming the clock.


Steve Nash, TJ Ford and Deron Williams all do this as well, but they have true #1 options and scoring bigs to dish off to. They also don't draw as many fouls as Hinrich when they "over dribble".



> As for Hinrich passing the ball to Gordon... In that stretch of minutes you posted, he passed the ball to Gordon two times that I can see.


Watching the game is far more helpful than reading the play-by-play.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> PJ Brown had a good game finally. Better eat our words. Pax did trade for him, after all.


I don't expect anything from PJ. He's an expiring contract, and if he contributes, terrific. If he doesnt, terrific. Although trading Chandler for him and JR and then trading JR away for rien makes little sense. Even a retarded two year old crackbaby with AIDS knows better.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> 3. When Kirk is playing PG and Ben a SG, ball usually goes to BG once about 3 to 4 trip. I am not saying BG's shot attemp once about 3 or 4 trip. No, ball literally goes to BG's way only about once in every 4 trip when Kirk is playing PG. (Don't look at BG shot attemp when Kirk is playing PG. Look at the ball movement, how many touch BG has in that period of time). What happens then is that because BG only gets the ball that often (?), he tend to shoot it no matter it is good shot or not.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say this isn't entirely accurate.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Hinrich's turnover woes lasted his first handful of NBA games as a rookie and was quickly remedied. Gordon has a horrific 1.13 A/TO ratio for his career.


He's being played out of position. Geez. How is this meaningful.

Compare him to Paul Pierce's career 1.26 or something reasonable.



> Steve Nash, TJ Ford and Deron Williams all do this as well, but they have true #1 options and scoring bigs to dish off to. They also don't draw as many fouls as Hinrich when they "over dribble".


The other players do NOT overdribble. I may have seen Nash dribble to the hoop and not shoot a handful of times. I see Hinrich do it multiple times per game. The same is true of the others, and I do watch the other teams.



> Watching the game is far more helpful than reading the lay-by-play.


Which is why I asked if you do watch the games.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> He's being played out of position. Geez. How is this meaningful.
> 
> Compare him to Paul Pierce's career 1.26 or something reasonable.


So should Pierce be a full-time PG?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say this isn't entirely accurate.


So then tell us what's partly accurate and give us some proof ?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> So should Pierce be a full-time PG?


Dunno what Pierce can do as PG and never gave it much thought. He does play SG (much of his career), though, which is where Gordon's played much of his career.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

VincentVega said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say this isn't entirely accurate.


Watch next game with this in mind and then reply me back. 

Ball simply doesn't go to BG's way that much when Kirk is PG. Ben just run back and forth or stand on the corner and wait the ball that doesn't come that often. I don't know this is designed that way by Skile or Kirk's own tendency. Just what I saw during the game.

I am with DaBulls on this matter. Although BG is TO prone as of now, neither of them, Kirk or BG, is the penetrator or creater for open shots for other teamates. Kirk can play PG/SG position equally well offensive end while BG is not that good as SG (as in stand in the corner and shoot mode) but good at creating his shots. So why not using Ben at PG and Kirk at SG. This is how we defend most of time anyway.

They are both combo gaurd and I simply waht to see Ben playing a little bit of time at PG offensively. That is all.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> funnier still. EVERY stat you use is based on an extremely small sample size if it makes Hinrich look better than he is. However, what the small sample shows is that Gordon is as amazing at PG as many of us are telling you over and over again and we want to see more of it.


Two quick requests:
1. Please define "EVERY stat" and how I use them in a context of extremely small sample sizes. Are you referring to PER? eFG%? FGA per 48 minutes? I need examples.
2. Please post last season's net PER for Gordon and Hinrich at both PG and SG. I've already done this a couple of times in the past, but such posts usually end threads like these.



> Dude, go look at 82games.com again. He plays 43% of the team's minutes at PG, 28% of the team's minutes at SG, and < 1% of the team's minutes at SF. If you notice, his %minutes don't add up to 100% because it's the team's minutes and not HIS.


Hinrich plays 21 mpg at PG. Only McGrady and Wade play fewer of their team's PG minutes. Again, this kind of throws a monkey wrench into your previous post pointing out that Hinrich had only the 18th-best apg average.



> If you also look at 82games.com, you'll find out that Gordon takes 18% of his shots inside, while Hinrich takes 16% of his shots inside.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI3A.HTM
> http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI4A.HTM


I already pointed this out.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Two quick requests:
> 1. Please define "EVERY stat" and how I use them in a context of extremely small sample sizes. Are you referring to PER? eFG%? FGA per 48 minutes? I need examples.
> 2. Please post last season's net PER for Gordon and Hinrich at both PG and SG. I've already done this a couple of times in the past, but such posts usually end threads like these.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to research every little nook and crannie that you've managed to scrape up, but I get the feeling that 60% of what you're saying is crap.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> So then tell us what's partly accurate and give us some proof ?


