Blog a Bull: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows



Like tallying praise to find out the favorite son

It may not get as much press as Luol Deng's globe-trotting ways, but Ben Gordon was doing his own similar deal over the weekend in his hometown, cheering up the community while dressed for apparently some super-cool funeral.

Got me thinking (this is what happens during the down days of the NBA offseason, sorry) about how Ben and Luol are so interlinked. Both became Bulls on the same night and thus started their all-important contract clocks simultaneously. They're the most productive players on the team, individually and in tandem.

But whenever their future is discussed by fans, Deng's position is always assumed secured while Gordon is on less stable ground. And some of that, as was discussed on the bullsbeat podcast last week, is from the idea that Deng's more likely to take some sort of 'hometown discount' to stay with the team. It makes sense due to his famously charitable ways, but Deng's still an NBA player with no reason to not get every penny of his true worth. And heck, maybe charity is a reason for Deng to demand more money, not less.

Deng's also always lauded for being the hardest worker on the team, although by all indications Gordon shares that trait in abundance. In one of the several vignettes on Deng shown on national TV over the season, there was a quote from John Paxson regarding Deng's work ethic (and I'm paraphrasing off of memory) saying that when he sees a car at the Berto Center when he's there in the morning, he first thinks it's Ben Gordon, and if not Gordon then Luol Deng.

I don't care to question who does more charity or who spends more time in the gym, I'm trying to get at why Deng and Gordon can be so similar yet their perceived futures so different. My reasoning for this discrepancy is while they may get equitable in praise from management, only Gordon gets those bad knocks as well.

Some of it is explicit, as in Paxson's quoted desire to get more size in the backcourt over the offseason (speaking of which, that didn't exactly happen did it). But the biggest reason to perceive Gordon's future as more tenuous is how he's been jerked to and from the starting lineup by Skiles. No matter what merits you may see in a firestarting 6th man, it's never a glowing endorsement to be replaced in a lineup by Chris Duhon (police lineup, maybe). It probably eats at Gordon as well, knowing his value has likely been hurt around the league as they see a supposedly limited gunner when he believes (and rightfully so in my opinion) that he can be an elite scorer. He's more Gilbert Arenas than Juan Dixon.

In the near future it's possible both Deng and Gordon can continue their parallel careers with fat Pax-signed long-term contracts in hand. But the feeling I've gotten over the years is that while Deng is certain to get his paper, they're still not sure on Gordon. And it's not the headlines from being the NBA's finest citizen that gives Deng this edge, it's that Pax and Skiles still don't seem to know what they have with Gordon. It's been a while since the last time he was coming off the bench, so for all I know he is now as loved by the organization as Luol. But if there's even a whisper of 'Ben seems to give us a better lift off the bench' I'll know they won't be paying him to stay.

0 recs | Comment 103 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

gordon extension
I really hope he gets extended and soon.  I dont want the bulls to have to wait till next summer to have to resign him on the free agent market. It wouldn't surprise me if he becomes a 25 point per game type of guy if given 35 minutes a night.  Once he does that, everyone knows he will get some ridiculous contract a la rashard lewis.  I hope the bulls extend his contract quickly while everyone in the league thinks he is just some quick scorer best suited to be a sixth man like skiles does.  That way they can extend him for 9-12 million instead of having to sign him for 14-18 million a year.  As for deng, his value is already high since he is on everyone's radar and highly praised by just about everyone in the NBA including most coaches (Riley and others).

by Sambossanova on Aug 27, 2007 12:51 AM CDT   0 recs

Rumor has it...
Ben would like to re-sign this off-season.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/19312

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 27, 2007 4:08 AM CDT   0 recs

The Mini-two dilemma?
That discrepancy between Ben and Luol is strange.  You would think that Ben would be more valued than Luol given his ability to create on his own and penchant for buzzer beaters.  Regardless of what management thinks, I don't see how Slowhand can afford to let Ben get away.  He is the only pure scorer on a team that has offensive limitations.  And let's just put it out there: Gordon, Kirk, Thabo is a lot 'sexier' than Kirk, Thabo and duhon.
Given that he's been so sound in his team-building (and that he drafted Ben before Luol), I would be very surprised if Paxson let Ben get away.  very surprised.  The truth of the matter is that the likelihood of getting a 6'6'' guard that can do what Gordon does is minimal.. ...and that's being generous.  Who are the candidates?  Outside of Kobe, I see Micheal Redd's and Kevin Martin's and no way in hell that those types of guards get dealt for anything resembling equal value.  

by CookDing on Aug 27, 2007 7:25 AM CDT   0 recs

I thought Pax
said they were going to start working on an extention in Aug. so it may be under way. Ben says he wants to retire as a Bull so we'll see if he means it.

It would not surprise me at all if Ben wants more than Pax is willing to give. Pax did indicate after the season was over that he would work with Ben but if they couldn't reach an agreement there would be no hard feelings. We shall see.

by sue369 on Aug 27, 2007 8:45 AM CDT   0 recs

even weirder than Deng's charity work
as a reason for him being receptive to a hometown discount is the fact that the hometown in the NBA can generally offer more years, and more money. Where do people get these ideas?

Gordon isn't a non-profit slouch either. He's just not a globetrotter, and Big Brothers Big Sisters doesn't make headlines.

by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 9:23 AM CDT   0 recs

Are you short on hits this month
I feel like this discussion has gone on ad nauseam.  Luol is the younger guy who does everything well, and seems to continue to improve.  Ben is the spectacular shooter, who isn't nearly as good at anything else, and is undersized to boot.  Why would anyone pay a premium for that.  And as for his penchant for game winning shots, he was 1-8 this year on last shots to win the game.  Furthermore, while he was the 8th highest scorer, he was also the 18th on the turnovers/game list.  His game is flawed.

I don't want to bash the guy and so I'd point out that even with his 1-8 this year, he's still hitting over 40% in those situations over his career (according to a hollinger piece that I don't have a link to right now).  

Gordon's propensity for TO's is what's killing him.  I'd even go so far as to say that if Duhon hadn't forgotten how to shoot this year, Gordon would still be coming off of the bench, and that Gordon's starting has more to do with Duhon's lousy play than Gordon's emergence.

Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 9:29 AM CDT   0 recs

I am short on hits. It's August.
The game-winning stats do nothing for me one way or the other, we're talking about 8 shots. I guess the important thing is he wants to take them.

I know Gordon has flaws, and I think you're right that they get less upset when someone like Luol doesn't bother to dribble as opposed to Gordon who has to create shots for himself and the team but gets the TOs. Skiles seems especially intolerant of TOs, but that is likely for all ballcoaches.

And he's not 'just' a shooter, he's a scorer. There's a difference. And the Bulls should pay a premium since they can't freaking score.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 9:38 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

no, right now he's a shooter
if he was a scorer, his free throw numbers would be a lot higher like Kobe's or DWade's.  Go look at the numbers,  BG is Richard Hamilton, a good player, but do you want to tie up 5 years and $70 million on Richard Hamilton?  
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 9:43 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

what are these 'per-game' stat you speak of?
I live my life not by game, but by minute. Or posession. Or posessions used.

And this just in: Gordon is not as good as Kobe or Wade.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 9:58 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

There was a really good analysis
of Gordon's usuage on either knickerblogger or apbr, but I can't find it now.  It showed that Gordon took a disproportionately high amount of the team's shots to get his points.  It wasn't outrageously high, but there was considerable room for improvement.  

That's not the point though.  If you admit that BG isn't as good as Kobe or Wade, then why suggest that he should get that kind of money.  Wade's deal averages a little more than $14 mil over it's three years.  If Gordon isn't that good, why tie up the money?

Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 10:25 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

he isn't going to get that much
I wish Deng and Gordon's negotiations were covered by the media, but we'll have to wait for panicked, last minute reports in October. I guess speculate away, but Gordon and Deng are both looking at contracts closer to Hinrich's than Wade's.

Gordon does have a high career USG-r, and he was 9th in FGA last season, but who else is aggressively trying to score? Nocioni?

by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 10:33 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

if the question is
would I rather see $11-12m go to Gordon or $14m to Wade or $20m to Kobe, then I don't pay Gordon. But the reality is more like paying $11-12m to Gordon or paying $5m for Ricky Davis or something.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:57 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

that said
I'm not fully on the 'sign Gordon now' bandwagon either. This year could tell alot, and if he plays well and costs a few extra million, it may be worth avoiding the scenario of paying now and seeing his development stagnate(I'll just complain about the Nocioni contract some more, heh).

And there's always sign/trade possibilities as a restricted FA.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 11:01 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Get it right
First off it is a red herring of an argument to compare him to Wade.  Only you have said anything about paying him Dwayne Wade money.  The only one to bring up numbers before your comment here was 9-12 mil, not the 14 you keep asking about.

Second, if by "usage" you mean the Hollinger stat, you dont understand it.  Points versus shots taken to get points is True Shooting % not Usage.  Gordon leads the team in TS%, as he did last year as well, and he took a strong step up in it last year, as did Deng and Kirk.

by californiachicagoan on Aug 28, 2007 12:18 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

not TS%
"Points versus shots taken to get points is True Shooting % not Usage"

TS% is not points vs shots taken to get points - as points would count free throws and free throws is not part of TS%.  TS% only balances a FG% with 3ptFG% so you get a true number.  As 40% from 3 is better then 40% from field and therefore if you shot 40% from both inside and outside of arch your TS% would be higher (of course depends on # of shots taken from each region)

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 28, 2007 6:53 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

TS% also includes
free throws as well.

by Scotter on Aug 28, 2007 12:14 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Hamilton
I know you were comparing value more than skillset, but Rip Hamilton is actually a lot more like Luol. Midrange game, moving without the ball, etc.

Look at Rip and Gordon at age 23.

http://basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=1&p1=gordobe01&y1=2007&p2=hamil ri01&y2=2002

Gordon outperformed him, but not as much as I would've liked. I wonder how much simply cutting out the unforced turnovers would make him.

This is a high-end comparison I admit, but I see Ben's game to be more like Ray Allen. So still not as good as Wade or Kobe, but pretty good ;-)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 11:04 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

The Ray Allen comparison is good one
It's the one I've always used.  They do almost all of their scoring off jump shooting, and neither can post up.  Their first three years are also very comparable statisticaly, especially since they both came out of UCONN as juniors.  It's easy to make the argument that Gordon has been just as good as Allen over their first three years in the league.  Allen benefits from being 6-5 in areas, but there are areas where Gordon is already the better player.  He's a better 3P shooter and a better defender, and his FT rate last year was higher than any in Allen's entire career.  He's not going to be Bryant or Wade, but a Ray Allen type career is still a real possibility.  

by Scotter on Aug 27, 2007 2:00 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Duhon forgot how to shoot?
I wasn't aware he could ever shoot. Deng is a pretty flawed youngster himself, and I wouldn't want to compare both players' weaknesses. It's a long and ugly list.

by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 9:57 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe the point is
Deng has improved his game in more ways that Gordon has since they've been in the league.  I don't feel like Deng's game is nearly as flawed as Gordon's.  Deng is a more efficient scorer, and probably a better defender, although not against Tayshaun Prince.  What would you say the big flaws in Deng's game are?
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 9:59 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Deng plays within his limitations
He's improved, but he isn't any more dynamic than Gordon. Deng doesn't handle the ball and fight double teams, he doesn't pass well, or get to the free throw line very often. The high field goal %, and low turnovers are all good, but Deng isn't doing the things that lead to turnovers and missed shots.

by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 10:12 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

that's how I feel about Deng too
he's a smarter player than Gordon, so he doesn't try (often) to do things he can't. Namely, dribble.

