Blog a Bull: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Steve McNair Found Shot to Death


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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   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 reply reply actions actions   0 recs

right. pay kobe first.
and since that likely isn't happening, I can live with Ben Gordon. Like sambossnova said, scorers often turn the ball over alot.

Granted, Gordon turns it over more than a lot, but between that and his fouling I'm confident both can be straightened out, considering he was only 23 last season.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 3:29 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gordon is a 4th Quarter Warrior
BG should be valued not just for his willingness to take (and sometimes make)the last shot, but for his ability to take over a game and/or bring the Bulls back from the brink at clutch time.

by Bay Area Bulls Fan on Aug 27, 2007 6:23 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yep
gordon might have missed lots of game winnig shots but he also put away countless teams by going on crazy scoring spurts late in the game.  Thats just a s clutch.

Gordon for President.

by Sambossanova on Aug 27, 2007 10:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

For shame for shame
Your sentiment is an extension of the fallacy that Gordon is a clutch shooter who excels at game-winning baskets.  If my time here at blog-a-bull has taught me nothing else, it has taught me that clutch game-winning shots are merely a by-product of chance and that a player's true measure of greatness is not whether he makes the game-winning shot, but whether he is more likely to make a game-winning shot than other players are based on a statistically-significant sampling of other shots he has taken in the past.  The actual game-winning shot?  Well, that's just one shot.  Flip a coin.

So by extrapolation, the ability to, say, take over the 4th quarter of a game is not indicative of a propensity to succeed under pressure but is rather merely a predictable variance that reflects, not -- heaven forfend -- inner fortitude or "grit," but merely the same statistical efficacy that said player has demonstrated in prior quarters and in prior games.

Or, to paraprase Yoda, "Score.  Or do not score.  There is no hot."

No more trades!

by preverbal on Aug 27, 2007 10:29 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's got to be
the most eloquent declaration of the blogabull "anti-clutch" school of thought, yet.
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 11:02 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I have to say that I find the
acontextual theories of human behavior advanced on this board to be amusing, if somewhat inaccurate. Assuming that a game winning shot is tantamount to and fungible with any other shot is to entirely disregard the fact that the shot is being taken by a human being in the real world, not a random number generator.  A game winning shot is quite unlike any other shot because it is, as its name implies, the final chance to win. Therefore, it entails more pressure and stress than a typical shot. Pressure and stress affect human brain functioning and performance. This has been empirically and indisputably demonstrated in any number of arenas (there are numerous studies iullustrating the short term and long term effects of stress on brain chemistry and functioning). And pressure doesn't affect perfomance uniformly. That is, some people thrive under pressure, while others wilt. "Clutch" is simply a moniker we give to those athletes who are psychologically and physiologically equipped to tolerate pressure and stress.  

So a shooter's overall FG% is only a part of the equation. A shooter who typically hits shots at a 50% clip might only hit them at a 35% clip under extreme stress if he isn't equipped to handle pressure. Conversely, a shooter who has a 44% FG% may hit 42% of his shots under pressure if he is better equipped to tolerate stress. This is no different than a student who suffers from test taking anxiety. Outside the confines of the test taking environment, he or she may be able to flawlessly execute. Within the confines of the test taking environment, daunted by the gravity and consequences of the situation, he or she may founder. Pressure and stress affect performance. Game winning shots entail more pressure than normal shots. Game winning shots in playoff games entail more stress than those in regular season games. Etc.

Assuming that there is no such thing as being "clutch" embodies the worst reductionist tendencies of the statistical analysis movement currently afoot in the NBA.

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 28, 2007 5:45 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think you clearly over-romanticize it
The less-fantastic answer is that these are all pro athletes and grew up being the best, used to pressure, used to being counted on. They wouldn't make it to the top tenth of a percentile (or whatever it means to be in the NBA) at their craft if they had test anxiety.

There are exceptions. For the most part you take the better player. Only when amongst equal players would clutchness come in to the equation, and even then it's very hard to quantify.

Doesn't make for good Bob Costas yarns, but ah well.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 28, 2007 6:05 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fun times
As I assume was obvious, I was being tongue-in-cheek.  But that's what happens in August when there just isn't much going on beyond Kobe being a stud.

I grasp the Matt/Ryan point that statistical analysis is a better way to evaluate players than so-called anecdotal evidence (for example, the game or couple of games where some player excels in game-deciding situations), but the stat camp goes too far when they equate end-of-game situations with all other situations.  A jumper in the first is not the same as a jumper in overtime, as any player can tell you.  But its also fair to question whether, even granting that difference, performance in those situations by a player really deviates meaningfully from that player's performance in less legacy-defining moments.  For those players, like Horry, who are hailed as clutch, even several big-time shots can be seen as a statistical variance that has nothing to do with a player's true ability.

At the end of the day, however, we judge historically.  We can argue over whether hitting a clutch shot makes a player more valuable going forward than his statistics would otherwise suggest, but it is those shots that ultimately define a player's greatness.  And often a team's fortunes as well.