Miami game. Gordon 2 assists on Hinrich baskets, Hinrich 1 assist on Gordon basket.
Orlando game 1 and 1.
Kings game, 0 and 0
Bucks game, Hinrich 1 assist to gordon (of gordon's 37 points, not like Kirk didn't have someone to pass to)
Cavs game, Gordon 1 assist on Hinrich basket
Pacers game, Gordon 1 assist on Hinrich basket
(not available for Mavs game)
Houston game, Gordon 1 assist on Hinrich basket
Spurs game, 0 and 0
Lakers game 1 assist on a gordon basket by Hinrich (3:54 left in the game)
Denver game, 2 and 2
76ers game, 1 assist for Hinrich on a gordon basket
Knicks game, 1 assist for Gordon on a Hinrich basket
Knicks game, 1 assist for Hinrich on a gordon basket

Let's do the tally
13 games
Hinrich has 7 assists to Gordon
Gordon has 9 assists to Hinrich

That's roughly 1/2 an assist per game to our most prolific scorer from our PG.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> Watch next game with this in mind and then reply me back.


The "Kirk won't pass to Ben" argument has been played over and over again on this board for the past three seasons. I remember one game during Gordon's rookie season when DaGrinch created a whole new thread at the end of a game stating that Hinrich only passed to Gordon once in the entire fourth quarter. I knew that was incorrect and that DaGrinch was screaming bloody murder because he was extremely biased, so I posted a link to the play-by-play showing that Hinrich had a handful of assists to Gordon in the fourth quarter of that game. DaGrinch got really mad and created another anti-Hinrich argument, like Hinrich can't pass efficiently or something like that.

Remind me on Friday and we can both keep count. We can also keep track when Gordon and Duhon handle the ball to determine if this whole perception of Kirk not passing to Ben may in fact be some basic facet of the PG/SG roles in the offense (you'll notice Hinrich often camps out in the corner for whole posessions at a time when he plays SG).


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> Watch next game with this in mind and then reply me back.
> 
> Ball simply doesn't go to BG's way that much when Kirk is PG. Ben just run back and forth or stand on the corner and wait the ball that doesn't come that often. I don't know this is designed that way by Skile or Kirk's own tendency. Just what I saw during the game.
> 
> ...


Something else I notice is that when he does get the ball playing from the corner, he usually has to run full-speed to the ball. He exerts an awful lot of energy just to get the ball. 

Usually, nothing good comes out of that play.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

H.O.V.A. said:


> I'm not going to research every little nook and crannie that you've managed to scrape up, but I get the feeling that 60% of what you're saying is crap.


...and that is why you are of the belief that Gordon never gets the ball and rarely has the opportunity to shoot.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> ...and that is why you are of the belief that Gordon never gets the ball and rarely has the opportunity to shoot.










Stop putting words in my mouth. I said he doesn't get to handle the ball as much as Hinrich and Duhon and then you proceeded to cite FG per 48 minutes. What are you going to say next? That Deng is handles the ball more than Duhon b/c he hoists more shots? Please stop and end the emberesssmint now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hinrich 2003-2004 64% of the team's minutes at PG; team record 23-59
Hinrich 2004-2005 35% of the team's minutes at PG; team record 47-35
Hinrich 2005-2006 34% of the team's minutes at PG; team record 41-41
Hinrich 2006-2007 43% of the team's minutes at PG; team record 5-9


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> The "Kirk won't pass to Ben" argument has been played over and over again on this board for the past three seasons. I remember one game during Gordon's rookie season when DaGrinch created a whole new thread at the end of a game stating that Hinrich only passed to Gordon once in the entire fourth quarter. I knew that was incorrect and that DaGrinch was screaming bloody murder because he was extremely biased, so *I posted a link to the play-by-play showing that Hinrich had a handful of assists to Gordon in the fourth quarter of that game*. DaGrinch got really mad and created another anti-Hinrich argument, like Hinrich can't pass efficiently or something like that.
> 
> Remind me on Friday and we can both keep count. We can also keep track when Gordon and Duhon handle the ball to determine if this whole perception of Kirk not passing to Ben may in fact be some basic facet of the PG/SG roles in the offense (you'll notice Hinrich often camps out in the corner for whole posessions at a time when he plays SG).


is your sample size a small one? how about the one for every game this season where Hinrich has 7 assists to Gordon out of his 86 total assists and of Gordon's 197 baskets?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Miami game. Gordon 2 assists on Hinrich baskets, Hinrich 1 assist on Gordon basket.
> Orlando game 1 and 1.
> Kings game, 0 and 0
> Bucks game, Hinrich 1 assist to gordon (of gordon's 37 points, not like Kirk didn't have someone to pass to)
> ...


This is because Gordon is at his best with the ball in his hands scoring from the PG position, right?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Hinrich 2003-2004 64% of the team's minutes at PG; team record 23-59
> Hinrich 2004-2005 35% of the team's minutes at PG; team record 47-35
> Hinrich 2005-2006 34% of the team's minutes at PG; team record 41-41
> Hinrich 2006-2007 43% of the team's minutes at PG; team record 5-9


Teammates and injuries had nothing to do with this. Nothing whatsoever.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

H.O.V.A. said:


> Stop putting words in my mouth. I said he doesn't get to handle the ball as much as Hinrich and Duhon


My post stated that you said that Gordon never gets the ball and rarely has the opportunity to shoot.

Your post from page one: "He doesn't get the damn ball."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> This is because Gordon is at his best with the ball in his hands scoring from the PG position, right?


If he's not dribbling the ball up court all the time, which he should, then SOMEONE has to pass him the ball. Don't be surprised if Wallace has more assists to Gordon than Hinrich.

Allow me to use an analogy.

You have a rat (skiles) in a cage. There's two buttons the rat can press; one dishes out cocaine and the other an electric shock. Skiles pushes the cocaine button (plays Gordon at PG) and gets the cocaine (37 points and 9 assists, 30 point win). He pushes the shock button (Hinrich PG) and we get medicore results (41 win season, 23 win season).

Doesn't it make sense to push that cocaine button a few more times to see if it keeps dishing out the cocaine?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz, you state that "Gordon is amazing at PG".

Again, please post last season's net PER for Gordon and Hinrich at both PG and SG.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> My post stated that you said that Gordon never gets the ball and rarely has the opportunity to shoot.
> 
> Your post from page one: "He doesn't get the damn ball."


In skiles' drive and dish offensive scheme, Hinrich should be driving and dishing to Gordon at least some of the time. Do you find it amazing that it's good for just 7 assists in 13 games out of Gordon's 16 PPG?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> DaBullz, you state that "Gordon is amazing at PG".
> 
> Again, please post last season's net PER for Gordon and Hinrich at both PG and SG.


Hinrich played 34% of the team's minutes at PG. PER 18.1
Hinrich played 37% of the team's minutes at SG. PER 13.9

Gordon played 0% (that'd be < .5%) of the team's minutes at PG. PER 14.1
He played 51% of the team's minutes at SG, PER 16.4

That's per 48 minutes

So is 0% of the minutes at PG a big enough sample size? What if he played 10% and had a PER of 40? (Which isn't beyond my expectations)

PER of 15 is average. Nash's PER was 24.6 at PG. Kidd's 20.8. Tyronn Lue's was 16.6. Billups 25.0. etc.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> My post stated that you said that Gordon never gets the ball and rarely has the opportunity to shoot.
> 
> Your post from page one: "He doesn't get the damn ball."


Apparently you lack reading comprehension too:



H.O.V.A. said:


> Scott Skiles and his love affair with Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon are the reasons why Ben Gordon is inconsistent. He doesn't get the damn ball. He doesn't fit the offense. Gordon is a stud, and I hope he can survive here long enough until Skiles is fired.


Perhaps I didnt make myself clear enough for you to understand crystal clearly, that what I meant was that BG isnt allowed to handle the ball as much as Hinrich and Duhon. We all know that Duhon isnt hoisting as many shots as BG, Hinrich, Noc, and Deng. I'm sorry if you confused "getting the ball" as "shooting the ball." I will try to make myself clearer in the future so that even people with lesser reading comprehension can understand me.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Hinrich played 34% of the team's minutes at PG. PER 18.1
> Hinrich played 37% of the team's minutes at SG. PER 13.9
> 
> Gordon played 0% (that'd be < .5%) of the team's minutes at PG. PER 14.1
> ...


*Net* PER at each position, please.

Hinrich at PG:__________
Hinrich at SG:__________
Gordon at PG:__________
Gordon at SG:__________


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

H.O.V.A. said:


> Apparently you lack reading comprehension too:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I didnt make myself clear enough for you to understand crystal clearly, that what I meant was that BG isnt allowed to handle the ball as much as Hinrich and Duhon. We all know that Duhon isnt hoisting as many shots as BG, Hinrich, Noc, and Deng. I'm sorry if you confused "getting the ball" as "shooting the ball." I will try to make myself clearer in the future so that even people with lesser reading comprehension can understand me.


Running in reverse is tricky.

Another way of saying a player "doesn't get the damn ball" is saying a player never gets the ball. Logic dictates that a player who doesn't get the ball rarely has the opportunity to shoot the ball.

It's not rocket science.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> *Net* PER at each position, please.
> 
> Hinrich at PG:__________
> Hinrich at SG:__________
> ...


Hinrich at PG +4
Hinrich at SG +1.1
Gordon (0% of all the minutes on the team at PG) -2.2
Gordon at SG +3.5

What are you trying to prove? Gordon's better at SG than Hinrich? (These numbers show it). He's ALSO better at PG, but Skiles doesn't (and stubbornly refused to) play him there.

Or are you trying to prove (once again) that if a limited sample (0% of the minutes at PG) favors Hinrich, you'll make the most hay out of it possible?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Running in reverse is tricky.
> 
> Another way of saying a player "doesn't get the damn ball" is saying a player never gets the ball. Logic dictates that a player who doesn't get the ball rarely has the opportunity to shoot the ball.
> 
> It's not rocket science.


http://www.blogabull.com/story/2006/11/14/19264/825

*Guard Play* Why isn't Gordon getting more touches of the ball? His shot was falling decently, but it seemed like he just wasn't getting enough touches, while the ball was in Kirk's hands a bit too long on a few possessions, especially in the 4th (a pattern so far this season). For Gordon to really get going, he needs rhythm, and I don't think he's getting the ball enough to get in that mode. And Duhon in the starting line-up isn't going to work. There's no way.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Running in reverse is tricky.
> 
> Another way of saying a player "doesn't get the damn ball" is saying a player never gets the ball. Logic dictates that a player who doesn't get the ball rarely has the opportunity to shoot the ball.
> 
> It's not rocket science.


Since you're adamant on proving that BG gets the ball, why dont you count how many seconds on every shot clock that Hinrich and Duhon handle the ball over Gordon? Not only is that tedious, its unnecessary, b/c its obvious that Gordon doesnt handle the ball as much as either of them.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What are you trying to prove? Gordon's better at SG than Hinrich? (These numbers show it). He's ALSO better at PG, but Skiles doesn't (and stubbornly refused to) play him there.


If the sample is so small, how are _you_ so sure? From one game? One game can make Tony Delk a hall-of-famer. 

I've seen Gordon commit too many unforced ballhandling errors to think putting the ball in his hands for 40 minutes a game, every game, is a great idea, but that's just me. I don't see anything wrong with letting him create with the ball in his hands more often, but that's because he does well finding his own shot that way, not that I think he can run an offense that way all game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> If the sample is so small, how are _you_ so sure? From one game? One game can make Tony Delk a hall-of-famer.
> 
> I've seen Gordon commit too many unforced ballhandling errors to think putting the ball in his hands for 40 minutes a game, every game, is a great idea, but that's just me. I don't see anything wrong with letting him create with the ball in his hands more often, but that's because he does well finding his own shot that way, not that I think he can run an offense that way all game.


I say give him the hinrich treatment (rookie season). Stick him at PG for a bunch of games in a row (at least 10). And stick with him even if he turns it over 9 or 10 times in a game. 

I have seen enough of Gordon to know he's not just a scorer, but a winner.

I have seen enogh of Hinrich to know he's a "clone" of Pax' brother Jim.

Take a look at his career stats, year by year, and his team's record. It's eery how it resembles the bulls' situation so far.

http://basketball-reference.com/players/p/paxsoji02.html


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

gordons a good scorer but theres morechance of the little alien dude from Total Recall popping out of his stomach than him making the hall of fame


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

www.starbury.com said:


> gordons a good scorer but theres morechance of the little alien dude from Total Recall popping out of his stomach than him making the hall of fame


I think this is true. But I also think it's true that of all the bulls, he has the most chance of making the hall of fame. Mmmmmaybe Wallace will make it for his years with Detroit, but I am dubious of that.

Maybe Deng has a chance, too. As long as he doesn't disappear late in the season and playoffs like last year on a consistent basis.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I say give him the hinrich treatment (rookie season). Stick him at PG for a bunch of games in a row (at least 10). And stick with him even if he turns it over 9 or 10 times in a game.
> 
> I have seen enough of Gordon to know he's not just a scorer, but a winner.
> 
> ...


I've seen enough of both players to say they're BOTH winners. In college and the NBA. That's why I like both guys. I just think we're more likely to win with Hinrich playing PG more than Gordon. It's easy to say "we haven't tried it." because there's no real evidence that disproves your idea. We haven't tried playing Malik Allen at PG either - maybe he'd be "amazing" there too. (that's an exaggeration for effect)

The comparison to Jim Paxson doesn't seem all that apt considering that his career high in assists is 3.9. Why you hatin on Kirk anyway? I just don't get why you go to such lengths to pin this team's every weakness on the guy and so casually brush aside Ben's shortcomings.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> If the sample is so small, how are _you_ so sure? From one game? One game can make Tony Delk a hall-of-famer.