But there's a value in a player who does try those things. If the team was all Luol Dengs, they'd have the coach Norman Dale offense of 4 passes and a set shot.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:20 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No, there's value in players
who can do those things.  Likewise, I am glad BG wants the last shot, but if he doesn't hit them, what good is that?
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 11:50 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

he'll hit them
at the same clip he hits all of his shots. 'game-winning' stats are the cover sheet of the small sample size handbook.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 1:18 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Gordon's got enough events
to get past the small sample size problem.
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 1:38 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

not really
You're talking about (guesstimation alert!) less than 10 out of more than 1000 shots per season. That's teeny. We've also seen the Bulls choke in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with a last second shot by Gordon. The only thing I can take from Gordon missing those kind of shots last season is that other teams know exactly where the ball is going, and the Bulls should figure out a better plan. Hopefully Curry can add some sort of Pike factor to lure defenders away from Gordon. And it probably still comes down to mostly luck.

by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 1:53 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

C'mon
you can make a better argument than that?  Mostly luck?  Was Michael Jordan mostly lucky?  I'd say teams were more sure that Jordan was going to get the last shot than they are about Gordon....

This diary is about why Gordon should get big bucks. He thinks it's about respect.  You say it comes down to mostly luck.  I say it's about making baskets and winning.

Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 3:08 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

If you want to compare Jordan and Gordon that
doesn't really help your argument.  But, it's a good comparison.  Gordon has a 43.1% career FG%.  Jordan had a 49.7% FG% and was over 53% in his prime.  Over time Jordan should be expected to make over 1/2 his shots in clutch situations.  Gordon shouldn't.  

by Scotter on Aug 27, 2007 3:19 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I thought winning was the only thing.
Eh, crossing cliches. I can't find Jordan's or Gordon's last second shot % on Basketball-Reference. I'm not going to compare them based on anecdotal evidence. I do recall those old Bulls teams having more players with less hesitant trigger fingers. This squad occasionally plays hot potato with the ball.

by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 3:20 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

and it's about the fire and the passion
Jordan was mostly good, not lucky or unlucky, so he hit shots late. and early. and inbetween. He missed game-winners too.

hscs didn't say gordon's contract should be based his luck, just that the game-winning shots come down to luck. That 'stat' is a non-issue, unless you really believe Gordon clams up to end games. And even if he did there's not enough evidence to support it.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 3:21 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

rats
I was last on the 'pile on bullshooter for invoking clutch-ness' bandwagon.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 3:23 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

wow, you guys were waiting for that one
But really, you really think it's mostly luck?  I am a pretty lucky guy, why isn't anybody giving me the ball for the last shot?
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 9:42 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Jordan/Gordon comparison
I am not keen on comparing a lot of players to Jordan, however in this situation a few factors need to be considered.

Gordon simply does not have the ability to score in the ways the Jordan did. For example Jordan could take a defender down on the block and bury a much higher % shot with the clock winding down.

So in clutch situations Jordan could be expected to  score more often because he had more to work with.  

Getting back to the point: Even though there were defenses draw up to defend Jordan and everyone knew where the ball was going there was a reason Jordan was more successful.  Simply put Jordan was a better player. As noted, not just taking the last shot but in nearly aspect of a 48 minute game.

Another factor in the situation is the Bulls often paired Jordan in the back court with guards who were good spot up shooters. Namely John Paxson and Steve Kerr.  If teams focused on Jordan he would make them pay with a timely pass. All this is well documented in finals history. One of the knocks on Kirk has been his shooting percentage.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 28, 2007 6:20 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Deng - Ben
I think this is a bogus argument to start with.  Losing either of these guys means no championships.

Anyways, Gordon is a more efficient scorer than Deng.  He had a 57.2 TS% to Deng's 56%.  So you are wrong there.

Meanwhile, a players value is not his lack of flaws.  5 average players do not win championships.  Basketball is a team game.  You want guys who are exceptional at things, and you cover for their weaknesses as a team.  No matter, how you game plan you can't make a good all around player into a great rebounder/passser/shooter etc.

By the way, if Gordon isn't a "scorer" with his 7.8 FT/48min then what is Deng who shoots 30% fewer?  Deng is as much or arguably more of a jump shooter than Gordon.  Just because he takes the shorter ones doesn't make it better.  Not unless he hits 50% more of them to cover the 2 vs 3 points difference, so until Luol shoots 60+% from the field, I'll take Gordon's bombs.

by californiachicagoan on Aug 28, 2007 12:01 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I like the general point your making,
but simply comparing TS% isn't enough to determine whose the most efficient scorer.  Turnovers also need to be factored in.  That's where Deng slightly passes Gordon in terms of scoring efficiency.  

by Scotter on Aug 28, 2007 12:42 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Gordon's emergence
C'mon.

He went from shooting 41.1, and 42.2 to 45.5 FG%.  That definitely says "emergence" to me.  Meanwhile even his assists went up to 3.6 from 3.0, with only a 0.1 increase in his turnovers.  His true shooting percentage (hollinger) went from 52.6 and 53.1 to 57.2  His PER went from 14.92 to 14.59 to 18.31

His emergence is undeniable.  Well, if you believe in stats that is.

by californiachicagoan on Aug 27, 2007 11:48 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I believe in stats
and like I said, the only thing he's improved is his shooting percentage.  His scoring and TO's and Asts have increased linearly with his minutes.  TO/ast actually got worse from two years ago to last year.  He hasn't emerged, he's just played more, which is fine, I just don't think he's worth more than about $10 mil/year.  That's my opinion.  

In fact, the more I compare him to guys like Richard Hamilton and Jason Terry, the less I think he's worth $10 mil/year.

Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:06 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

market value (if there's such a thing in the NBA)
Terry got (approximately) 6/$61 and Rip got 7/$64 (according to Sham)

I mean, even if Ben is only at that level of player (he may be as soon as next season, and a few years younger) it'll cost ya. by ya I mean the Bulls.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 28, 2007 10:22 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Interesting
Hamilton's number's are a little different at hoop's hype.
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:41 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

he's improved
his AST-r, FTA, and he his foul rate has gone down, although not significantly. Those aren't per game stats that look better with more playing time. His PER went from slightly below average to 18.2 last season; a margin of improvement better than Deng's.

by hscs on Aug 28, 2007 10:24 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Where are you looking?
His AsR didn't get significantly better and his ToR got worse from 2 years ago to last year.  
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:45 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

better is better
Note his AST/40 improved by half an assist.

by hscs on Aug 28, 2007 10:55 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

but his TO's went up by .8
his Ast/TO got worse, how is that an improvement?
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:58 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

assist to turnover ratio
is misleading. Turnovers don't come from just passing the ball.

by hscs on Aug 28, 2007 11:20 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

From you response
I think we've reached a dead end.
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 11:40 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I think Gordon's future is more tenuous
because management feels that (a) he commits too many turnovers; (b) he commits needless fouls, especially early in game; (c) he endures defensive stretches that are horrendous; (d) he goes through periods where he stagnates offensively; and (e) he is undersized for his position.

While Luol is far from perfect, he doesn't suffer from that particular, synergistic constellation of defects.

All that being said, Gordon is a gorgeous player to watch when he is on his game. And let's be honest, if he improved his scoring average to 25/26 points a game, the other flaws would be tolerable.

 

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 27, 2007 10:05 AM CDT   0 recs

BTW, Gordon apparently
wants to get a deal done this summer:

"Ben Gordon hopes to be able to work out a contract extension with the Bulls before the team's Oct. 31 season opener against the Nets. Gordon already has changed agents as he seeks his new contract. He left Billy Ceisler and is now represented by Raymond Brothers, who's based out of Los Angeles. Without going into specific dollar amounts and revealing how much he thinks he's worth, he simply said he wants to be compensated fairly."

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/19312

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 27, 2007 10:16 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

yo
that was already linked in this very thread.  :-D

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:17 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I think he can get to that level
and make the flaws less obvious to boot.

The fouling is an issue, and like TOs they rankle Skiles.

The undersized bit means less every year. They're a top-5 defense, being short seems to just make us feel sad more than affecting the results. Gordon won't ever post up guys like Paul Pierce but if he scores he scores.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:17 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Averaging 25/26 ppg is kind of irrelevant, unless
we are talking about making All-Star teams.  The number isn't important, it's how he does it.  If he just maintains his scoring rate from last season, but lowers turnovers and takes less shots to score the same amount of points then that's significant improvement.  Gordon averaging 25/26 points would probably be a bad sign for the team.  It would mean Deng and others aren't increasing their offensive contributions.

by Scotter on Aug 27, 2007 2:30 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Long time dream
Call me an idealist, I always thought of Gordon and Deng being like twins. I see the parallel in the two and always assumed that the core of Deng, Gordon and Kirk would lead up to another ring or two.

Frankly, all you brickbats get off Gordon. It's about time people realise that he's the spark we need coming off the bench. He's more effective in stretches than he is leading the frontline. The sooner everyone gets that, especially Gordon, the happier we'd be. Getting Thabo to be the long guard that holds the fort for Gordon to come in is the way to go. He's a more effective version of Duhon, especially when he gets a few more years under his belt.

Keep the core. We've always been seen as a jump shooting team with a great backcourt. Let's keep it that way. If it ain't broke, don't fix it till it is.

by blackmage71 on Aug 27, 2007 10:42 AM CDT   0 recs

a team that can't score
should intentionally limit its best scorer's  minutes? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Nocioni is pretty sparky, let him be the scorer off the bench.

by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 10:47 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

heh
Noc is the bench scorer.

And out of several reasons why Gordon being benched is a bad idea, Thabo looks miles away from being a good offensive player.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:55 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Tough tell about Thabo
considering he rarely gets decent minutes.
Just like Matt says, teh Internets are serious business!!!1!1!

by Colossus on Aug 29, 2007 10:56 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Gordon's Improvement and Deng's
Comparing the two in terms of improvement is sort of stupid.  Deng was drafted one year out of college at the age of 20 (or 19 im not sure).  He was very raw.  Remember watching him play the first year and youll see what i mean.  Gordon was drafted after a couple of successful years at Uconn and right out of the gate became an impact player in the NBA.  Although he didnt improve much from his 1st to 2nd year.  He has improved a lot throughout the years.  Lets see, he is practically averaging 5 -6 more points per game.  His defense has improved to the point where he isnt much of a liability, except for his height.  He is also driving a lot more and is getting better at going to the line.  He has also been creating shots for others a lot more often.  

Sure he has turnover issues but if you look at all the guards who score 20 plus points a game and do a little bit of dribbling, almost all of them have turnover issues.  I hope gordon gets a 10-11 million a year contract right now and proves everyone wrong next year.  Maybe that will end all the insane talk of thabo starting instead of ben BS. Unless kobe becomes available and the bulls are willing to pay then I would like gordon to be the bulls starting guard for some years to come.

by Sambossanova on Aug 27, 2007 12:55 PM CDT   0 recs

I guess I have
to disagree as to his defense not being much of a liability.

by sue369 on Aug 27, 2007 1:47 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

in his defense
its a liability because he plays with hinrich and they are both short.  In terms of staying in front of his man, he has done a decent job.  He just gets overpowered by some of the NBA's stronger  guards like billups. Plus, it only looks like his defense is a liability because everyone else on the bulls regular rotation is an above average defender, which is one of the reasons why many consider the bulls to be one of the best defensive teams.  A lot of other scoring guards are just as much of a liability as he is. Bulls fans just tend to notice it more.  In other words, he is an average defender on an above average defensive team.  

by Sambossanova on Aug 27, 2007 3:07 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

It's a liability
because he forces other mismatches, like Hinrich taking the other teams scorer.  And good teams like NJ last year in the last game, exploit him.
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 3:16 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

BG
I keep reading this everywhere, and I just don't agree. Hinrich's a "good" all-around player, but the only area where he's special, not just good, is his defense. 9 times out of 10, you WANT him on the tougher defensive assignment. Hell, I'd argue he's better defending SGs than PGs. This idea that Gordon forces the Bulls to somehow mis-use Hinrich doesn't make sense to me.

Imo, Gordon's value to the Bulls (perhaps not his value as a player, but his value to his team) has been sorely underrated this off-season, while Deng has somehow leaped from underrated to overrated in the span of a year.

by nas on Aug 27, 2007 7:10 PM CDT to parent up