I say, let's give homage to the defining moments, the clutch shots and critical stanzas, whether or not they define a player's estimated future worth.  Let's acknowedge that the live-or-die shot is its own unique entity that deserves respect.  The ability to persevere when the fear wells up, when the body is beaten and tired, is worthy of respect even if it is more accurately predictable by looking at a player's regular season efforts.

Maybe someone should post a diary so people can link to YouTube clips of NBA (or NCAA or Olympic) clutch moments so we can all appreciate their grandeur during these dull months.  In October we can resume forecasts using Hollinger's latest data crunch.

Score. Or do not score. There is no clutch.

by preverbal on Aug 28, 2007 10:45 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Now would be a good time
for a debate on "clutchness."  I disagree with Matt and his ilk.  There is a difference.  Somebody start a new diary.
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 29, 2007 1:17 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It always makes me curious
when people start talking "clutch" what the numbers actually look like, so not wanting to finish my real stats assignment tonight, I decided to look back at the end of Bulls' games for the past season to see what BG's actual numbers look like.  I'm not putting this out there as an inferential statistical argument by any means - it's merely the descriptive stats of what happened last year.  Beyond that, I just used play-by-play logs, so it's not accounting for game situation (beyond the score) or "toughness" of shot or anything else people like to argue about.

By my count, the Bulls were in 24 games decided by 5 points or less, with a record of 11-13 in those games.  In the final 30 seconds of those games, BG shot 8/25 (.320) from the field and 16/17 (.941) from the free throw line.  During those games in their entirety, he hit 207/441 (.469) from the field and 128/147 (.871), and his overall season stats were .455 and .864 respectively.

Make of it what you will - my curiosity is satisfied.  :)

"They had me do a psychology test and I asked Coach Skiles if that affected his coaching. He laughed and said, `No way.'" (Joakim Noah)

by wjb1492 on Aug 28, 2007 9:11 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gordon had a bad year in those situations,
but his previous two years were very solid.  Apparently he misplaced his clutchiness last year.  I wonder where his internal fortitude to handle pressure situations went?  Or maybe the whole "clutch" thing is mostly a pile of crap.  And it will also balance out over time.

06/07
05/06
04/05

by Scotter on Aug 28, 2007 9:31 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I suppose most piles of crap balance out over time
I was going to do all three years, but I got bored.  I probably should have just settled with 82games' stuff that was already done, but 5 minutes was a longer time period than I wanted to look at.
"They had me do a psychology test and I asked Coach Skiles if that affected his coaching. He laughed and said, `No way.'" (Joakim Noah)

by wjb1492 on Aug 28, 2007 10:56 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

5 minutes is way too long
They have the information for last shots in games with the score within 2 pts, but they don't make it publicly available.  Hollinger had it in an article, which I referred to above.  Even with his bad year last year, Gordon is still above 40% for his three years, mostly on the strength of that first year.
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 29, 2007 1:15 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Big 3
Gordon must be signed.  Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich all took a strong step forward last year.  However, none of them look like a super star (although it is possible one could develop).  The formula of superstar + star + pieces does not apply to this group.  We are a big 3 type team.  Losing any of the three (before a superstar emerges, if there is one) would kill our championship hopes.

What's more, Gordon is the one of the three I think I would most hate to lose.  He brings something extraordinary to the table, his shooting under pressure.  I am not just talking about his 44 3pt% and 92 FT% during the playoffs last year, his game winners, or even just his ridiculous 57 TS% last year.  I mean how he shoots with a hand in his face.  When a guy takes a shot with a hand in his face, we are all taught that they will shoot worse.  I believe it.  I see it when I play games.  I see it when I watch games.  But Gordon is one of those rare talents where that does not seem to apply.  When he takes a shot with a hand in his face, I feel no less confident it will go in.  I would love to see actual stats on this, but I am guessing you may have to pay a professional stats group to get it.  I think it is why people feel he is "clutch".  At the end of close games, when the D is as tight as the opponent can muster, when no one can get an open look, and the shot clock winds down ... it is Gordon that still hits his shot.  No offense to Kirk, Luol, or even Du and Noch, but when they are covered and they let loose a long jumper/3 ... I expect them to miss.  Players, even good ones, miss when covered and shooting long jumpers.  It is understandable.

Gordon brings something special to the table.  He will never be an all around super star, as he has notable deficiencies mentioned often here.  He should not be given max money, but none of our Big 3 will command max money.  I'll take Kirk, Gordon, and Luol growing and improving together with a bunch of role players, and like our chances.

by californiachicagoan on Aug 27, 2007 11:34 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

crystal ball says
Ben and Luol are possible allstars.  the sooner signed the better.  

I think Hinrich is the weakest of the big 3.  I like the comparison of Ben to Ray Allen.  The better the team gets the less he will try to force plays and turn the ball over.  If he can limit the tos than I like Ben at point (ala Arenas).  Possibly trade Hinrich, Noah, Noc and Du for ? (Kobe, Arenas)?

