Gordon's stats as a starter and as a reserve.

[AirP]

I like to see what a player's impact is while on the court, the way I like to do this is the PER 36 minutes... it's basicaly a magnified way of looking at what a player brings to the court each minute. Of course the more minutes a player logs, the better view you have of the player.

Ben Gordon as a starter(career regular season)
PER 36
Pts - 20.2
FG% - 44%
FGA - 16.5
3% - 40%
3As - 4.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.5
Reb - 3.5
Stl - .9

This is in 204 career starts

Ben Gordon as a reserve
PER 36
Pts - 22.7
FG% - 43%
FGA - 18.0
3% - 43%
3As - 5.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.4
Reb - 3.4
Stl - 1.0

194 times off the bench

Gordon starting with Rose on the team(2008-2009, 76 games)
PER 36
Pts - 20.2
FG% - 45%
FGA - 15.8
3% - 40%
3As - 4.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.3
Reb - 3.4
Stl - .9

Basically, Ben Gordon's production is no different starting, coming off the bench or starting with D.Rose. Gordon's production is basically independant of the cast around him because of his game style(create a little space and hit jumpers). The only real difference is that when Gordon starts he gets less shots per time on the court vs coming off the bench and playing with the "lesser" players on the team.

I still see Gordon as best used off the bench because I believe he should have a green light nearly the entire time on the court BUT I don't want him taking a bunch of shots away from the starters... players like Rose, Deng and Salmons... not to mention Gordon having way too many bad nights compared to other high scorers in the league.

Over time Gordon averages out very well, but on a night to night basis he has way too many off games where if utilizing him as your #1 option you'd be in trouble. To me, Ben Gordon is nearly the ultimate 6th man, a guy who isn't consistant enough to build a team around but a guy who has the ability to carry a team offensivly.

 

[jsain360]

AirP wrote:

I like to see what a player's impact is while on the court, the way I like to do this is the PER 36 minutes... it's basicaly a magnified way of looking at what a player brings to the court each minute. Of course the more minutes a player logs, the better view you have of the player.

Ben Gordon as a starter(career regular season)
PER 36
Pts - 20.2
FG% - 44%
FGA - 16.5
3% - 40%
3As - 4.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.5
Reb - 3.5
Stl - .9

This is in 204 career starts

Ben Gordon as a reserve
PER 36
Pts - 22.7
FG% - 43%
FGA - 18.0
3% - 43%
3As - 5.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.4
Reb - 3.4
Stl - 1.0

194 times off the bench

Gordon starting with Rose on the team(2008-2009, 76 games)
PER 36
Pts - 20.2
FG% - 45%
FGA - 15.8
3% - 40%
3As - 4.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.3
Reb - 3.4
Stl - .9

Basically, Ben Gordon's production is no different starting, coming off the bench or starting with D.Rose. Gordon's production is basically independant of the cast around him because of his game style(create a little space and hit jumpers). The only real difference is that when Gordon starts he gets less shots per time on the court vs coming off the bench and playing with the "lesser" players on the team.

I still see Gordon as best used off the bench because I believe he should have a green light nearly the entire time on the court BUT I don't want him taking a bunch of shots away from the starters... players like Rose, Deng and Salmons... not to mention Gordon having way too many bad nights compared to other high scorers in the league.

Over time Gordon averages out very well, but on a night to night basis he has way too many off games where if utilizing him as your #1 option you'd be in trouble. To me, Ben Gordon is nearly the ultimate 6th man, a guy who isn't consistant enough to build a team around but a guy who has the ability to carry a team offensivly.

I totally agree, I always felt he was better as a sixth man, its nothing wrong w/ that, coming off the bench gives him the green light, your points are dead on, we should also look at guys like Terry and J.R. Smith, these guys can start, but they make their team even better by coming off the bench

 

[Kush77]

jsain360 wrote:

AirP wrote:

I like to see what a player's impact is while on the court, the way I like to do this is the PER 36 minutes... it's basicaly a magnified way of looking at what a player brings to the court each minute. Of course the more minutes a player logs, the better view you have of the player.

Ben Gordon as a starter(career regular season)
PER 36
Pts - 20.2
FG% - 44%
FGA - 16.5
3% - 40%
3As - 4.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.5
Reb - 3.5
Stl - .9

This is in 204 career starts

Ben Gordon as a reserve
PER 36
Pts - 22.7
FG% - 43%
FGA - 18.0
3% - 43%
3As - 5.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.4
Reb - 3.4
Stl - 1.0

194 times off the bench

Gordon starting with Rose on the team(2008-2009, 76 games)
PER 36
Pts - 20.2
FG% - 45%
FGA - 15.8
3% - 40%
3As - 4.9 - 3pt attempts
Ast - 3.3
Reb - 3.4
Stl - .9

Basically, Ben Gordon's production is no different starting, coming off the bench or starting with D.Rose. Gordon's production is basically independant of the cast around him because of his game style(create a little space and hit jumpers). The only real difference is that when Gordon starts he gets less shots per time on the court vs coming off the bench and playing with the "lesser" players on the team.

I still see Gordon as best used off the bench because I believe he should have a green light nearly the entire time on the court BUT I don't want him taking a bunch of shots away from the starters... players like Rose, Deng and Salmons... not to mention Gordon having way too many bad nights compared to other high scorers in the league.

Over time Gordon averages out very well, but on a night to night basis he has way too many off games where if utilizing him as your #1 option you'd be in trouble. To me, Ben Gordon is nearly the ultimate 6th man, a guy who isn't consistant enough to build a team around but a guy who has the ability to carry a team offensivly.

I totally agree, I always felt he was better as a sixth man, its nothing wrong w/ that, coming off the bench gives him the green light, your points are dead on, we should also look at guys like Terry and J.R. Smith, these guys can start, but they make their team even better by coming off the bench

The points you guys make are valid. But this is where I disagree with it.

You can argue Ben Gordon is the best player on the team. Or at least until next season when Rose takes that next step.

I think it's clear that Ben Gordon has been the Bulls' best player for the last 5 years overall.

With that said, the other teams with good players coming off the bench, JR Smith, Jason Terry, aren't the best players on the team like Gordon is with the Bulls.

The Mavs can afford to have Terry come off the bench because they have Dirk and Howard. The Nuggs have Carmelo and Billups. What other team in the NBA has their best player come off the bench? Or second best?

Maybe the Spurs, but I think Parker is better than Ginobili.

 

[Bullsman24]

see, idk what i think because i think that if you put him on the bench in favor of someone else, the person that most matches the other top 6th man candidate's actual starter is thabo sefolosha. a lengthy, defensive minded player who doesn't require the ball. ex: antoine wright, dahntay jones.

but i'm not putting thabo in the starting lineup for gordon. if we get amare, not bosh, then i might start salmons because he's long, but he's not defensive minded to limit the other team's starters, so idk if it's worth it. although idk if he's more of a 3.

 

[Shakes]

AirP wrote:

not to mention Gordon having way too many bad nights compared to other high scorers in the league.

There are 11 guards that average 20+ PPG over the last 3 year period. I decided to define a "bad night" as shooting less than 40% and less than 35% from three (I'd rather have used TS%, but basketball reference doesn't allow that in the game finder).

Bryant: 55/241 games
Wade: 26/181
Arenas: 33/89
Iverson: 53/204
Redd: 33/158
Martin: 45/192
Carter: 63/238
Johnson: 71/218
Paul: 50/222
Gordon: 65/236
Allen: 55/207

Most guys are in the same general region as Gordon: around 1 night in 4 is a bad shooting night. The only real outliers I'd say are Wade (only 1 in 7 bad shooting nights is awesome), and Arenas and Johnson are at the other extreme of around 1 in 3. Gordon is on the low end of this group (overall he's the third worst) but he's not so far away from the majority of them that I'd describe him as having "way too many bad nights".

 

[Hendu0520]

Shakes wrote:

AirP wrote:

not to mention Gordon having way too many bad nights compared to other high scorers in the league.

There are 11 guards that average 20+ PPG over the last 3 year period. I decided to define a "bad night" as shooting less than 40% and less than 35% from three (I'd rather have used TS%, but basketball reference doesn't allow that in the game finder).

Bryant: 55/241 games
Wade: 26/181
Arenas: 33/89
Iverson: 53/204
Redd: 33/158
Martin: 45/192
Carter: 63/238
Johnson: 71/218
Paul: 50/222
Gordon: 65/236
Allen: 55/207

Most guys are in the same general region as Gordon: around 1 night in 4 is a bad shooting night. The only real outliers I'd say are Wade (only 1 in 7 bad shooting nights is awesome), and Arenas and Johnson are at the other extreme of around 1 in 3. Gordon is on the low end of this group (overall he's the third worst) but he's not so far away from the majority of them that I'd describe him as having "way too many bad nights".

I agree Shakes people wrongly accuse Gordon of being way worse than other shooting guards but I don't think AirP was too critical. If you look Gordon is in the top 3 or 4 on this list out of 11. Also he is surrounded on your list by the other guys that we all say are streaky as well. It's not surprising that Wade, Allen, Redd, Paul are at the bottom of this list and Johnson, Arenas, Gordon, Carter (all criticized for having off nights as well) are at the top. Seems like you could prove the other side with this list.

 

[Hendu0520]

Also overall shooting stats don't tell us when he is shooting well. Gordon is very streaky and can shoot terrible all game and then bury a team in the 4th. Or he can go off the first three quarters and then go stone cold in the 4th. So shooting % in the 4th is what is the most important. According to 82games.com he is one of the better 4th quarter or crunch time players, way better than say Kobe Bryant (who has now played horribly in 3 out of 4 crunch times in the Finals so far, he keeps getting bailed out).

But Gordon is one of the leaders imo in forcing shots when he is double or triple teamed. Hey if Doug Thonus reads this I would love to see the synergy stats of Gordon when he shoots or passes when he gets doubled, that would be great. I would expect him to have a much higher percentage of shots than passes. That being said I think that you have to live with players like Gordon when you have no other player better. Yah if we had Lebron or Wade we wouldn't want Gordon to force up shots, but until Rose is a better scorer/shooter I would rather see Ben taking a contested shot than anyone else on the team taking a slightly more open one. Yes sometimes he takes a shot on 4 or 5 guys and you just wanna ring his neck but that's what you have to live with. We better sign him and start him. You can't bring your 1st or 2nd best player off the bench. Gordon takes double teams away from Rose.

When Gordon came off the bench we were down in the first quarter by a lot every game and we had to catch up. The Bulls are slow starters as it is, let him come in every game and drop 14 points in the first quarter.

 

[Shakes]

Hendu0520 wrote:

So shooting % in the 4th is what is the most important.

If the points scored in the other three quarters didn't count towards the final score I'd agree with you. You shoot well to start the game, you can go into the forth quarter in a position where your forth quarter shooting doesn't even matter. You even acknowledge this, basically saying Chicago often gets too far behind early to win games.

Chicago were the 3rd best 4th quarter team in the league, winning 62% of them, and finished at .500. The Lakers, who will almost certainly win the title, were weaker in the 4th than Chicago, in fact the 4th was their worst quarter, where they won only 55% of them on their way to .793. They just put teams away before then.

See http://www.82games.com/0809/QSORT11.HTM

I see no reason why we should care when a player scores their points.

 

[Hendu0520]

True we do need Gordon at all times, even in the first. And yes technically the first basket of the game is just as important as the last basket of the game. But we are all human, and there is no way that you can say that Rashard Lewis missing a ft in the 1st quarter in Game 4 of the Finals was as important as Howard missing his FT's at the end.

Also it is all based on context, everytime you shoot you have the weight of the circumstances around you. If you miss a shot in the 1st quarter you know you have another chance to make up for it. At the end if the game is close DHoward knew all he had to do was make 1 and they would win. That makes it more important, in the 1st quarter he does not know if his FT is going to matter or not. Sounds good on paper but the last shot, the last free throw and crunch time always matters more in our hearts.