This is something a lot of us have noted for a while. Watch game 1 against the Heat in the playoffs. He played point guard all the way up until there were 8 minutes left and Hinrich and Noc decided they wanted to get into the act. We had that game, in the same manner we had 13 wins in our last 15 games. For reasons unexplained, we never went back to Gordon at point guard. Watch the marked difference of game 2 when Ben didn't play point guard. He played the most minutes the rest of the series, perhaps he got his stats filled up like that, and relied on his shooting streaks but I don't think we achieved all that was possible.



> I've seen Gordon commit too many unforced ballhandling errors to think putting the ball in his hands for 40 minutes a game, every game, is a great idea, but that's just me. I don't see anything wrong with letting him create with the ball in his hands more often, but that's because he does well finding his own shot that way, not that I think he can run an offense that way all game.


But you will put it in his hand when the game is on the line when there is the most pressure ?

Does Ben get too mentally tired or something trying to handle the ball for 40 minutes ? Can you provide a better context to those errors ?

The offense we run isn't that great anyway. That win against the Pacers was a great example of our almighty smoke and mirrors offense.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> This is something a lot of us have noted for a while. Watch game 1 against the Heat in the playoffs. He played point guard all the way up until there were 8 minutes left and Hinrich and Noc decided they wanted to get into the act. We had that game, in the same manner we had 13 wins in our last 15 games. For reasons unexplained, we never went back to Gordon at point guard. Watch the marked difference of game 2 when Ben didn't play point guard. He played the most minutes the rest of the series, perhaps he got his stats filled up like that, and relied on his shooting streaks but I don't think we achieved all that was possible.


One of DaBullz's points was that the sample size of Ben at PG was less than 1% last season and he keeps referring to the ONE game against the Bucks - that's what I was referring to - it's a small sample size and yet he's just so sure that Ben's an All-star PG being held back by the mean ol' Drill Sargeant...and I honestly don't remember game 1 unfolding as you say (at least wrt Ben being the PG), but I also don't have a tape of it.



> But you will put it in his hand when the game is on the line when there is the most pressure ?


Skiles almost always has done this - but telling him to find his shot (and telling the rest of the team to find HIM) in the 4th quarter is different from telling him to be the full-time PG. He's great at getting a shot for himself in pressure moments. No doubt. That doesn't make him a point guard - and he hasn't translated that uncanny ability over to the whole game regularly yet.



> Does Ben get too mentally tired or something trying to handle the ball for 40 minutes ? Can you provide a better context to those errors ?


I don't know if he's mentally tired or not - I doubt it. But I've seen him somewhat frequently have trouble simply controlling the ball, sometimes against minimal defensive pressure - dribbling off his leg, slipping on the floor, things like that. I am not inside Ben's mind, so I don't know why it happens, but it does - often enough that I don't think I'd want him to play full-time PG. 



> The offense we run isn't that great anyway. That win against the Pacers was a great example of our almighty smoke and mirrors offense.


uh, ok. So you're advocating an All-Ben, All the Time offense in its place, or what? Our offense does need work, and Ben being a bigger part of it (and being more efficient) is a must, but I still don't see Ben at PG being the panacea.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I've seen enough of both players to say they're BOTH winners. In college and the NBA. That's why I like both guys. I just think we're more likely to win with Hinrich playing PG more than Gordon. It's easy to say "we haven't tried it." because there's no real evidence that disproves your idea. We haven't tried playing Malik Allen at PG either - maybe he'd be "amazing" there too. (that's an exaggeration for effect)
> 
> The comparison to Jim Paxson doesn't seem all that apt considering that his career high in assists is 3.9. Why you hatin on Kirk anyway? I just don't get why you go to such lengths to pin this team's every weakness on the guy and so casually brush aside Ben's shortcomings.


How am I "hating" on Hinrich? Because I don't think he's better than Jim paxson? Paxson was THE goto guy on his team for several years; it is just my judgement that we are doomed to the same kind of team and results as those Blazers teams.

And I do think that Gordon has terrible shortcomings at the SG position. He's built so strong, but that won't account for his being short. He's a PG who's also an amazing scorer when given the ball, yet he's being pigeon-holed as a shoot-only kind of SG, which is a real headscratcher.

As for Hinrich, I don't know how many times I have to say stuff like "play him 41 minutes/game at SG" to show I think the guy is a quality starter in that role. His ballhandling skills are a plus there, and he moves better without the ball than Gordon. He can handle the ball on the fast break, too, and he gets hot from outside occaisionally and less occaisionally can have a gordon-like quarter even at the end of games.