If the draft were redone right now would pax draft gordon before deng?  I think not.  BG has mad talent and his coach was a pretty good guard.
Deng is slick around the hoop, but only became a bleep on the national radar when he was draining long shots against MIA in the playoffs. Letting talented young productive gym rats go has blunder potential.  The future is bright for the (no longer baby) bulls.

by Zac23 on Aug 28, 2007 1:33 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ben is not
good at playing pg. Too many turnovers. Not a good idea.

by sue369 on Aug 28, 2007 10:48 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sue
no matter how many times you make that comment, Zac is going to continue to put that out there.
Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

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

martin contract
You can see that contract two ways. He is getting a lot of money for only scoring 20 points one year.  Or you can say he has ton of potential and is getting a fair deal when you consider that he will probably get better.  

Either way, I don;t think theyll give gordon more than $55 for 5 years. If they give him that, it be slightly better than the nocioni contract in terms of value.  

I think the steal of the summer was signing gerald wallace for hinrich money.  When Wallace is healthy he is one of the best all around players. The kind of guy that can put up 25 pts, 8 rbs, 3 stls, 2 blocks reagularly.

by Sambossanova on Aug 28, 2007 1:46 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

if Gerald Wallace averages 25 points a game
I'll eat my hat. or your hat.

Martin is arguably better than Gordon, but he's also likely less of a 'name', so maybe that works against him in terms of money.

Not to rehash the Nocioni thing (but I will), but there's a difference between overpaying for Nocioni and overpaying for Gordon, even if the perceived value of the contract is the same.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 28, 2007 1:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Pop quiz hot shots
Got to pick one: Hinrich or Gordon?  

by Zac23 on Aug 28, 2007 11:24 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

For president?
Neither. They don't have the time.

by sue369 on Aug 28, 2007 11:26 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

why choose
they don't play same position?

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 28, 2007 11:40 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Dramatic movie preview voice guy says..
"In a world where both Kirk and Ben can't coexist, a question is posed to the human race.  A hot shooting tweener and scraggly floor general, but you can only have one!  Two men enter, One man leaves."

Gordon, he's more fun to watch.

Get that out of Tyrus' House!!!!

by cubbybear on Aug 28, 2007 10:19 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well said, Matt.
What a great post.  Thanks for sharing.
Just like Matt says, teh Internets are serious business!!!1!1!

by Colossus on Aug 29, 2007 10:55 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

give a warning next time Sue
that Noah shirtless pick is (or at least should be) NSFW.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 29, 2007 1:20 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I am excited about Noah's prospects.
I am looking forward to finally seeing him play in a Bulls uni.

I am less excited by the fact that he practices sans shirt.

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 29, 2007 1:42 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm with Sue on this...
It's a whole new level of Noah appreciation! :)

Personally, I'm hoping it catches on with some of the other guys.

"They had me do a psychology test and I asked Coach Skiles if that affected his coaching. He laughed and said, `No way.'" (Joakim Noah)

by wjb1492 on Aug 29, 2007 2:46 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yes!
A little shirtless action is always good for guys.

Just as long as it's not the coaches or the trainers (except maybe Marc Boff) or the scouts or GMs.

by KT on Aug 29, 2007 3:16 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I thought you two
might enjoy the article with pictures. Nice to see all of Joakim's rehabing is paying off. :)

by sue369 on Aug 29, 2007 3:25 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I meant to deride Noah in particular
Not the idea that this can be an equal-opportunity place for physique drooling. ;-p

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 29, 2007 4:07 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Noah's body...
...reminds me of something from Alien. It sort of freaks me out.
Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Aug 30, 2007 9:44 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Im Curious...
...As to the fruits hinrich's training will bear. Did the olympic games really have a strong affect on his nba game? Were the olympic games the reason that hinrich never showed the strides that deng and gordon showed off? Is hinrich at his potential limit? This season should answer that.

High percentage shooting is nice, but im hoping to see hinrich playing the way he did in game 5 against the pistons last (this?) year. Someone here posted that hinrich is the weakest of the core...I am hoping he comes into his own so that he becomes just as invaluable to the bulls as deng and gordon are.

im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.

by piccolomair on Aug 29, 2007 8:24 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Chicago Bulls.
Start posting about the Bulls »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

2f597263b71b32c9d2a85c1427a038ce_bigger_small
Thank You Ben Gordon
Jayhawk_small
A Brief History of Ben Gordon: the Quotes Version
Horace_20grant_small
To the Bulls' Front Office
Rose2_small
Optimistic view of BG leaving (I Hope)
Derrick_rose_1__small
An F.U. to the owner

Recent FanPosts

Small
I'm Glad He's Gone
Chicagostadium_small
Are the Bulls lottery bound?
Toe_small
Forget Who Left for the D, Just Start Playing Some
Small
Jerel McNeal
Bulls-2a_small
List of 2010 free agents (start choosing)
Aaron_scantlen-small-square_small
Trade idea: Kirk for Rudy
Small
Iverson to the Bulls in Gordon S/T?!?!
Small
Hinrich Vs. Gordon
-1_small
Could this be Dumar's post-signing-Gordon plan?

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

SPONSORS


Guy who does everything

Blogabull_s_small your friendly BullsBlogger

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports