BullsByTheHorns on the Gordon/Hinrich debate

[Hendu0520]

True Shakes but I think that it is more likely that Deng gets hurt than anyone else so having a shooting guard who can come off the bench or start and drop 20ppg vs a SG that comes off the bench and is really a PG. Also there should be some roster turnover but if you could move Hinrich to keep Gordon I don't understand why you wouldn't.

Even if Rose avg's 36 min that leaves 12 for Kirk who you would want to play a good 27-30min a night if Ben Gordon isn't there. So more than half will be at the 2spot. Any injuries even more will be at the 2. If Ben is coming off the bench or Deng gets injured we actually have more versatility and we are more competitive because of the scoring. Salmons slides to the 3 and Gordon is starting. Or Salmons was coming off the bench so he just slides back into the starting position, or Salmons starts at 3 with BG starting at 2 and Deng comes off that bench. That seems a bit more flexible to me.

 

[wjb1492]

Hendu0520 wrote:

No its lost to me, the shot I wanted it to be, the 44.8% is still his best year, he was supposed to improve after that year, remember the baby Bulls even getting better. Kirk should be considered a sharpshooter by now in my mind. He was improving every year early on if you go back to my breakedown. Then he kinda got derailed so he has to improve again. He still would have to shoot atleat 44% to prove it not lost to me. I have high standards maybe that's my problem. I just remember him missing a lot of those mid range shots this year.

I really like the "at least 44%" - he shot 43.7% on the season. Good to know that .03% makes such a difference to you.

Look at even high volume good shooting guards they shoot atleast 45% he wouldn't be playing much point next year. He isn't even shooting that well and he shoots much less.

We'll just have to disagree, because I think you have ridiculously high standards if this is what you expect. Only 24 qualified guards shot 45% or better overall this season. Expand that to include other guys taking at least 400 shots on the season and making at least 45% of them, you end up with a pool of 36 total NBA guards.

Of course this doesn't take into account that Kirk shoots the 3 significantly better than many of those guys on the "good shooter, because they make 45% of their fga" list. Eliminate the guys that shot 45% overall but less than 35% on 3s and you're down to 20. But hey, some guys just don't shoot the 3, right? So maybe you want to add back in the guys that shoot the 3 poorly (hello, Derrick!) but shot, say, at least 47% overall to compensate for lacking that outside shot. By my count, this gets you up to a list of 29 guards in the NBA - 29 guys that either shot 47% overall, or shot 45% overall while shooting at least 35% from 3.

I'd call these guys really good shooters - I'd say great, but I think the 35% 3-point shooting is low for "great". I wouldn't say someone who fails to meet this criteria is bad, or that their shot is "lost", particularly guys who were very close to being in the group. By my count, Kirk shot the 3 better than 23 of those 29 guys.

 

[Shakes]

If Deng turns out to be so injury prone we have to build our team as though he's going to be injured we're screwed no matter what we do. You can't afford to have 12 million a year in useless contract that can't even play on your roster.

Therefore I think you have to assume he's going to be healthy enough to play most of the games.

 

[Hendu0520]

wjb1492 wrote:

Hendu0520 wrote:

No its lost to me, the shot I wanted it to be, the 44.8% is still his best year, he was supposed to improve after that year, remember the baby Bulls even getting better. Kirk should be considered a sharpshooter by now in my mind. He was improving every year early on if you go back to my breakedown. Then he kinda got derailed so he has to improve again. He still would have to shoot atleat 44% to prove it not lost to me. I have high standards maybe that's my problem. I just remember him missing a lot of those mid range shots this year.

I really like the "at least 44%" - he shot 43.7% on the season. Good to know that .03% makes such a difference to you.

Look at even high volume good shooting guards they shoot atleast 45% he wouldn't be playing much point next year. He isn't even shooting that well and he shoots much less.

We'll just have to disagree, because I think you have ridiculously high standards if this is what you expect. Only 24 qualified guards shot 45% or better overall this season. Expand that to include other guys taking at least 400 shots on the season and making at least 45% of them, you end up with a pool of 36 total NBA guards.

Of course this doesn't take into account that Kirk shoots the 3 significantly better than many of those guys on the "good shooter, because they make 45% of their fga" list. Eliminate the guys that shot 45% overall but less than 35% on 3s and you're down to 20. But hey, some guys just don't shoot the 3, right? So maybe you want to add back in the guys that shoot the 3 poorly (hello, Derrick!) but shot, say, at least 47% overall to compensate for lacking that outside shot. By my count, this gets you up to a list of 29 guards in the NBA - 29 guys that either shot 47% overall, or shot 45% overall while shooting at least 35% from 3.

I'd call these guys really good shooters - I'd say great, but I think the 35% 3-point shooting is low for "great". I wouldn't say someone who fails to meet this criteria is bad, or that their shot is "lost", particularly guys who were very close to being in the group. By my count, Kirk shot the 3 better than 23 of those 29 guys.