But I don't know how many 15 or 20 point quarters (Q3 and Q4 especially) or ice-in-the-veins kinds of clutch shots you need to see to realize what kind of special player we have in Gordon. I saw Jordan play, and he made lots of clutch shots, too. he also scored 30+ PPG and had lots of shots during regulation that were just the average run-of-the-mill buckets that added up to those 30+ points.

Heck, we even played Jordan at PG for most of a season and he nearly averaged a triple double for the whole year.

This whole thing reminds me of Joe Montana. He was a winner, much like Hinrich or Gordon. Yet the 49ers had an even better QB on the bench in Steve Young (and he proved it when he became the starter). Montana made people happy because of all the comeback victories he led the team to. Yet you had another QB in Dallas named Aikman whose teams just won from the getgo and didn't have to come back to win... he didn't get the acclaim for winning outright so much.

So here's what I see. In games, as well as in the seasons as a whole, we are like those 49ers teams. We play from behind and we're frantic about coming back no matter how far we're down. We had a late 9 game losing streak and then won a bunch of games after it looked like the season was a wash. We do the same thing in games. That's how we are with Hinrich at PG. I am convinced we can be more like those Dallas teams and just win without the comeback kind of pressure. With Gordon at the point and Hinrich at the 2.

Sure, we can beat up on disheartened and injured weak eastern conference teams at the end to squeak into the playoffs and likely lose in the 1st round again (that's the pattern). The real measure is the games we lost and lost handily on the road against the west coast teams. The circus trip is no excuse to lose - those Jordan teams didn't lose a bunch of games on those trips.

It takes a team like Detroit or Miami with 60+ wins and utterly dominating the East and playing the West teams tough to even have a chance to win it all. To win 60+, you don't do it without featured players and you don't do it by starting out with a .333 record 1/8th of the way into the season.

My whole point about Jim Paxson is IDENTITY. When we play Milwaukee, we know Redd is their big gun. When we play Washington, we know it's Arenas. It's true of virtually every team out there. When I see the games on TV, opposing team announcers talk about Gordon being our Redd or Arenas type player. But our coach doesn't play him like he is - better be hot in the first 4 or 6 shots or he's invisible in the offense for quarters at a time and even missing from the end of games where he's THE MAN.

With Hinrich as our IDENTITY, we're exactly like those Blazers teams. Winning in the 40+ range consistently, no real superstar, and no real chance of competing once the real season (playoffs) begin. If what I see happening is true, Hinrich (and our core) will likely get old and retire and we'll look back on these years of #1 picks (Brand), #2 picks (Curry, JWill, Thomas), #3 picks (Gordon), #4 picks (Chandler, Fizer), #7 picks (Hinrich and Deng) and all the cap space sacrifices for a 4-time DPOY kind of guy and a FA score with Nocioni and really wonder how we somehow managed to be mediocre.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

All these numbers you guys are pulling out are mind boggling and interesting, but assists as a way of measuring who passes more to who can be misleading. Both these guys love to dribble the ball before they shoot. Gordon seemingly always dribbles the ball and studders before shooting. Not going to get an assist if you pass the ball to Gordon and he then dribbles it. both touch the ball enough. Both are not big enough to post up, and both dribble the ball too much. 

Can we just agree they both have deficiencies and both are not star players? I think Hinrich would be very effective as a PG if he had a bonified scorer on the floor and not a bunch of second options. That is the real problem in my opinion. The Bulls are a team of clones. Great complimentary players, many above average with special talents, but none of them anywhere near a jump on the back and carry you player. Sorry, but we need this type of player. In hindsight, that 15 mil of cap space would have been better served on a big time scorer via trade or something. Wallace is a great but aging defender. And no matter how you slice it, a 6''7 inch great defender/rebounder is still only a complimentary player. Great piece of the puzzle, but not what we need.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> One of DaBullz's points was that the sample size of Ben at PG was less than 1% last season and he keeps referring to the ONE game against the Bucks - that's what I was referring to - it's a small sample size and yet he's just so sure that Ben's an All-star PG being held back by the mean ol' Drill Sargeant...and I honestly don't remember game 1 unfolding as you say (at least wrt Ben being the PG), but I also don't have a tape of it.


Yes, and you're saying that DaBullz doesn't prove anything with that one game. And I'm saying that there's a few more examples out there. Surely, you can at the very least you can look at the play-by-play and the past game threads. You won't see who played point guard, but you will see that while maybe he "could run the offense the whole game", he coughed up the ball so much during some important intervals in the 4th quarter. That as well is nothing new. I could recall Vega himself saying something about "Kirk needing to go to go to decisionmaking 101."

http://www.nba.com/games/20060422/CHIMIA/playbyplay.html

Yeah, it's difficult to see how it's some kind of trend, mainly because he doesn't really play point guard, but equally difficult is understanding why we don't go to it if it's proven successful. Skiles coached that Game 2 like nothing happened during Game 1. Ben was just labeled inconsistent.