As for the Lakers, they are the worst team to ever win an NBA Championship. Kobay is falsely called the greatest closer, when really he constantly folds in crunch time and is the ARod of basketball. If Lee makes that shot in Game2 and Howard makes a ft the Lakers are down 3-1 and everyone is wondering why Kobay is choking 3 out of 4 games, I mean is anyone watching? The announcers never seem to notice that he is turning it over and missing terrible shots. Kobay is great at hitting a 3 pointer when they are up 3, but when the game is tied or they are down, Kobay always messes up. The only game in the Finals where he didn't play absolutely horribly down the stretch and almost lost the games for his team was game 1 when they blew the Magic out and he was only in to get his points to 40, pathetic. I'll tell you one thing, Jordan never cared about stats in the playoffs, once the playoffs start it was all about winning. Kobay is always thinking what would Michael do, or where will this fit in my legacy, and I think it ruins his game. Michael Wilbon is an idiot when it comes to this, if he calls Kobay the greatest closer again I will puke, he is obviously one of the WORST clutch players ever and the Lakers will most likely lose if the games are close. Unfortunately in this Finals they have gotten lucky and OTHER players have bailed Kobay out, but I have never seen a team that usually blows out a team or loses win it all and they are only winning because of injuries to the Celtics.

 

[houheffna]

As for the Lakers, they are the worst team to ever win an NBA Championship. Kobay is falsely called the greatest closer, when really he constantly folds in crunch time and is the ARod of basketball. If Lee makes that shot in Game2 and Howard makes a ft the Lakers are down 3-1 and everyone is wondering why Kobay is choking 3 out of 4 games, I mean is anyone watching? The announcers never seem to notice that he is turning it over and missing terrible shots. Kobay is great at hitting a 3 pointer when they are up 3, but when the game is tied or they are down, Kobay always messes up. The only game in the Finals where he didn't play absolutely horribly down the stretch and almost lost the games for his team was game 1 when they blew the Magic out and he was only in to get his points to 40, pathetic. I'll tell you one thing, Jordan never cared about stats in the playoffs, once the playoffs start it was all about winning. Kobay is always thinking what would Michael do, or where will this fit in my legacy, and I think it ruins his game. Michael Wilbon is an idiot when it comes to this, if he calls Kobay the greatest closer again I will puke, he is obviously one of the WORST clutch players ever and the Lakers will most likely lose if the games are close. Unfortunately in this Finals they have gotten lucky and OTHER players have bailed Kobay out, but I have never seen a team that usually blows out a team or loses win it all and they are only winning because of injuries to the Celtics.

He messed up in game 3. I don't think he is stuck on stats right now, he scored a bunch of points for losing teams. This is NOT the worst team to win a championship. This team has very few weaknesses. Kobe is only concerned about a championship. I don't hear Wilbon or anyone else call him the greatest closer ever, they say he is the best in the league. The only thing he seems to think about now concerning Michael is championships. And that is what matters. You remember game 3, but not game 4, when he made big passes in the clutch. You are watching a great player, and he deserves just due.

Now back to Gordon, everybody is concerned about the 20ppg. If the stats presented earlier proves anything its that he can get 20ppg. Once again, Salmons is just as efficient offensively and is a better defender with more size. He is also one of the teams best perimeter defenders. If Hinrich is let go, he is the best perimeter defender. You are going to have to start a legitmate sized two guard in the back court with Rose who can improve the team on the floor defensively.

 

[Hendu0520]

Good point Heff, because we have Salmons I really don't care if Gordon starts or comes off the bench as long as he is on the team. Although it does pain me to see us go down early in the 1st which actally shouldn't be an issue next year because Rose should be good enough to carry us through if Gordon is on the bench to start the game.

and yes I know its OT a bit here but Friday after Game 4 on PTI Wilbon said that Kobay was the greatest closer just look at that great pass to Fisher for the game icing three. You know the one where he swung his elbows and fouled Nelson on. Please look at the end of Games 2,3 and 4. Especially 4. Down the stretch Kobay starts missing everything, turning the ball over. I am starting a thread for it.