Ok 40% from 3point is something Kirk should do more often than not if he is even a good shooter right? He's only done it twice. Since when is 41.5% FG good? In an article about Joe Johnson on SI.com I read just tonight it says that he is "struggling, only hitting 41% from the field" and that is one of the reason's they went to seven with the Heat and are getting whooped by the Cavs. I guess all of a sudden for Kirk that should be great? Sorry about the 44% I meant 44.8% atleast which is closer to 45%. Rose shoots 47% right, is he considered a good shooter. I'll tell you what this year I'd rather have Rose pull up for a mid range shot.

 

[Hendu0520]

I don't know about the top 36 or anything maybe that just proves that there aren't a lot of good shooters this year. I don't know anyone who ever said they wanna be on the top 36 list though. Oh and Kirk hasn't ever even broke that top 36 in shooting, am I the only one disapointed in that? I mean the three ball ok, but really why does it drop? Also if Ben is gone more defenders will be on Kirk and it might drop even more. I don't know but he has never been a top shooter in this league and I think he should be I don't see why not.

 

[Hendu0520]

Thats fancy twisting to get Kirk into a top list. Even your top 20 of guards, he should be higher. He doesn't suck but he really isn't a productive 2guard by any means for more than a few minutes if there aren't enough weapons around him. Ok sorry for the lost comment, his shot was only there consistently one season, and two from the 3 point line so I guess he never really had a great shot to lose. He is just a solid middle of the pack shooter for a SG.

Oh and even if Luol Deng doesn't get hurt, we are still more flexible imo because you can rotate Salmons,Gordon, or Deng off the bench and starting. If anyone gets hurt we have people across the board that can fill if need be if not we have length and scoring punch.

 

[Hendu0520]

Ok lets compare Kirk to JJ Redick, who everyone has been criticizing for not doing well in the league. Even his shot is off. Well Redick's best FG% is 44.4% his 2nd year. Kirk didn't do that till much later. JJ's Career avg 40.7% FG Kirk 41.5%FG JJ: 38.1%3point Kirk: 38%3point. So you can take that as your backup 2 man but I wouldn't. Thank goodness Kirk is great at so many other things that JJ isn't or he might be a bust too.

 

[Hendu0520]

Oh and with less shots for Redick if you wanna take the same shots over any 3 yrs of Kirk's career he is going to fair no better there is no way you can twist those stats. I give up.

 

[Hendu0520]

If we have to choose its gotta be BEN!!! Go Bulls, playoffs every year Rose is in the league!!!

 

[dougthonus]

Ok 40% from 3point is something Kirk should do more often than not if he is even a good shooter right? He's only done it twice. Since when is 41.5% FG good?

It really comes down to what Hinrich you get. Hinrich in 06/07 was really good. Hinrich in 08/09 was really good. Hinrich in 07/08 was not good. Hinrich prior to 06/07 was not good, but is old enough data that it should be dismissed as we can say he's probably improved since then.

In 06/07 and 07/08 his 3 point shooting and fg% are both fine. We were also talking about "shooting" not "scoring". As a shooter, you can look at his FT% and 3 point %, and see that he's a very good shooter. Rose has a higher FG%, but he's a horrible shooter relative to Hinrich, but he has a higher FG% because he's a good scorer by generating lots of closer looks than Hinrich can.

Gordon, even at similar percentages to Hinrich is a much better shooter because of the extra defensive attention he attracts for a majority of his shots. He doesn't get nearly as many open 3s as Hinrich does.

 

[Rerisen]

Who is harder to replace?

Well one guy was a starter and played 36.6 minutes and the other was a backup and played 26.3. Now even though Kirk was a starter in the past (I think his current role is perfect for him) doesn't mean if you upgrade his role, he will necessary continue to play as well. His career stats are that of an average player (with above avg defense) with his best season something of an outlier on his stat block.

For at least next year, I think Salmons and Gordon could be penciled in for productive seasons and being pretty reliable to deliver.

If you let Gordon walk, then you are relying on Luol Deng who has not been very productive the last 2 years, and not even healthy for much of that time. If Luol were to come back, experience various nagging injuries and generally play like 15 and 6 Loul Deng, then you are probably noticeably worse.

If you have Gordon resigned you simply go back to Gordon/Salmons at 2/3 if that happens. We already know that works.

Now if Deng and Kirk both play like 06-07, Salmons shows no signs of getting older and Rose has good growth, its possible you hardly miss Gordon at all. But those things don't seem a safe bet.

If Derrick Rose grows rapidly, he might erase the loss of Gordon altogether on his own. Even though that still doesn't mean the team could not have been even better with BG.

 

[dougthonus]

If you let Gordon walk, then you are relying on Luol Deng who has not been very productive the last 2 years, and not even healthy for much of that time. If Luol were to come back, experience various nagging injuries and generally play like 15 and 6 Loul Deng, then you are probably noticeably worse.

Luol Deng was quite productive 2 years ago, he just was disappointing relative to expectations.

 

[Rerisen]

dougthonus wrote:

If you let Gordon walk, then you are relying on Luol Deng who has not been very productive the last 2 years, and not even healthy for much of that time. If Luol were to come back, experience various nagging injuries and generally play like 15 and 6 Loul Deng, then you are probably noticeably worse.

Luol Deng was quite productive 2 years ago, he just was disappointing relative to expectations.

Stat wise, perhaps. Impact wise, he was very disappointing I felt. His points were always of the quiet variety to begin with, and that year they seemed to be nothing more than a formality. They slowly accumulated in the box score right along with an "L" at the end of the night in the win/loss column. I also believe I remember going over his boxes in one discussion and seeing how he feasted on the dregs of the league and wilted vs the best, even more so than is to be expected of playing better teams with better defense. Putting up 25-30 vs Charlotte and the Knicks isn't that essential to beating those teams.

Him and Gordon both were a letdown in 07-08. Though I think Gordon self-corrected back to his norm much better and sooner than Deng.

Kirk was probably off track the worst, but Deng and Gordon were supposed to be the leaders of that team. If we get that Deng back again, we won't be getting near the impact at 2 and 3 that Salmons and Gordon brought this season.

 

[dougthonus]

Stat wise, perhaps. Impact wise, he was very disappointing I felt. His points were always of the quiet variety to begin with, and that year they seemed to be nothing more than a formality.

By this metric Gordon wasn't productive 2 years ago either. Gordon's been very good overall over the past three seasons though. I hope we keep him, but the gap may not be as big as people make it out to be.

 

[Rerisen]

dougthonus wrote:

By this metric Gordon wasn't productive 2 years ago either. Gordon's been very good overall over the past three seasons though. I hope we keep him, but the gap may not be as big as people make it out to be.

I don't think that would be an unfair label for Ben as well that year.

But this sort of goes back to even when both these guys played their best, who was more valuable. Was Gordon's more explosive, momentum and clutch affecting ability, able to turn games around more than Deng. I have always felt so.

Such that when they both kind of sucked to start that year and set us on the dreadful course of Boylan and all that followed, Deng's dropping off really made his play seem insignificant once we were a bad team. As you implied, Gordon was just piling up stats on a bad team as well, but you still got the feeling that on some nights when he was on, Ben carried us to some victories.

Maybe Deng's more typical steady play proved deciding as well though when Gordon couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I just rarely remember games where I felt Deng was the decisive factor. We seem to have had a strong correlation with winning and losing based on what Gordon did the last few years.

Strangely or not so strangely, that ceased to happen this year as BG became more consistent. The swing guy is now Derrick Rose.

 

[dougthonus]

Maybe Deng's more typical steady play proved deciding as well though when Gordon couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I just rarely remember games where I felt Deng was the decisive factor. We seem to have had a strong correlation with winning and losing based on what Gordon did the last few years.

In 06/07 and 08/09 there was little correlation to Gordon and whether we won or loss. His stats were mostly the same in either.

In 07/08 there was a very strong correlation between Gordon playing well and us winning, and Gordon didn't play well as much and the team struggled.

I'm not sure what to make from those statements per se except that I noticed them. You could say the team is better off not relying on Gordon, because when it was able to win regardless of Gordon's play it had better seasons, or you could say that any team that relies on one player is probably screwed, but this shows Gordon is a difference maker.

So I don't really have a point per se, I was just looking at his win / loss splits, I should look at Dengs and Hinrichs too just to see what is interesting about them.

 

[Rerisen]

Back when Deng was consistent, I thought Gordon was our most important player. And this makes sense since his impact was more predicated on his scoring only, which fluctuated.

People still try to accuse Ben of being hugely inconsistent, but that wasn't true this season. Now Ben is kind of in Deng's old role. Ben is the consistent one and Derrick Rose is our most important player. Though Ben probably had the better overall season, just as Deng probably had the better overall season in 07.

Though Gordon still retains a level of importance just for our reliance on him at the end of games and for clutch shots, including ones drawn up for him. Something we never really looked to Deng for.

That is probably where we will miss Ben most if his role has to be filled by Deng or Kirk, assuming Salmons role stays about the same.

 

[Ralphb07]

I think people are a little too hard on Deng. The main reason for concern is health but if he is healthy no one should be complaing about his game. He is a very big part of this team.

I see the points of the Gordon supporters and I see the points of the Kirk supporters. I really don't think it matters who leaves. I would love to have both but won't be too upset if Gordon doesn't re sign nor will I be upset if Kirk is the one gone

 

[dougthonus]

A lot depends on the cost to keep Gordon as well.

Gordon at 9 million a year or less makes me prefer Gordon.

Gordon at 12 million a year or more, and I definitely prefer Kirk.

In between those numbers is a lot more debatable to me.

 

[Rerisen]

Doug if we were to bring Gordon back and reanalyze the team at the trade deadline, would it be so much harder to move Kirk (or someone) then vs the offseason?

Or maybe if the team is playing great (top 4 seed) you don't move anyone and pay the tax, but probably not going to happen regardless.