> Skiles almost always has done this - but telling him to find his shot (and telling the rest of the team to find HIM) in the 4th quarter is different from telling him to be the full-time PG. He's great at getting a shot for himself in pressure moments. No doubt. That doesn't make him a point guard - and he hasn't translated that uncanny ability over to the whole game regularly yet.


And he's not just a one-dimensional shooter during those moments. It's not all shots and giggles.



> I don't know if he's mentally tired or not - I doubt it. But I've seen him somewhat frequently have trouble simply controlling the ball, sometimes against minimal defensive pressure - dribbling off his leg, slipping on the floor, things like that.


He makes mistakes, yes. But he's not the only one that does. And usually not during the most critical moments of the game.



> uh, ok. So you're advocating an All-Ben, All the Time offense in its place, or what? Our offense does need work, and Ben being a bigger part of it (and being more efficient) is a must, but I still don't see Ben at PG being the panacea.












The guy needs to handle the ball and not be running to it at 100 mph every time he gets the ball. 

Kirk does give the ball to Ben a few times, but usually not enough to make an impact, but plenty for the Ron Ceys of the world to point out that "see he does handle the ball !"

And this is not just about Ben getting his. Kirk is a much better shooting guard. He usually gets his points even when 'black hole' Ben handles the ball. People always talk about how Kirk has too many responsibilities on offense and defense and how it can be mentally fatiguing, etc. How we can't dare blame him because he tries to do to much. Well, why not reduce the pressure to find the whole offense a shot on one end so he can be much more effective on the other ?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

It's noteworthy that both Duhon and Hinrich are shooting a much higher percentage from the perimeter than Gordon so far this season. Duhon is a better ball-handler, playmaker and defender than Gordon. If Gordon's shooting is off -- for whatever reason -- it only makes sense to give Duhon more playing time if the goal is to win games.

That said, I'm sure Gordon will pull out of his slow start this season and go on to have a very good year -- probably 20 ppg or more. The Bulls still look to him for offense, which means that he's performing well in practice at least. My theory is that he tends to think too much about his role on the team at the start of the season. Once he's comfortable with his teammates, stops thinking and just executes he'll be fine. It's only a matter of time before he shows his extraordinary shooting ability more consistently.

The fact that the Bulls have three fine guards who can handle the ball, set up their teammates, hit the outside shot, and defend opponents well is bad news for Thalbo's prospects for playing time, but good news for Bulls fans.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Kirk does give the ball to Ben a few times, but usually not enough to make an impact, but plenty for *the Ron Ceys of the world to point out that "see he does handle the ball !*"


Hey! How'd I get dragged into this? :biggrin: 

FWIW, I still want Hinrich running point when he's on the floor with Gordon. In my opinion, he's not only better at it, he's markedly better. That isn't an insult to Gordon in the least.

But I think its pretty obvious Skiles has been giving Gordon A LOT more point guard responsibility this season, and Gordon has responded pretty well. He's clearly better at running the show now than he was the last two years. I hope he continues to run the show when Hinrich is on the bench, and even a little bit when they are on the court together. 

I have no idea how what I wrote fits into the thread as I haven't read anything except the first page or two and this one. So carry on!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

H.O.V.A. said:


> Not a single team in the league would ever worry about Hinrich on the offensive end.


False. It was reported in the Chicago Tribune this season that the following was at the very top of Sacramento's game plan board in the visitor's locker room: "Stop Kirk Hinrich. He is the head of the Bulls' snake."

So, out of teams whose game plans have been reported in the media so far this season, 100% of them not only "worry about Hinrich" but they made him their priority #1 in game-planning for Chicago.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Sometimes, I would like to know what certain people in this thread ultimately want to see Ben Gordon doing that he isn't doing right now. Ultimately, what is the role in the offense that Ben needs to be playing that will make the Bulls the most effective? How many shots should he be taking? How much of his time should he be playing PG? Handling the ball? Minutes played? Maybe the crux of the disagreement lies in the fact that we have different opionions on what kind of role Ben can handle on offense, within the context of helping the team, right now.

When I look at the situation, I think it's important to separate the first half of the season so far from the second half. Looking at how he started the season, I agreed that Ben probably should've been handling the ball more (but at the same time, he was also playing terrible, so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other), and I think Skiles agreed as well. That's why he moved him to the bench, which I think was done in an attempt to uncork him a little bit, and not as a punishment. Since then, it looks to me like the situation has been moving in a positive direction. I don't get to watch the Bulls as often as others do, but when I've seen them lately, Ben's been bringing the ball up the court maybe 1/3 --> 2/5 of the time, and does have chances where he'll have the ball in his hands at the top of the key and he can dribble off of screens to create his own shot. Granted, it's not ALL the time, or most of it, but to me, it seems like it's getting pretty close to a happy medium where we're taking advantage of the fact that Ben's pretty good at creating his own shot, but not suffering too much from the fact that he's not a great distributor or ball handler.

Which is sort of my point. I think we've benefitted from putting the ball in Ben's hands more, but there's also a point of diminishing returns, and I'm wondering where you guys think that is. I don't think the team would be better off using him like Chris Paul (full time PG), or Kobe or Dirk (focal point of the offense). I think Ben can grow a lot from where he's at right now, and am optimistic that he will this season, but if that's in the cards, I think it'd be best by doing it through gradual change, and doing it within the context of the team.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> False. It was reported in the Chicago Tribune this season that the following was at the very top of Sacramento's game plan board in the visitor's locker room: "Stop Kirk Hinrich. He is the head of the Bulls' snake."
> 
> So, out of teams whose game plans have been reported in the media so far this season, 100% of them not only "worry about Hinrich" but they made him their priority #1 in game-planning for Chicago.


So they doubled Hinrich? Please. He's the head of the Bulls snake b/c he's handling the ball all the time and initiating everything on offense. Not because he's the best offensive weapon on the team. Putting a man on Hinrich does the trick.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Yes, and you're saying that DaBullz doesn't prove anything with that one game. And I'm saying that there's a few more examples out there. Surely, you can at the very least you can look at the play-by-play and the past game threads. You won't see who played point guard, but you will see that while maybe he "could run the offense the whole game", he coughed up the ball so much during some important intervals in the 4th quarter. That as well is nothing new. I could recall Vega himself saying something about "Kirk needing to go to go to decisionmaking 101."
> 
> http://www.nba.com/games/20060422/CHIMIA/playbyplay.html


I've read through that play-by-play three times and still fail to see how it supports your argument about Ben being PG. He scored a lot of points and had 3 assists. That's terriffic, but doesn't exactly build an argument about him being a PG.



> Yeah, it's difficult to see how it's some kind of trend, mainly because he doesn't really play point guard, but equally difficult is understanding why we don't go to it* if it's proven successful. * Skiles coached that Game 2 like nothing happened during Game 1. Ben was just labeled inconsistent.


That's because it's NOT proven successful. We can probably count on one hand how many times he's "succeeded" playing a PG type role on the Bulls...whether that's because Skiles is a stubborn jerk and refuses to do it (as you and DaBullz are arguing), or because that's not the best place for him (as I'm arguing), the fact remains that unless you consider a sample size of about 3 to be proof, it hasn't been proven.



> And he's not just a one-dimensional shooter during those moments. It's not all shots and giggles.


Eh. Usually he does just shoot during those moments. As it should be - he's deadly when he gets in those grooves and he shouldn't be looking for anyone else. Still, this isn't evidence supporting his candidacy for PG.



> He makes mistakes, yes. But he's not the only one that does. And usually not during the most critical moments of the game.


agreed. But I think he makes more ballhandling mistakes than Kirk or Duhon in the first 3 quarters, generally. Which is why I'd rather not turn the keys over to him full-time.



>


cute. I don't think what I posted was a strawman - Ben handling the ball results in Ben taking a shot a lot of the time. That's what I was getting at. I'm fine with that as one of our offensive sets, but I don't think it's the basis of a good offense.



> The guy needs to handle the ball and not be running to it at 100 mph every time he gets the ball.
> 
> Kirk does give the ball to Ben a few times, but usually not enough to make an impact, but plenty for the Ron Ceys of the world to point out that "see he does handle the ball !"


How much Ben gets the ball seems directly proportionate to whether he has it going, and how aggressive he is in seeking it out. I don't know what this 100mph thing is about. I do agree that there are times where Ben does have it going and the team goes away from him. I don't think it's the epidemic it's made out to be, but it does happen sometimes. On the other hand, sometimes Ben can't throw it in the ocean and he keeps getting looks. 



> And this is not just about Ben getting his. Kirk is a much better shooting guard. He usually gets his points even when 'black hole' Ben handles the ball. People always talk about how Kirk has too many responsibilities on offense and defense and how it can be mentally fatiguing, etc. How we can't dare blame him because he tries to do to much. Well, why not reduce the pressure to find the whole offense a shot on one end so he can be much more effective on the other ?


I'm all for this, just not on a full-time basis.


----------

